Due to that recent bump you won't be seeing new hardware until after the first quarter anyway. In fact I see that bump as the primary indicator that Ivy Bridge hardware won't come until later in 2012.
That being said the report that was recently published was related to desktop Ivy Bridge processors, I'm not convinced that it covers laptop processors. Interestingly the desktop processors now have models in the 35 to 45 watt range which has very interesting implications for the Mini. however I'm getting side tracked here as I not sure the info we have reflects accurately upon the mobile processor Ivy Bridges. In case one is wondering yes I still think Intel will try to make a distinction between the two.
AS to what people want, we want Ivy Bridge! Seriously though if you have or make use of apps with any sort of demands on the GPU, then waiting for Ivy Bridge makes lots of sense as they will be real alternatives to MBP with discreet GPU's. In general the is the advice I give to anyone at the moment, if you don't need it now wait for Ivy Bridge. This processor will put a lot of power into very small computers.
As to non glare screens those are a thing of the past. Especially once Apple doubles the resolution of the screens putting a matte surface over such a panel would b e a total waste.
Other websites are now saying May 2012 with a possible form factor revision to be more like the MacBook Air.
I am sorry that I have to disagree about the non-glare screens. They are a problem (it does not matter whether on a MBP or a Win PC laptop) when used in the field as many photographers use them. All people want is the option. Let the purchaser make the choice.
As the "tock" cycle in Intel's Tick - Tock pattern, Ivy Bridge should be largely a process shrink (to 22nm) which will reduce power consumption (useful for a laptop) with a small clock speed increase. The graphics processor should benefit from the extra space on the die. Photoshop and some other apps which are written to take advantage of GPU processing should benefit from this.
Other websites are now saying May 2012 with a possible form factor revision to be more like the MacBook Air.
At least now we have leaked info with respect to the mobile line up.
Quote:
I am sorry that I have to disagree about the non-glare screens. They are a problem (it does not matter whether on a MBP or a Win PC laptop) when used in the field as many photographers use them. All people want is the option. Let the purchaser make the choice.
You can disagree but know this you are wrong. I'm speaking as someone who has a 2008 MBP with a matte screen. It isn't any more usable in the field than a machine with a glass screen. Further color reproduction sucks on such screen and the muddy appearance of the image isn't exactly conducive to precision photography.
I honestly believe that most people complain about the lack of a matte screen just have a mental block that doesn't allow them to honest appraise the glass screens for what they are. In my case it is probably the biggest mistake I made when getting my MBP.
Quote:
As the "tock" cycle in Intel's Tick - Tock pattern, Ivy Bridge should be largely a process shrink (to 22nm) which will reduce power consumption (useful for a laptop) with a small clock speed increase. The graphics processor should benefit from the extra space on the die. Photoshop and some other apps which are written to take advantage of GPU processing should benefit from this.
Cheers
Yes, the really big win is the much better GPU performance with little if any gain in power usage. The big question is just how much better will the GPU be when implemented in a Mac Book AIR. I'm seeing all sorts of reports with some that are extremely impressive. Much of this will depend upon the drivers and the actual screen resolutions shipped with the machines. So we can expect anywhere from 1.3 to 3X depending on the app, drivers and luck. That should drastically improve the AIRS.
At least now we have leaked info with respect to the mobile line up.
You can disagree but know this you are wrong. I'm speaking as someone who has a 2008 MBP with a matte screen. It isn't any more usable in the field than a machine with a glass screen. Further color reproduction sucks on such screen and the muddy appearance of the image isn't exactly conducive to precision photography.
I honestly believe that most people complain about the lack of a matte screen just have a mental block that doesn't allow them to honest appraise the glass screens for what they are. In my case it is probably the biggest mistake I made when getting my MBP.
