14" MacBook Pro?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I think the 15.4" MacBook Pro is a little too big for me, while the 13" is missing things like discrete graphics that the bigger models have. My ideal model would be a 14" model with all the features that the 15.4" models have (this should be possible, as other manufacturers are able to squeeze discrete graphics etc. into 14" formfactors). What do people think of the possibility of a 14" MacBook Pro being introduced at some point? Completely crazy or slim possibility?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    possibility: zero
  • Reply 2 of 20
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    I think the 15.4" MacBook Pro is a little too big for me, while the 13" is missing things like discrete graphics that the bigger models have. My ideal model would be a 14" model with all the features that the 15.4" models have (this should be possible, as other manufacturers are able to squeeze discrete graphics etc. into 14" formfactors). What do people think of the possibility of a 14" MacBook Pro being introduced at some point? Completely crazy or slim possibility?



    Not gonna happen IMO.



    The 15" model is a nicely sized machine, It's every bit as portable as the 13" model, and considerably easier to carry around than the 17" behemoth.
  • Reply 3 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    Not gonna happen IMO.



    The 15" model is a nicely sized machine, It's every bit as portable as the 13" model, and considerably easier to carry around than the 17" behemoth.



    In YOUR opinion, which some of us do not share. Some of us do find the 15" too large.
  • Reply 4 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    Not gonna happen IMO.



    The 15" model is a nicely sized machine, It's every bit as portable as the 13" model, and considerably easier to carry around than the 17" behemoth.



    I don't think it's as portable as the 13" model. It's quite a bit larger (in fact the 17" machine is larger than the 15" one by approximately the same amount that the 15" one is larger than the 13" one). It would be great if they could pack the same power of the 15" one into the 13" model but it looks like that would be difficult, and not many manufacturers pack discrete graphics into their 13" inch models, probably due to heat issues. So a 14" model would make sense for the ultimate in portability and power.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    In YOUR opinion, which some of us do not share. Some of us do find the 15" too large.



    Well yes, of course it is my opinion. I had hoped I wouldn't need to stick "IMO" before everything I type here. The 15" is the perfect size for me. I wouldn't assume that everybody is in the same boat.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein


    I don't think it's as portable as the 13" model. It's quite a bit larger (in fact the 17" machine is larger than the 15" one by approximately the same amount that the 15" one is larger than the 13" one). It would be great if they could pack the same power of the 15" one into the 13" model but it looks like that would be difficult, and not many manufacturers pack discrete graphics into their 13" inch models, probably due to heat issues. So a 14" model would make sense for the ultimate in portability and power.



    I'm not sold on the 14" model happening though. I think the machine you want would basically have a similar form to the 13" model, with more screen real estate and more power. Is it possible? Probably. They pack a lot of computer into these machines. However Apple already has a 13" model for people who want more portability, and a 15" model for people who want a more power. A 14" model would likely cannibalize both of these. So no, I don't see it happening.



    I'm curious though, what are your imagined specs for such a machine? What screen res would it have?
  • Reply 6 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    I'm not sold on the 14" model happening though. I think the machine you want would basically have a similar form to the 13" model, with more screen real estate and more power. Is it possible? Probably. They pack a lot of computer into these machines. However Apple already has a 13" model for people who want more portability, and a 15" model for people who want a more power. A 14" model would likely cannibalize both of these. So no, I don't see it happening.



    I'm curious though, what are your imagined specs for such a machine? What screen res would it have?



    Ideally, it would have all the same specs as the 15" model, but shrunk down to a 14" form factor. The screen would be a 14.1" widescreen display with either WXGA (1280x800) or WXGA+ (1440x900) resolution. However this is probably not realistic, to get the 15" model down to a 14" size some sacrifices will probably need to be made. Based on the current 15" model, I'd say that a slower processor and a step down to the GeForce 9500M GT might be realistic. This is very similar to what Dell or Lenovo, among others, offer, they each have 14.1" and 15.4" widescreen models that are very similar except the smaller model have slightly slower CPUs and GPUs. So this is probably possible technologically, the question as you said is whether Apple will want to make something like that when they already have a 13" model. It may cannibalize sales of the 13" model, but on the other hand it would be a great choice for people who needs something more powerful than that but find the 15" model too large. I think probably in the end it will help sales overall but maybe it won't be worth the extra costs of developing another model.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    I think the 15.4" MacBook Pro is a little too big for me, while the 13" is missing things like discrete graphics that the bigger models have. My ideal model would be a 14" model with all the features that the 15.4" models have (this should be possible, as other manufacturers are able to squeeze discrete graphics etc. into 14" formfactors). What do people think of the possibility of a 14" MacBook Pro being introduced at some point? Completely crazy or slim possibility?



