Form over function I guess. I doesn't look like Apple designed the MacBook very well. It's more about aesthetics rather than performance. That's the wrong way to be doing things.
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
Quote:
Originally posted by troberts
If Apple did come out with an 11" MacBook "nano" expansion slot space will be tight. Would you be willing to give up the optical drive to make room for more expansion slots, or would you keep the drive, but have minimal expansion slots? Something this small would have ethernet, 1 USB 2.0, audio out, and a PCI Express slot.
Neither. Apple could just make a reasonably fast machine without an optical drive or slots. Any expansion can come from usb2 and firewire 400 (hopefully a couple of each). And gigabit ethernet. There's a market for an absolutely tiny mac laptop. For optical needs, Apple could come with a cool streamlined solution for installing software (and even booting) from drives mounted on a networked computer. After all, people in the market for an ultralight are going to use it for a second computer. MP3's and even DVD rips will get loaded up from the desktop machine via ethernet or even FW.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
We have people complaining that Apple left the modem out! That's small enough to put into your pocket, and they're complaining that they don't have enough room in the case for it.
What are you going to tell them about the optical drive?
That the Nano isn't the model for them. Some people want smallest and lighest, for other people, just get a 13 or 15.
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
Neither. Apple could just make a reasonably fast machine without an optical drive or slots. Any expansion can come from usb2 and firewire 400 (hopefully a couple of each). And gigabit ethernet. There's a market for an absolutely tiny mac laptop. For optical needs, Apple could come with a cool streamlined solution for installing software (and even booting) from drives mounted on a networked computer. After all, people in the market for an ultralight are going to use it for a second computer. MP3's and even DVD rips will get loaded up from the desktop machine via ethernet or even FW.
That the Nano isn't the model for them. Some people want smallest and lighest, for other people, just get a 13 or 15.
I think that I agree with you on this but stated differently. Not all laptop users need or look for the same things. Some need ultimate performance, a desktop replacement. Some want maximum portability. Apple can offer models for everyone. Others do, ie dell, sony. I hope that users(me) who are hoping for a nice small notebook along the lines of the current 12in powerbook aren't left out in the cold.
If Apple did come out with an 11" MacBook "nano" expansion slot space will be tight. Would you be willing to give up the optical drive to make room for more expansion slots, or would you keep the drive, but have minimal expansion slots? Something this small would have ethernet, 1 USB 2.0, audio out, and a PCI Express slot.
Would give up the optical in a flash - but in addition it would need gigabit ethernet, USB2, FW (please bring back 800), bluetooth, airport, and ideally a built-in modem. It would also need a (high speed) syncing solution, probably through gigabit ethernet, so that folders on the laptop and desktop remain in sync. Give customer's the option of an external optical if they want it. The ultimate traveller's machine. Credit card is at hand.
Yes, kick the optical drive to the curb. An external drive would be nice with a hard carry case for it.
I need ethernet, two USB 2.0, and audio out. An expansion slot to allow for connecting to cell phone internet would be cool but not neccessary.
I think most Mac portable users will want to stick with something like the 12inch format that has been working pretty well so far. The 1 inch/ 1 lb difference would probably not be worth the sacrific regarding the optical drive and the ports. I think they will stick with the 12inch...
I think most Mac portable users will want to stick with something like the 12inch format that has been working pretty well so far. The 1 inch/ 1 lb difference would probably not be worth the sacrific regarding the optical drive and the ports. I think they will stick with the 12inch...
It is funny you should say that but the lady on the plane near me to day with her Sony Vaio had such an easy time working on her computer compared to me on my 12". The 12" was just too big for the tight quarters on the plane flying across country. Bring on the subnotebooks!! Hear me ROAR, errr something like that.
Of course, she had two spare battery's (for some reason) with her and I went 5.5 hours on a 13 month old iBook.
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
That's just silly. I never said form wasn't important. Making the MacBook Pro thinner by 0.1 inch wasn't worth excluding the use of most optical drives available now and in the future and forcing the use of an optical drive far inferior to the one used in their entry-level products. It's ridiculous. The difference in thickness is barely perceptible to the human eye. In fact, the 17" PowerBook which does accept the full range of drives is already described by Apple as being "one inch thick" just as they describe the 15" MacBook Pro. Steve Jobs admitted it is "a hair" thinner. So in actuality it is probably a difference of just 0.03 to 0.05 that meant the difference between having a decent choice of optical drives or not. Was an imperceptible change in thickness worth it? Certainly not.
