Yes, but the price is wrong - Apple still sells this thing for $1099 new (less if you get a refurb), the price doesn't make sense for 2012 hardware even if the machine is slightly upgradable. The price should have come down, but this being Apple, of course it stays the same as if we're still 3 years in the past.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the 2012 13" MBP the last version you can upgrade
- Thread starter akswun
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would they lower the price it seems people are still buying them....
[doublepost=1453393981][/doublepost]
There is NO REASON to get offensive, my friend. Getting personal offensive means being weak in arguments.
All you wrote is by fact more "nonsense" than my quoting hard data of a serious and well known Mac-website. Evidently you are in lack of any hard and convincing argument and you prefer to distract from your more or less 100% emotional and helpless statements being far from any REAL LIFE aspects.
It is in fact amusing to call OFFICIAL APPLE SPECIFICATIONS "nonsense". Same for the multiply by other reviews confirmed benchmarks...You shot yourself in the foot…
The OP stated that he doesn´t care about retina screens. IN FACT there is no significant difference in using both machines in REAL LIFE and daily work.
"poor graphics" - ridiculous…. for this Screen it comes with it is much more than enough..even for external monitors up to 2-2,5 k.
"4 years old technology" - so what? Technology doesn´t get "old" or useless just because apple tries to get the lemmings pay every amount of money to feel like "early adopters".
As for the "SSD speed" I´d like to do a double-blinded test with you - I am shure you would´t even be able to identify those machines with SATA III SSDs and those running the "faster" mSATA or PCIe-SSDs.
To accuse me to have commercial interest to promote these 2012 machines is the most ridiculous statement of all your postings. How could I have profit since the OP can still easily purchase this machine in every apple store anywhere on earth?
BY FACT the OP would save a very impressive amount of money by NOT purchasing the "new" rMBP and purchasing the mentioned machine instead (with standard-HDD and just 4GB RAM) and upgrade it himself with 3rd party parts (SSD and 2x 8GB of RAM). TAkes just 10 minutes of easy work - if you are capable of working with screwdrivers and turning them in the right moment right- and left wise.
If you love this machine it´s ok. But the OP does not want to get married with the machine, he told us clearly that he is just searching for a solid machine of high connectivity and with DVD, and is possible of "old" form factor. so what?
Bit if a strong reaction to a statement of preference and a bit of joshing and the statement of the fact that every part of the rMBP is superior to the cMBP (which it clearly is) I think thine own argument may be a bit thin along with your sense of humour....
The display is 1280x800 if I recall. That's even poorer than the 1440x900 that my 2010 MBA does! It also only drives one external display up to 2560x1600. It has the advantage of 16gb of RAM and an SSD being fitted up aftermarket. It's an interesting proposition as you can pick them up for 829$ in the Apple refurbished store.
And the screen looks better than my Air, which looks washed out in comparison. The resolution really doesn't matter much, the machine works fine.
Sounds like someone is ANGRY, that others have a different opinion.
If you value "user upgradeability", then the 2012 is superior to any rMBP.
They will pry my 15" 2012 MBP with 16 gigs of RAM and 2TB of SSD storage, from my cold dead hands.
OH NO! I can't play Witcher 3!!!! OH NO! My machine boots up in 10 seconds and not 9 seconds!!!! BFD
It's very true. I will regret in the future of not being able to upgrade from my factory 256GB SSD. But I need a quad i7 and 16GB RAM so I should be good in that respect for a long time. I plan to mod my 2012 13" MBP when the wife is through with it in a couple years with school. If it survives that long. Otherwise I will find one on eBay with an i7 for hopefully cheap. Not to mention the build in ports of the 2012 machines. I'm so going to miss FW800 and Ethernet built in.
But upgradeability is the only way in which it is superior, the rMBP is superior in every other way that's not a matter of opinion that is verifiable, measurable fact.
It's been 4 years Apple will not make another user upgradeable laptop it's no longer their business model. At this point if you want to keep that option then the only good advice is that you jump ship and get a modern laptop with all the benefits of modern tech and the ability to upgrade from someone else.
