Apple's slimmer 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pros in production - report - Page 2

Goodbye!

I see nothing anti-Apple about his post.


Not financially viable. Just like with TB cables you'd need to have a controller chips in the dongle.



Apple has no history of including extra RAM simply because it's inexpensive. Since there OSes uses less RAM than competing systems I wouldn't expect anything drastic on that front.



I'm not expecting anything drastically thinner or lighter. The ODD which takes up 25% of the 13" MBPs internal space is fairly empty and light for its volume so even if you replace a portion of that space with more battery you could add weight.

I also expect it to follow the tapered design of the MBAs but be thicker, perhaps being only slightly thinner than they are now at their thickest point. It would still small volume, more portable machine but basic specs could be misleading if one only looks at a single metic.

I am torn about the SSD. I think they need the fastboot of the MBA but the capacity of a spinning disc is a feature many need internally. There are a couple options to have the best of bother worlds. an Apple hybrid 2.5" drive, or an SSD card + 2.5" drive.

But if you're going to move away from the RJ-45 jack so that an adapter is required then you have the option already available with the USB-to-ethernet adapter. The only thing it's lacking is USB3.0 so you can maintain gigabit speeds.

DigiTimes = Trolling times.
They have a very poor track record.

1) Is Ivy bridge designed motherboard ready?
2) Have intel started to supply Apple with Ivy bridge?
3) What about the GPU? Kepler is delayed. What about mobile 28nm AMD GPUs?
4) Is retina displays ready.

no
no
no
no

So... Trolling times is wrong again.

I am. When the current design came out 3.5 years ago, it was drastically thinner (and relatively lighter) than the competition in its class. Time to do it all over again.

I have money in hand, Apple! Bring forth the new 13" Pros.

We still need Ethernet, I work in IT, use my mac all the time, sometimes WIFI is just not an option, Data/Wire rooms, wifi just may not work. or when I needed to FTP 2 gig of data off a USB drive to a NAS, Gig eathernet or crossover worked best, I would have never gotten it done that quick over WIFI, IBM thinkpads kept the Modem long after the modem was dead to 99% of users, Apple please keep the Ethernet port till at least 75% don't have a use for it

This has been explained so many times by so many people that I will just let you review the various postings over the last few days.

A disk array and a monitor/hub. And no you can't do that over one link without suffering performance hits.

Hubs don't always work well and sometimes not at all. Besides who wants to carry a hub around when it costs Apple nothing to implement a port? Each chipset that Apple uses ends up with unused ports which is a waste.

Beyond that I think you must be one of the few that don't come up short of USB ports from time to time. It is a fairly common complaint with laptops in general.


So you are complaining about better screens?

With higher resolution screens we could see a regression in performance if IB does not get a bit of help.

You did see the comment about higher resolution screens did you not? Besides that 7 hours is for optimal usage and does not hold up for more demanding usage.

Actually just about everybody I know could use that arrangement. The magnetic drive for bulk storage and the SSD's for fast OS and app access. The whole idea with the 3 bays of SSD is to allow for easy and low cost adjustment to the amount of fast storage you do have. Frankly this is no different than having RAM slots that are sometimes not populated.

Because I have a laptop and I know what my current requirements are! Seriously 256GB is pretty puny these days even if you have a bulk storage drive. 512GB just covers you for the life of the machine.

So what do you care, you will buy bargain basement AIRs and then complain about one capability or another.

You did read the part about this being an expansion capability right? The goal would be a design that lets you plug in the LTE module of your choice when and if you need it. Now being Apple this would likely require a trip to the store but in the end it is the same thing an option that gives you LTE connectivity.

By the way I really do wish that we could rely upon WiFi but I find that it is not that wide spread where I'm at most of the time. LTE is just an option for the future.

We're long past that. Bye bye, Ethernet!

I remember something SJ said a few years ago: "Apple only needs 4 computers, one consumer laptop & desktop and one pro laptop and desktop. In doing that we can keep our A team on each product".

I think they may revert back to that strategy by keep the MBA & MBP models now the basic MB has gone. Applying the same logic I think they may keep the iMac as the consumer desktop and merge the Mac Mini & Mac Pro into one scalabe pro model which also acts as a small business server. I think someone said they could daisy chain the Mac Mini so you simply add more Mini's to get the processing power, hard drive, RAM, etc that you need - I've no idea if that is technically possible.

