I'm almost expecting Apple to lower the base frequency on the CPU though. Even 1.4 and 1.6 GHz would offer a huge advantage over the current CPU's. Save a few GHz here and there to save battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroRichie
Well here is some interesting news from cpu-world.com which should maybe ease some concerns. The GPU is not underclocked by default--this isn't to say Apple won't do this themselves, but it is at least interesting to see that Intel is not delivering them underclocked.
Two forthcoming Core i7 ULV dual-core processors, i7-2637M and i7-2677M, have 1.7 and 1.8 GHz base, and 2.8 GHz and 2.9 GHz Turbo Boost frequencies. This is 200 MHz higher than the frequencies of their predecessors, Core i7-2617M and i7-2657M. Default clock rate of the HD 3000 graphics on new chips stays the same, 350 MHz, although the maximum turbo frequency is increased to 1.2 GHz.
The interesting thing with respect to modern processors is that the base frequency isn't a big factor when you have Turbo Boost. The boosted speed gives you good performance until the processor overheats.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
Please read the thread I linked to at Ars. These are very technically literate people. They are yearning not for faster CPUs in their MBAs, they're wanting SSDs in their other Macs. Some being Mac Pros.
There certainly are users who are CPU constrained. I not saying that Apple should only make MBAs and quit making MBPs. But most users would be surprised how well they would do with a MBA.
Interesting article reporting that Intel are going to shift laptop cpu production towards ULV chips. I think this is a recognition by Intel that most laptop users are not cpu constrained.
As to crappy resolution the MBPs aren't that bad. In fact I'm wondering what you are talking about.
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800. That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800. That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Agreed. This baffled me about the new 13" MBP. It seems like it got the spec bump too but otherwise Apple could care less about the 13" Pro. It has a lower res. screen than the 13" Air, Intel HD3000 only, almost* useless ODD...
*I say almost useless because I rarely use discs for anything and basically all of my friends and family rarely use them either, and they are your typical PC consumer, not by any means a "power user".
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800.
If you are like most people you will sit in front of that MBA and blow up the font sizes to be the same as seen on other Macs.
Quote:
That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Without resolution independence higher pixel density does little good. Maybe you have exceptional eye sight but I'm often laughing my ass off when I see people using high resolution screens in public. They park their noses ten inches from the screen to see all that the screen has to offer. In the end you see the same people simply blowing everything up on the screen to make for comfortable use. In the end a13" screen is a 13" screen and until Mac OS can leverage higher pixel density those high resolution screens offer nothing in the way of additional real estate.
Although cost is obviously a factor governing any choice to include higher capacity SSDs in the MBA, is it even possible for Apple to offer a 512 Gb SSD in theSB MacBook Air when it launches? What is needed (20 Nm blades?) and does anyone make the necessary hardware yet?
If you are like most people you will sit in front of that MBA and blow up the font sizes to be the same as seen on other Macs.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
In the end a13" screen is a 13" screen and until Mac OS can leverage higher pixel density those high resolution screens offer nothing in the way of additional real estate.
Although cost is obviously a factor governing any choice to include higher capacity SSDs in the MBA, is it even possible for Apple to offer a 512 Gb SSD in theSB MacBook Air when it launches? What is needed (20 Nm blades?) and does anyone make the necessary hardware yet?
Here is what I understand, Apple has not validated any flash memory at a process node under 32nm. Or someplace around that number, the exact number does not matter as the point is they have not approved any of the bleeding edge nodes.
Further it is my understanding that Apple is taking far longer than they have in the past to validate the new flash chips on the market. Apparently it is taking Apple nine months or longer to approve the integration of new tech into it's products. Tech here being sub 30nm flash. That is a very long time and frankly a bit surprising but it might be due to greatly reduced reliability of flash at these small feature sizes.
Whatever is infect happening has obviously delayed flash upgrades to many of the iOS devices. To your question about AIR there are a number of factors at work here. The higher integration seen with SB might free up more board space for example. Higher density chips would of course help.
So to answer your question yes it is possible. The probability is much harder to nail down. The easy way for Apple to deal with this is to simply offer up an extra blade slot. In the end it is all economics.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
I'm not sure where your negative attitude comes from. Selling a lower resolution screen is not a negative if it keeps people from complaining about the size of controls and text on screen. Until Apple offers up some sort of resolution independence, the ultra high resolution screens are a burden to many.
When I do I still have the same issue. That is ultra small text is only useful for so long before it becomes a negative rather that a positive.
I do work a bit with text and databases. In both cases you run into a need for a wider screen, at least in my case it is a wider screen. Squishing your text down to half it's normal size is seldom a good approach.
The feeling I'm getting right now is that you are a young person with very good eye sight. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The feeling I'm getting right now is that you are a young person with very good eye sight. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line. I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line. I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
13" MBP sells in quantities far greater than the 13" MBA, and they only had enough components for 13? MBA at the time.
They had planned to offer the 13? MBA displays in the 13? MBP in the next revision in February but the the unprecedented success of the new MBAs made it impossible to source components for both machines.
They plan on going to double-resolution IPS panels for the next MBPs after Lion is launched and want the jump between the old and new designs to be as drastic as possible.