GPU advances mean that 4 year old HD4000 graphics is now pretty rubbish even with some web pages and that will only get worse with time, making your 'new' Mac a bit of a dog to begin with and giving it Limited useful life even with the dubious benefit of being able to "upgrade" the RAM and hard drive.
I'm not angry at all, you guys can waste your money however you like but your arguments aren't logical and staying with Apple when they don't make what you want anymore is just as illogical. It just doesn't make any sense to recommend the cMBP anymore, unless you are getting one very very cheap....
Last edited:
- Let's not get carried away. Even as a happy cMBP owner, I agree with you that the rMBPs are superior, on balance. But it's very much a matter of opinion, and there are several ways the cMBPs could validly be argued to be superior if your use cases require or benefit sufficiently from what they offer. Some may value built-in Ethernet and FireWire or, less probably, the built-in 3.5mm microphone port. Some may value a built-in optical drive. Some may have legitimate reasons for preferring the antiglare screen option on the older models. And some may, puzzling as it may be, have reasons for needing a 17" screen or that machine's ExpressCard expansion slot.
So I agree that the rMBP is superior in most ways and for most users - especially because of its faster hardware and high-resolution screen - but it's really not accurate that the only way a cMBP is better is its upgradeability.
very impressive that you continue to IGNORE FACTS about the non-significant "superiority" of the last MBPs and so far in REAL LIFE non existing advantages of the MBP you are in love with.
But it´s very ironic that you talk about "FACTS" (that are in fact nothing but your personal propaganda) that I clearly showed to be nonexistent. performance of the newest and the "OLD" MBP is nearly the same. Full Stop.
Are you capable to read specifications?
Look at the benchmarking-results I posted already before.
You have a lot of very creative Phantasies - perhaps you should at least now have a look about the FACTS about performance of the two 15" models. They clearly show that NOT US but YOU are wasting money.
perhaps you should also have a look at the performance of the so-called "OLD" Intel 4000 GPU.
This integrated GPU ITSELF is much more than enough for everything, even gaming on low-mid-level. The Intel 4000 GPU is nearly on the same level as The discrete 650M-GPU itself which is added on the same main board.
There are 3 different subtypes of 4000 GPUs. In the i7 models of apple MBP there are exclusively the most powerful ones.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
The "OLD" MBP is even capable to do its work with FOUR 2,5k Monitors.
Stop with your nonsense/fairy-tales/marketing-Propaganda…. and wake up from your wet dreams..
The GPUs of the new rMBP are more performant - but this does not make sense for more than 95% of the customers - as long as they are not heavy gamers or unsung exclusively 5k-Monitors.
It´s like driving at 50 mpH Speed with a Porsche, theoretically being able to run at 180 mpH… but you can´t.
But one thing is shure: the new MBP will not have less heat-problems - I think they will have even more. More performance = more heat. Let´s wait some years….
Last edited:
very impressive that you continue to IGNORE FACTS about the non-significant "superiority" of the last MBPs and so far in REAL LIFE non existing advantages of the MBP you are in love with.
But it´s very ironic that you talk about "FACTS" (that are in fact nothing but your personal propaganda) that I clearly showed to be nonexistent. performance of the newest and the "OLD" MBP is nearly the same. Full Stop.
Are you capable to read specifications?
Look at the benchmarking-results I posted already before.
You have a lot of very creative Phantasies - perhaps you should at least now have a look about the FACTS about performance of the two 15" models. They clearly show that NOT US but YOU are wasting money.
perhaps you should also have a look at the performance of the so-called "OLD" Intel 4000 GPU.
This integrated GPU ITSELF is much more than enough for everything, even gaming on low-mid-level. The Intel 4000 GPU is nearly on the same level as The discrete 650M-GPU itself which is added on the same main board.
There are 3 different subtypes of 4000 GPUs. In the i7 models of apple MBP there are exclusively the most powerful ones.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html
The "OLD" MBP is even capable to do its work with FOUR 2,5k Monitors.
Stop with your nonsense/fairy-tales/marketing-Propaganda…. and wake up from your wet dreams..
The GPUs of the new rMBP are more performant - but this does not make sense for more than 95% of the customers - as long as they are not heavy gamers or unsung exclusively 5k-Monitors.
