Apple’s MacBook Pro: Rotting Core?

[Guest]

thegreathuntingdolphin said, "Dell has had i5s and i7s in their laptops for several months now. Heck, you can get a Dell laptop with a core i7 920QM, 320 GB HDD, and 4 GB of ram for under a grand."

But you're making the same mistake as the author of this article. That Core i7 920QM is a Clarksfield processor, not the just recently released Arrandale mobile family. It's pretty frustrating that SO MANY people are making this mistake. Just any Core i7/i5 does not equal Arrandale and thus does not mean suitable for use in a thin and light, long-battery life MacBook Pro. Apple isn't going to release a new product that gets 2 hours of battery life when their current products are advertised as delivering 7 hours (which, in itself, is an overstatement with reality probably being closer to 4 or 5 hours). Furthermore, as I said earlier there were no mobile versions of the Core i3/i5 until Arrandale and those chips are just now hitting the market (Dell lists ship times for their "new 2010" i3/i5 laptops as 3/16/2010). The Core i5s that were being used in laptop computers last year were DESKTOP parts (which Intel doesn't even classify as being mobile chips).

In any case, Apple is using Core i7/i5s in their current product line -- for the iMac, a desktop machine. But the Core i7/i5s that Apple uses in the iMac and all those that shipped last year were desktop chips (except for the afore mentioned Clarksfield, which was a high-power-consumption mobile chip which in many reviews showed less than 2 hours of battery runtime while still being more than 3 pounds heavier than the current 15" MacBook Pro).

 

[BillLake]

The Next MacBook Pro's should have USB3, eSATA, better screens, and definitely a Blu-Ray drive. They can use somewhat lower high end hardware if they can keep the package the way it is. They can use an i5 but a high end one and they could use the ATI 5830 as long as they start supporting both OSX and windows better

 

[Guest]

annonB, all battery life estimates are overstated, just like car mileage. Generally about 80% of the stated time is achieved in actual testing for laptops, at least that is what I have noticed for Apple and ASUS in recent tests.

billlake, didn't Intel say they aren't supporting this officially until 2011? I wouldn't expect to see it on until next year unless Apple decides they will go ahead with it like several other companies have. Blu-Ray will be a BTO option. Maybe. Unless Apple has been secretly working on an Optimus-style tech of their own and made some deals with AMD, they are much more likely to be using the mobile NVIDIA products and Optimus technology.

 

[trowsersnake]

I can agree almost every point made by the writer of this article...I've had these thoughts for awhile. The only things unique and of value Apple offers anymore is the designer shells the desktops and laptops go into and OSX, absolutely nothing else. A profitable business model but it relys heavily on marketing and not on fundamental value. For example, my GF's MacBook can't run Sims3, shocker I know. Now I have built a Windows 7 machine at her request....

 

[silentx]

Apple is going to renew their macbook pro line very soon, rumors says
its going to be the 14th march, and as usual Apple got hefty prices, but at release theyre somewhat reasonable.

 

[Clintonio]

Good article, it shares my view on Apple.

Also, I wish people would stop trying to say that Apple parts are somehow superior to others. Apple just buys them from the same manufacturers that people like me do. I get high quality parts too, for instance, a PC I built in 2004 was still running until December. Another I built in 03 is still going. Same with the ones I built in 05, 06, 07 and 08 (couldn't afford one in 09). I'm not going to pull a story out of my *** about Macs dying early or anything, but the hardware in all of the computers I made was chosen because it was high quality. I'm one of those people who loves Windows, and standard PCs, because mine have always been stable, secure and easy to use, because I buy the "super special high quality secret parts" that I expect Apple uses. It's just a case of learning about products before buying them.
It's a shame my notebook died recently though. I took it everywhere with me, used it as a table, a chair, a footrest, a cupholder, a dinner plate a few times. It has travelled the world, and spent all day with me. Took it just under 2 years to die. ASUS came and took it from me, and then it was back at my door in 4 days to resume it's life as my all-purpose-everything-tool-laptop. I wonder if Apple users can abuse their shiny Macbooks and not feel they have to worry about the ramifications... Probably not, they wouldn't want to risk their "investment".

 

[trowsersnake]

Yeah well the people who don't own Macs just don't understand, a MacBook Pro is magical device just like the iPad. Just try to find a regular smartphone, netbook, laptop or desktop that is magical.

