You could be right, but I don't see it as a smart move to simply kill off the MBA line. The brand seems too powerful for that. If they were going to only have the two lines I'd think it would have been smarter to call this a Retina MacBook Air and then sell it alongside the other MacBook Airs… just as they did* with the Retina and non-Retina MacBook Pros.
* Note: It's actually 'do' since that 13" non-Retina MacBook with the HDD and ODD is still for sale on their main store.
It seemed insane a few years back when the original MacBook line was killed leaving only MBA & MBP. Nothing surprises me anymore in the naming of Apple products.
It seemed insane a few years back when the original MacBook line was killed leaving only MBA & MBP. Nothing surprises me anymore in the naming of Apple products.
I hear you, but the MacBook was, by far, the weakest of the bunch and at that time only had the white polycarb option with the rounded design. This time, I think the MBA is very strong, perhaps even more popular than the MBP, even thought he MBP is my preferred machine.
I don't even need to read this article to tell you this is like putting a chainsaw engine in a dump truck - it'll run a lot longer on a tank a gas, but it won't get much work done!
Not a great analogy.
A dump truck Mac would be a Mac with tons of ports, expansion and gratuitous power for a variety of tasks.
This is more like a track bicycle running on a chainsaw engine. Not much horsepower, but sufficient to power the machine for its limited design envelope and small payload.
No one cares about Adobe, they're a crappy company. Pixelmator runs fine on ARM. Parallels and VMWare would be pointless. As for Microsoft, they already have a full-blown version of Office 2013 that runs amazingly well on ARM. It wouldn't be hard to add in the 2015 tweaks and sell that if necessary;
Professionals and serious amateurs care about Adobe. Obviously.
I hear you, but the MacBook was, by far, the weakest of the bunch and at that time only had the white polycarb option with the rounded design. This time, I think the MBA is very strong, perhaps even more popular than the MBP, even thought he MBP is my preferred machine.
I hear you too, but the original MB did get transitioned to the milled aluminum case design before being replaced by the MBA brand. It was a really nice machine before being replaced.
Remember that the very first MBA seemed unlikely to eclipse anything in its first iteration. Many here made very similar criticisms of its limited design. And they made good points. Rather than throw in the towel, Apple doubled down on the Air concept and produced the amazing 2nd gen products that spelled the end of the aluminum MB.
I would not be surprised to see a future iteration of the MB replace the MBA.
Hedging my bets, I wouldn't be surprised to see them coexist either.
I hear you too, but the original MB did get transitioned to the milled aluminum case design before being replaced by the MBA brand. It was a really nice machine before being replaced.
I don't think that's correct. They had the 13" polycarb and then introduced a 13" aluminium MacBook, which then became the 13" MBP on the next transition, joining the ranks with the 15" and 17" MBP. It did not become a MBA, and the MB line continued on for some time with the polycarb models.
I don't think that's correct. They had the 13" polycarb and then introduced a 13" aluminium MacBook, which then became the 13" MBP on the next transition, joining the ranks with the 15" and 17" MBP. It did not become a MBA, and the MB line continued on for some time with the polycarb models.
I'm pretty sure the 13" aluminum MB was the last and highest expression of the MB lineup. I bought one of these for my girlfriend. I can't speak to a transition of the design to MBP, I never owned a non-retina milled aluminum MBP, but did the non-retina milled MBPs have removable batteries? The aluminum MB was the last Mac with a removable battery, wasn't it? One of the design features that died with the MB? My impression was the non-retina MBP 13" was a scaled down non-retina MBP 15", rather than a rebadged MB 13" aluminum.
Either way, the aluminum MB was the latest design and best MB before the name was temporarily retired.
Edit: just took a look at the history page. It's true the plastic MB was updated a few more times after the Aluminum model, although even the final revision of the plastic MB doesn't look like it was technologically superior to the final aluminum model from 2 years prior. Probably why the MB line was dead to me after the aluminum model went away ????
I'm pretty sure the 13" aluminum MB was the last and highest expression of the MB lineup. I bought one of these for my girlfriend. I can't speak to a transition of the design to MBP, I never owned a non-retina milled aluminum MBP, but did the non-retina milled MBPs have removable batteries? The aluminum MB was the last Mac with a removable battery, wasn't it? One of the design features that died with the MB? My impression was the non-retina MBP 13" was a scaled down non-retina MBP 15", rather than a rebadged MB 13" aluminum.
Either way, the aluminum MB was the latest design and best MB before the name was temporarily retired.
In terms of price it was the highest, and best, well I prefer the milled aluminium quality, but after that single issuance in 2008 they then only sold polycarbs, with a casing change in 2009 to the aforementioned rounded polycarb design. They finally stopped updating them in mid-2010 but I know they stayed for say for at least another 18 months. That last update made it more capable than the aluminium 13" MB.
