With the mouse cursor one can perform very precise data selections and manipulations very quickly.
Now imagine that cursor is as big as a human hand in 1:1 size, and try to select some files on a cluttered desktop and move them into a folder with that hand size cursor...
Okay, I'm sitting in front of a Windows touchscreen computer right now. Let's try it out.
Yup, touch wasn't the best choice for that application. So I used the mouse. Which is still there. Adding touch capability to the screen did not force removal of the mouse. Or the keyboard.
Oops, hang on, gotta trigger a scene... I can either grab the mouse and navigate to the on-screen button or just hit the button with my finger on the screen. In this case just touching the screen is faster and more intuitive so I'll do that.
Lots of editors, both audio and video, add two kinds of controllers to their rigs -- faders and jog/shuttle. Not ONCE has anyone said "A jog wheel is a bad idea because it makes a lousy pointer" or "Physical faders are useless because you can't type with them." Right? Because they aren't used INSTEAD OF a mouse and keyboard, they're IN ADDITION to the mouse and keyboard. Some controllers are better at certain things than others. A fat finger makes a lousy precision pointer, but at the same time a mouse is lousy for pushing one fader up while pulling another one down (which I CAN do with a touch screen). Different tools for different tasks.
For many things you'll probably still want to use your mouse (or trackpad or trackball or whatever pointing device you prefer). For many other things, it's easier, faster or more intuitive to just touch the screen. They're not mutually exclusive, they're complimentary.
For many other things, it's easier, faster or more intuitive to just touch the screen or hit the keyboard.
There is mouse, there is keyboard and you add touch as a third user interaction level. Touch in its complimentary role you assign to it won't be more than just a gimmick. And would make the Macbook screens unnecessarily thicker. The idea behind the Metro interface was just that and we've seen the outcome of it. That created also the convertibles frenzy that pushed the PC industry several years backwards. Now with Surface Studio Microsoft strives to undo the damages it created with that convertibles frenzy under the management of Steve Ballmer.
As for the Flash Card slot, every other professional I know has a 250GB or 500GB card in there and uses it to store photos, video, or code. The internal drive is used for apps and scratch disk, and the Flash as a library.
SD cards are more often used in consumer cameras. Flash cards in professional cameras (because they're more rugged and I believe also faster - but SD is catching up). Apple used the SD card slot in their professional hardware. So there is something wrong with your statement.
You hit the nail on the head. Apple has had an SD slot for years and no one complained about it. People even used the thing Now, in its quest for thinness at any price, it is gone but some people have to defend the decision anyway. And don't even think about asking for a micro SD slot on the iPhone or you will be burnt at the stake in spite of their being no valid reason for not having one.
And yet these same people don't seem to complain about their cameras having slow connection speeds when plugged in, and/or slow or no wireless options for transfer.... The fact that so many people had to drop back and use sneaker-net to get the pictures from one device to another is IMHO unbelievable.... Sorry Apple dropped your sneaker-net option, but maybe you should go back to your camera maker and see if they will join the 20th century. Why in the world would you need two SD slots -- your camera already has one... just plug it in
Well, if my camera was made in the 21st century I'm not sure why I would want to go back in time.
As for two slots, well that would require using my camera! Ever thought about situations where you have the card and not the camera? Or SD cards that are not from a classic camera?
As for the Flash Card slot, every other professional I know has a 250GB or 500GB card in there and uses it to store photos, video, or code. The internal drive is used for apps and scratch disk, and the Flash as a library.
SD cards are more often used in consumer cameras. Flash cards in professional cameras (because they're more rugged and I believe also faster - but SD is catching up). Apple used the SD card slot in their professional hardware. So there is something wrong with your statement.
You hit the nail on the head. Apple has had an SD slot for years and no one complained about it. People even used the thing Now, in its quest for thinness at any price, it is gone but some people have to defend the decision anyway. And don't even think about asking for a micro SD slot on the iPhone or you will be burnt at the stake in spite of their being no valid reason for not having one.
