Apple MacBook Pro 13: Can a Mac Be a Decent Windows Laptop?
by Vivek Gowri on October 14, 2010 9:00 PM ESTApple MacBook Pro 13—Conclusion
Apple products tend to be tough to give a conclusion on. There’s the style factor, the (lack of) value factor, the fanboy factor, the OS X factor (for Macs), etc. Macs are divisive products—the people who use them love them, but for every person that loves a Mac there’s two more that wish all things Apple would burn in hell.
So lets start with the easier part of the conclusion: if you need an OS X portable and think the MBP15 is too large, the 13” MacBook Pro is the one to get. It’s $200 more expensive than the plastic unibody MacBook (or $150 if you’re a student, due to a larger discount on the MBP), but it’s definitely worth it, for a number of reasons.The difference in display quality between the plastic MacBook and the MBP13 is almost enough to justify the extra cost alone. The aluminum unibody construction, faster CPU (2.4GHz vs 2.26), RAM upgrade (4GB vs 2GB), backlit keyboard, and SD card reader are just bonuses. It’s thinner, lighter, and has more features, along with a far better display. So unless you’ve got a strict $1000 cap, you’re better off with a MacBook Pro. I have noticed a far larger number of MBP13s than unibody plastic MacBooks lately on the UW campus, so apparently Anand and I aren’t the only ones who feel that way.
More difficult is to compare the MacBook Pro to PC notebooks. Apple products aren’t reknowned for their value for money quotient, but even by Apple standards, this is pretty bad. A Core 2 processor at $1200 and $1500 price points? Even the base MacBook, at around $999, is more than pushing it as far as Core 2 Duo’s go. For comparison, ASUS would be happy to sell you a 14” N82JQ with a quad-core Core i7 and a GT 335M for $900 after their mail in rebate. It’s a bit bigger, but it’s orders of magnitude faster, too. For similarly sized 13.3” notebooks, I’d point you to the U3xJc series—the U30, U33, and U35. 13” notebooks with Core i3 processors, the G 310M/Optimus combo, aluminum or bambo panels, 3.9lbs without an optical drive/4.8lbs with, carrying pricetags of anywhere between $819 and $969. Seriously, these are far less expensive notebooks that perform better and offer more features. The MacBook Pro’s wins in design and screen quality simply aren’t comparable to the ASUS lineups. I’d just like to commend Apple for throwing in a simply superb LCD panel into the MBP, but how much is that worth? How much is the design worth? Can you justify paying $1200 for a computer with two year old internals?
If you’re planning to use it mostly under Windows, I’d come down on the side of no, but if you want to run OS X and just need Windows for some program compatibility issues, then clearly it’s your only option. So again it all comes back to OS X. Apple has created such a finely balanced marriage of their hardware and software that it is almost impossible to have one without the other. So while the MacBook Pro 13’s hardware is beautifully designed and built, it’s almost pointless to use it with anything other than OS X. But if you are hellbent on turning it into a Windows notebook, the MacBook Pro is definitely more than capable of being an excellent PC.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
yuhong - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
"(And for those people who still cling to the theory that Apple couldn’t fit a third chip onto the board without reducing the battery size or making the notebook larger, that’s nonsense. If ASUS can manage to fit a Core 2010 processor, the chipset, and a dedicated graphics card into a system with similar dimensions to the MBP13 and a 33% larger battery, then Apple could have too. Simple as that.)"Do a detailed comparison of the insides of the two, please.
aniraf - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
The one thing I've always been interested in is comparing the graphical benchmarks from OSX and Windows7 on the same machine. I don't know why I've never seen this done, but it would certainly be an interesting way to determine which OS takes better advantage of the hardware.Wolfpup - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
I pay no attention to Donutmark and never have. I really respect Anandtech's resistance to it, how they used to never even post it, and now still downplay it and tell you things like "this is worthless, but here it is because some people want it".I'm fine with that-if it helps the site, leave the Donutmark stuff in. If not, dump it I guess.
djcameron - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
I had to buy a unibody 13 inch Macbook for a past job. Once the job was over, I set up a minimal OS X partition for updates, and then made Windows 7 Ultimate my primary partition.It works great, and I don't miss OS X at all.
FYI... The obnoxious Delete(really Backspace) key becomes a true Delete key if you hold down the Fn key.
radium69 - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
I really can't justify that steep price, it's just plain insane.I'm buying a tax free MSI GX740 for 1400 USD, and thats with a core I5 460m, 4gig ddr3, 500gb 7200RPM HDD, and a RADEON 5870M! It's 17" but I don't mind!
It also comes with a 9 cell battery so should be plenty!
For other stuff where I have NO wallsockets I just use my EEEPC 1000H. Works very well for the basic stuff.
The only + is the screen that looks good. But why is it good if you need to play everything on ultra low / medium settings. Sure the macbook is more portable, but you can get a lot more bang for the buck.
Just my 2 cents,
lorribot - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
......Apple would release OSX in to the wild.RussianSensation - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
"The majority of the expense is in higher quality components and build, but my point is that the 15" i5 MBP is only $300 higher than the 2.6 ghz Core 2 Duo MBP 13" and the i5 is between 50% and 100% faster depending on the task."johnspierce, what are you smoking?
Core i5 is at best 20% faster in performance per clock than a C2D Penryn architecture design. So no, there are 0 tasks where a Core i5 will be 50-100% faster than a C2D at the same clock speed.
And the major reason for a high Mac product pricing is OBVIOUSLY their profit margin. They got all the apple fanatics to believe that their products use "proprietory, specifically selected hardware". Keep in mind EVERY single component inside a MAC other than the motherboard (which everyone who owns a PC knows has 1% impact on performance) is no different than what PCs use. The reason Apple products cost so much $ is because they are:
1) Customer Service (Apple store is amazing!! the customer service is 2nd to none).
2) Image (it's a fashion statement; (the younger generation considers them more hip).
3) Marketing (Apple has outmarketed Microsoft in selling an "easier to use, better, more stable environment").
4) Design - it's impossible for anyone to deny that Apple products are sexy/contemporary and push design trend boundaries.
People pay $$$ for all 4 of these first and foremost when they buy an Apple product, with performance, price/performance ratio being almost irrelevant.
yuhong - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
"They got all the apple fanatics to believe that their products use "proprietory, specifically selected hardware"."Which used to be true back in the PowerPC age.
AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
"it’s the best chiclet keyboard out there" - great, but how does it compare to a regular laptop keyboard?Klimax - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
I have only onel problem with review. The baterry test. Respectively what where the settings? There are few plans available like balanced and minimal power. Which one was chosen?Where they altered?For example,when I alter power level of WiFi I can easkly gain or lose about 50% of battery life and there are more of such options.(like USB suspend ; Link state power mng and min/max processor state along with cooling policy) They all can alter experience and it would be interesting to know how much they can change outcome.