First look: Hands-on with Apple's all new 12" MacBook with Retina display

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hogan wrote: »
    High quality?  With that processor?   I'd love a MacBook Air that supported a Retina display but find myself increasingly pining for more horsepower on my existing MacBook Air.  This doesn't do it for me, it's underpowered.  So, I'm disappointed

    What does high-quality have to do with the performance of the processor? Do you know how much those processors from Intel (in lots of 1000)? If you need a faster performing processor then these highly portable machines are not for you, but most "PC" users are never hitting that wall these days.
  • Reply 82 of 101
    philipmphilipm Posts: 240member

    In the last quarter, Apple sold about 74.5-million phones and about 21-million iPads. I can’t find a breakdown of Mac sales by model; the total was 5.5-million.

     

    At the same time, Microsoft sold about 1-million Surfaces (approximately, they only report $$ not units).

     

    I don’t see Apple panicking over those numbers. About 5% of iPad sales, let along cutting a bit into Macbook sales.

     

    Still, good if things get a bit more competitive – though I see more interesting options in the Ultrabook space. The Surface has a huge downside of needing a kickstand, which makes it a laptop you can’t use on your lap. Why get that when you can get a real notebook for about the same price, about the same thickness and weight?

  • Reply 83 of 101
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

     

    The Thunderbolt 2 thing is definitely a bit weird.

     

    The (non-Retina) Airs have it, which means that the 13" Air will compete directly against the new MacBook in terms of performance for many people. And the Air is significantly cheaper.


    Spec the 13" Air and the MacBook to the same maximum memory and SSD, and they cost the same. (You can bump the Air a bit higher by choosing the 2.2GHz CPU.) The 13" rMBP with the 2.7GHz CPU, same memory and SSD also costs the same, but you can double RAM and SSD, as well as boosting the CPU speed past what the MacBook offers, if you want to spend more.

     

    The only way to get the Air (or 13" Pro) for less is to give up on either RAM or SSD capacity, or both, compared to the MacBook.

  • Reply 84 of 101
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post



    Price is good for work executives. I really wanted to buy this, but my primary monitor is a Thunderbolt Display and I have no way to connect sub-c to thunderbolt. Would I really go buy a POS monitor and throw away my Thunderbolt Display to use the new MacBook? I thought about buying a Mac mini to run the monitor, but then I have to duplicate all my software. I really wanted to get this, but the rMBpro is probably what I'll have to do.

    The Thunderbolt display accepts DisplayPort 1.2 input, right? From the MacBook page's tech specs:

     

    Charging and Expansion

          USB-C port with support for:

               Charging

               USB 3.1 Gen 1 (up to 5 Gbps)

               Native DisplayPort 1.2 video output

     

    I'm assuming the video output requires a USB-C to DisplayPort converter cable, but there you go.

     

    Reading the specs; it's not just fun, it reduces unneeded stress.

  • Reply 85 of 101
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,377moderator
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I don't see if they can do USB-C that far from the logic board they couldn't do other ports, or more USB-C ports that same way.

    I would have rather they used another USB-3 port (perhaps with an internal hub so you can power from either or both without issue) and then included a USB-C-to-3.5mm-jack adapter in the box (or even not at all — these are standards and will cheap enough to buy on Monoprice if Apple did that).

    That would have been a good route to go. While there's not much physical room to put more ports on one side without reducing the battery, they could have put a port on each side. They could perhaps have pushed the motherboard over to one side. Maybe that would unbalance the weight but it's not like there's much weight in it and the iPad does this. They should be pushing more for wireless headphones anyway. They could sell more wireless Beats this way.

    A USB-C connector for audio could also be justified by saying that it's digital audio vs analog so no chance of power line noise or degraded audio. I wonder if there's a limitation with the charging. If they had more ports, they'd have to make sure each one could take power input to charge the battery. Plugging a power charger into a USB port not designed for power input might do some damage. They could allow for this but they probably decided the benefit of the extra USB port wasn't enough.

    This is like the original Macbook Air:

    1000

    1x USB, 1x micro-DVI and 1x 3.5mm jack.

    They could make it thinner with 2x USB-C as they are only 1.8mm tall vs 3.5mm for the jack. People would just leave the adaptor attached to wired headphones, it would be tiny.

    I think they should redesign it with the extra port if it's possible before people can order it. Having two ports is far more useful than having a 3.5mm jack that a basic adaptor can go into. If headphones adapt to use USB-C, they can have USB-C on iOS devices and get rid of the 3.5mm jack there too. The same adaptor would work for analog headphones.

    The adaptor should be cheap too, no more than $19.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I'd guess it will be worse than the current Macs, but not an issue since 802.11ac @ 5GHz and MIMO over the old 802.11g has gotten so much better than it can afford a slight hit to the range.

    Phil mentioned the antenna was now built into the hinge so maybe it's like how the iPhone antenna is connected to the metal case.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I'm not sure how they'll get the price down to the $899 levels eventually...