Okay, I just looked it up and the 17" PowerBook is listed as 2.60cm while the 15" MacBook Pro is listed as 2.59cm so "a hair" is quite accurate. This is a mere 0.01cm difference in thickness or 0.003 inch which even less than I thought. This is not even measurable without a caliper. This is what eliminated the use of the common 12.7mm drives? According to Apple and Steve Jobs it is. Something isn't right. This is far too small to have made a difference. Could they be lying? Is there another reason why they downgraded the drive? A lot of other features were cut. Did they do this on purpose in order to make the 17" MacBook Pro look better?
That's just silly. I never said form wasn't important. Making the MacBook Pro thinner by 0.1 inch wasn't worth excluding the use of most optical drives available now and in the future and forcing the use of an optical drive far inferior to the one used in their entry-level products. It's ridiculous. The difference in thickness is barely perceptible to the human eye. In fact, the 17" PowerBook which does accept the full range of drives is already described by Apple as being "one inch thick" just as they describe the 15" MacBook Pro. Steve Jobs admitted it is "a hair" thinner. So in actuality it is probably a difference of just 0.03 to 0.05 that meant the difference between having a decent choice of optical drives or not. Was an imperceptible change in thickness worth it? Certainly not.
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
Of course, I don't know a single person, EVER, who routinely burned dual-layer DVD-R's. Regular DVD-R's are so much more affordable, $/GB-wise.
Okay, I just looked it up and the 17" PowerBook is listed as 2.60cm while the 15" MacBook Pro is listed as 2.59cm so "a hair" is quite accurate. This is a mere 0.01cm difference in thickness or 0.003 inch which even less than I thought. This is not even measurable without a caliper. This is what eliminated the use of the common 12.7mm drives? According to Apple and Steve Jobs it is. Something isn't right. This is far too small to have made a difference. Could they be lying? Is there another reason why they downgraded the drive? A lot of other features were cut. Did they do this on purpose in order to make the 17" MacBook Pro look better?
Oh, and this means the Panasonic slot-loading BD-RW (Blu-Ray) drive due in March (which is 12.7mm of course) won't fit either. Apple really blew it on this one. How about designing the enclosure around the components next time instead of the other way around? It's not like it is 1/4 inch thinner or anything even remotely significant.
This also means Apple will not have access to the same drives that all the other manufacturers will. They will have to have custom versions made just for them and with performance penalties due to their thinner design. Sorry for ranting but this is just a idiotic mistake on their part.
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
iPods are a lot smaller on the face dimensions and fit a more limted but still useful task. Relative to the face dimensions, 0.1" thickness on a notebook would translate to about 0.02" on an iPod.
Quote:
Of course, I don't know a single person, EVER, who routinely burned dual-layer DVD-R's. Regular DVD-R's are so much more affordable, $/GB-wise.
DL discs are definitely a bit niche. I could upgrade to a faster drive that is also DL but other than a few iDVDs, I don't use a writer anymore. Except for pro video work making test DVDs, maybe DL really isn't relevant. I have simply switched to external hard drives for regular backups.
Oh, and this means the Panasonic slot-loading BD-RW (Blu-Ray) drive due in March (which is 12.7mm of course) won't fit either. Apple really blew it on this one. How about designing the enclosure around the components next time instead of the other way around? It's not like it is 1/4 inch thinner or anything even remotely significant.
This also means Apple will not have access to the same drives that all the other manufacturers will. They will have to have custom versions made just for them and with performance penalties due to their thinner design. Sorry for ranting but this is just a idiotic mistake on their part.
I can understand your frustration. I, also, can't see the difference in thickness as having much to do with the drives. At least, not directly. But it's possible that the case inside might be slightly thicker. The Core Duo might have significantly different heat dissipation characteristics from the old G4. so, that might make a difference. Perhaps the older drive also uses more power than the new one.
It could be a lot of little things.
What it looks like to me, though is that the lid is slightly thicker than the older model without the camera. If that's so, then the body of the machine would have to be thinner, leading to the lack of room.
A trade-off. Many people wanted the camera. So, do more people want the camera than want a faster DL drive?
Sony won't be the only company making a Blu-Ray drive. Or an HD DVD drive. I feel as though Apple thought of this too.
