I'm sure the software was far more basic back then too.
Yes, it was, but it gave me some perspective on people's beliefs about how much CPU speed they need and fail to recognize the importance of disk speed.
This is only part of the equation. I'm certain that many will end up liking the new Mac Book but I'm just a certain its performance will be a disappointment for many. There is a real need for snappy CPU's for users that might otherwise find this laptop to be ideal.
I doubt consumers buying an ultra portable are going to be disappointed with performance. lawyers, academics, writers, etc don't need performance in Word.
People don't understand the new MacBook. Apple traded off CPU performance to get rid of the fan, shrink the chassis, and keep a long run time with small batteries. That's what most consumers want.
Apple understands that most users do absolutely nothing that requires a fast CPU. For those users, a Core i7 CPU in a notebook computer is like a 75hp motor on their lawn mower. Web surfing, word processing, email, watching videos, playing music, and maybe the occasional Sodoku or solitaire game isn't going to strain the CPU in the new Macbook; and that's about all that most users do. They are not playing first person shooters, doing CGI rendering, or using their notebook for CAD work.
I doubt consumers buying an ultra portable are going to be disappointed with performance. lawyers, academics, writers, etc don't need performance in Word.
Those are the same arguments made in support of Chromebooks. I'd venture to say most home users don't do any more with their computer than what Fred Maxwell mentions.
For the vast majority ease of use, fast boot times, malware-proofing and long battery life are a whole lot more important than whether it can efficiently run Photoshop. The new MacBook is more than most would ever need IMHO and makes a great choice.
I am a Ph.D. molecular biologist but most people would consider me an amateur computer user. I do not edit 4K videos or play computer games, nor do I use everyone’s favorite productivity tool, GeekBench, every day. I use my computer for the usual office suite of programs, for web access, DNA sequence handling programs and 3D molecular modeling with PyMOL. Even while manipulating very large protein models on a 2010 MacBook Air, PyMOL rarely shows any lag. If I had a computer that was ten times faster, I wouldn’t notice as long as I didn’t run GeekBench. I value a small laptop for commuting, travel, and use at work where I can easily move from office to labs and conference rooms scattered over a large institute with WiFi access throughout. As long as I can keep an adapter on my desks at home and at work for large external monitors, the new MacBook may be an ideal computer for my “amateur” uses.
Those are the same arguments made in support of Chromebooks. I'd venture to say most home users don't do any more with their computer than what Fred Maxwell mentions.
For the vast majority ease of use, fast boot times, malware-proofing and long battery life are a whole lot more important than whether it can efficiently run Photoshop. The new MacBook is more than most would ever need IMHO and makes a great choice.
The ball is now more than ever in Apple's court to provide daily use software that is as CPU efficient as other options. And spinning beach balls in Safari and long app open times elsewhere NOT related to underpowered CPU are often written off as underpowered Mac problems by the general public who don't go to forums for the answers to such things. One can definitely happily use this processor for much work, but only if the apps are at least functioning with good efficiency. Since many folks use the supplied Apple apps for their simple needs it's important that Apple starts realizing the real life responsiveness of these apps are their yardstick for their hardware's performance.
Is this a laptop only enhancement? I recently bought a Retina iMac with a combo SSD/spinning disk drive. Do I get anything out of this new standard?
After your update to 10.10.3, check your System Report and see what it says. It probably says (basically) no. I think Apple would have identified the new SSDs when the iMac 5K was released, which seems like ages ago.
Right you are. Under NVMExpress is says: "This computer doesn't contain any NVMExpress devices. If you installed NVMExpress devices, make sure they are connected properly and powered on." Thanks.
After seeing how slow web access has become, I don't think it matters how fast your Mac or ISP speed is. I can run all sorts of speedtests locally and to my ISP and everything looks reasonably fast (for a 2009 iMac). It's when it takes "forever" to load a web page that upsets me. I wish someone would come out with a web access speed test that stripped all the garbage off the page (no flash, minimal javascript, HTML5 video only, and absolutely NO ADS) to see how fast the new MacBook and others are for basic web browsing. Only then will we be able to compare new Macs with old ones.
Web slow downs:
1) logging into some websites (medical, banking, etc.) can take anywhere from 2 to 20 seconds, why?
2) just trying to completely load some websites can take 45 seconds and longer, why?
