Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Just Pick Your Screen
Very few companies have put together the sort of lineup that Apple has with its MacBook Pro. Apple strives to simplify decisions and ultimately, after you decide whether or not you want a Pro, Apple wants you to be faced with one decision: what size screen do you want.
By making the 13-inch, 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pros look and feel as similar as possible, Apple really has simplified the buying process.
Nearly all of the hardware options are available on all of the machines. The larger machines naturally get faster processors as there's more room to dissipate heat, but the starting point is the screen.
Apple's logic is sound. The more work you're going to do, the more desktop real estate you'll want, and thus the larger the machine you'll want. The fastest CPUs and most powerful configurations are offered in the 17-inch model.
The more of a casual user/consumer you are, the less likely it is that you'll need a ton of screen real estate. Which also means that you'll probably not be multitasking as much and won't need CPUs that are quite as fast. The least powerful configuration is in the 13-inch model.
And of course the in between option is the 15-inch which delivers a combination of speed and resolution.
The machines are nearly all the same thickness, the only difference is footprint depending on the screen size. The 13-inch is great from a portability standpoint, but the sub-1" thickness of all of the machines means slipping them into a case isn't a problem regardless of screen size.
Normally the 17-inch version of anything looks and feels huge, but honestly the 17-inch MBP feels like a slightly bigger 15-inch and that's exactly what it is. You obviously get a much higher resolution , but you get to keep a very thin chassis, something we can all appreciate.
From left to right: 13-inch, 15-inch, 17-inch MacBook Pro
Even Apple's default hardware choices make a lot of sense. You pay more for faster processors and larger screens. My biggest complaint, as always, is that Apple doesn't give the entry level 13-inch MacBook Pro enough memory. As you'll see from my benchmark results, 2GB is not enough to do any sort of content creation in OS X. It's fine for browsing the web, but as the entry level "Pro" system it's unacceptable. Many flock to the 13-inch MacBook Pro not because they don't need a bigger screen, but because it's the cheapest way to get into a MacBook Pro. And 2GB is laughable for such a thing.
Personally, while I like the resolution of the 17-inch MacBook Pro, my pick ends up being the 15-inch model. The 13-inch has a higher pixel density but the absolute resolution isn't too low. The 17-inch has the best combination of pixel density and resolution, but it's perhaps a little too dense for my eyes. It's all very Goldie Locks-esque, the 15-inch is just right. The fact that Apple has distilled the decision making process to one of screen size and resolution is admirable. HP has as many models for 17-inch notebooks as Apple has for its entire MacBook Pro line, it's just unnecessary.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
Drakino - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I'd be curious to know what battery life is like playing back H.264 content, since it should be accelerated by the GPU. Would help to know if it's worth the effort to encode to it over any other format.Ram21 - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
You could do another benchmark on the Mac systems with Blender 3d. It would give you a comparison to the PCs with similar specs.Great Article, thank you.
drew952 - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Could somebody clear up my confusion please...The article states "Both machines start at 7 lbs and don't offer higher than 1080p resolutions." However, in the specifications for said computers, the resolution is 1600 x 900.Isn't that comparable and/or better then 1080p?
slashbinslashbash - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
1080p is 1920x1080. So it is substantially higher resolution than 1600x900. (2.07 million pixels vs. 1.44 million pixels)FYI, 720p is 1280x720, so even the 13" MBP with the 1280x800 screen resolution handles 720p.
The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Just wondering if you guys have a Droid 2 review coming for 2009? Would like you guys to do this so we can have the Pre, Droid and Iphone for comparison. Thanks.crimson117 - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
"Jarred has seen similar results. One of his battery life tests involves leaving the laptop idle at the Windows desktop until it shuts off."That sounds like Anand caught Jarred napping at his workstation, and Jarred was like "no, really I'm, uh, testing battery life! See? It's my custom made Idle Windows Desktop Battery Life Test."
I'm going to start testing my software designs by observing to make sure they don't alter themselves if left untouched on my computer for 6 hours ;)
DCstewieG - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Anand, you say you want a more forward looking test for watching videos and then you use XviD? Surely you know how to use Handbrake. Then you could show battery life watching H.264 videos in QuickTime with GPU acceleration.Otherwise great article! You first Mac article way back when got me first seriously looking at Macs and now I've been a happy MBP owner for 2 years. Thanks!
Pneumothorax - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
It's about time somebody from the press brings up the cursed SSD Macbook Pro issue. Even some of the 15" MBP 2009 models with the 1.7 Sata II patch are still having random freezes with Intel 160gb G2 SSD's. It drove me so crazy that I returned a 2009 MBP and got a refub 2.53 MBP 2008 with the removable battery. Now my G2 runs flawlessly. Whenever there's a hardware issue, Apple likes to give us the silent treatment (which is MUCH WORSE than the spokesholes remarks that pc makers will at least give you) Shame on you Apple!The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
You'll like their terminology of their latest patch for the OS then :)http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Releases+OS+X+1062+...">http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Releases+OS+X+1062+...
SmCaudata - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I have an early 2008 MBP. I'll not buy an apple machine again. Their updates are so infrequent that when there is a problem like the terrible batter life or wireless issues with Snow Leopard you have to wait for a year for it to be fixed. Instead they spend time "fixing" iTunes to make it not work with the Palm Pre (I don't own a Pre...I just think them repeatedly disabling it is getting old).With new windows7 laptops like that 14" Acer Anand reviewed a few weeks ago, I expect Apple is going to have to stop being so closed off. What's more I could buy a new PC laptop every year for the same out of pocket cost to get a MacBook every 3 years. I still need boot camp on my MPB for some programs and there is nothing on my MacOS that I cannot have on Win7.
So long Apple... Fool me once....