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
I find downgraded superdrives far more compelling than a miniscule thickness difference. Order of magnitude people...
I find downgraded superdrives far more compelling than a miniscule thickness difference. Order of magnitude people...
Correct. You may not need an 8x Dual Layer DVD writer 90% of the time but when you do want it you'll be kicking yourself over that 3mm difference.
We can only hope the drive manufacturers can get the thinner drives up to speed quickly and Apple up the drive specs mid run as they so often do.
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the drives have to be thinner now. Surely there's not LESS space inside the intel MacBook Pros? What have they increased the size of? Are the batteries bigger? Are there bigger heatsinks for the CPU and GPU?
There might not even be a MacBook, just different kinds OF MacBook.
MacBook Pro, MacBook Express, MacBook Extreme, MacBook Nano, MacBook Mini, MacBook Quad, MacBook Plus, MacBook SE/30, MacBook U2 Edition... it's hard to say where it could end. Now we can never be sure there's not a new category of laptop just around the corner.
Looking at the take apart shots, I still can't see why they need a thinner CD/DVD drive unless they've made the case thicker above and below the drive and strengthened the casing to stop it from warping. Which would be a good thing as I tend to bend laptop gradually.
Looking at the take apart shots, I still can't see why they need a thinner CD/DVD drive unless they've made the case thicker above and below the drive and strengthened the casing to stop it from warping. Which would be a good thing as I tend to bend laptop gradually.
What they've done, is to make the lid thicker in order to accommodate the camera. Correspondingly, they have thinned the base to keep the overall thickness the same. that gives less room for a drive.
I imagine that Apple has been in contact with manufacturers who will be producing 8x DL recorders in the new format. It's just too bad that they weren't ready in time for the intro.
I don't want to steal a photo from O'Grady's site, though it's tempting to do so because there are so many in his article, but I'll just point you to photo #19, where he has the old PB on top of the new MBP. You have to scroll down a bit.
You can see that the MBP is slightly wider, but that the base is thinner, and the lid is much thicker.
I got into arguments about why I didn't think Apple would put a camera into the lid.
Comments
Originally posted by 1984
Form over function I guess. I doesn't look like Apple designed the MacBook very well. It's more about aesthetics rather than performance. That's the wrong way to be doing things.
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
Originally posted by troberts
If Apple did come out with an 11" MacBook "nano" expansion slot space will be tight. Would you be willing to give up the optical drive to make room for more expansion slots, or would you keep the drive, but have minimal expansion slots? Something this small would have ethernet, 1 USB 2.0, audio out, and a PCI Express slot.
Neither. Apple could just make a reasonably fast machine without an optical drive or slots. Any expansion can come from usb2 and firewire 400 (hopefully a couple of each). And gigabit ethernet. There's a market for an absolutely tiny mac laptop. For optical needs, Apple could come with a cool streamlined solution for installing software (and even booting) from drives mounted on a networked computer. After all, people in the market for an ultralight are going to use it for a second computer. MP3's and even DVD rips will get loaded up from the desktop machine via ethernet or even FW.
Originally posted by melgross
We have people complaining that Apple left the modem out! That's small enough to put into your pocket, and they're complaining that they don't have enough room in the case for it.
What are you going to tell them about the optical drive?
That the Nano isn't the model for them. Some people want smallest and lighest, for other people, just get a 13 or 15.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
Neither. Apple could just make a reasonably fast machine without an optical drive or slots. Any expansion can come from usb2 and firewire 400 (hopefully a couple of each). And gigabit ethernet. There's a market for an absolutely tiny mac laptop. For optical needs, Apple could come with a cool streamlined solution for installing software (and even booting) from drives mounted on a networked computer. After all, people in the market for an ultralight are going to use it for a second computer. MP3's and even DVD rips will get loaded up from the desktop machine via ethernet or even FW.
That the Nano isn't the model for them. Some people want smallest and lighest, for other people, just get a 13 or 15.
I think that I agree with you on this but stated differently. Not all laptop users need or look for the same things. Some need ultimate performance, a desktop replacement. Some want maximum portability. Apple can offer models for everyone. Others do, ie dell, sony. I hope that users(me) who are hoping for a nice small notebook along the lines of the current 12in powerbook aren't left out in the cold.
Originally posted by troberts
If Apple did come out with an 11" MacBook "nano" expansion slot space will be tight. Would you be willing to give up the optical drive to make room for more expansion slots, or would you keep the drive, but have minimal expansion slots? Something this small would have ethernet, 1 USB 2.0, audio out, and a PCI Express slot.