 

[pipes990]

This article is exactly why I try to stay away from apple. Once you start buying there things you are stuck with them. Want an ipod you need itunes, buy itunes music and it only works on itunes. Buy a mac and you have to use itunes. They limit all their software to their hardware. Then when they get stale, you can't do anything about it.

 

[abm1999]

This is exactly why I have not purchased a Macbook Pro yet. I've wanted to get a 15 inch for months now and I'm not throwing $2000+ at yesterday's processor.

 

[abm1999]

This is exactly why I have not purchased a Macbook Pro yet. I've wanted to get a 15 inch for months now and I'm not throwing $2000+ at yesterday's processor.

 

[quantumrand]

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]There's a fair bit of misinformation in here. For example, 64 bit drivers are only needed if you're using the 64 bit kernel (which is only used by default on the Xserve line). With the 32 bit kernel you still have access to >3GB of RAM and can still run 64 bit programs. New OSs always have some software incompatibilities at launch, the fact that you've chosen antivirus programs as your examples is a little biased considering virtually no mac users bother with those. You claim it's been a year since the last update when it's been 9 months and an update is imminent (is 9 months that long an upgrade cycle?). You make a point about how the last major update was 2 years ago despite the fact that the only possible upgrade from that platform (i.e. Core i3/i5/i7) has only been available in mobile format for a couple of months (for some reason you claim 6 months which are the power hungry quad core versions which would be unsuitable in terms of battery life). Apple has been using nVidia's Core 2 Duo based chipsets for a while now so as to avoid Intel's horrible integrated graphics. The only mobile chipset by nVidia that has an integrated graphics chip is the 730i with the 9300m/9400m GPU. As far as I can tell, there is no chipset with better Core 2 Duo support with decent integrated graphics out there by nVidia or Intel.If you want to have a moan about a product being too long in the tooth when every other tech site is talking about the new Arrandale model replacing this one at any moment then fine but the least you could do is get your facts right.It's clear where your bias lies with articles such as "Apple’s MacBook Pro: Rotting Core?" and "MacBook Pro Alternatives : Why NOT To Buy A MacBook Pro" though so why would you need to get your facts straight when you know the majority of posters on this site will blindly agree with you.[/citation]

Thanks for the input Spanky. You make valid points, but they come from the other end of the spectrum. The article mentions -versions- of applications that were broken by the upgrade to Snow Leopard. The software problems are well documented on the site mentioned in the article.

But I agree with you, all new operating systems have compatibility issues like this. The thing is that Apple is trying to hide how widespread the problems are though, as you can see from its half-hearted list of "incompatible" applications.

As for Arrendale, it's hard to say whether the MacBooks will be upgraded to these cores since coming out with a compatible chipset could take time Apple doesn't have. I agree that an Arrendale core would be great and an improvement over the Clarksfield core, but the Intel's stepping and "turbo boost" make them very battery friendly. Nonetheless, the article is just as much a cry against Apple's business practices as it is a call for a much needed platform upgrade, which as the article states, is very likely in the works.

Also, I never hid the fact that I am not a fan of Apple, in fact I stated it in the article. Plus, I actually like the MacBook from a hardware standpoint. My qualms are with Apple and its shady business practices.

 

[quantumrand]

Just a bit more on the Arrendale subject.

The article talks about Core i7 and i5 mobile core being out for the past several months. It's true that the Arrendale cores have only recently come out, but it doesn't change the fact that there have been significant improvements made over time which would lower the value of the parts Apple is using.

The article isn't meant to focus on what hardware may or may not be going into the next version of the MacBook. The point of the article was to point out that Apple is purposely diverting attention away from the line's value.

A lot of people have mentioned that if Apple were overcharging, people simply wouldn't buy the product. The thing is that Apple isn't only overcharging, but also misleading consumers into thinking that the product is still worth more.

 

[Guest]

At the end of the day: Are we focusing on the right topic here? Are we more concerned about the price of commodity components being used inside of Apple's products? Or, more importantly, that the product/solution exceeds our wants/needs/goals fast. If Apple is able to put together older commodity components that deliver on our needs/wants/goals, then should we really care that they have found a way to deliver on this, more effectively, than other computing platforms? I consider lower cost items that only temporarily work to be a waste over a platform that does what I need for longer duration. Analogy: A Formula 1 race care won't help you get to your destination faster in rush hour traffic. Bring value and people will pay for it.