I wonder if there is another way to go with this that will keep the clarity of the glass screens and solve some peoples problems with reflections. 20 years ago during my Physics degree we were playing around with antireflective coatings, the sort that are applied to telescope optics etc. Sure they have their problems, not very hard wearing, colour tint etc but maybe they have become more robust since then. Also the tint is mainly for reflected light - the transmitted light from the screen could be fixed with a color profile. You still get reflections but they are greatly reduced.
An even more promising option is the so called Moths Eye coating where microscopic bumps cause reflections to be all but eliminated. I know they are looking at it to improve solar cell efficiency. No idea how the transmitted light would affect the image though.
Hey I work for a company that once had a vacuum coating division. They are gone now and unfortunately being another division we never did interact much.
Technology has advanced rapidly in that field so who knows what can be done today. I would think that cost would be the biggest issue. Plus this results in a detour through the factory resulting in other inefficiencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themind
I wonder if there is another way to go with this that will keep the clarity of the glass screens and solve some peoples problems with reflections. 20 years ago during my Physics degree we were playing around with antireflective coatings, the sort that are applied to telescope optics etc. Sure they have their problems, not very hard wearing, colour tint etc but maybe they have become more robust since then. Also the tint is mainly for reflected light - the transmitted light from the screen could be fixed with a color profile. You still get reflections but they are greatly reduced.
An even more promising option is the so called Moths Eye coating where microscopic bumps cause reflections to be all but eliminated. I know they are looking at it to improve solar cell efficiency. No idea how the transmitted light would affect the image though.
The problem is no matter what Apple does somebody won't be happy. All screen technologies have issues so focusing on those issues as a reason not to buy XYZ machine is silly.
Technology has advanced rapidly in that field so who knows what can be done today. I would think that cost would be the biggest issue. Plus this results in a detour through the factory resulting in other inefficiencies.
Some of them really aren't cheap. LG makes some really bleh antiglare coatings. They're very aggressive and they cause a slightly glittery effect at times which is extremely annoying. Unfortunately they are making a lot of panels these days. Some of the companies I like the most aren't really turning out new panels (not that display quality is solely determined by the panel number in use).
Right now the standard slew as you call it is one stick. I really want to see the machines, especially the 15" variant, supporting more than one stick. I'm not sure what Intels chip set supports, but a minimum of 3, SATA 6 supporting blade slots would be nice. This would allow for a great deal of internal storage. It would also be nice if the blade packages could be a bit thicker for even more storage per stick.
Now that is a stretch. However in the long run Apple and Intel will have to address this as one [Thunderbolt] port really isnt enough. Unfortunately I haven't even heard of a hint that this will be supported in a laptop anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You have to admit, two Thunderbolt ports would make it sell like hotcakes. People formerly staunchly in the 15" Pro (provided it still exists if a 15" Air is released) camp would be swayed, I think.
I think "slew" meant the current range of capacity options: 64GB, 128GB, 256GB.
I think the idea of two SSD slots in a 15" MacBook Air makes sense. I don't see any chance of three SSD slots. Nor do I see any chance of a second Thunderbolt port on any MacBook Air -- at least not until Apple drop the USB ports, which I expect is still years away.
I think "slew" meant the current range of capacity options: 64GB, 128GB, 256GB.
I think the idea of two SSD slots in a 15" MacBook Air makes sense. I don't see any chance of three SSD slots.
It depends upon a couple of things. Space isn't an issue in a 15" machine especially if the optical is deleted. So we have to look at what mobile chipsets will support. Frankly I'm not up to date here but in the past you only got two fast SATA ports.
That is if Apples stays with SATA. Apple really should be leading the way here and move to a PCI express storage card standard. Then it is a question of free PCI Express ports.
Quote:
Nor do I see any chance of a second Thunderbolt port on any MacBook Air -- at least not until Apple drop the USB ports, which I expect is still years away.
If Apple sees demand for a second port it will happen on the pros. AIRs probably will remain single port TB machines for a couple of years. Again though that could change rapidly if there was demand for the extra port. As to USB it won't go away anytime soon. I can see Apple supporting at least one USB port for another ten years.
