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
nangryo - Saturday, November 14, 2009 - link
Do you realize the PC hardware you mention to replace MAC product is equivalent in price or even worse, more expensive (Adamo, AlienWare) please stop trolling. If you don't like it, don't read it. No one force you to come here and whine like a crybaby.
tuskers - Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - link
I love your argument-- "you bring up competition in a similar price range, so you must be a troll." You're using the traditional PC-versus-Mac argument of "PCs cost less!", except with even less basis.I want to read a fair comparison of Mac versus the competition, not a slaughter of value-designed PCs. Mac very well might be the best out there-- I think it's pretty well conceded that Macs win on battery life, and OS X certainly has those that swear by it. And I'm absolutely fine with those sections of the article.
This simply isn't an Apples-to-apples comparison. I'm not saying the other companies' brands are better-- what I'm saying is, Apple produces products with a specific type of user in mind-- one at the mid-to-upper performance range (in terms of hardware), with as much dedication to form-factor as it has to functionality. Yes, I expect other companies to ask
If I go shopping for a luxury car, I don't compare Lexus to Honda and Chevy, I compare Lexus to Acura and Cadillac. Similarly, I don't compare $1100 computers with $2500 computers. But you don't even need to escalate past $1000 to find the MSI X600 or GX720. Adamos cost more than 13" Macbooks, but they also ship standard with SSDs, higher screen resolution, and slimmer chassis (although with disadvantages as well). The Envy ships with more horsepower in a similar form-factor for slightly more money (much less than some of the disparities in the article).
These are the compare/contrast elements that make for interesting decisions, rather than a "look at the shiny Macs!" article.
I'll take back the implication that this might have been a "sponsored" article, but it's simply the first thought I had after I read it.
The0ne - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
As I said earlier it seems Anand is all "giddy" because he got a new toy to play with. That excitement alone causes all sorts of things :D fun things in most cases hahahaI can't help but agree with your comments. After reading others comments I'm not only shock at Anand but at some users supporting the $2500 MacBook to no end. If I had the money or my company allows the spending I would like to have one, of course. But it's really not practical at all when you have so many other choices in the market.
blufire - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Just released.. may address the excessive battery drain for 64-bit Safari with 32-bit Flash.citan x - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Why does it feel that there is too much Mac pro coverage? Most of the info on here has already been available. Why a full blown article on them now?Also, why wasn't the new Asus UL80 that was just reviewed compared here. What I would like to know is how the Asus UL80 compares to the 13" Mac when both have an SSD.
The 17" Macbook Pro is nice, but just too expensive.
mitaiwan82 - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Good article, but the product shots are a bit overexposed for my taste. The MBPs almost blend into the white background of the site.blufire - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
The image of the 15" MBP on page 3 appears to be a 17".Thanks for the article!
JimmiG - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I hate it how Apple doesn't use the extra space of the 15" and 17" models to put in a better keyboard and a numpad. My 15" HP Probook comes with big, nicely spaced keys that use all the available space, and they even managed to cram in a numpad without making things look cramped or crowded.The 17" Macbook looks absolutely ridiculous with that *huge* emptiness around the tiny keyboard. I see they no longer include a numpad on the keyboard that comes with the iMac, either. I guess it's to show the world that Macs are "fun", while PCs are only used for Excel and stuff...but still, some of use need to be boring from time to time, and then a numpad is a must.
MrPete123 - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Anand, I heard there were unofficial ways of running MacOS X on standard PCs... would it be possible to do this and do battery tests to see how it handles it? I'm really interested to know what Apple's doing to make their OS so power efficient.Maybe it disallows C-states or something in their BIOS for non-OSX operating systems?
nangryo - Saturday, November 14, 2009 - link
Not, it's not possible, at least in a formal/official benchmark / reporting. Because it would face legal problem etc etc.He may do it unofficially though.