Question Macbook pro 13" vs 15"

[Chris Beldam]

Is the performance between the 13" 256gb and the 15" 256gb worth it?
I realise its more RAM and a better processor but just wondered what the real world difference is.

I am going to be getting one of these systems within the next week or so, so any help would be great!

 

[0x1eef]

Real world difference in what? Because in some use cases there would be some non-negligible difference, and there would be no difference in other.

 

[itmoba]

Both have embedded graphics, so neither are suitable for gaming (mid/high-level). What's the purpose for the laptop? If you're a software developer or a graphics artist, again, neither model is really suitable. If the primary purpose of the laptop is for school and/or text-processing/slide presentations/flat and/or simple databases, then the only real difference between them is the screen size -- well, that and cost.

 

[0x1eef]

If you're a software developer or a graphics artist, again, neither model is really suitable.

Macbooks are the best developer machines. And while 13 inch screen may be small, they're both good for graphics work, too – powerful with very good displays.

 

[McHenryB]

I wouldn't describe a laptop with a 13" (or even 15") screen as the best developer machine. But, as the OP gives no indication of envisaged use for this computer, it is impossible to give a meaningful answer to the question. If Mac specific software is a requirement (e.g. XCode) then one of these laptops may be a good solution; if not it is not sensible to ignore other , more cost-effective, options. Games would, indeed, be a particular problem on these underpowered computers.

 

[0x1eef]

Developers (or, overall, people) want to think that multi-big-ass-monitor config would make them better/cooler devs or hardcore professionals.
They're just scratching their ego. I'm 4 years in SW Dev , I never needed even 2 monitors. I mostly develop on my 13" inch MBP or 22 inch PC. It's not about quantity or size, it's about resolution.
Thing is, it's more often that people just don't know how to organize themselves and their "multitasking" requirement is no more than running web browser with Spotify app and Skype in the background.

Inb4, virtual desktops. OSX has those.

 

[McHenryB]

Whatever the resolution, you can get a lot more readable information on a 24" monitor than you can on a 13" one.

I'm not sure that your 4 year's experience necessarily outweighs the views of the many experienced, professional developers who prefer to use a decent-sized screen and a proper mouse and keyboard. Most of them choose a system that works with their needs rather than feeling the need to scratch their ego (which is why they tend to avoid Apple equipment in the first place).

Whilst you personally are quite happy with a small laptop for development I would still dispute the assertion that this makes "the best developer machine".

 

[itmoba]

If you're a software developer or a graphics artist, again, neither model is really suitable.

Macbooks are the best developer machines. And while 13 inch screen may be small, they're both good for graphics work, too – powerful with very good displays.

(1) Note how I said "embedded graphics." I spoke nothing about discrete graphics. The discrete graphics version (only available with the 15" display) is a completely different story.

(2) I've been writing software since I was a child. I work with OS X, Linux, and Windows. I've written patches for malware, first having done so in high school (around 15 years ago). I'm writing this reply on a 15" MBP too, running OS X 10.10.5. I can, however, hop onto a VM, copy/paste, and finish writing this reply on Linux.

(3) The MBP still isn't really a good primary developer/graphics machine. I love my MBP and the two MBPs that came before it, but it's not suitable for serious development/graphics. Also, virtual desktops aren't something only native to OS X -- in fact, OS X wasn't even the first OS to have a window manager with such a feature.

 

[0x1eef]

(1) Note how I said "embedded graphics." I spoke nothing about discrete graphics. The discrete graphics version (only available with the 15" display) is a completely different story.

(2) I've been writing software since I was a child. I work with OS X, Linux, and Windows. I've written patches for malware, first having done so in high school (around 15 years ago). I'm writing this reply on a 15" MBP too, running OS X 10.10.5. I can, however, hop onto a VM, copy/paste, and finish writing this reply on Linux.

(3) The MBP still isn't really a good primary developer/graphics machine. I love my MBP and the two MBPs that came before it, but it's not suitable for serious development/graphics. Also, virtual desktops aren't something only native to OS X -- in fact, OS X wasn't even the first OS to have a window manager with such a feature.

(1) The point being? GPU acceleration? You can live without it. I'm not talking about rendering “Avatar” on an MBP but it'll handle Photoshop a-ok.

(2) Again, the point? Besides bragging? I can fire up dozen Vagrant instances, chain-ssh Inception-style and send the message with MBP from my signature. 5 years, still going strong, baby.

(3) Does it matter if OSX was the first or the last? It got the feature right. It usable, without hassle.

Still haven't seen the arguments about why MBP isn't great dev machine. They have… let's see: the fastest SSDs, up to 16GB of RAM for a good price, best screens (if coupled with OSX), very competitive battery life (and they age slower if compared to other manufacturers) hell, the even have the best Wi-Fi cards on the market. And killer touchpad. Unless you're tied by your balls to some shitty legacy like MFC Win App, I can't see the reason MBP can't be your primary and only dev machine. I've made an ASP.NET website on my Mac without Windows VM or Bootcamp.

 

[McHenryB]

Perhaps the OP would like to come back and tell us what the computer is actually going to be used for? Development wasn't mentioned so fairy tales of what a wonderful development machine it is are taking us way off topic (probably).

 

[itmoba]

(1) If you're a software developer, then you'd know that ASP.NET is not meant to be used for resource-hungry dynamic webpages. You'd also know that having a server with an ASP.NET back-end on your own machine is a simple test-bed and nothing more. You can construct simple test cases without doing much harm. However, you're generalizing things by only citing one language. Also, anyone can code the example you cited. I can also make a webpage with PHP as a back-end. What's the point you're trying to make, that a MBP can run simple scripts? If that's the case, then, so can just about any computer.

(2) What do you use as your IDE? What do you use as your text-processor? Are you using Xcode, because if you are you'd instantly know that it runs sluggish. Me? I use vim and the command line to write, compile (if applicable), and execute my stuff. This means I can get away with coding things in C/C++/Java/Perl with a low memory footprint. The moment I start to use Xcode or Android Studio, however, resources begin to be gnawed at voraciously.

(3) A proper developer machine can't always rely upon AWS and similar servers because one doesn't always have an internet connection. If you don't have an internet connection, then, obviously you need to have the ability to do things on your own computer.

(4) When it concerns front-end development, how many browsers are you trying to be compatible with? If you're a serious web developer, then, you should know that it requires testing on various versions of IE, Chrome, Opera, Firefox, Safari, even if the browsers *might* share engines (depending on the browser and its iteration). That's called thorough testing and is the mark required by professionals. That means resource-hungry benchmarking and testing.

 

[0x1eef]

(1) My company has a ASP.NET app that is used to plan surgeries based on X-ray images. Tell me how it can't be used for heavy apps. And you've missed the point entirely. What I meant is that today you're not tied to the OS, everything is cross-platform which renders Win laptops useless entirely. MBPs just beat 'em all on all fronts.
(2) Xcode, Atom, PyCharm in the past. Nothing stutters on SSD.
(3) I do all of that on my Mac offline most of the time.
(4) All except IE are available on OSX. IE is available through now-free Win10 VMs.

I do all of the above on my 5-year old 13 inch MBP. New Core M Macbook is approximately 1.5-2x faster, never mind MBPro