Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup

Final Words

We know what's coming. Two cores, Hyper Threading and Turbo Boost. Chances are Arrandale will be the first noticeable performance improvement the MacBook Pro line has seen since 2007. If these machines weren't so good, waiting would be the only option.

Apple deserves credit for giving users a reason to upgrade. Intel bases its roadmaps off of how competitive AMD will be in the future. AMD's mobile CPUs weren't doing so well, and thus the mobile Core 2 Duo lineup didn't improve in performance much over the past couple of years. It's all a very well planned roadmap on Intel's part to maximize profit, but that unfortunately leaves OEMs in a difficult position: how do you sell an upgrade when performance hasn't improved?

Apple looked at Intel's roadmap and saw an opportunity to introduce a new chassis and then new battery technology. If you can't offer performance there are other avenues for innovation. The unibody MacBook Pro, when it first debuted at the end of 2008, looked and felt beautiful yet it had issues. The glass trackpad had problems under Windows and the glossy displays made outdoor use on sunny days a real problem. A driver update and matte option later, Apple moved focus back onto design and build quality.

That's a pretty lineu, er, stackup

It's a good lineup. If you're buying a MacBook Pro in time for the holidays, the decision between the three really boils down to screen resolution. The screen with the highest pixel density belongs to the 17-inch MacBook Pro, followed by the 13-inch and then the 15-inch. The best balance in my opinion is the 15-inch, while it's not as easy to carry around as the 13-inch I don't feel as cramped by its display. 1280 x 800 is just too small for having a lot on the screen at once, regardless of OS X's efficiencies in my opinion.

For the most part Apple made reasonable hardware choices with its systems, the only real issue there is the 2GB entry level MacBook Pro configuration which is just unacceptable for any real "pro" user. The base 13-inch and 15-inch systems could use a faster CPU; I'd prefer a 2.53GHz Core 2 in the 13-inch system (with 4GB of memory) and a 2.80GHz in the 15-inch.

For me, it's the battery life that won me over. I have a desktop, I use my notebooks to write on, edit a few images, browse the web and do general work-stuff. All of which means lots of idle time between tasks and ultimately, better battery life under OS X. The move to the integrated battery made the MacBook Pro the first true balance of performance and battery life in my opinion. Netbooks deliver the battery life but given that I spend my days on very fast desktops, I just can't put up with the performance.

The rest of the system really isn't up for debate. Build quality is top notch, by moving the only removable panel to the bottom of the machine Apple virtually eliminated the squeaks and creaks that often plague notebooks. The keyboards are not only consistent between all models (no tradeoffs there, even if you opt for the ultra thin Macbook Air), but they are also a joy to type on. I spend most of my life typing and can appreciate the fact that Apple has nearly perfected the notebook keyboard. The keys are all of a good size, provide beautiful feedback (unlike similar chiclet designs) and don't feel cheap.

The glossy screens are a pain in most outdoor situations, even cranking up the brightness all the way won't wash out the giant sunspot in the middle of your screen if you're outside and without cover. Apple offers a matte option but I have yet to test it. That being said, for my usage, the glossy screens aren't really an issue. I spend most of my time writing indoors or if I'm outdoors, I'm under some sort of cover. I would definitely encourage you to evaluate your usage conditions before committing to glossy vs. matte on the MacBook Pro.

The glass covered trackpad is finally a win for me. I had issues with it when it first debuted last year but the smooth of tracking is something I wish I had on other laptops. The lack of any physical buttons is, like on the iPhone, a non-issue. It's even less controversial since the entire trackpad moves vertically to give you a physical click when you push it.

Give me a good SSD option (ahem, Intel X25-M G2 por favor) and a quicker way of getting to it and I'd say Apple would have nearly perfected the 2009 notebook. You really just have to pick what screen size you want.

Pricing is a difficult pill to swallow, especially on the larger systems. The 13-inch system I tested starts at $1199, but the 15 and 17-inch models start at $1699 and $2499. The more desirable 4GB/2.53GHz 13-inch spec costs $1499, while the 15-inch model is really just missing an Intel X25-M G2. In a world where seeing notebooks start above $999 is almost unheard of, if you're not an existing Mac user, Apple has to do a lot of convincing to reach the higher price points.

The first point of convincing comes from Mac OS X. While virtually anything you can do in OS X can be done in Windows 7, some prefer the OS X way. Fair enough, if you want OS X, you need a Mac. The second comes from the battery life advantages - for light usage, especially if you're a writer, OS X can't be beat. The entire 2009 MacBook Pro lineup is capable of delivering over 7 hours of battery life. Apple's battery claims are honest and much higher than what the PC competition can offer today. Heavier workloads however don't show a real advantage over Windows 7 battery life.

The remaining advantages come down to build quality and design. The unibody construction is quite good, I'd say a step above what most competitors offer. The design is also something to be appreciated. The table below should help highlight the tradeoff:

I highlighted the important differences in this spec comparison. Dell delivers a faster CPU at a much lower price point than Apple. Apple comes in a bit lighter, but in a overall smaller package. At its thickest point the Dell Studio 15 measures 1.5" in height, compared to a constant 0.95" from the 15-inch MacBook Pro. If OS X and battery life aren't as important to you, then what you're paying more for is a smaller system. Presumably much of the CPU performance advantage goes away with Arrandale next year. The takeaway is that if you aren't hooked on OS X, then there's little financial sense in looking at the larger MacBook Pros.

The price disparity shrinks as you go to smaller systems, the 13-inch MacBook Pro is priced competitively with Dell's Studio XPS 13 (although Dell is still cheaper):

The specs are pretty close. Dell wins in the CPU/memory categories, Apple does it in a smaller package. But the price discrepancy isn't as large as on the 15-inch and 17-inch models.

My biggest complaint has to do with Apple's handling of 3rd party SSDs in the MacBook Pro. Enthusiast users are having real issues with SSDs that seem to work fine in other systems. Blanket statements of not supporting non-Apple configurations don't seem to be the best way to deal with the problem.

The reduction in battery life under Snow Leopard is also an example of Apple seemingly not putting in the appropriate amount of resources into testing its products before their release. While I've often said that Apple is a smaller company than most realize, it's on a dangerous path of becoming a company whose first release of any new product can't be trusted. Even after two updates to Snow Leopard we're still left with something that's not quite perfect.

The 2009 MacBook Pro lineup isn't for everyone, you really have to be either curious about OS X or a full blown convert. If you are however, Apple has done a wonderful job. Just pick a screen size.