 

[kikireeki]

All these facts do not matter as long as you are a fanboi douchebag!

 

[chechak]

nice article most of things are true and apple need to upgrade there systems software and latest hardware for there 2010 market .

 

[Guest]

The wise thing for us consumers to do is to play Apple´s game: Buy your new MacBook Pro when a significant upgrade is out for sale. This way you get the most bang for you buck in Apple´s stale pricing scheme.

Taken this into consideration I think that the writer of the article has been too harsh. Sure, Apple could have lowered prices, but you always have to be a enlighted consumer to be able to make a good deal when you buy stuff. This applies especially to electronics and as well to Microsoft PC´s as to Apple´s PC´s.

 

[Guest]

I found the article interesting and it speaks to points I have made for years. I find the comments much more interesting - the polarization of MS vs. Apple, PC vs. MBP - that sort of thing.

My opinion on this is simple:

I believe that Apple may have the proprietary portion down to a science - they can run their applications and OS efficiently on their hardware. It may or may not be as stable as they say, but in my experience (20+ years in the IT support industry), I have had the good fortune to support all kinds of hardware, software and OSs (including Mac and Mas OS ) - in my experience, Macs' are just as susceptible to breakdowns as PCs and Apple does not have some magical formula that makes their systems better in that respect.

Personally, because of my experience in IT support, I build my own systems - I do this so that I know what components are in them. I do not trust any system built on an assembly line (Apple included) - with the exception of a few botique system manufacturors (including Alienware - even after Dell bought them).

I build my own systems, because I can pick the parts and not have to pay anything more than the price for the part + tax. I also know who built (and quite frankly, I like and trust the guy).

Bottom line: I choose not to go out and purchase a Mac, not just for the price, but because I know computer hardware and I don't believe that they are worth the price. It's the same reason I don't buy Dell, HP, Compaq, etc and so on. That, and I don't trust the assembly line processes.

Don't be a fanboi - be an informed consumer - that's my best advice.

 

[Guest]

quantumrand said, "The article talks about Core i7 and i5 mobile core being out for the past several months. It's true that the Arrendale cores have only recently come out, but it doesn't change the fact that there have been significant improvements made over time which would lower the value of the parts Apple is using."

You can argue all you want about Apple prices (true, they are often at a premium) but you need to stop making these misleading statements about the Core i7/i5 hardware. There was no MOBILE version of the Core i5 until Arrandale shipped and Arrandale has actually been available in the marketplace for little more than one month. The pre-announcements in January were simple that and Arrandale laptops are just now beginning to ship in quantity from the major manufacturers.

quantumrand said, "I agree that an Arrendale core would be great and an improvement over the Clarksfield core, but the Intel's stepping and "turbo boost" make them very battery friendly."

I hope you aren't suggesting that the Clarksfield Core i7 is "very battery friendly." Maybe that was just an awkward wording on your part but tests have shown that even the Arrandale core is not that much better than the Core 2 Duo in regards to battery performance. However, the quad-core Clarksfield is pretty much a battery hog and not really suitable for the current form-factor MacBook Pros.

 

[tipmen]

[citation][nom]LG[/nom]Apple's OS simply handles demanding tasks better than any Windows OS to date. That is what you pay for. User friendly, less crashes, less viruses, less tweaking system settings just to get software or hardware to work. Almost everthing simply works better on a Mac. As for crative tasks such as audio and video production, Apple is the best. With that being said I have both PC (XP) and Mac (Snow Leopard).[/citation]


There is your problem your using a much older MS OS. Vista had its problems however win7 addressed that and is a very nice snappy OS. Besides if MS has to program for 5 different hardware set ups we would all have "Rock solid" systems. Also almost everything you said seems to not be the OS problem but more so the user. Less viruses well, at least Mac fan boys say they exists one step closer to being tolerable.

 

[Guest]

Apple is a big marketing scam. Steve Jobs has created a cult of zombie customers who open up their wallets. But Apple does well at selling these idiots on better products through snake oil salesman like marketing. They have the same manufactures making their products in China as does every other PC maker. Hence the reason Apple makes such huge profits. I very much compare Apple to Bose in the way their products are marketed and the lack of quality for the price.