Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
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:
| Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro | Dell Studio 15 | |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz | Intel Core i7 720QM |
| Dimensions | 14.35" x 9.82" x 0.95" | 14.6" x 10.0" x 1.0" - 1.5" |
| Weight | 5.5 lbs | 5.54 lbs |
| Price | $1699 | $999 |
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):
| Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro | Dell Studio XPS 13 | |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz |
| Memory | 2GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (integrated) | NVIDIA GeForce 9500M 256MB (discrete) |
| Dimensions | 12.78" x 8.94" x 0.95" | 12.56" x 9.3" x 0.88" - 1.35" |
| Weight | 4.5 lbs | 4.85 lbs |
| Price | $1199 | $1199 |
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
v12v12 - Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - link
Try this: SAGER http://www.sagernotebook.com/category.php">http://www.sagernotebook.com/category.phpMy buddy built a custom laptop for $1500 that DOMINATES any MacPro, with a better to equal screen res, oh plus the caveat of a MATTE screen, thus it's a better screen actually. It's faster, better GFX, BUILT better, completely custom, looks nice and WORKS.
There's no comparison when the elitism and snobbery of blindly knowing you got ripped off for a fluffed up Intel machine in satin and lace gloves. I have a MacPro, and other PC laptops... Guess what machine gets WORK done in the corp environment more so than the Mac needing to run silly emulations of Windows in order to get things done. But why so? If these overpriced luxo-pads really ARE "superior" then ask yourself why again hasn't Mac broken into the working world of business and corps if they are user-friendly and problem free?
You'd think a smart corp would take note and thus spend a little extra capital for these machines, as it’s part of my job to support them... Guess what, Mac's aren't going to be adopted nor switched over b/c they are mere flash and dash for the foo-foo to keep fluffing their yaps about how great it is to get SUB-PAR performance at premium prices... Oh and don’t forget Apples RIDICULOUS (strike) LAUGHABLE service requirements…
Applecare Technician cert required to work on these toys? HAHA Anyone with ½ an A+ cert can take this BS machine apart just like a PC and then some. But with Apple at the helm, you’ve gotta agree to their pricing schemes and wanna-be island in the sky certs to do work that a teenage can do. Again more hidden costs and fees associated with the wanna-be Elite crowd. Do you know why they have to charge these exuberant fees out of sight? To long bait you into their way of things, to where there’s no point of turning back once committed. The fees also help keep them afloat; remember for it not for Creative’s ideas they stole, Intels hardware, and the stupidity or nativity of it’s fan(boy) user base… “Apple” would be rancid and a DECAYING company haha… and you all know it… Botching performance specs can only keep you “competitive” for so long, until your own flock began noticing how ailing those junk G-series were haha… What a joke.
Sorta like a hopping up Civic with "euro" lights and smooth lines and then getting dogged by an American competitor that's near 30% less = interior and those "build quality" upgrades that everyone's hollering about added to surpass you.
You can get a Porsche 911 C4S for near $90K... Vs a Base vette C6 (which is still faster lol) for $60K and CUSTOMIZE it way beyond what Porsche could dream of at such a price; yes that’s BETTER; performance in every category, interior upgrades also... Apple is all fluff when it comes down to it. IT's NOT a hardware brand, it's borrowed technology from INTEL; it's master, then some BS ideology slapped onto it to appease the easily swayed/coerced. Sorry but I'm sick of the people who pay MORE for > less and have the nerve to claim superiority.
But like OMG, it’s sOOOOOO PRETTY – YAAAAAYYyyyy! That subject to OPINION and thus a forever MOOT POINT.
Who knows... Apple has been found GUILTY more than once for stealing other's innovations and pawning/spinning them off as their own. Google that FYI...
Hype and flash; smoke and mirrors... Case dismissed.
mashi - Friday, February 12, 2010 - link
people never own a mac never understand. I have few ibm/lenovo thinkpad. but i always use my mac. osx is clean and fast OS. i think their kernel is more optimized than windows. if you using snow leopard and parallels 5 with windows xp. basically you don't even know it is VM. the response and everything is fast. Once you used to OSX. you don't want PC. that's my opinion.aucl - Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - link
I think blaming Apple for the bad performance is not totally fair.Long before the release of Snow Leopard Apple tried to drill all partners, driver vendors and so to deliver new 64bit builds for their plugins and extensions.