3) don't even mention the new ESPN website. when will they check browsers and switch to HTML5 instead of flash that never loads and runs properly?
4) why is it that almost all Apple websites load and run very fast compared to others?
Yes, most people don't do much more than check email, surf the web, and waste time of Facebook but just waiting for those websites to run quickly can cause more headaches that worrying about how fast your Mac is.
Right you are. Under NVMExpress is says: "This computer doesn't contain any NVMExpress devices. If you installed NVMExpress devices, make sure they are connected properly and powered on." Thanks.
The questions you should be asking is 1) whether Apple baked in the capability to run NVMExpress hardware into their PCIe hardware in the latest iMacs (and Mac Pro), since you can't change that without replacing the logic board, and 2) whether Apple will allow an Apple approved service center to open your new iMac and replace the SSD with a NVME SSD when they are available for your hardware. I presume you bought AppleCare with your iMac 5K and wouldn't want to lose that by opening it up and replacing it yourself (not as easy as the old iMacs).
Or an expected response based on your trolling history?
The person I was replying to implied this protocol; the topic of this thread, would negate the fact this machine doesn't have a very fast CPU and would in fact mean it is very fast
He is clearly wrong, hence my reply. There is an earlier AI thread detailing the benchmarking of the 12" which concludes its performance is "on par with 2011 MacBook Air".
I don't think it is trolling to correct errors of fact. Given it has been benchmarked, I don't think I need to have had extensive use of this machine to have an opinion on it's performance, speed wise.
My 15" MBPR is a very rapid machine, the 12" Macbook isn't.
Those are the same arguments made in support of Chromebooks. I'd venture to say most home users don't do any more with their computer than what Fred Maxwell mentions.
For the vast majority ease of use, fast boot times, malware-proofing and long battery life are a whole lot more important than whether it can efficiently run Photoshop. The new MacBook is more than most would ever need IMHO and makes a great choice.
Except the Macbook runs a real OS (not some crappy browser based Apps). And though many won't run Photoshop (or other more powerful software or even games) at least they have the option to. No such option with a Chromebook.
Come on! I started out on a 4MHz Z80 with 64 kilobytes of RAM.
I started out with a Commodore Vic 20! That was a long time ago and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Engadget had this to say: Even though Apple went with a less-powerful processor than on the current Air, this new model still delivers brisk boot-up times, quick disk speeds and fast everyday performance.
All the guy was saying is that the average user would notice the performance difference between the Mac Book and Apples other laptops. This is a real issue or observation.
Frankly I'm perplexed that people don't want to admit that Core M is THE LOWEST PERFORMANCE POINT for Intels current Broadwell line up. Everyone considering the Mac Book should address this fact before purchase.
After seeing how slow web access has become, I don't think it matters how fast your Mac or ISP speed is. I can run all sorts of speedtests locally and to my ISP and everything looks reasonably fast (for a 2009 iMac). It's when it takes "forever" to load a web page that upsets me. I wish someone would come out with a web access speed test that stripped all the garbage off the page (no flash, minimal javascript, HTML5 video only, and absolutely NO ADS) to see how fast the new MacBook and others are for basic web browsing. Only then will we be able to compare new Macs with old ones.
Web slow downs:
1) logging into some websites (medical, banking, etc.) can take anywhere from 2 to 20 seconds, why?
That relies upon the web sites server validating your password quickly. The local machine is seldom a problem here.
2) just trying to completely load some websites can take 45 seconds and longer, why?
Crap web sites with lots of ads are the usual culprit.
3) don't even mention the new ESPN website. when will they check browsers and switch to HTML5 instead of flash that never loads and runs properly?
Write them a letter! Flash should have died a long time ago.
4) why is it that almost all Apple websites load and run very fast compared to others?
Plenty of servers and well designed web sites make a huge difference. Plus Apple doesn't run ads.
Yes, most people don't do much more than check email, surf the web, and waste time of Facebook but just waiting for those websites to run quickly can cause more headaches that worrying about how fast your Mac is.
The interesting thing here is that I've been using my new MBP from time to time over my iPads cell connection. Page loads can be extremely fast even over LTE. So there is a significant impact, with respect to CPU speed, when it comes to rendering the pages you download. I know there are many trying to downplay the importance of CPU performance but I'd have to say they are mistaken, it is very important to the overall user experience.