    I don?t think adding an inch to the size is the limitation for discrete graphics. With Core-i3 and i5 being the most likely CPUs for the next MBPs Apple can?t just use Nvidia IGPs anymore and the Intel offerings are not great, so it seems likely that there will be discrete graphics in the 13? model.



    This may happen by finally removing the optical drive which will give a huge amount of space for a larger battery, more ports and a good deal or spreading of the CPU and GPU for more efficient cooling. Or it could be done by going to a 16:9 display ratio as we?ve seen in the new iMacs. This ratio, while giving us a display size with the same diagonal length results in a larger footprint and a wider machine which allows for more space and easier cooling even while maintaining the optical drive.
  • Reply 8 of 20
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    I say that due to the spread of Intel chips coming out. If Apple doesn't implement a descreet solution they may end up with a major performance regression.







    Dave
  • Reply 9 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I say that due to the spread of Intel chips coming out. If Apple doesn't implement a descreet solution they may end up with a major performance regression.







    Dave



    That's a good point, although the GMA HD integrated in the i3/i5 chips should perform better than the old GMA 4500MHD, it's possible that it will be worse performing still than the GeForce 9400M. Also I realized that it may be possible for Apple to pack a discrete GPU in the 13inch model after all, without losing anything like an optical drive, because it looks like the Dell Studio XPS 13 and the HP Envy 13 both pack discrete graphics in a 13inch formfactor, so Apple should certainly be able to achieve that. On the other hand though, it looks like everywhere the discrete GPUs of 13inch models are much slower than those found in 15inch models, so even with the discrete GPU it looks like 13inch models won't be as fast as 15inch ones. I was hoping for something like the old ThinkPad "p" series where the 14inch and 15inch models were able to have the exact same GPU so there would be no difference in performance between the two, but it looks like no one has been able to do something like that since then.
  • Reply 10 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    Also I realized that it may be possible for Apple to pack a discrete GPU in the 13inch model after all, without losing anything like an optical drive, because it looks like the Dell Studio XPS 13 and the HP Envy 13 both pack discrete graphics in a 13inch formfactor, so Apple should certainly be able to achieve that.



    1) Neither the 13" and 15? HP Envys doesn?t have an optical drive



    2) The 13? XPS does have an optical drive, like the 13? MBP does currently but it?s also about 40% thicker at the back and is has a larger overall footprint despite the same 13? diagonal sized display which means it has more room for components.



    Still, I expect Apple to go with a discrete GPU in the 13? MBP.
  • Reply 11 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) Neither the 13" and 15? HP Envys doesn?t have an optical drive



    2) The 13? XPS does have an optical drive, like the 13? MBP does currently but it?s also about 40% thicker at the back and is has a larger overall footprint despite the same 13? diagonal sized display which means it has more room for components.



    Still, I expect Apple to go with a discrete GPU in the 13? MBP.



    Interesting, I didn't know the Envys don't have optical drives. I don't know why they are priced so highly, the Studio XPS 13 seems to be a much more impressive machine both in terms of design and in terms of features, at a much lower cost. I'm divided on whether I would be okay with having a laptop without an optical drive. I rarely use it, but in those rare occasions when I do use it (i.e. watching DVDs on a moving vehicle) it would be very unpractical to use an external drive. Ideally Apple would make a MBP that keeps the optical drive, adds a discrete GPU, while keeping the same thickness, in other words something more impressive than the Studio XPS 13, but hopefully Apple can achieve something like that.
  • Reply 12 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    Interesting, I didn't know the Envys don't have optical drives. I don't know why they are priced so highly, the Studio XPS 13 seems to be a much more impressive machine both in terms of design and in terms of features, at a much lower cost. I'm divided on whether I would be okay with having a laptop without an optical drive. I rarely use it, but in those rare occasions when I do use it (i.e. watching DVDs on a moving vehicle) it would be very unpractical to use an external drive. Ideally Apple would make a MBP that keeps the optical drive, adds a discrete GPU, while keeping the same thickness, in other words something more impressive than the Studio XPS 13, but hopefully Apple can achieve something like that.



