Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
I don't have thoughts about the question you ask, but I hope they solve the image retention issue that still plagues these portables. In fact, because of this, I am not going to buy a MBP although I will soon need one.
- We need SSD storage prices to come down so that 512 becomes the base and 1TB optional
- We need integrated graphics to become a whole lot better so that discrete graphics (and the packing constraints they impose) are no longer necessary
- We need battery life to improve (10-12 hours)
- We want machines that are even thinner and lighter without sacrificing power
- We want 13" machines to sell between $1,000-$1,500 and 15" machines to sell at $1,500-$2,000. (Have you seen the cost of a 13" rMBP with 500 GB hard drive?)
I am sure, in time, all these things will come.
I wonder if a 15" iPad will ever replace the laptop computer? The question behind this is what is the future of the keyboard?
I guess we can expect a haptic keyboard to become part of the iPad reasonably soon. Assuming it works in the way we all hope it will and provide tactile feedback that enables speedier input / typing on touch screens, then perhaps touch screen devices will begin to supplant the laptop as we know it.
So maybe we are headed for an iPad world? If we are, screen sizes will have to grow.
But there's another important ergonomic factor here. Try holding an iPad 3 in your hands for a length of time and it starts to get heavy. Balance it on your lap or on a desk and it also becomes a bit clunky. The really clever thing about the clamshell laptop design is that the keyboard unit serves as a screen support. This format certainly has legs.
So assuming that the clamshell configuration has a future, perhaps we'll see devices with dual screens. One screen will serve as a traditional viewing device, the other as a key board or menu screen with haptic response. If you imagine two iPads facing each other - that could well be a future laptop configuration. Just an idea.
I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology. The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine. As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.
Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage. In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot. Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features. Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.
Many would see such a machine as a step backwards after all magnetic drives are so yesterday. I don't see it that way though, for me the goal is to reduce or eliminate the need to drag around external drives for document storage.
At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics. I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor. It will eventually happen though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology. The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine. As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.
This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.
Quote:
At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics. I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor. It will eventually happen though.
Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.
Quote:
Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage. In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot. Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features. Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.
At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.
Apple needs to stop using Rev. A products as write-offs though. They need to be a bit better in my opinion for the cost. Or perhaps the 13" retina should have been introduced first.
I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong. IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want. The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.
As to integrated GPUs, yes the difference in performance is real. However what I was keying on is when will they be good enough for me. Me being someone that expects a bit better than todays integrated solutions. HD 4000 might not be there yet but HD 5000 might be.
As to external storage the thing that kills me here is that the limited storage on machines like Apples AIRs is probably the number two reason why I reject the machines. The number one being the overall lack of decent processing power with both the GPU and the CPU considered. It is my hope that Haswell will address this issue of processor performance. Storage is a different animal of course so the question becomes how far will Apple go with the next rev of these machine. Doubling storage is not enough really.
Why is doubling not enough? Well I currently run a MBP with an old 200 GB drive with all of my media on an external drive. Even with those large files split off onto a different drive I still end up with to little free room on my machine. Obviously a normal person would want to avoid this on a new machine so at a minimal I'd want to see 2X or 400 GB. But it gets worst than that as i really need to run virtual machines for alternative operating systems and these OS'es eat up their own disk space. So in the end 400GB isn't really enough either. That is the SSD, I'd still like to be able to carry the equivalent of my external magnetic drive internally. So yeah a grab and go laptop is a fine idea but trying to do so with todays machines is asking a lot. One really needs the benefits of of SSD's these days for the performance gains but the lack of space is very significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.
Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.
At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, this isn't a situation that is common to Apple only, the whole industry does this. The first stepping of a new chip is always more expensive than latter even if the latter chips include improvements or bug fixes. Frankly the industry has operated this way for decades even before Apple was around. New technologies require early adopters willing to pay through the noise to have that technology. A year or two of high margins is need to pay for development cost and revs to the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Apple needs to stop using Rev. A products as write-offs though. They need to be a bit better in my opinion for the cost. Or perhaps the 13" retina should have been introduced first.
I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong. IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want. The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.
I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one. Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.
wizard69 - What I mean is they are not taking full advantage of the specs available and that is a simple issue. No excuse for not including at least an option to double the graphics memory on the $2,799 rMBP.
2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.