And yet these same people don't seem to complain about their cameras having slow connection speeds when plugged in, and/or slow or no wireless options for transfer.... The fact that so many people had to drop back and use sneaker-net to get the pictures from one device to another is IMHO unbelievable.... Sorry Apple dropped your sneaker-net option, but maybe you should go back to your camera maker and see if they will join the 20th century. Why in the world would you need two SD slots -- your camera already has one... just plug it in
Well, if my camera was made in the 21st century I'm not sure why I would want to go back in time.
As for two slots, well that would require using my camera! Ever thought about situations where you have the card and not the camera? Or SD cards that are not from a classic camera?
From whatever it is from it is just a more modern version of a floppy disk.... and sneaker-net.
If it is from a camera (which makes up almost all of the "professional outrage" talk) -- if you have a card and not the camera you are likely at the office or home and not doing work -- and if you have a lot of weird connectors then a dock is the best answer. If you are on the road -- it is coming from your camera. I have asked many why they don't just plug their camera in and they say.... to slow.... and I take them at their word.... I use to use a DSLR and I found it slow but then I usually just am transferring a few photos and not in a rush so I would just let it copy normally across the wire (been 5 years since I used my DSLR) -- too bulky to carry around for casual photography.... I just find all the complaining that Apple has discarded "old standards" to be misplaced.... if the reason is that your camera cannot transfer fast then the blame is on the camera maker and Apple was just catching what the camera maker dropped.... but no more. But then a lot of the arguments about the MacBook Pro not being "pro" is a fraction of the "pro" users who have anointed themselves as standard bearers of what a pro is.... there are many professions that have no use for extraneous stuff like SD slots and "must have" 32GB or it is not pro. If the laptop is not for you or "your profession" then there are many other computer makers that are willing to sell you computer junk in the form of does everything for everyone ... but does nothing really that great.
As a "windows exile" (I have been dry for 8 years now ) and a developer, I find the Apple products well worth the price and will not be jumping back anytime soon.... if it costs more, it costs more.... I figure just being able to run macOS in itself to be well worth any difference in price..... then of course the hardware is usually superior as well.... a bonus....
As for the Flash Card slot, every other professional I know has a 250GB or 500GB card in there and uses it to store photos, video, or code. The internal drive is used for apps and scratch disk, and the Flash as a library.
It is very useful to have a computer without dongles and external drives hanging off of it. I am already placing an order for one, but I dreading carrying a HDMI, USB, and an external drive.
If folks would rather pay $150 for 256GB or $250 for 512GB for 90-95GB/s rather than $350 (256GB SSD) or $650 (512GB SSD) upgrade to get 1335.9 MB/s (BlackMagic Speed test 2015 MBP 13") I guess that's okay for them. It's only over an order of magnitude slower...and if you don't want the card to stick out you have to buy a more expensive microSD + caddy (around $40) or specialized SD cards.
If they had the 15" retina MBP the upgrade to 512GB (from 256GB) is only $300.
For the 2016 MBP the comparison is even more stark. The new SSDs average 2855 MB/sec.
But hey, why don't you buy the 2015 model and get the fastest 128GB SD card at 300MB/s read for $229. The microsdxc version from Sandisk is only $210 for 128GB and get 275MB/s. That's almost fast enough to be an order of magnitude slower.
Yep, every professional you know bought a relatively expensive 90-95MB/s SDXC or microSDXC card rather than a $30 SanDisk ultra fit (128GB) with 150MB/s sequential read speeds http://a.co/4nA7uY7 or the Samsung version http://a.co/b2Bq1TR.
Then you obviously don't use Pro Tools (the industry standard audio workstation) because it uses the number pad extensively. I have to carry around a wired keyboard because Apple removed the number pad from the wireless one.
The touch bar should be handy if Avid ever implements it. Logic will.
Thanks for the tip!