Would give up the optical in a flash - but in addition it would need gigabit ethernet, USB2, FW (please bring back 800), bluetooth, airport, and ideally a built-in modem. It would also need a (high speed) syncing solution, probably through gigabit ethernet, so that folders on the laptop and desktop remain in sync. Give customer's the option of an external optical if they want it. The ultimate traveller's machine. Credit card is at hand.
Originally posted by macnut222
If we're really lucky, this could be a super secret Apple rumor that Steve has kept under lock and key.
Steve probably had Schiller and Ive do a blood oath to keep it under wraps.
After all, this IS just talk. So is the rumor about the 17".
We have no idea what Apple is doing.
Originally posted by aplnub
Yes, kick the optical drive to the curb. An external drive would be nice with a hard carry case for it.
I need ethernet, two USB 2.0, and audio out. An expansion slot to allow for connecting to cell phone internet would be cool but not neccessary.
I think most Mac portable users will want to stick with something like the 12inch format that has been working pretty well so far. The 1 inch/ 1 lb difference would probably not be worth the sacrific regarding the optical drive and the ports. I think they will stick with the 12inch...
Originally posted by opnsource
I think most Mac portable users will want to stick with something like the 12inch format that has been working pretty well so far. The 1 inch/ 1 lb difference would probably not be worth the sacrific regarding the optical drive and the ports. I think they will stick with the 12inch...
It is funny you should say that but the lady on the plane near me to day with her Sony Vaio had such an easy time working on her computer compared to me on my 12". The 12" was just too big for the tight quarters on the plane flying across country. Bring on the subnotebooks!! Hear me ROAR, errr something like that.
Of course, she had two spare battery's (for some reason) with her and I went 5.5 hours on a 13 month old iBook.
19" widescreen here we come...
perhaps not...
Originally posted by minderbinder
Form IS important for laptops, portability is the whole point. Consumers WANT them to be as small, light, and thin as possible.
If performance was really more important than form, we'd have laptops with quad G5's...that would be as big and heavy as quad G5's.
That's just silly. I never said form wasn't important. Making the MacBook Pro thinner by 0.1 inch wasn't worth excluding the use of most optical drives available now and in the future and forcing the use of an optical drive far inferior to the one used in their entry-level products. It's ridiculous. The difference in thickness is barely perceptible to the human eye. In fact, the 17" PowerBook which does accept the full range of drives is already described by Apple as being "one inch thick" just as they describe the 15" MacBook Pro. Steve Jobs admitted it is "a hair" thinner. So in actuality it is probably a difference of just 0.03 to 0.05 that meant the difference between having a decent choice of optical drives or not. Was an imperceptible change in thickness worth it? Certainly not.
Originally posted by 1984
That's just silly. I never said form wasn't important. Making the MacBook Pro thinner by 0.1 inch wasn't worth excluding the use of most optical drives available now and in the future and forcing the use of an optical drive far inferior to the one used in their entry-level products. It's ridiculous. The difference in thickness is barely perceptible to the human eye. In fact, the 17" PowerBook which does accept the full range of drives is already described by Apple as being "one inch thick" just as they describe the 15" MacBook Pro. Steve Jobs admitted it is "a hair" thinner. So in actuality it is probably a difference of just 0.03 to 0.05 that meant the difference between having a decent choice of optical drives or not. Was an imperceptible change in thickness worth it? Certainly not.
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
Of course, I don't know a single person, EVER, who routinely burned dual-layer DVD-R's. Regular DVD-R's are so much more affordable, $/GB-wise.
Originally posted by 1984
Okay, I just looked it up and the 17" PowerBook is listed as 2.60cm while the 15" MacBook Pro is listed as 2.59cm so "a hair" is quite accurate. This is a mere 0.01cm difference in thickness or 0.003 inch which even less than I thought. This is not even measurable without a caliper. This is what eliminated the use of the common 12.7mm drives? According to Apple and Steve Jobs it is. Something isn't right. This is far too small to have made a difference. Could they be lying? Is there another reason why they downgraded the drive? A lot of other features were cut. Did they do this on purpose in order to make the 17" MacBook Pro look better?
OK, I take back what I said then
Sorry.