As far as SSD's go I think Apple could push a little bit harder. For example they own anobit now and frankly that technology should be combined with a PCI - Express to give us a card based SSD standard that would be good for a few years into the future. Frankly the card could look like regular PCI-Express cards but I'd prefer to see something more modern and compact. Apples blade concept is pretty good but they need to move to PCI-Express and support larger cards for desktops. In a nut shell Apple simply isn't innovating on the desktop and has left that for the laptop models.
RAM is another thing altogether. Here like in solid sate secondary storage a lot of research is taking place. Some may not like what we get, as most solutions would require soldered in parts, but for the majority the future solutions should lead to a big win.
Right now the perfect Mini would have a large SSD backed up by a bulk magnetic device. It would use 3D ram technologies to save space and increase bandwidth. An SSD based "disk' for speed with enough space. Ideally the main processor would have a GPU fast enough to make me happy, but I'm not convinced that will happen with Haswell. A Mac Book Pro would be similarly configured. 3D RAM to save space and increase bandwidth, a PCI Express based SSD.
**********************
As a side note I just updated Xcode. Just one of the doc sets came in at 558 MB in size which is probably before any decompression. Since i like to download all of the current doc sets it is pretty easy to see where some of my disk space goes to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one. Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.
Believe me there is no one more frustrated by Apples GPU configurations than me! However I look a the MBP with retina display and frankly i'm surprised that they managed to stuff as much tech as they did into that laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
wizard69 - What I mean is they are not taking full advantage of the specs available and that is a simple issue. No excuse for not including at least an option to double the graphics memory on the $2,799 rMBP.
2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.
Also include better CTO options.
The lack of build to order options is a problem but then again Apple is selling everything they make. It really looks like they have tried to balance power as in wattage against power as in performance in the retina MBP.
Is Apple limiting LG as a display supplier and moving towards Sharp?
As much as the Apple sites tend to spin this, there isn't a good way to predict it. Sharp has been through a lot of trouble in recent years, and LG is pretty much the largest in this space, especially in terms of IPS panels. Hitachi developed IPS initially, but they pulled out a few years ago as margins shrank.
As much as the Apple sites tend to spin this, there isn't a good way to predict it. Sharp has been through a lot of trouble in recent years, and LG is pretty much the largest in this space, especially in terms of IPS panels. Hitachi developed IPS initially, but they pulled out a few years ago as margins shrank.
They aren't always as consistent as I'd like. Other display oems use them too. I'm not sure how Apple seems to have the most problems with them. I've had screensavers fail to come on, and I've never experienced image persistence. The only place I've personally seen it in recent years has been imacs. I'm not sure why it has been so common. The 2011s didn't seem to have so many complaints. Many of the others did.
I want at least an option for the max amount of memory to be available in the next retina MacBook Pro. If not for (what is now) the $2,199 model than (what is now) the $2,799 model.
You have the iMac with the top card available in it, there is no excuse to only have 1 GB in the next MacBook Pro as with last time.
We sure are. The 650M has a max of 2 GB and I think by default the $2,799 should have had that if I already didn't make that clear in previous posts. So when the nVidia 700M series is released (740M and up) I hope they have at least one model with the max amount of memory on the best card that can be handled.
If that is a 750M, put 2 GB in there. If it is 4 GB, perhaps include that as an option but I doubt that is possible. I had a friend who did tell me that you need to be careful because some OEMs like to load up a lot of memory on a mediocre card and sell it as something amazing. Having said that, you couldn't put a GTX 660M in the rMBP because of the (I think) TDP.
I also hope the screen issues are resolved by that point and I think they will be.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
I don't have thoughts about the question you ask, but I hope they solve the image retention issue that still plagues these portables. In fact, because of this, I am not going to buy a MBP although I will soon need one.
To summarise some of the thoughts here:
- We need retina display sizes to come down
- We need SSD storage prices to come down so that 512 becomes the base and 1TB optional
- We need integrated graphics to become a whole lot better so that discrete graphics (and the packing constraints they impose) are no longer necessary
- We need battery life to improve (10-12 hours)
- We want machines that are even thinner and lighter without sacrificing power
- We want 13" machines to sell between $1,000-$1,500 and 15" machines to sell at $1,500-$2,000. (Have you seen the cost of a 13" rMBP with 500 GB hard drive?)
I am sure, in time, all these things will come.
I wonder if a 15" iPad will ever replace the laptop computer? The question behind this is what is the future of the keyboard?