I gave up on separate number pads several years ago. I went through three. The first two didn't behave as expected. They duplicated the number keys above the QWERTY keys so they didn't work with Pro Tools. The third one worked, but he key quality was so poor it was unpleasant to use so I just started carrying around a wired Apple keyboard. That was a long time ago though so maybe it's time to take another look.
With the mouse cursor one can perform very precise data selections and manipulations very quickly.
Now imagine that cursor is as big as a human hand in 1:1 size, and try to select some files on a cluttered desktop and move them into a folder with that hand size cursor...
Okay, I'm sitting in front of a Windows touchscreen computer right now. Let's try it out.
Yup, touch wasn't the best choice for that application. So I used the mouse. Which is still there. Adding touch capability to the screen did not force removal of the mouse. Or the keyboard.
Oops, hang on, gotta trigger a scene... I can either grab the mouse and navigate to the on-screen button or just hit the button with my finger on the screen. In this case just touching the screen is faster and more intuitive so I'll do that.
Lots of editors, both audio and video, add two kinds of controllers to their rigs -- faders and jog/shuttle. Not ONCE has anyone said "A jog wheel is a bad idea because it makes a lousy pointer" or "Physical faders are useless because you can't type with them." Right? Because they aren't used INSTEAD OF a mouse and keyboard, they're IN ADDITION to the mouse and keyboard. Some controllers are better at certain things than others. A fat finger makes a lousy precision pointer, but at the same time a mouse is lousy for pushing one fader up while pulling another one down (which I CAN do with a touch screen). Different tools for different tasks.
For many things you'll probably still want to use your mouse (or trackpad or trackball or whatever pointing device you prefer). For many other things, it's easier, faster or more intuitive to just touch the screen. They're not mutually exclusive, they're complimentary.
For many other things, it's easier, faster or more intuitive to just touch the screen or hit the keyboard.
There is mouse, there is keyboard and you add touch as a third user interaction level. Touch in its complimentary role you assign to it won't be more than just a gimmick. And would make the Macbook screens unnecessarily thicker. The idea behind the Metro interface was just that and we've seen the outcome of it. That created also the convertibles frenzy that pushed the PC industry several years backwards. Now with Surface Studio Microsoft strives to undo the damages it created with that convertibles frenzy under the management of Steve Ballmer.
It's not a gimmick. It's really handy. Try it for a few days. You won't use it for everything but you will find that you prefer it for some things.
Maybe the things you do with a computer wouldn't benefit from touch so you don't see any benefit, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that it can be a real treat in many applications.
[...] Ive and company are not going to sell out all their weight and material saving for an ancient port that can be adapted to with a simple adapter.
Even though I agree with you, I think maybe you should let someone else handle the PR on this one. Referring to a USB-A port as "ancient" is a bit premature, doncha think? Hyperbole just alienates people.
Point taken, thanks, but it's still plenty damn old. What I was doing was adopting the point of view of an honest engineer. Imagine sacrificing your hard-won economizing and the integrity of your design to accommodate this lame duck port, no matter how used it is presently.
I'd lighten up, but I hate to see people like Marco Arment and others here still shilling for this port. I think this lack of understanding of the integrity of Apple's engineers could cause them to lose their appetite for working as hard as they do for future-perfecting their products.
[...] Ive and company are not going to sell out all their weight and material saving for an ancient port that can be adapted to with a simple adapter.
Even though I agree with you, I think maybe you should let someone else handle the PR on this one. Referring to a USB-A port as "ancient" is a bit premature, doncha think? Hyperbole just alienates people.
Point taken, thanks, but it's still plenty damn old. What I was doing was adopting the point of view of an honest engineer. Imagine sacrificing your hard-won economizing and the integrity of your design to accommodate this lame duck port, no matter how used it is presently.
I'd lighten up, but I hate to see people like Marco Arment and others here still shilling for this port. I think this lack of understanding of the integrity of Apple's engineers could cause them to lose their appetite for working as hard as they do for future-perfecting their products.