It´s like driving at 50 mpH Speed with a Porsche, theoretically being able to run at 180 mpH… but you can´t.
But one thing is shure: the new MBP will not have less heat-problems - I think they will have even more. More performance = more heat. Let´s wait some years….
Nearly on the same level? Did you even read the links you posted? Even to notebookcheck, the HD 4000 is a class 4 GPU and the 650M is a class 2. Even the the Iris Pro 5200 doesn't beat the 650M in most scenarios.
You also seem to ignore the real life advantages of the rMBP, such as the lower weight, form factor, screen, GPU, and SSD performance. I actually like the cMBP, and wouldn't mind if Apple bother to update it. However, Apple keep it around this long with no update at the same price premium doesn't sit well with me. Unfortunately since people are still buying it regardless, it's pure capitalism on Apples part and can't blame Apple.
Your whole post, though, is ridiculous and comes across as butt-hurt.
Evidently YOU did not read the specs of the 15" cMBP 2012, BTW, it comes with the 4000 PLUS the discrete 650M…
So, you shot yourself in the foot...
I think (and wrote) people looking for the cMBP nevertheless are not gamers.
AGAIN: The TO does NOT want a retina Screen. Why should he buy it although he does NOT want it?
Glaring screens are not advantageous neither.
Advantage by weight? You really read the 15" specs I was writing about?
Again, you did not read the specs…
Dimensions: 0.95 x 14.35 x 9.82 Avg. Weight: 5.6 lbs (2.56 kg) with HDD with Optical bay. (cMBP)
Dimensions: 0.71 x 14.13 x 9.73 Avg. Weight: 4.49 lbs (2.04 kg) nMBP with SSD without optical Bay (nMBP)
To be fair:
If you get out the optical bay (-335g) off the the cMBP and replace the HDD (-80g) by a SSD (because this saves a lot of money thanks to the upgradability of the cMBP) they will have nearly the same weight. The difference is just about 100g...
Same if you have to add a external optical bay to the nMBP.
As for the "form factor" : no big difference either.
BUT: advantage of the cMBP:
1) More connectivity
2) exchangeable drives (saves money)
3) second drive possible, upgradability (IMPOSSIBLE for nMBP)
4) costs upgraded (Optical bay, 1TB SSD, 16GB) : SAVES MONEY!
as for Comparing the 13" MBP models:
3.199 USD plus 199 USD for optical bay ==============>> 3.398 USD (nMBP)
1.199 USD plus 350 USD (1TB SSD) plus 100 USD (16GB) ===>> 1.649 USD (cMBP)
(Took even prices of Samsung prime-SSD and Samsung prime-RAM! If you sell the new 2x4 GB Ram and the new HDD the cMBP came with, you might even gain another 50-100 USD altogether)
You can buy TWO (!!!) 13" cMBP for the price of ONE nMBP with nearly same REAL LIFE performance (but WITHOUT ANY upgradability) …. in other words: You pay 1.649 USD more just for a retina screen and will get never upgraded or a second drive in an optical bay.
If you own a nMBP and have failing soldered Ram or soldered SSD, or need a new (glued) battery, you have to send your MBP containing ALL your private data on your SSD to apple for repair. So much for privacy. With the cMBP you repair yourself in just 5 minutes (if you are capable to use a screwdriver)
Now tell me: WHO does waste Money…? and who has less problems if you have to cope with failing drives, RAM, battery?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Evidently YOU did not read the specs of the cMBP 2012, BTW, it comes with the 4000 PLUS the discrete 650M…
So, you shot yourself in the foot...
I think (and wrote) people looking for the cMBP nevertheless are not gamers.
AGAIN: The TO does NOT want a retina Screen. Why should he buy it although he does NOT want it?
Glaring screens are not advantageous neither.
Advantage by weight? You really read the 15" specs I was writing about?
Again, you did not read the specs…
Dimensions: 0.95 x 14.35 x 9.82 Avg. Weight: 5.6 lbs (2.56 kg) with HDD with Optical bay. (cMBP)
Dimensions: 0.71 x 14.13 x 9.73 Avg. Weight: 4.49 lbs (2.04 kg) nMBP with SSD without optical Bay (nMBP)
To be fair:
If you get out the optical bay (-335g) off the the cMBP and replace the HDD (-80g) by a SSD (because this saves a lot of money thanks to the upgradability of the cMBP) they will have nearly the same weight. The difference is just about 100g...