I'm certain that Apple has this vision of a single port As a connection to a port expander/monitor as a primary use for TB. The problem is many want to implement that technology for other uses. Eventually we will see a snowballing with respect to demand for the full performance of the port.
Comments
Due to that recent bump you won't be seeing new hardware until after the first quarter anyway. In fact I see that bump as the primary indicator that Ivy Bridge hardware won't come until later in 2012.
That being said the report that was recently published was related to desktop Ivy Bridge processors, I'm not convinced that it covers laptop processors. Interestingly the desktop processors now have models in the 35 to 45 watt range which has very interesting implications for the Mini. however I'm getting side tracked here as I not sure the info we have reflects accurately upon the mobile processor Ivy Bridges. In case one is wondering yes I still think Intel will try to make a distinction between the two.
AS to what people want, we want Ivy Bridge!
As to non glare screens those are a thing of the past. Especially once Apple doubles the resolution of the screens putting a matte surface over such a panel would b e a total waste.
Other websites are now saying May 2012 with a possible form factor revision to be more like the MacBook Air.
I am sorry that I have to disagree about the non-glare screens. They are a problem (it does not matter whether on a MBP or a Win PC laptop) when used in the field as many photographers use them. All people want is the option. Let the purchaser make the choice.
As the "tock" cycle in Intel's Tick - Tock pattern, Ivy Bridge should be largely a process shrink (to 22nm) which will reduce power consumption (useful for a laptop) with a small clock speed increase. The graphics processor should benefit from the extra space on the die. Photoshop and some other apps which are written to take advantage of GPU processing should benefit from this.
Cheers
Other websites are now saying May 2012 with a possible form factor revision to be more like the MacBook Air.
At least now we have leaked info with respect to the mobile line up.
I am sorry that I have to disagree about the non-glare screens. They are a problem (it does not matter whether on a MBP or a Win PC laptop) when used in the field as many photographers use them. All people want is the option. Let the purchaser make the choice.
You can disagree but know this you are wrong. I'm speaking as someone who has a 2008 MBP with a matte screen. It isn't any more usable in the field than a machine with a glass screen. Further color reproduction sucks on such screen and the muddy appearance of the image isn't exactly conducive to precision photography.
I honestly believe that most people complain about the lack of a matte screen just have a mental block that doesn't allow them to honest appraise the glass screens for what they are. In my case it is probably the biggest mistake I made when getting my MBP.
As the "tock" cycle in Intel's Tick - Tock pattern, Ivy Bridge should be largely a process shrink (to 22nm) which will reduce power consumption (useful for a laptop) with a small clock speed increase. The graphics processor should benefit from the extra space on the die. Photoshop and some other apps which are written to take advantage of GPU processing should benefit from this.
Cheers
Yes, the really big win is the much better GPU performance with little if any gain in power usage. The big question is just how much better will the GPU be when implemented in a Mac Book AIR. I'm seeing all sorts of reports with some that are extremely impressive. Much of this will depend upon the drivers and the actual screen resolutions shipped with the machines. So we can expect anywhere from 1.3 to 3X depending on the app, drivers and luck. That should drastically improve the AIRS.
At least now we have leaked info with respect to the mobile line up.
You can disagree but know this you are wrong. I'm speaking as someone who has a 2008 MBP with a matte screen. It isn't any more usable in the field than a machine with a glass screen. Further color reproduction sucks on such screen and the muddy appearance of the image isn't exactly conducive to precision photography.
I honestly believe that most people complain about the lack of a matte screen just have a mental block that doesn't allow them to honest appraise the glass screens for what they are. In my case it is probably the biggest mistake I made when getting my MBP.
I wonder if there is another way to go with this that will keep the clarity of the glass screens and solve some peoples problems with reflections. 20 years ago during my Physics degree we were playing around with antireflective coatings, the sort that are applied to telescope optics etc. Sure they have their problems, not very hard wearing, colour tint etc but maybe they have become more robust since then. Also the tint is mainly for reflected light - the transmitted light from the screen could be fixed with a color profile. You still get reflections but they are greatly reduced.