Except the Macbook runs a real OS (not some crappy browser based Apps). And though many won't run Photoshop (or other more powerful software or even games) at least they have the option to. No such option with a Chromebook.
Not that it would matter to folks here in general but you're wrong. Chromebook users do have the option to use Photoshop.
That wasn't the point I was making anyway as I think you knew. It's that you don't need a whole lot of computing power, memory or on-board storage to handle the needs of the majority of home computer users. They don't do anything with them that requires all that much.
I started out with a Commodore Vic 20! That was a long time ago and has nothing to do with this discussion.
All the guy was saying is that the average user would notice the performance difference between the Mac Book and Apples other laptops. This is a real issue or observation.
Frankly I'm perplexed that people don't want to admit that Core M is THE LOWEST PERFORMANCE POINT for Intels current Broadwell line up. Everyone considering the Mac Book should address this fact before purchase.
People aren't denying the Core M's place in the line-up. People are, however, denying that it matters to 98% of the users who would consider a MacBook over a MBP.
I was surprised to see my sans-Retina MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) supports NVMExpress. Good thing I haven't put an SSD in this thing yet, only 16 GB RAM.
I was surprised to see my sans-Retina MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) supports NVMExpress. Good thing I haven't put an SSD in this thing yet, only 16 GB RAM.
What makes you think it does? Just because the NVMExpress appears on the left side panel of your system info? I think it appears for everyone and for most it says "You don't have any NVMe devices.." and will stay like that. :-(
First usage of chipsets supporting NVMe where from 2012 and I don't think they're baked in that early in MBP's. I'm pretty sure that even my mid-2014 MBP wouldn't support it...
Comments
Come on! I started out on a 4MHz Z80 with 64 kilobytes of RAM.
I'm sure the software was far more basic back then too.
I'm sure the software was far more basic back then too.
Yes, it was, but it gave me some perspective on people's beliefs about how much CPU speed they need and fail to recognize the importance of disk speed.
I doubt consumers buying an ultra portable are going to be disappointed with performance. lawyers, academics, writers, etc don't need performance in Word.
For the vast majority ease of use, fast boot times, malware-proofing and long battery life are a whole lot more important than whether it can efficiently run Photoshop. The new MacBook is more than most would ever need IMHO and makes a great choice.
I am a Ph.D. molecular biologist but most people would consider me an amateur computer user. I do not edit 4K videos or play computer games, nor do I use everyone’s favorite productivity tool, GeekBench, every day. I use my computer for the usual office suite of programs, for web access, DNA sequence handling programs and 3D molecular modeling with PyMOL. Even while manipulating very large protein models on a 2010 MacBook Air, PyMOL rarely shows any lag. If I had a computer that was ten times faster, I wouldn’t notice as long as I didn’t run GeekBench. I value a small laptop for commuting, travel, and use at work where I can easily move from office to labs and conference rooms scattered over a large institute with WiFi access throughout. As long as I can keep an adapter on my desks at home and at work for large external monitors, the new MacBook may be an ideal computer for my “amateur” uses.
The ball is now more than ever in Apple's court to provide daily use software that is as CPU efficient as other options. And spinning beach balls in Safari and long app open times elsewhere NOT related to underpowered CPU are often written off as underpowered Mac problems by the general public who don't go to forums for the answers to such things. One can definitely happily use this processor for much work, but only if the apps are at least functioning with good efficiency. Since many folks use the supplied Apple apps for their simple needs it's important that Apple starts realizing the real life responsiveness of these apps are their yardstick for their hardware's performance.
No.
Based on your extensive usage of the new Macbook?
Or an expected response based on your trolling history?
Is this a laptop only enhancement? I recently bought a Retina iMac with a combo SSD/spinning disk drive. Do I get anything out of this new standard?
After your update to 10.10.3, check your System Report and see what it says. It probably says (basically) no. I think Apple would have identified the new SSDs when the iMac 5K was released, which seems like ages ago.
Right you are. Under NVMExpress is says: "This computer doesn't contain any NVMExpress devices. If you installed NVMExpress devices, make sure they are connected properly and powered on." Thanks.