Same if you have to add a external optical bay to the nMBP.
As for the "form factor" : no big difference either.
BUT: advantage of the cMBP:
1) More connectivity
2) exchangeable drives (saves money)
3) second drive possible, upgradability (IMPOSSIBLE for nMBP)
4) costs upgraded (Optical bay, 1TB SSD, 16GB) : SAVES MONEY!
You keep talking about the 15" model when the OP specifically stated in his first post that he's talking about the 13" MBP. It seems that you'er trying to re-direct the conversation to prove your point.
First comparing the 13" rMBP to the 13" cMBP: The CPU, GPUs, SSDs and RAM are all faster. The battery lasts longer. The screen has a higher resolution. It is thinner and lighter. This is all measurable and based on facts.
Now, comparing the 13" cMBP to the 13" rMBP: You can upgrade the RAM and HDD. The battery can be replaced at a lower cost. Ethernet and FW800 ports are available. This is also factual.
You obviously place higher value on upgradeability than performance. That is fine, but it's subjective. Myself, and many others, place a higher value on performance. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying that you're preference for one over the other is based on your needs.
You are right, that I proved that teghere is nearly ANY REAL LIFE ADVANTAGE concerning the 15" cMBP vs nMBP.
You are right that the OP is looking for a 13". But I talked also about 13" (see weight, Dimensions and PRICES).
The reason for that is that we were also discussion a little bit the overall-Tendency of MBP program.
YOU rated that the new 13" is faster, has less weight and is thinner.
No offense, but it is a little bit like Jonny Ive in his infamous Videos claiming "We worked haaaaaaaaard to get the thiiiiiiiiiineeeeeest MBP EVER!" .
What counts is HARTD DATA.
So lets have a look at "performance data (again: Source is everymac.com).
(The difference is even LESS than between the 15" cMBP and nMBP
So many thanks for demanding the 13" data )new 13" MBP 2015:
Introduction Date: March 9, 2015 Discontinued Date: N/A
Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit
Geekbench 2 (32): 8480 Geekbench 2 (64): 9632
Geekbench 3 (32): 3093 Geekbench 3 (32): 6446
Geekbench 3 (64): 3415 Geekbench 3 (64): 7259
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Old" 13" MBP of 2012:
Introduction Date: June 11, 2012 Discontinued Date: October 22, 2013*
Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit
Geekbench 2 (32): 7841 Geekbench 2 (64): 8406 (= 14,6% less than 2015 model)
Geekbench 3 (32): 2930 Geekbench 3 (32): 5979
Geekbench 3 (64): 3239 Geekbench 3 (64): 6708
Processor Speed: 2.9 GHz Processor Type: Core i7 (I7-3520M)
The Performance is nearly the same - you will shurely not claim a plus of 6-15% being significant, do you?
BTW:In nearly all reviews there has been statements that the performance has not much changed.
As for weight: even better for the 13" models: (if you compare same equipment: NO optical bay and 1TB SSd plus 16GB RAM): nearly zero ( Optical bay -335g, HDD replaced by SSD -100g: total - 435g) . classic MBP 13" in minimal version just 425g more weight, after upgrade even with new MBP.
So - Do you still claim the new one is
SIGNIFICANTLY
a) Better performing
b) Weights less)
c) has significantly better "form factor" (However your definition of that might be?)
and the most important point:
Who does waste money? Customers buying new or old MBP?
You can now add all other above cited data I presented already in former postings…
If someone loves to burn money for little to none advantage: NO PROBLEM for me!
BUT: NEVER claim there are a t least significant or even enormous differences that matters in real life between updated classic and new 13" or 15" MBP. - well - except PRICES …
They differ significantly (one being double the price of the other) and and hurting…
Agree?
You proved that you don't think there is any real life advantage. You're basing it on subjective measures.
Because I can measure those things. The 2015 13" rMBP is faster, weighs less and is thinner. Those are facts.