I'm talking about at the thickest point. You just can't get to much thinner on the chassis with the side mounted ports. You can probably have a slightly thinner bottom panel by reducing the bevel, use Gorilla Glass 2.0 to make it 20% thinner, use a thinner display and backlight arrangement, and use the milled top casing of the MBA to retain rigidity while increasing thinness. But those are all very, very small reductions in thickness. Even when added together I don't think they amount to much.

As previously noted that Ethernet port is 5/16th inch (8 mm) tall and is the largest single port interface in the system. Now that wasn't an issue when we had the ODD taking up just under 14 mm. But even with the ODD gone there is still an issue with the 35/45W TDP CPUs and dGPUs that will need airflow fo cooling. Part of this will be resolved with the ability to use the elongated MoBo that spans the back of the system along the air vents hidden between the display hinge but there is still a limit to the physics... as well as if ethernet can and should be removed at this time.


Currently they are 0.95" (24.1 mm), except for the 17" MBP which is 0.98" (2.50 mm). I'm expecting a reduction to only about 0.85-0.90" (21.59-22.86 mm) and for the 17" MBP to also be the same thickness as the smaller models. However, I'm expecting it to be tapered so that it not only feels thinner it's also taking up a lot less volume over the previous design.

Apple can actually afford the engineering teams to move their Mac products forward into the next decade. If nothing else iPad demonstrates that they can engineer new and desirable products.

Now the question is how much effort are they putting into these new MBPs. The machines could end up being just another spec bump or something really new and compelling. The rumors indicate a more respectable update, but we really don't know what that might be. However I can say this Apple needs a line of laptops that seriously out perform the AIRs. The AIRs simply compromise way to much with respect to CPU & GPU performance and will continue to as long as the design goal is ultra portability.

Rightfully this should be in another thread, but I'd have to say Apples laptop lineup is in great shape compared to the desktop line up. Apples desktops need to be completely refactored.

Cluster computing has been around for ages. Hardware is not the problem, getting people to write the software is. I suspect cluster computing will remain with those with a more pressing need than the average Mac user.

Grab a heat of aluminum and you will understand. My point is Apple can't go too thin on the 15" & 17" models without real concerns about structural strength. At least this is the case if the stick with Aluminum. So maybe the Ethernet connector isn't really the limiting factor.

I also suspect that you are right about taper. The taper could be far more dramatic than what we see in the AIRs. If they stick with milled Aluminum we could see more Agressive internal ribbing for increased strength. This is possibly the most interesting part about CNC process, they can basically machine a laptop to any orientation or design they want.

I remember when Apple was the leader in ethernet technology. Apple pro products had it as standard at least 5 years before PC. To bad that Apple don't want to be leaders anymore and haven't adopted 10Gbits adapters.

802.11ac with 3 antennas is actually faster the gigabit ethernet. In real world tests a bit over 1 gigabit. With ethernet you are lucky to get 800Mbit from a gigabit cable.

BTW. I was one of the few crazy people who had a firewire network at home. Great speed. Wonder if Thunderbolt supports networking. An optical thunderbolt network at home would be fun.

And top to bottom, they will all add up to a significantly thinner body. Sans Ethernet.

LTE would be nice too but that might overcook the Apple.

I think apples strategy will be to try and keep both pro and air lines alive to cater for different markets.

If you can attract people who value extra performance to pay a premium for the Pro models why not do so?

The airs will be built for the average consumer who wants maximum portability (i.e. light weight and a cheap price)

Pros will be willing targeted at people who will pay a premium for the extras. The questions are what extras will people be willing to pay for?

My guess is greater battery life, more ports, and faster processors, in that order. Therefore the logical thing to do with the Pro models is make them the same thickness all the way through in stead of tapered like the air. Use that extra thickness for larger batteries, more ports along the side and better cooling to allow you to use faster chips.

They will be a little heavier but will be attractive to many road warriors

I remember accidentally plugging the wrong ethernet cable into my Mac in order to do a PC-to-PC file. I was amazed that it could auto-sense the setup. Up until then I hadn't realized Auto-MDIX had been implemented. This made my life a lot easier.