After seeing how slow web access has become, I don't think it matters how fast your Mac or ISP speed is. I can run all sorts of speedtests locally and to my ISP and everything looks reasonably fast (for a 2009 iMac). It's when it takes "forever" to load a web page that upsets me. I wish someone would come out with a web access speed test that stripped all the garbage off the page (no flash, minimal javascript, HTML5 video only, and absolutely NO ADS) to see how fast the new MacBook and others are for basic web browsing. Only then will we be able to compare new Macs with old ones.
Web slow downs:
1) logging into some websites (medical, banking, etc.) can take anywhere from 2 to 20 seconds, why?
2) just trying to completely load some websites can take 45 seconds and longer, why?
3) don't even mention the new ESPN website. when will they check browsers and switch to HTML5 instead of flash that never loads and runs properly?
4) why is it that almost all Apple websites load and run very fast compared to others?
Yes, most people don't do much more than check email, surf the web, and waste time of Facebook but just waiting for those websites to run quickly can cause more headaches that worrying about how fast your Mac is.
Right you are. Under NVMExpress is says: "This computer doesn't contain any NVMExpress devices. If you installed NVMExpress devices, make sure they are connected properly and powered on." Thanks.
The questions you should be asking is 1) whether Apple baked in the capability to run NVMExpress hardware into their PCIe hardware in the latest iMacs (and Mac Pro), since you can't change that without replacing the logic board, and 2) whether Apple will allow an Apple approved service center to open your new iMac and replace the SSD with a NVME SSD when they are available for your hardware. I presume you bought AppleCare with your iMac 5K and wouldn't want to lose that by opening it up and replacing it yourself (not as easy as the old iMacs).
Based on your extensive usage of the new Macbook?
Or an expected response based on your trolling history?
The person I was replying to implied this protocol; the topic of this thread, would negate the fact this machine doesn't have a very fast CPU and would in fact mean it is very fast
He is clearly wrong, hence my reply. There is an earlier AI thread detailing the benchmarking of the 12" which concludes its performance is "on par with 2011 MacBook Air".
I don't think it is trolling to correct errors of fact. Given it has been benchmarked, I don't think I need to have had extensive use of this machine to have an opinion on it's performance, speed wise.
My 15" MBPR is a very rapid machine, the 12" Macbook isn't.
Except the Macbook runs a real OS (not some crappy browser based Apps). And though many won't run Photoshop (or other more powerful software or even games) at least they have the option to. No such option with a Chromebook.
All the guy was saying is that the average user would notice the performance difference between the Mac Book and Apples other laptops. This is a real issue or observation.
Frankly I'm perplexed that people don't want to admit that Core M is THE LOWEST PERFORMANCE POINT for Intels current Broadwell line up. Everyone considering the Mac Book should address this fact before purchase.
The interesting thing here is that I've been using my new MBP from time to time over my iPads cell connection. Page loads can be extremely fast even over LTE. So there is a significant impact, with respect to CPU speed, when it comes to rendering the pages you download. I know there are many trying to downplay the importance of CPU performance but I'd have to say they are mistaken, it is very important to the overall user experience.
If all else fails run an ad blocker.
That wasn't the point I was making anyway as I think you knew. It's that you don't need a whole lot of computing power, memory or on-board storage to handle the needs of the majority of home computer users. They don't do anything with them that requires all that much.
I started out with a Commodore Vic 20! That was a long time ago and has nothing to do with this discussion.
All the guy was saying is that the average user would notice the performance difference between the Mac Book and Apples other laptops. This is a real issue or observation.
Frankly I'm perplexed that people don't want to admit that Core M is THE LOWEST PERFORMANCE POINT for Intels current Broadwell line up. Everyone considering the Mac Book should address this fact before purchase.
People aren't denying the Core M's place in the line-up. People are, however, denying that it matters to 98% of the users who would consider a MacBook over a MBP.
I was surprised to see my sans-Retina MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) supports NVMExpress. Good thing I haven't put an SSD in this thing yet, only 16 GB RAM.
I was surprised to see my sans-Retina MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) supports NVMExpress. Good thing I haven't put an SSD in this thing yet, only 16 GB RAM.
What makes you think it does? Just because the NVMExpress appears on the left side panel of your system info? I think it appears for everyone and for most it says "You don't have any NVMe devices.." and will stay like that. :-(
First usage of chipsets supporting NVMe where from 2012 and I don't think they're baked in that early in MBP's. I'm pretty sure that even my mid-2014 MBP wouldn't support it...