3 ms·
Well, to be fair, that CPU is still way fast enough for everything 99% of people are doing. I'm admittedly not pushing mine very hard, but it copes well even wi
by moe 16y ago
Well, to be fair, that CPU is still way fast enough for everything 99% of people are doing. I'm admittedly not pushing mine very hard, but it copes well even with windows in vmware and is outright zippy for everything else (light photoshop/lightroom use and such).
To those people the 2h (or something) extra battery life is a much bigger benefit than a faster CPU. In fact, for my usage pattern this is the fastest I need. As far as I am concerned they should just keep this CPU forever and only keep pushing battery life and display resolution. ;-)
Also, if your photoshop use is more demanding than the 13" can handle then wouldn't a larger screen come in handy anyways for that kind of work?
If I was looking for raw power then I wouldn't look at apple anyways. Much better bang-for-buck can be had from Dell and such.
- ComputerGuru 16y agoMy problem isn't with Photoshop. It's with running a million apps at once. Word + TextWrangler + Chrome + Fusion + Speed Download + Adium + Transmit + Better Zip + Preview + iTunes + Mail + Finder is more than it can handle, even with 4GB of quality RAM. I'll be honest: I'm not looking for bang for buck. I'm willing to spend a bit extra for the quality experience and superior "whole package" experience. And a MacBook is a device I can throw in my BackPack and take it with me everywhere, every day and never worry about it simply "wearing out" (though they do break, they don't simply "wear out" and start experiencing odd hardware issues such as loose parts, bad circulation, etc.). I want a quality machine that's 13". Not 10, not 14, and certainly not 17 or 19". And MacBook gave me that, 2 years ago. But now, even though they added "Pro" to the name of my Aluminum 13" beast, they haven't upped the specs (at least as far as I'm concerned).
- eru 16y agoAre you sure running so many things at once, the bottleneck is the CPU and not RAM or hard disk access?
- scott_s 16y agoOdd. I have an original unibody 13" with 4 GB of RAM and I've never felt this computer is slow. I typically have Chrome, iTunes, Fluid (running an instance of Gmail in Safari), Adium, Terminal, Preview and Finder open.
- moe 16y agoI second what eru said (sibling post). Your bottleneck is most likely not the CPU but the RAM. Get some activity monitor (e.g. iStat menu) to see what's really going on, I bet you're running low on RAM and the OS is swapping - which is the surefire way to bring everything to a crawl. If you have the spare change then upgrade to 8G Ram (only possible in latest macbook generation I think) and a fast SSD (intel). I'm pretty sure you will have nothing to complain about with a 13" stuffed like that.
- matwood 16y agoHonestly, what it sounds like you need is more RAM and/or an SSD. I recently upgraded to an i7 MBP just so I could get the 8GB of RAM. My last C2D MBP could only use 4GB. If it could have gone to 8GB I would have stuck with it and just added more RAM since that would have been the most cost/benefit way to improve performance with my usage (VMs for Windev, XCode for Apple dev, everything in between). Now that I have an i7, my next big performance changing upgrade will be an SSD. I'm just waiting for the next gen or maybe the next gen after that.
- ComputerGuru 16y agoI honestly wish. But I'm using 160GB of my MacBook's 250GB (I got the plus model). The only option is therefore the 256GB Corsair for 700 bucks. I don't mind shelling out 700 for such a great upgrade, but I'm not convinced that this generation of SSDs is completely up to snuff, either. I'm probably going to want the next generation to come out, I feel the current tech isn't yet ready for prime-time. Makes it less feasible >.<