I don't recall mine having a user removable battery, although at least the last polycarbs didn't have a user removable battery either.
PDF is a platform primarily for online delivery of documents to be printed, and there are many alternative readers other that Acrobat, which is an application, and many other creation methods other than Acrobat.
I disagree. PDF is a platform for rendering pages independent of the OS/application/printer/monitor. If the layout of the page is critical, PDF is by far the best option. Can also be useful where color rendering is critical (such as CYMK color separation). And MacOS can display PDF natively.
FWIW, 90% of what a PDF can do, can now be accomplished with software from other than Adobe (MacOS, CutePDF, etc.)
What I find interesting is the move away from the paradigm that used to rule at Apple regarding product lines and diversity.
Jobs axed a lot of products when he returned to Apple and he used to say that it was important to choose which product should be made - but even more, which products should be terminated.
Now, we have two different iPhones, two different iPad, three different MacBook - that's three more versions of three products than when Jobs was CEO.
And this trend is actually a full blown strategy, just look at the watch. Again, three different versions, but with a LOT of different bracelets. And different buying experiences.
I think it's a sound strategy - and it defines the post-Jobs era.
Does that mean it could be charged in half the time, cause that might be useful?
It comes with a smaller power adaptor. The battery is very close to the one in the Air but charges using a 29W adaptor vs 45W in the Air. A bigger adaptor would charge faster but there's probably some maximum input power it will accept. If the MBP switches to a 65W USB C adaptor then if it works on the MB, it will charge quite quickly. As it ships, it'll likely charge slower than the Air.
We don't know exactly which Core M chips will land in shipping MacBooks, but the evidence suggests that it will be the 5Y70 (1.1GHz base clock) and 5Y71 (1.2GHz) models.
Leds improve all the time so that also saves some power. Of course 12" is smaller than 13 so that saves power too. Also, SSD memory is getting ever and ever smaller and thus lower and lower power, and with far more capacity for same cost.
Except that it 1) has no touchscreen, 2) has a built-in keyboard, and 3) runs a windowed OS. :roll eyes:
I can't read minds but I read that post as a comment on the hardware engineering and in that regard the statements are not unreasonable. Further there is nothing to keep someone from running windowed apps on a tablet in some form or another.
Sure, just as Apple used what it learned from Mac and iPod HW and SW to create the iPhone which then used what it learned from the iPhone HW and SW to create the iPad and help shape the Mac. That doesn't mean the new MacBook is tablet-esque. As previously noted, it has zero aspects that define a device as a tablet.
It depends upon what parts you look at. The tight integration of the batteries and the tiny motherboard with SoC technology are tablet like. Further they are tablet like only because that is where consumers first started to see the technology.
1) I've been suggesting that possibility for years here, and it hasn't been accepted well until recently. Most recently I speculated that the reason for the reemergence for the MB isn't to get rid of the MBA, but so that later on the MBA can be given the 12" MB form factor but with an A-series SoC running either Mac OS X or some Mac OS X-based OS.
I'd loved to see ARM based Macs from Apple myself. As long as it is full Mac OS with all the power user access that Mac OS currently has.
2) A Mac or Mac-like machine running an A-series chip would still not make it a tablet. A tablet can run Intel, AMD, ARM, or any other CPU architecture.
Certainly one should no confuse hardware for the operating system that runs on the hardware. We see this all the time with people that can't grasp that an ARM processor can power Mac OS, LINUX or whatever. Still with this discussion I think what people are getting at is that the hardware is tablet like in its size and customization.
Lots of blah blah blah for what is essentially the poorest performing Mac on sale at a price higher than the Airs. I hope that Apple stay away from these 'atom' CPUs in future. No one wants netbook Macs
This isn't an Atom processor, it is a Broadwell processor. As for performance. I'm expecting it to be very good considering it is a fanless design.
Comments
Apple took something as blah as the Intel Core M and put it into a bespoke product of beauty and purpose.
It seemed insane a few years back when the original MacBook line was killed leaving only MBA & MBP. Nothing surprises me anymore in the naming of Apple products.
I hear you, but the MacBook was, by far, the weakest of the bunch and at that time only had the white polycarb option with the rounded design. This time, I think the MBA is very strong, perhaps even more popular than the MBP, even thought he MBP is my preferred machine.
Not a great analogy.
A dump truck Mac would be a Mac with tons of ports, expansion and gratuitous power for a variety of tasks.
This is more like a track bicycle running on a chainsaw engine. Not much horsepower, but sufficient to power the machine for its limited design envelope and small payload.
Professionals and serious amateurs care about Adobe. Obviously.