    ARM would be a good start.

    Yeah that would be one way to do it. The people this laptop is designed for probably wouldn't notice the switch, especially if they put in binary translation. Maybe it was designed to be ARM and Intel just convinced them otherwise.
  • Reply 86 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    steveh wrote: »
    The Thunderbolt display accepts DisplayPort 1.2 input, right?

    I forget how that works. I seem to recall some "one-way wonkiness" in how if one device is TB the other can only be DP, but it has be for a certain setup.

    I thought it was if you "PC" had TB it could run a display via DP, because TB supports DP, but if the display had TB, the "PC" also needed to have TB.
  • Reply 87 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    Marvin wrote: »
    The adaptor should be cheap too, no more than $19.

    Apple will be selling a $19 USB-C-to-USB-A adapters so I think would cost that from Apple since that where they like to price their minimum price for adapters. On Monoprice that would be one-dollar and change, if a gold plated USB 3.0 Type-A to USB 2.0 Type-A adapter is only $1.44.

    Maybe it was designed to be ARM and Intel just convinced them otherwise.

    My (early) hypothesis is this is the start of some major changes with the Mac Apple "PCs". First, we do need apps available which means we need an easy way for developers to update their apps with fat binaries for at least the Mac App Store. This probably means an announcement months before these devices launch. Without the Mac App Store there I don't think this would feasible for a smooth transition, but Apple can have these ARM-based machines only show what is in the MAS, even if they make everything else look the same.

    I also hypothesis that the reemergence of the MacBook with this Intel chip but no TB means the MBA is going anywhere, but may see future changes (although not likely this year if it was just updated with the new trackpad) as ARM-based machines. If not the MBA line, which will then copy the 12" MB in most ways, then in a new notebook brand from Apple that helps separate the Intel-based Macs from the ARM-based notebooks and desktops from Apple. Personally, I think the latter option isn't as good for customers, especially those that would be buying a low-cost Apple notebook running ARM.
  • Reply 88 of 101
    hoganhogan Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    if someone is in the market for an ultr portable, why on earth would you recommend a beefier, heavier pro? you're not making any sense.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    What does high-quality have to do with the performance of the processor? Do you know how much those processors from Intel (in lots of 1000)? If you need a faster performing processor then these highly portable machines are not for you, but most "PC" users are never hitting that wall these days.



    ?!  :) The performance of any device is a highly significant component of it quality, and how it performs routine tasks is impacted by the processor.  The MacBook doesn't have the engine to support my needs and those of many people I know who are in the market for a laptop offering the portability of a MacBook Air but with a better quality display that has now become standard.

  • Reply 89 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hogan wrote: »
    The performance of any device is a highly significant component of it quality, and how it performs routine tasks is impacted by the processor.  The MacBook doesn't have the engine to support my needs and those of many people I know who are in the market for a laptop offering the portability of a MacBook Air but with a better quality display that has now become standard.

    So you think a 65nm 3.6GHz Celeron desktop-grade processor is "higher quality" than a this 14nm 1.2GHz Broadwell Core-M with only 4.5W max? I guess you have that right to believe that is "high quality" but in a world beyond your personal imagination you'd be wrong. Do you know what the price difference is with going with these power efficient processors over less sophisticated options? Have you considered why these processors cost more and yet have slower clock speeds?
  • Reply 90 of 101
    solipsismy wrote: »
    So you think a 65nm 3.6GHz Celeron desktop-grade processor is "higher quality" than a this 14nm 1.2GHz Broadwell Core-M with only 4.5W max? I guess you have that right to believe that is "high quality" but in a world beyond your personal imagination you'd be wrong. Do you know what the price difference is with going with these power efficient processors over less sophisticated options? Have you considered why these processors cost more and yet have slower clock speeds?

    This is like comparing a Porshe flat 6 to Mustang V8. Is the Porshe lesser quality because the smaller engine and lower torque ratio?
  • Reply 91 of 101
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tommy0guns View Post





    This is like comparing a Porshe flat 6 to Mustang V8. Is the Porshe lesser quality because the smaller engine and lower torque ratio?

    Are we talking about the 996 and early 997 engines that were prone to IMS and RMS failure?

  • Reply 92 of 101
    hoganhogan Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    So you think a 65nm 3.6GHz Celeron desktop-grade processor is "higher quality" than a this 14nm 1.2GHz Broadwell Core-M with only 4.5W max? I guess you have that right to believe that is "high quality" but in a world beyond your personal imagination you'd be wrong. Do you know what the price difference is with going with these power efficient processors over less sophisticated options? Have you considered why these processors cost more and yet have slower clock speeds?



    :) Setting your pompous remark to the side because it seems you are upset that the Core-M could not possible satisfy my needs, the Core-M is a downgrade on my current MacBook Air which struggles under a heavy load. It's just the Broadwell equivalent of the Haswell Y line and if you read the reviews of the first PC that used it, the yoga 3 pro, most of the criticisms are levelled at performance (e.g. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/yoga-pro-3-review-broadwell-is-a-mixed-blessing/).  