    The 13? Envy comes with an SL9400 (C2D 1.86 GHz, 6MB L2), also found in the MBA. These low-voltage CPUs cost more money than their higher-powered equivalents of the same speed. It?s also only 0 ? thick, which is thinner than a 13? MBP. While it doesn?t come with as power of a CPU it does have a more powerful GPU which increases heat and requires more cooling so that is a trade off. The 15? Envy comes with a quad-core mobile Core-i7. This seems nice but it has a TDP of 45W. This is one hot machine with poor battery life. Their cases are magnesium and have some very nice construction as well as aesthetic touches. They also have a large mlti-touch trackpad very similair to the Mac notebooks, the only problem is that driver and OS support for them is very poor which helps to see why Apple?s method of making the HW and SW does have clear advantages. I don?t care for many of the trade offs in those machines but I do like what HP is doing in this area.



    I?m not sure about the 13? XPS specs but the whole machine is larger than the Envy or Macs in the same category. Even the 17? MBP seems easily transportable because it?s so thin.



    As for an optical drive for movies, Apple released software that is part of all Macs now when the MBA arrived that shares and optical drive if you want it to which allows for OS installs. I hope they change this to include the OS install disc on SD cards. It?ll be so much faster than using a slow DVD drive. You can also see a Windows optical drive if you share it, but the best solution is just to copy the film to your HDD before you leave on a trip. Running an optical drive uses a lot of power. Running from your HDD uses a lot less, while running for a USB flash drive, SD card or SSD uses even less. You can even create a MP4 (H.264) copy to store with the free app Handbrake.
  • Reply 13 of 20
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,897member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Some of us do find the 15" too large.



    Yeah I'm trying to sort out what size to buy also. I am still using my Rev A 12" PowerBook (it's name is MiniMe) and while I love the size of the case I no longer love the small screen. Many web pages don't even fit without a scroll bar at the bottom. The 13" MBP looks good, but I wonder if that screen is big enough. It is much wider and that would be an improvement. However, I also want as much power as I can get to process Tivo files and the like - the 15" MBP seems the better choice in that department. Plus my eyes are aging and I might want that extra screen real estate.



    I have read about the troubles Nvidia is having and the impact it could have on graphics processing in Macs. I wonder if the current machines will be more powerful than new models next year that might not have a discreet video card? Particularly the 15".
  • Reply 14 of 20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    This may happen by finally removing the optical drive which will give a huge amount of space for a larger battery, more ports and a good deal or spreading of the CPU and GPU for more efficient cooling. Or it could be done by going to a 16:9 display ratio as we?ve seen in the new iMacs. This ratio, while giving us a display size with the same diagonal length results in a larger footprint and a wider machine which allows for more space and easier cooling even while maintaining the optical drive.



    I would totally be willing to give up the internal optical drive for a faster 13" macbook with discrete graphics and longer battery life. I wouldn't want the 16:9 aspect ratio though. Too narrow.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by debusoh View Post


    I would totally be willing to give up the internal optical drive for a faster 13" macbook with discrete graphics and longer battery life. I wouldn't want the 16:9 aspect ratio though. Too narrow.



    If Apple goes to the 16:9 ratio with their laptops, the result won't be shorter displays- It'll be wider displays. This is what they did with the new iMac.



    If the models are widened:



    The current 13.3" model will be replaced with a 14.4" model. New res: 1440x810







    The current 15.4" model will be replaced with a 16.6" model. New resolution: 1600x900.







    The current 17.1" model will be replaced with and 18.4" model. New resolution: 2048x1152.

  • Reply 16 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    If Apple goes to the 16:9 ratio with their laptops, the result won't be shorter displays- It'll be wider displays. This is what they did with the new iMac.