I hear you too, but the original MB did get transitioned to the milled aluminum case design before being replaced by the MBA brand. It was a really nice machine before being replaced.
Remember that the very first MBA seemed unlikely to eclipse anything in its first iteration. Many here made very similar criticisms of its limited design. And they made good points. Rather than throw in the towel, Apple doubled down on the Air concept and produced the amazing 2nd gen products that spelled the end of the aluminum MB.
I would not be surprised to see a future iteration of the MB replace the MBA.
Hedging my bets, I wouldn't be surprised to see them coexist either.
I don't think that's correct. They had the 13" polycarb and then introduced a 13" aluminium MacBook, which then became the 13" MBP on the next transition, joining the ranks with the 15" and 17" MBP. It did not become a MBA, and the MB line continued on for some time with the polycarb models.
No, that's not it. The hard drive is often the only thing that's shut down when a system is in standby.
No, the HDD is put in standby mode when a system is in standby. In standby mode the HDD still consumes
This is not a negligible number. In fact it is big for a laptop.
http://superuser.com/questions/565653/how-much-power-does-a-hard-drive-use
I'm pretty sure the 13" aluminum MB was the last and highest expression of the MB lineup. I bought one of these for my girlfriend. I can't speak to a transition of the design to MBP, I never owned a non-retina milled aluminum MBP, but did the non-retina milled MBPs have removable batteries? The aluminum MB was the last Mac with a removable battery, wasn't it? One of the design features that died with the MB? My impression was the non-retina MBP 13" was a scaled down non-retina MBP 15", rather than a rebadged MB 13" aluminum.
Either way, the aluminum MB was the latest design and best MB before the name was temporarily retired.
Edit: just took a look at the history page. It's true the plastic MB was updated a few more times after the Aluminum model, although even the final revision of the plastic MB doesn't look like it was technologically superior to the final aluminum model from 2 years prior. Probably why the MB line was dead to me after the aluminum model went away ????
In terms of price it was the highest, and best, well I prefer the milled aluminium quality, but after that single issuance in 2008 they then only sold polycarbs, with a casing change in 2009 to the aforementioned rounded polycarb design. They finally stopped updating them in mid-2010 but I know they stayed for say for at least another 18 months. That last update made it more capable than the aluminium 13" MB.
I don't recall mine having a user removable battery, although at least the last polycarbs didn't have a user removable battery either.
PDF is a platform primarily for online delivery of documents to be printed, and there are many alternative readers other that Acrobat, which is an application, and many other creation methods other than Acrobat.
I disagree. PDF is a platform for rendering pages independent of the OS/application/printer/monitor. If the layout of the page is critical, PDF is by far the best option. Can also be useful where color rendering is critical (such as CYMK color separation). And MacOS can display PDF natively.
FWIW, 90% of what a PDF can do, can now be accomplished with software from other than Adobe (MacOS, CutePDF, etc.)
As for the MacBook, looks great but needs a bit more power, give it a year or two. The retina screen is a must for graphic design.
Jobs axed a lot of products when he returned to Apple and he used to say that it was important to choose which product should be made - but even more, which products should be terminated.
Now, we have two different iPhones, two different iPad, three different MacBook - that's three more versions of three products than when Jobs was CEO.
And this trend is actually a full blown strategy, just look at the watch. Again, three different versions, but with a LOT of different bracelets. And different buying experiences.
I think it's a sound strategy - and it defines the post-Jobs era.
It comes with a smaller power adaptor. The battery is very close to the one in the Air but charges using a 29W adaptor vs 45W in the Air. A bigger adaptor would charge faster but there's probably some maximum input power it will accept. If the MBP switches to a 65W USB C adaptor then if it works on the MB, it will charge quite quickly. As it ships, it'll likely charge slower than the Air.
We don't know exactly which Core M chips will land in shipping MacBooks, but the evidence suggests that it will be the 5Y70 (1.1GHz base clock) and 5Y71 (1.2GHz) models.
We do know that. Apple says the new MB will offer 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 GHz processors, see http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/
Of course 12" is smaller than 13 so that saves power too.
Also, SSD memory is getting ever and ever smaller and thus lower and lower power, and with far more capacity for same cost.
Overall it looks a very cost effective offering.
That seems to be excessive.
It depends upon what parts you look at. The tight integration of the batteries and the tiny motherboard with SoC technology are tablet like. Further they are tablet like only because that is where consumers first started to see the technology.
Certainly one should no confuse hardware for the operating system that runs on the hardware. We see this all the time with people that can't grasp that an ARM processor can power Mac OS, LINUX or whatever. Still with this discussion I think what people are getting at is that the hardware is tablet like in its size and customization.
This isn't an Atom processor, it is a Broadwell processor. As for performance. I'm expecting it to be very good considering it is a fanless design.