Aluminum is quite strong; comparing it to the foil in your kitchen drawer is meaningless.


You had me at "internal ribbing."

So what? I wonder why everyone thinks that repeating this 1000 times makes it true.

Let's say the Thunderbolt Ethernet converter is $100. You're spending $2,000 on a laptop - how does $100 one way or the other make it "not viable'?

And if $100 is too much for you, you can get a USB-ethernet adapter for $20. For the vast majority of people, that's fast enough.

Cute; next could you expound on your theory that iOS 6 will be a fusion of Metro and jelly Beans?

Cheers

It's true because it's true. Just because the notebook cost more it means that adapters should be excessive so long as they are less than the cost of the device? What sense does that make?

And what sense does it make to buy 15x as much for the same result? Is there some sort of dick measuring that goes along with saying you're adapter is Thunderbolt?

No, that would be buying a mac in the first place, it seems.

I can understand arguments for getting rid of the optical drive. Is there some pressing reason to get rid of ethernet? Cost? Weight? Performance?

Its size gives the other ports an inferiority complex, hindering their performance.

No idea what they will do with the next round, I just hope they have a 17". I travel all the timedespite the size / weight I really like to have the screen for doing my Visio drawings, watching movies, and gaming all though I don't game much. Over all I see the 17 as a desktop replacement which I'm fine with. Where as i only use my DVD burner a few times a year mostly to burn backups in the middle east, it would be nice to have a full function laptop at least one more gen while TB matures a little. Since I have a Seagate Goflex for backups I can get TB now, but I just can't see myself taking a 27" cinema on the road with me, but they do have carrying cases, but man would it suck.

So? Wizard claimed it was not viable. That's clearly wrong. Expensive != not viable.

You then agreed, but added the caveat that it's not financially viable.

First, how the heck do you know that when prices for TB/Ethernet adapters have not been provided?

Second, even if it's 5-10 times the cost of a USB/Ethernet adapter, it's ridiculous to say that a $100-200 device makes a $2,000 to $3,000 computer "not financially viable".

As for the rest, you're free to use the $20 USB adapter. Some people complain that it's not fast enough, so my point was that if performance is an issue, you can still use a TB adapter. Anyone who is doing work of a nature that the USB/Ethernet adapter is too slow is probably not going to find $100 for a TB adapter to be a problem.

I know because I have a modicum of understanding of humanity and business. If I give you two options, one a Thunderbolt ethernet adapter that costs $100 and one that costs $10 with both achieving the same speed the only reasonable choice is to use the cheaper option. I don't even have to mention that if you get the Thunderbolt solution you won't be able to hook up a DisplayPort display because you only have the one port. and that with the USB option you have multiple ports to choose from.


So if you have a $50k car it's acceptable to you that floor mates cost $2,500 simply because they are less than the car? That logic is fucking ridiculous!

Why assume the new machines will only have one Thunderbolt port? IMO there should be two, minimum, and that's yet another way to differentiate them from the Airs.

Still, a Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter is overkill. A USB3 adapter should be plenty fast with minimal CPU overhead during data transfer.

I'd like that to happen, with a TB port on each side, but having too video out ports of the same type on a notebook is not common. Sure, TB is a lot more than video out but the question is could you have two external displays being used off two different TB ports that aren't directly daisy chained or are internally daisy chained with the second one having a bypass so it can be used before the primary? And what about Apple advertising 2xTB but having the aggregate of their performance only being 2x10 Gb/s? That sounds a bit complicated to me so I'm expecting only one TB port.

I wasn't talking about aluminum foil in the kitchen, rather I was talking about sheat metal that is used in industry. The point remains, make a large commuter too thin and you end up with structural problems. That is flexing and bending.

I suspect it is easy to have you, but there was no humor intended here. In fact Apple could go one step further and use honeycomb structures like the aircraft industry uses. The point is they need to address the structural issue in some manner.

I'm not sure what you problem is here. You have been told again and again that external adapters are not viable, yet each time you come back with ridiculous statements like this. Since you can't digest what is being written here I will have to assume you will never get it.