     

    I'd really like a MacBook Air that supports a retina display and hoped I'd get it with a spec bump to boot.  For me, the MacBook is too much of a compromise.  Is that ok with you?

  • Reply 93 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hogan wrote: »
    Setting your pompous remark to the side because it seems you are upset that the Core-M could not possible satisfy my needs, the Core-M is a downgrade on my current MacBook Air which struggles under a heavy load.

    You failed to understand my point. If the machine doesn't suit your need then it's not the machine for you. That doesn't mean you condemn it as not being the machine for anyone else. It sounds like you need a MBP. I know I certainly do.
  • Reply 94 of 101
    hoganhogan Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    You failed to understand my point. If the machine doesn't suit your need then it's not the machine for you. That doesn't mean you condemn it as not being the machine for anyone else. It sounds like you need a MBP. I know I certainly do.



    I think you clearly failed to even read mine properly.  I said it didn't work for me. I was disappointed. And I even came to that conclusion without your intervention. Where did I mention anyone else?

  • Reply 95 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hogan wrote: »

    I think you clearly failed to even read mine properly.  I said it didn't work for me. I was disappointed. And I even came to that conclusion without your intervention. Where did I mention anyone else?

    You wrote, and I quote, "High quality? With that processor?"
  • Reply 96 of 101
    hoganhogan Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    You wrote, and I quote, "High quality? With that processor?"



    And the point still stands. The original poster said Apple had "doubled-down" on quality with the MacBook, and for me, one significant component of quality is actual performance.  I understand Trade-off's were made to shrink the MacBook and one compromise was on the processor. For me, that trade-off doesn't work, and I'm still awaiting a device that offers the portability of a MacBook Air with Retina display on which can handle my workload.  Hence I'm disappointed.

  • Reply 97 of 101
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    hogan wrote: »
    And the point still stands. The original poster said Apple had "doubled-down" on quality with the MacBook, and for me, one significant component of quality is actual performance.  I understand Trade-off's were made to shrink the MacBook and one compromise was on the processor.

    Then you're a fool to consider performance against an older shittier processor while completely ignoring the power needed to achieve that performance. For the rest of tech world performance per watt is important and Core-M are the most ideal processor for this size device... at least from Intel.
    For me, that trade-off doesn't work, and I'm still awaiting a device that offers the portability of a MacBook Air with Retina display on which can handle my workload.  Hence I'm disappointed.

    Then just get a fucking MBP!


    MacBook Pro (2015):
    • Height: 0.71 inch (1.8 cm)
    • Width: 12.35 inches (31.4 cm)
    • Depth: 8.62 inches (21.9 cm)
    • Weight: 3.48 pounds (1.58 kg)

    MacBook Air (2015):
    • Height: 0.11-0.68 inch (0.3-1.7 cm)
    • Width: 12.8 inches (32.5 cm)
    • Depth: 8.94 inches (22.7 cm)
    • Weight: 2.96 pounds (1.35 kg)
  • Reply 98 of 101
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    I'm amazed at how many are upset about the price. Um a lot of engineering went into this product. Doesn't that have to be paid for? It's not like Apple took the existing MBA design and just added a retina display.




    People forget that the lighter and slimmer something is, the more expensive it is. Add a Retina display that's hopefully ips or equivalent, and the price jumps. That really hot very large trackpad seems to cost more too, which is likely why it's not on the Macbook Air as well right now.



    Strange though, that there was no word on the 15" Macbook Pro.

     

     

    Not a good argument.

     

    The 11" MacBook Air is cheaper than the 13".

    The iPad mini is cheaper than the iPad Air 2.

    The iPhone 6 is cheaper than the iPhone 6+.

    The Apple Watch 38mm is cheaper than the Apple Watch 42mm.

     

    Maybe lighter and slimmer is cheaper after all.

  • Reply 99 of 101
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member

    Not a good argument.

    The 11" MacBook Air is cheaper than the 13".
    The iPad mini is cheaper than the iPad Air 2.
    The iPhone 6 is cheaper than the iPhone 6+.
    The Apple Watch 38mm is cheaper than the Apple Watch 42mm.

    Maybe lighter and slimmer is cheaper after all.

    You're comparing all the wrong things. I don't think you get it.
  • Reply 100 of 101
    melgross wrote: »

    Not a good argument.

    The 11" MacBook Air is cheaper than the 13".
    The iPad mini is cheaper than the iPad Air 2.
    The iPhone 6 is cheaper than the iPhone 6+.
    The Apple Watch 38mm is cheaper than the Apple Watch 42mm.

    Maybe lighter and slimmer is cheaper after all.

    You're comparing all the wrong things. I don't think you get it.

    Not so.

    All of the examples I gave showed that the lighter device was cheaper, thereby disproving your argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.