I guess we can expect a haptic keyboard to become part of the iPad reasonably soon. Assuming it works in the way we all hope it will and provide tactile feedback that enables speedier input / typing on touch screens, then perhaps touch screen devices will begin to supplant the laptop as we know it.
So maybe we are headed for an iPad world? If we are, screen sizes will have to grow.
But there's another important ergonomic factor here. Try holding an iPad 3 in your hands for a length of time and it starts to get heavy. Balance it on your lap or on a desk and it also becomes a bit clunky. The really clever thing about the clamshell laptop design is that the keyboard unit serves as a screen support. This format certainly has legs.
So assuming that the clamshell configuration has a future, perhaps we'll see devices with dual screens. One screen will serve as a traditional viewing device, the other as a key board or menu screen with haptic response. If you imagine two iPads facing each other - that could well be a future laptop configuration. Just an idea.
I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology. The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine. As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.
Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage. In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot. Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features. Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.
Many would see such a machine as a step backwards after all magnetic drives are so yesterday. I don't see it that way though, for me the goal is to reduce or eliminate the need to drag around external drives for document storage.
At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics. I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor. It will eventually happen though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Bump again. I'd like to hear someone either agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you disagree, let's hear your thoughts on where the retina MBP will go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I don't think the retina MBP is going anywhere until they can ship the machine with an IGZO screen or other improved "retina" screen technology. The retina MBP is sort of like iPad 1 to me, that is a proof of concept machine. As such I learned my lesson with iPad 1, wait for the technology to mature.
This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.
Quote:
At some point Apple will likely go integrated only graphics. I don't think this will happen with Haswell but that is because of the lack of a clear performance picture for the Haswell processor. It will eventually happen though.
Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.
Quote:
Beyond that the MBP still needs far more secondary storage. In fact I see it as a mistake to offer a machine like the retina MBP without a conventional disk drive slot. Magnetic drives are still the only way to get the storage density required especially these days when the small SSDs can be filled to the brim just with apps and OS features. Now obviously the next generation of flash is about to arrive which should lead to denser storage but that is likely just a doubling of storage.
At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.
I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong. IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want. The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.
As to integrated GPUs, yes the difference in performance is real. However what I was keying on is when will they be good enough for me. Me being someone that expects a bit better than todays integrated solutions. HD 4000 might not be there yet but HD 5000 might be.
As to external storage the thing that kills me here is that the limited storage on machines like Apples AIRs is probably the number two reason why I reject the machines. The number one being the overall lack of decent processing power with both the GPU and the CPU considered. It is my hope that Haswell will address this issue of processor performance. Storage is a different animal of course so the question becomes how far will Apple go with the next rev of these machine. Doubling storage is not enough really.
Why is doubling not enough? Well I currently run a MBP with an old 200 GB drive with all of my media on an external drive. Even with those large files split off onto a different drive I still end up with to little free room on my machine. Obviously a normal person would want to avoid this on a new machine so at a minimal I'd want to see 2X or 400 GB. But it gets worst than that as i really need to run virtual machines for alternative operating systems and these OS'es eat up their own disk space. So in the end 400GB isn't really enough either. That is the SSD, I'd still like to be able to carry the equivalent of my external magnetic drive internally. So yeah a grab and go laptop is a fine idea but trying to do so with todays machines is asking a lot. One really needs the benefits of of SSD's these days for the performance gains but the lack of space is very significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
This happens with everything Apple. The first iphone lacked third party apps and 3G. The first macbooks had far more complaints. They did do a pretty good job with the first mac pro.
Some people are using these in areas that were once firm desktop territory. As long as the cost of entry is high, I don't think they'll cut some of the more demanding users as they still have the 13" rmbp available. You also have quite a spread in terms of gpu performance between integrated graphics and discrete gpus without hefty spending. The 680mx in the top imac and the HD 4000 remain in different stratospheres. I'd expect we need to aim a little further out before they completely homogenize the 15" notebooks. It would surprise me less if they did such a thing on a less expensive model. The entry 15" used NVidia's form of integrated graphics at one point. They were just integrated into the chipset rather than the cpu package.