Cost has little to do with it. Again go back and read what has been repeated many times in these forums, the reason is already out there.

Well let's start with the $50 cable.

It is a big issue if it is additional hardware you have never had to purchase before. But that isn't what makes adapter not viable. Again learn to read for content.

And yet you still don't get it, speed and cost have little to do with external adapters not being viable.

I'll let Apple worry about the edge cases, but from a practical standpoint it seems odd to push a next-generation interconnect with only a single port; one which will often be occupied with a display.


Again, it's not a problem. I'm pretty sure Apple has that whole "structural engineering" thing under control, thanks.

Can you explain why?

Some people seem to think that if a Mac gains a touchscreen, their keyboards and mice will suddenly stop working. A touchscreen is fine as a supplemental input device. In many cases, it would be faster to click a button by touching the screen than using a mouse or trackpad. And if Mac OS gains built in support for multitouch screens, then it will be easier for developers and IT vendors to implement things like kiosks with large touch displays. Currently, these types of kiosks typically run on Windows PCs because of better driver support for those displays. These manufacturers are unlikely to spend any time on Mac drivers for their touch displays. And yes, you can hook up an iPad to a big screen TV, but the big screen will not have touch capability.

Let us hope that never happens. The day Apple tries to shoehorn touch support into OS X is the day they've jumped the shark, as MS already has with Windows 8.

I only recall support for 2x rather than it being truly resolution independent.


CNC is pretty awesome. I've read complaints about buckling and flex issues from people who drag their macbook pros around quite a lot (it's a laptop, it should be portable). I haven't seen them personally.


Apple makes design choices. It doesn't mean everyone must automatically agree with their judgement. I find the TB thing a bit awkward because people bring up things like adapters, and even if the dongle solution wasn't flawed, it's quite easy to tie up a single port. The TB chips used in the macbook pros are like that in the imac, meaning they should support two ports unlike the Air which uses a lighter chip.

I'm not sure what language you think you're using. In this context, 'viable' means 'practicable, capable of working'. Clearly an external Ethernet adapter is capable of working. So please explain once again why it won't work - and why anyone would sell a product that doesn't work?

Clearly, it's viable. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mane it non-viable, either.

At the rate Apple is adopting new technologies they need to update the OS once a year but on the other hand this accelerated pace makes new computers obsolete way too early. The build quality of Apple products should last 6+ years but the compatibility only around 3.


I don't know why no one has ever made a small ethernet cable port. They did it with scsi, firewire, usb, audio, AC power etc.

Don't worry, every Mac Book Pro will probably get an ethernet port. Only the ultra-low-voltage Core processors from Intel can fit in the thermal envelop of a diminutive "Air" thin case. The new MacBook Pros will be thicker than the Air, especially near the back, to accommodate a larger heat-sink for the regular-low-voltage Intel Core processor, and (on the 15") a dedicated GPU. There will be plenty of thickness to have that critical ethernet port.

You are trying to make him get it it but he never will because he's the same guy who replied to you so are you missing a serial port, floppies and scsi from the mac pro in another thread. How can he get it? I feel sad that you are wasting your time here, it's the nature of the medium that compels us to waste our time in such pointless arguments with strangers unfortunately, if you were talking face to face with him I am sure you d have said ah forget about a long time a go...

This is correct, they ve only opted for pixel doubling a la iOS to reduce complexity of development. That still leaves me wondering, if the new Mbps have much higher resolution panels and to be able to afford 2x without sacrificing that much screen real estate, that would still mean that almost all of the os font will still not allow the user to set a size for them they prefer. Which in turn makes me wonder how hard is it to just allow the user to just set the font size for such miniscule fonts as get info panel fonts, safari bookmarks, and settings fonts? It shouldn't be hard at all, it shouldnt be hard to allow me to choose at least a few set increments of fonts for the safari address bar or bookmarks. And who in all honesty here who's over forty would claim that they can easily read safari's address bar across apple's mac line up and wouldn't welcome an element of scalability to the fonts used therein?

I am also afraid that we might see 16:9 even in the 15" model which would be a damn shame IMO.

So you're another one who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'viable'?

Pray tell, what is it that makes Ethernet on a Thunderbolt/Ethernet adapter not viable?