An even more promising option is the so called Moths Eye coating where microscopic bumps cause reflections to be all but eliminated. I know they are looking at it to improve solar cell efficiency. No idea how the transmitted light would affect the image though.
Technology has advanced rapidly in that field so who knows what can be done today. I would think that cost would be the biggest issue. Plus this results in a detour through the factory resulting in other inefficiencies.
I wonder if there is another way to go with this that will keep the clarity of the glass screens and solve some peoples problems with reflections. 20 years ago during my Physics degree we were playing around with antireflective coatings, the sort that are applied to telescope optics etc. Sure they have their problems, not very hard wearing, colour tint etc but maybe they have become more robust since then. Also the tint is mainly for reflected light - the transmitted light from the screen could be fixed with a color profile. You still get reflections but they are greatly reduced.
An even more promising option is the so called Moths Eye coating where microscopic bumps cause reflections to be all but eliminated. I know they are looking at it to improve solar cell efficiency. No idea how the transmitted light would affect the image though.
The problem is no matter what Apple does somebody won't be happy. All screen technologies have issues so focusing on those issues as a reason not to buy XYZ machine is silly.
Technology has advanced rapidly in that field so who knows what can be done today. I would think that cost would be the biggest issue. Plus this results in a detour through the factory resulting in other inefficiencies.
Some of them really aren't cheap. LG makes some really bleh antiglare coatings. They're very aggressive and they cause a slightly glittery effect at times which is extremely annoying. Unfortunately they are making a lot of panels these days. Some of the companies I like the most aren't really turning out new panels
Right now the standard slew as you call it is one stick. I really want to see the machines, especially the 15" variant, supporting more than one stick. I'm not sure what Intels chip set supports, but a minimum of 3, SATA 6 supporting blade slots would be nice. This would allow for a great deal of internal storage. It would also be nice if the blade packages could be a bit thicker for even more storage per stick.
Now that is a stretch. However in the long run Apple and Intel will have to address this as one [Thunderbolt] port really isnt enough. Unfortunately I haven't even heard of a hint that this will be supported in a laptop anytime soon.
You have to admit, two Thunderbolt ports would make it sell like hotcakes. People formerly staunchly in the 15" Pro (provided it still exists if a 15" Air is released) camp would be swayed, I think.
I think "slew" meant the current range of capacity options: 64GB, 128GB, 256GB.
I think the idea of two SSD slots in a 15" MacBook Air makes sense. I don't see any chance of three SSD slots. Nor do I see any chance of a second Thunderbolt port on any MacBook Air -- at least not until Apple drop the USB ports, which I expect is still years away.
I think "slew" meant the current range of capacity options: 64GB, 128GB, 256GB.
I think the idea of two SSD slots in a 15" MacBook Air makes sense. I don't see any chance of three SSD slots.
It depends upon a couple of things. Space isn't an issue in a 15" machine especially if the optical is deleted. So we have to look at what mobile chipsets will support. Frankly I'm not up to date here but in the past you only got two fast SATA ports.
That is if Apples stays with SATA. Apple really should be leading the way here and move to a PCI express storage card standard. Then it is a question of free PCI Express ports.
Nor do I see any chance of a second Thunderbolt port on any MacBook Air -- at least not until Apple drop the USB ports, which I expect is still years away.
If Apple sees demand for a second port it will happen on the pros. AIRs probably will remain single port TB machines for a couple of years. Again though that could change rapidly if there was demand for the extra port. As to USB it won't go away anytime soon. I can see Apple supporting at least one USB port for another ten years.
I'm certain that Apple has this vision of a single port As a connection to a port expander/monitor as a primary use for TB. The problem is many want to implement that technology for other uses. Eventually we will see a snowballing with respect to demand for the full performance of the port.