At some level external storage is inevitable, but I can see how this would be irritating. You have thin notebooks, yet they lack storage. This reduces the ability to grab the device and go, which has always been the goal with mobile technology.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, this isn't a situation that is common to Apple only, the whole industry does this. The first stepping of a new chip is always more expensive than latter even if the latter chips include improvements or bug fixes. Frankly the industry has operated this way for decades even before Apple was around. New technologies require early adopters willing to pay through the noise to have that technology. A year or two of high margins is need to pay for development cost and revs to the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Apple needs to stop using Rev. A products as write-offs though. They need to be a bit better in my opinion for the cost. Or perhaps the 13" retina should have been introduced first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I think I mad that comment abut iPad one a little too strong. IPad one was an eyeopener as it demonstrated that tablets could be a real product that people would want. The proof of concept was very convincing to say the least.
I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one. Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.
2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.
Also include better CTO options.
As far as SSD's go I think Apple could push a little bit harder. For example they own anobit now and frankly that technology should be combined with a PCI - Express to give us a card based SSD standard that would be good for a few years into the future. Frankly the card could look like regular PCI-Express cards but I'd prefer to see something more modern and compact. Apples blade concept is pretty good but they need to move to PCI-Express and support larger cards for desktops. In a nut shell Apple simply isn't innovating on the desktop and has left that for the laptop models.
RAM is another thing altogether. Here like in solid sate secondary storage a lot of research is taking place. Some may not like what we get, as most solutions would require soldered in parts, but for the majority the future solutions should lead to a big win.
Right now the perfect Mini would have a large SSD backed up by a bulk magnetic device. It would use 3D ram technologies to save space and increase bandwidth. An SSD based "disk' for speed with enough space. Ideally the main processor would have a GPU fast enough to make me happy, but I'm not convinced that will happen with Haswell. A Mac Book Pro would be similarly configured. 3D RAM to save space and increase bandwidth, a PCI Express based SSD.
**********************
As a side note I just updated Xcode. Just one of the doc sets came in at 558 MB in size which is probably before any decompression. Since i like to download all of the current doc sets it is pretty easy to see where some of my disk space goes to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I know what you meant. Revision B is typically better. I couldn't stand anything below a 512GB ssd. I have one. Eventually they will cost less. It still doesn't take the place of ram. I can definitely feel when the system is low on memory and I need to close applications.
Believe me there is no one more frustrated by Apples GPU configurations than me! However I look a the MBP with retina display and frankly i'm surprised that they managed to stuff as much tech as they did into that laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
wizard69 - What I mean is they are not taking full advantage of the specs available and that is a simple issue. No excuse for not including at least an option to double the graphics memory on the $2,799 rMBP.
2 GB 650M would have been better equipped to run things on the retina display. The screen retention and HDMI issues however are another matter.
Also include better CTO options.
The lack of build to order options is a problem but then again Apple is selling everything they make. It really looks like they have tried to balance power as in wattage against power as in performance in the retina MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Is Apple limiting LG as a display supplier and moving towards Sharp?
As much as the Apple sites tend to spin this, there isn't a good way to predict it. Sharp has been through a lot of trouble in recent years, and LG is pretty much the largest in this space, especially in terms of IPS panels. Hitachi developed IPS initially, but they pulled out a few years ago as margins shrank.
Are LGs panels really as bad as people say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Are LGs panels really as bad as people say?
They aren't always as consistent as I'd like. Other display oems use them too. I'm not sure how Apple seems to have the most problems with them. I've had screensavers fail to come on, and I've never experienced image persistence. The only place I've personally seen it in recent years has been imacs. I'm not sure why it has been so common. The 2011s didn't seem to have so many complaints. Many of the others did.
You have the iMac with the top card available in it, there is no excuse to only have 1 GB in the next MacBook Pro as with last time.
Originally Posted by Winter
…there is no excuse to only have 1 GB in the next MacBook Pro as with last time.
Well, the laws of physics.
We're talking about GPUs, right?
We sure are. The 650M has a max of 2 GB and I think by default the $2,799 should have had that if I already didn't make that clear in previous posts. So when the nVidia 700M series is released (740M and up) I hope they have at least one model with the max amount of memory on the best card that can be handled.
If that is a 750M, put 2 GB in there. If it is 4 GB, perhaps include that as an option but I doubt that is possible. I had a friend who did tell me that you need to be careful because some OEMs like to load up a lot of memory on a mediocre card and sell it as something amazing. Having said that, you couldn't put a GTX 660M in the rMBP because of the (I think) TDP.
I also hope the screen issues are resolved by that point and I think they will be.