    If the models are widened:



    The current 13.3" model will be replaced with a 14.4" model. New res: 1440x810

    image: http://displaywars.com/comparisons/1...inch-16x10.png





    The current 15.4" model will be replaced with a 16.6" model. New resolution: 1600x900.

    image: http://displaywars.com/comparisons/1...inch-16x10.png





    The current 17" model will be replaced with and 18.3" model. New resolution: 2048x1152.

    image: http://displaywars.com/comparisons/1...inch-16x10.png



    That is only if they keep the height the same. The 13? MB/MBPs are shorter than the 12? PowerBook it replaced. Personally, I don?t want a wider display on a Mac notebook as I read a lot of text and therefore want more of an entire page on the screen.



    Going to a wider ratio also increases the footprint area, even if you maintain the same display length on the diagonal. That does give you slightly more breathing room for internals but that also will increase the general weight to cover that same area. Trying to match the same height as the ?more squared? aspect ratio makes this effect even more pronounced.
  • Reply 17 of 20
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That is only if they keep the height the same. The 13” MB/MBPs are shorter than the 12” PowerBook it replaced. Personally, I don’t want a wider display on a Mac notebook as I read a lot of text and therefore want more of an entire page on the screen.



    Going to a wider ratio also increases the footprint area, even if you maintain the same display length on the diagonal. That does give you slightly more breathing room for internals but that also will increase the general weight to cover that same area. Trying to match the same height as the “more squared” aspect ratio makes this effect even more pronounced.



    Wait a second. The 12" powerbook was 1024x768, right? If so the current 13" machines already have more vertical area on the display. With the 16:9 change, if they keep the screens the same height then you still get more vertical space than you would have on the 12" machine- you just also get more horizontal space than you have now.



    Not gonna argue about the extra weight and size thing though. The biggest advantage of going 16:9 is giving the internals more breathing room but it will increase the overall width and weight of the machine.
  • Reply 18 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    Wait a second. The 12" powerbook was 1024x768, right? If so the current 13" machines already have more vertical area on the display. With the 16:9 change, if they keep the screens the same height then you still get more vertical space than you would have on the 12" machine- you just also get more horizontal space than you have now.



    Not gonna argue about the extra weight and size thing though. The biggest advantage of going 16:9 is giving the internals more breathing room but it will increase the overall size and weight.

    12.1? Powerbok

    aspect ratio = 1.33:1 (4:3)

    height = 7.27"

    width = 9.67"

    area = 70.33"




    13.3? MB / MBP

    aspect ratio = 1.60:1 (16:10)

    height = 7.05"

    width = 11.28"

    area = 79.50?
    Pixel count does not indicate display size.





    edit: With a 14.4? display with 1440x810 dimensions you end up with a display that almost square 10? larger.
    aspect ratio = 1.78:1 (16:9)

    height = 7.05"

    width = 12.55"

    area = 88.55"
    That doesn?t include the display frame that needs 2.54? of framing for the larger circumference which then needs to be transferred to the overall footprint when closed.



    With the 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio used for the 13.3? MB/MBP the height drops down over a half inch to 6.51? and width increases over a quarter inch to 11.6?, even though you do gain. You also lose display area from 75.54? by going less square while making the frame larger do to the longer circumference of the display?s edge. I worry more about my notebook fitting on a plane?s seat back tray than I do about it being too tall when open. This is why I don?t want 1.78:1 (16:9) used for notebooks.
  • Reply 19 of 20
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post
    12.1” Powerbok

    aspect ratio = 1.33:1 (4:3)

    height = 7.27"

    width = 9.67"

    area = 70.33"




    13.3” MB / MBP

    aspect ratio = 1.60:1 (16:10)

    height = 7.05"

    width = 11.28"

    area = 79.5”
    Pixel count does not indicate display size.



    But it does indicate how much can be seen on the screen. If the display's PPI is your concern then you've got no hope of going back with Apple's machines. I don't know if the screen PPI affects the display of Word/Pages documents.
  • Reply 20 of 20
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    But it does indicate how much can be seen on the screen. If the display's PPI is your concern then you've got no hope of going back with Apple's machines. I don't know if the screen PPI affects the display of Word/Pages documents.



    Shortening the display height while adding a higher pixel density does not make it easier for me to read. It makes it clearer at a smaller size but I don?t want a smaller size font to get the same amount of lines on the display as I had before with the taller display.
Sign In or Register to comment.