You don?t think that component sourcing can have limits?
You don?t believe the 13? MBA could be selling better than expected?
You don?t believe there will be a radical change to the MBP design after Lion?
You don?t believe the reports of HiDPI display options in Lion?
To so strongly exclude rational reasons without a firm counterargument will leave you only with irrational reasons leading to conspiracy theories and other dark alleyways of conjecture that ultimately lead nowhere.
They only had enough components for 13? MBA at the time
The unprecedented success of the new MBAs made it impossible to source components for both machines
They plan on going to double-resolution IPS panels for the next MBPs after Lion is launched
Apple has no problem sourcing components for any of their other devices, even when the iPad, iPhone, what-have-you vastly outsells their projections. Why should the MacBook X be any different? And the double-resolution IPS panel business is just a rumor. Please don't preach about firm counterarguments when you are presenting postulation as fact--and frankly, conspiracy theory (if you will) based on the fact that there's one big wallpaper in a developer preview of Lion.
Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line.
You don't sound hostile, I just frustrated that you don't grasp the issues some have with tiny high resolution screens in Mac OS. Now maybe I'm normally parking myself farther from the screen but I find tiny text to be tedious. This was an issue with me well before my need to wear corrective glasses.
Quote:
I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
Well I'm all for choice. In either case I'd much rather see some sort of resolution independence so that we can maintain usability of these screens for all users. As a side note I recently upgraded to an iPhone4, there the high resolution screen is fantastic. I'd really like the same experience on a Mac upgrade in the future. More importantly it is a requirement if resolution is double with the next go around.
There are two big issues. One as mentioned is the tedious nature of such displays. The other is the need to get back to WYSIWYG! I want a page of text on screen to reasonably represent a page on paper. Apple use to be good for this but no longer.
13" MBP sells in quantities far greater than the 13" MBA, and they only had enough components for 13” MBA at the time.
They had planned to offer the 13” MBA displays in the 13” MBP in the next revision in February but the the unprecedented success of the new MBAs made it impossible to source components for both machines.
They plan on going to double-resolution IPS panels for the next MBPs after Lion is launched and want the jump between the old and new designs to be as drastic as possible.
You are absolutely right. There is no other logical reason why Apple would short-change 13" macBook pro users.
Double resolution IPS panels for the next version of the MacBook Pro would be excellent. You are raising what is bound to become the next hottest topic to be debated on Apple fanboy websites. Assuming an anticipated release in January 2012, or as soon after Ivy Bridge is itself released, speculation should become rife around November.
While many users will want power without the weight, designing the right form factor will be essential. An IPS display, SSD drives fitted as standard in a MacBook Air chassis would be perfect. I'd like to a much slimmer version of the existing box, i.e. without the taper.
Comments
Well here is some interesting news from cpu-world.com which should maybe ease some concerns. The GPU is not underclocked by default--this isn't to say Apple won't do this themselves, but it is at least interesting to see that Intel is not delivering them underclocked.
Two forthcoming Core i7 ULV dual-core processors, i7-2637M and i7-2677M, have 1.7 and 1.8 GHz base, and 2.8 GHz and 2.9 GHz Turbo Boost frequencies. This is 200 MHz higher than the frequencies of their predecessors, Core i7-2617M and i7-2657M. Default clock rate of the HD 3000 graphics on new chips stays the same, 350 MHz, although the maximum turbo frequency is increased to 1.2 GHz.
The interesting thing with respect to modern processors is that the base frequency isn't a big factor when you have Turbo Boost. The boosted speed gives you good performance until the processor overheats.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
Please read the thread I linked to at Ars. These are very technically literate people. They are yearning not for faster CPUs in their MBAs, they're wanting SSDs in their other Macs. Some being Mac Pros.
There certainly are users who are CPU constrained. I not saying that Apple should only make MBAs and quit making MBPs. But most users would be surprised how well they would do with a MBA.
As to crappy resolution the MBPs aren't that bad. In fact I'm wondering what you are talking about.
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800. That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800. That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Agreed. This baffled me about the new 13" MBP. It seems like it got the spec bump too but otherwise Apple could care less about the 13" Pro. It has a lower res. screen than the 13" Air, Intel HD3000 only, almost* useless ODD...
*I say almost useless because I rarely use discs for anything and basically all of my friends and family rarely use them either, and they are your typical PC consumer, not by any means a "power user".
Are you really wondering what I am talking about? The 13" MBA has a native 1440 by 900, while the 13" MBP has a native 1280 by 800.
If you are like most people you will sit in front of that MBA and blow up the font sizes to be the same as seen on other Macs.
That's a huge difference in terms of screen real estate, and it seems to me that if you are labeling one machine "Pro" but giving it the lower resolution, you are doing it wrong. At the very least they should offer a Hi-Res option on the 13" MBP as they do for the 15".
Without resolution independence higher pixel density does little good. Maybe you have exceptional eye sight but I'm often laughing my ass off when I see people using high resolution screens in public. They park their noses ten inches from the screen to see all that the screen has to offer. In the end you see the same people simply blowing everything up on the screen to make for comfortable use. In the end a13" screen is a 13" screen and until Mac OS can leverage higher pixel density those high resolution screens offer nothing in the way of additional real estate.