You seem to be confused about what hard data is. I'm understanding this to be FACTUAL data.
The data from everymac you keep posting shows that the 2015 13" rMBP is faster.
But then after you show the factual data, you point out that the performance is "nearly the same." It isn't the same, so one is faster than the other. You're making a subjective call based on your needs. This isn't factual, it's an opinion.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes you can remove parts from the cMBP to make it lighter, but then you're losing some of that functionality that makes the model appealing.
"SIGNIFICANTLY" is a subjective call. I am not basing my argument on opinions.
Yes, it is better performing. The CPU, GPU, SSD, RAM are all faster. The battery lasts longer. These are measurable.
This is also a fact. The 13" rMBP, in its stock form weighs less than the 13" cMBP in its stock form.
You're asking about a subjective opinion again. I don't think either one is a "better form factor." I know that the 2015 13" rMBP is faster, thinner and lighter, based on measurements that can be made.
and the most important point:
Who does waste money? Customers buying new or old MBP?
You can now add all other above cited data I presented already in former postings…
If someone loves to burn money for little to none advantage: NO PROBLEM for me!
BUT: NEVER claim there are a t least significant or even enormous differences that matters in real life between updated classic and new 13" or 15" MBP. - well - except PRICES …
They differ significantly (one being double the price of the other) and and hurting…
Agree?
Yes, the newer computer is more expensive. That doesn't make it a waste of money. It may not be a good buy for you or the OP, but the rMBP suits the needs of many other people.
My 13" cMBP feels so slow compared to my 15 rMBP.
[doublepost=1453505443][/doublepost][QUOTE="akswun, post: 22485672, member: 394227"
[Being cuckhold on the current line is annoying and costly. Storage is not a problem. It's getting higher spec'd processor and RAM for the Apple premium which sucks. Just so they could make the current line thinner.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean?
[doublepost=1453505443][/doublepost][QUOTE="akswun, post: 22485672, member: 394227"
[Being cuckhold on the current line is annoying and costly. Storage is not a problem. It's getting higher spec'd processor and RAM for the Apple premium which sucks. Just so they could make the current line thinner.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean?
Last edited:
@T5BRICK
To make it short:
In REAL LIFE it does not matter IF something is "better", "lighter", "thinner", or "more performing"….
What REALLY MATTERS is:
HOW MUCH "better", "lighter", "thinner", or "more performing" the other product is.
DOES IT MATTER FOR REAL LIFE???
That is not at all a matter ob a "subjective" or "personal" standpoint, it is about being rational and objective.
IN FACT (look at my postings) the differences are only marginally, absolutely NON-relevant for daily, real life, work withe the two machines.
If you pay double the price just for booting 3 seconds faster - just do it. No problem with that.
In fact, most RATIONAL thinking people will agree with me that this is NOT worth at all the doubled price.
You are absolutely right.... I will now stop trying to discuss with lemmings.
It´s useless.
…..
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
.
To make it short:
In REAL LIFE it does not matter IF something is "better", "lighter", "thinner", or "more performing"….
What REALLY MATTERS is:
HOW MUCH "better", "lighter", "thinner", or "more performing" the other product is.
DOES IT MATTER FOR REAL LIFE???
That is not at all a matter ob a "subjective" or "personal" standpoint, it is about being rational and objective.
IN FACT (look at my postings) the differences are only marginally, absolutely NON-relevant for daily, real life, work withe the two machines.
If you pay double the price just for booting 3 seconds faster - just do it. No problem with that.
In fact, most RATIONAL thinking people will agree with me that this is NOT worth at all the doubled price.
You are absolutely right.... I will now stop trying to discuss with lemmings.
It´s useless.
…..
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
.
Last edited:
I don't think you know what "subjective" and "factual" mean. I can't help you help if you're going to keep going around in circles and pretend like everyone else making things up.
I don't disagree with you that the rMBP is more expensive, I never have. The cMBP is $1099 USD. The comparable rMBP is $1799 USD. But that extra $700 also provides you with many features that the cMBP doesn't have(which we've discussed, at length). If they're not valuable to you, save your money and buy something else.