This also means Apple will not have access to the same drives that all the other manufacturers will. They will have to have custom versions made just for them and with performance penalties due to their thinner design. Sorry for ranting but this is just a idiotic mistake on their part.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
iPods are a lot smaller on the face dimensions and fit a more limted but still useful task. Relative to the face dimensions, 0.1" thickness on a notebook would translate to about 0.02" on an iPod.
Quote:
Of course, I don't know a single person, EVER, who routinely burned dual-layer DVD-R's. Regular DVD-R's are so much more affordable, $/GB-wise.
DL discs are definitely a bit niche. I could upgrade to a faster drive that is also DL but other than a few iDVDs, I don't use a writer anymore. Except for pro video work making test DVDs, maybe DL really isn't relevant. I have simply switched to external hard drives for regular backups.
Originally posted by 1984
Oh, and this means the Panasonic slot-loading BD-RW (Blu-Ray) drive due in March (which is 12.7mm of course) won't fit either. Apple really blew it on this one. How about designing the enclosure around the components next time instead of the other way around? It's not like it is 1/4 inch thinner or anything even remotely significant.
This also means Apple will not have access to the same drives that all the other manufacturers will. They will have to have custom versions made just for them and with performance penalties due to their thinner design. Sorry for ranting but this is just a idiotic mistake on their part.
I can understand your frustration. I, also, can't see the difference in thickness as having much to do with the drives. At least, not directly. But it's possible that the case inside might be slightly thicker. The Core Duo might have significantly different heat dissipation characteristics from the old G4. so, that might make a difference. Perhaps the older drive also uses more power than the new one.
It could be a lot of little things.
What it looks like to me, though is that the lid is slightly thicker than the older model without the camera. If that's so, then the body of the machine would have to be thinner, leading to the lack of room.
A trade-off. Many people wanted the camera. So, do more people want the camera than want a faster DL drive?
Sony won't be the only company making a Blu-Ray drive. Or an HD DVD drive. I feel as though Apple thought of this too.
[edit]spelling[/edit]
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Have you ever compared to different generations of iPods?
.1 inches isn't just preceptibly different, it's monumentally different. Everyone with an old, .1 inch thicker iPod gets jealous and dissatisfied when a new revision comes out.
I find downgraded superdrives far more compelling than a miniscule thickness difference. Order of magnitude people...
Originally posted by mynamehere
I find downgraded superdrives far more compelling than a miniscule thickness difference. Order of magnitude people...
Correct. You may not need an 8x Dual Layer DVD writer 90% of the time but when you do want it you'll be kicking yourself over that 3mm difference.
We can only hope the drive manufacturers can get the thinner drives up to speed quickly and Apple up the drive specs mid run as they so often do.
I'm slightly puzzled as to why the drives have to be thinner now. Surely there's not LESS space inside the intel MacBook Pros? What have they increased the size of? Are the batteries bigger? Are there bigger heatsinks for the CPU and GPU?
Originally posted by nagromme
There might not even be a MacBook, just different kinds OF MacBook.
MacBook Pro, MacBook Express, MacBook Extreme, MacBook Nano, MacBook Mini, MacBook Quad, MacBook Plus, MacBook SE/30, MacBook U2 Edition... it's hard to say where it could end. Now we can never be sure there's not a new category of laptop just around the corner.
The Quinton M edition, surely!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Looking at the take apart shots, I still can't see why they need a thinner CD/DVD drive unless they've made the case thicker above and below the drive and strengthened the casing to stop it from warping. Which would be a good thing as I tend to bend laptop gradually.
What they've done, is to make the lid thicker in order to accommodate the camera. Correspondingly, they have thinned the base to keep the overall thickness the same. that gives less room for a drive.
I imagine that Apple has been in contact with manufacturers who will be producing 8x DL recorders in the new format. It's just too bad that they weren't ready in time for the intro.
I don't want to steal a photo from O'Grady's site, though it's tempting to do so because there are so many in his article, but I'll just point you to photo #19, where he has the old PB on top of the new MBP. You have to scroll down a bit.
You can see that the MBP is slightly wider, but that the base is thinner, and the lid is much thicker.
I got into arguments about why I didn't think Apple would put a camera into the lid.
The MBP shows why.
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/20..._pictures.html
If all the pics aren't here, it's because he seems to have moved them to his blog on ZDnet, here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=102
EDIT:
It seems as though you can get directly to that pic from this link:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?page_id=126