If you are like most people you will sit in front of that MBA and blow up the font sizes to be the same as seen on other Macs.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
In the end a13" screen is a 13" screen and until Mac OS can leverage higher pixel density those high resolution screens offer nothing in the way of additional real estate.
You obviously don't do a lot of work in Excel
Although cost is obviously a factor governing any choice to include higher capacity SSDs in the MBA, is it even possible for Apple to offer a 512 Gb SSD in theSB MacBook Air when it launches? What is needed (20 Nm blades?) and does anyone make the necessary hardware yet?
Here is what I understand, Apple has not validated any flash memory at a process node under 32nm. Or someplace around that number, the exact number does not matter as the point is they have not approved any of the bleeding edge nodes.
Further it is my understanding that Apple is taking far longer than they have in the past to validate the new flash chips on the market. Apparently it is taking Apple nine months or longer to approve the integration of new tech into it's products. Tech here being sub 30nm flash. That is a very long time and frankly a bit surprising but it might be due to greatly reduced reliability of flash at these small feature sizes.
Whatever is infect happening has obviously delayed flash upgrades to many of the iOS devices. To your question about AIR there are a number of factors at work here. The higher integration seen with SB might free up more board space for example. Higher density chips would of course help.
So to answer your question yes it is possible. The probability is much harder to nail down. The easy way for Apple to deal with this is to simply offer up an extra blade slot. In the end it is all economics.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
I'm not sure where your negative attitude comes from. Selling a lower resolution screen is not a negative if it keeps people from complaining about the size of controls and text on screen. Until Apple offers up some sort of resolution independence, the ultra high resolution screens are a burden to many.
You obviously don't do a lot of work in Excel
When I do I still have the same issue. That is ultra small text is only useful for so long before it becomes a negative rather that a positive.
I do work a bit with text and databases. In both cases you run into a need for a wider screen, at least in my case it is a wider screen. Squishing your text down to half it's normal size is seldom a good approach.
The feeling I'm getting right now is that you are a young person with very good eye sight. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The feeling I'm getting right now is that you are a young person with very good eye sight. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line. I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line. I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
I am not sure I believe any of those things
- You don?t think the 13? MBP outsells the 13? MBA?
- You don?t think that component sourcing can have limits?
- You don?t believe the 13? MBA could be selling better than expected?
- You don?t believe there will be a radical change to the MBP design after Lion?
- You don?t believe the reports of HiDPI display options in Lion?
To so strongly exclude rational reasons without a firm counterargument will leave you only with irrational reasons leading to conspiracy theories and other dark alleyways of conjecture that ultimately lead nowhere.- They only had enough components for 13? MBA at the time
- The unprecedented success of the new MBAs made it impossible to source components for both machines
- They plan on going to double-resolution IPS panels for the next MBPs after Lion is launched
Apple has no problem sourcing components for any of their other devices, even when the iPad, iPhone, what-have-you vastly outsells their projections. Why should the MacBook X be any different? And the double-resolution IPS panel business is just a rumor. Please don't preach about firm counterarguments when you are presenting postulation as fact--and frankly, conspiracy theory (if you will) based on the fact that there's one big wallpaper in a developer preview of Lion.Not true on either account, but nothing that corrective surgery couldn't solve. I apologize if I am sounding negative or hostile, I just don't understand why Apple would offer a higher resolution in the Air than in their "Pro" line.
You don't sound hostile, I just frustrated that you don't grasp the issues some have with tiny high resolution screens in Mac OS. Now maybe I'm normally parking myself farther from the screen but I find tiny text to be tedious. This was an issue with me well before my need to wear corrective glasses.
I think whatever differences you and I have on this topic could be easily resolved with an option to upgrade the resolution on the 13" Pro, akin to what they offer on the 15" model.
Well I'm all for choice. In either case I'd much rather see some sort of resolution independence so that we can maintain usability of these screens for all users. As a side note I recently upgraded to an iPhone4, there the high resolution screen is fantastic. I'd really like the same experience on a Mac upgrade in the future. More importantly it is a requirement if resolution is double with the next go around.
There are two big issues. One as mentioned is the tedious nature of such displays. The other is the need to get back to WYSIWYG! I want a page of text on screen to reasonably represent a page on paper. Apple use to be good for this but no longer.
You are absolutely right. There is no other logical reason why Apple would short-change 13" macBook pro users.
Double resolution IPS panels for the next version of the MacBook Pro would be excellent. You are raising what is bound to become the next hottest topic to be debated on Apple fanboy websites. Assuming an anticipated release in January 2012, or as soon after Ivy Bridge is itself released, speculation should become rife around November.
While many users will want power without the weight, designing the right form factor will be essential. An IPS display, SSD drives fitted as standard in a MacBook Air chassis would be perfect. I'd like to a much slimmer version of the existing box, i.e. without the taper.
You are absolutely right. There is no other logical reason why Apple would short-change 13" macBook pro users.
Apple does a lot of things intentionally to drive consumers to higher-profit products.