The flash plugin is provided by Adobe and only distributed by Apple. Probably cause most users would complain if flash content won't work any more.
so lets look what we got:
host-20i:~ aucl$ file /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
host-20i:~ aucl$ file /Library/Internet\ Plug-Ins/Flash\ Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash\ Player
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player (for architecture ppc): Mach-O bundle ppc
/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Flash Player.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Flash Player (for architecture i386): Mach-O bundle i386
Looks like Adobe Flash is not 64bit ready.
So i am not sure about the details in current Intel architecture, but switching between 32 and 64bit was always an expensive operation as i remember???
PS: On my mac quite everything is 64bit, and flash is "disabled" with the Click4Flash plugin.
fokka - Monday, November 16, 2009 - link
come on anand, i know apple articles create a lot of clicks, but this macbook/apple- fanboyism is getting ridiculous.yes, everyone knows that the unibodies are good computers and the battery-life is better than on most other pcs, but the price-aspect especially on the 17"-machine is just too big, that a normal person could honestly overlook it...
do you know what you get in the non-apple-world for 2500$+? other dimansion, just other dimension.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot - Monday, November 23, 2009 - link
Oh for cryin' out loud! The bloke writes an article relating to a tech issue that just happens to be on a Mac and suddenly he's a "fanboy"????!!!You Win-Nut trolls remind me of primary school kids - someone talks about something you're not into and suddenly you all start calling him names. If you're only interested in bashing Apple (and if Apple's so crap why do they threaten you so much?) go to the green grocer's, buy a box of granny smiths, and go hit them with a cricket bat. Get some of your frustration out that way. If you're interested in discussing the content of the article (ie. how to maximise battery charge) with some practical suggestions (other than "just buy a cheap windows brick and keep it plugged into the wall") then by all means post.
... why do I even bother reading Win-Nut posts??? .....
marraco - Sunday, November 15, 2009 - link
[I've been a staunch advocate of Apple's hardware and software for years now, but ......Apple is making the mistake of stating that non-Apple hardware isn't supported]
Big fail.
you pay 2,5X more than an i7 PC (not accounting the Windows license needed to run 99% of the software), gets obsolete hardware, and ZERO support.
If I pay extra for a computer, I want to get any luxe, including the expandability.
geok1ng - Sunday, November 15, 2009 - link
It is a PITA that i couldnt buy a decent notebook over the last two years: a decent CPU with good screen resolution and STATE-OF-ART integrated graphics; AMD had excelent integrated graphics paired with hot and 2 generatiosn older CPUs, Intel had decent CPUs paired with crap integrated graphis. And when NVDIA finally put a decent integrated graphics on the C2D platform, it is sold as MacBook- an expensive piece of good looks paired with all manner of junkware using an OS that simply cant game!Battery life is a mix of good hardware project and good OS drives. For that you need 45nm CPUs with at least 55nm chipstes with the OS installed in a SDD. And the OS cant suck!
I would be fine with a 2Ghz dual core (or an atom for a netbook), 9400m/4200 level graphics, 4GB RAM, 60GB SSD and at least 720p resolution together in a 11"-13" chassis. But every single netbook/subnotebook/notebook that comes close to this requirements costs an arm and a leg and fails to deliver one or more of these hardware requirements.
batmanuel - Sunday, November 15, 2009 - link
My wife picked up the new unibody plastic Macbook recently, and it is really a good deal compared to the 13" MacBook Pro. You get the same processor, multitouch trackpad, LED backlit screen, 7 hour battery, and RAM as in the Pro version, plus a bigger hard drive. If you don't need FW800, the SD reader, and the backlit keyboard, the plastic unibody Macbook is a great machine for $1000.Hrel - Friday, November 13, 2009 - link
I'd really love it if Asus could would make a 15-16" laptop with the specs on the 15" macbook except with a 1600x900 screen, a 320GB 7200rpm hard drive and the option to add a dedicated GPU to the integrated one. With a price ranging from 700-1000. I'm thinking MR HD4530/210M, HD4670, and the HD4850 as dedicated graphics options.Most importantly though; let's not forget that the screen needs to be at least 500:1 contrast ratio, preferably 1000:1 with very high color accuracy.
MonicaS - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
I can understand why Apple did it, but again, their reasons all but ignore the end user. Seriously, how hung up are people about the look of the underside of their laptop, that it needs to be made sleeker. Take a look at a Mac Pro and you'll see a beautiful and very accessible interior that even the most novice can access. Not the same here and its a shame.Monica S
Los Angeles Computer Repair
http://www.sebecomputercare.com/?p=1178">http://www.sebecomputercare.com/?p=1178