But anyway, point taken.
Yup, I'm one of those squarely on the side of pushing along adoption of USB-C as quickly as possible. I just recognize that the USB-A connector, despite its age, is still the most common and widely used computer interface in the world, and pushing it into the retirement home where it belongs won't be easy or popular. A little sympathy for the family is welcome even in cases of terminal patients!
Edit: Forgot to include thanks for recognizing the light-hearted, poke-in-the-ribs, tongue-in-cheek intent of my earlier comment. I know what you meant!
An honest (whatever that means) engineer/designer should put the user squarely in his/her sights and design around his/her needs.
In this case there was zero need to ditch your so called 'ancient' ports.
Transition, in my book, means gradual change.
I am not anti USB-C or anti thinness/lightness but compromises shouldn't be a large part of the final machine. When that happens you should rethink your design and how you got there.
Apple could have built the perfect transitional generation of MBPs. A full spread of present ports plus two USB-C ports. Hey, they could even have included a lightning port and let users connect their iDevices and have the touchbar displayed on a nice big screen. Not those miniscule icons.
Those 20-year-old USB ports have stuck around for so long because they are pretty darn good. USB-C is an advance but devices with A-type Connectors will not vanish overnight. There is no rush to phase them out because the market for them is so big. They will go, but in their own time. There is no need to push users onto new technology. Platter drives still serve a purpose. Make it available and the users will move onto it when market conditions allow. No fuss. No dongles. No problem. Can you see Ethernet going anywhere soon and how old is that?
They could have chosen not to solder those USB-C ports directly to the motherboard. Ditto RAM and SSD. They could have made one of the best Macs ever. The designer took decisions that compromised the machine in the name of unnecessary thinness and lightness. Thinness and lightness that nobody was demanding.
What we have now, are extremely expensive machines and I hope those USB-C ports are affixed in such a way as to resist the stress of constant use. You are stuck (by design!) with the RAM and SSD you purchase when you place your order, and should either of the three element's fail, you are definitely up a creek without a paddle. Oh! I forgot. That's why they have AppleCare!
They had other options too. What about the machine I just described PLUS this new one that makes a clean break with the (ehem) present, to jump feet first into the future?
Those 20-year-old USB ports have stuck around for so long because they are pretty darn good. USB-C is an advance but devices with A-type Connectors will not vanish overnight.
You’d be surprised what the average user cares about. C has a strong draw.
Those 20-year-old USB ports have stuck around for so long because they are pretty darn good. USB-C is an advance but devices with A-type Connectors will not vanish overnight.
You’d be surprised what the average user cares about. C has a strong draw.
You know. If we speak about average users and type A connectors, I have yet to hear a single complaint in first person. That's pretty good, don't you think? 20 plus years and not one single complaint! It's because it's a very well designed port. Lightning and USB-C are better (at least on paper) but we still have to see how they stand the test of time in the real world.
Those 20-year-old USB ports have stuck around for so long because they are pretty darn good. USB-C is an advance but devices with A-type Connectors will not vanish overnight.
You’d be surprised what the average user cares about. C has a strong draw.
You know. If we speak about average users and type A connectors, I have yet to hear a single complaint in first person. That's pretty good, don't you think? 20 plus years and not one single complaint! It's because it's a very well designed port. Lightning and USB-C are better (at least on paper) but we still have to see how they stand the test of time in the real world.
I never heard of any single complaint in the first person of all the other ports -- many of which Apple helped to execute. People don't generally complain about something they are familiar with because most people cannot imagine a world where newer standards improve things.... I am personally not that much interested in keeping old ports since all it takes is to order a bunch of cables from belkin to allow my devices to plug directly in -- no dongle for the most part. I like the idea that the four ports are all pretty well anything you want from them (USB-C, display port, Thunderbolt etc.).... If they had some of each, I can just imagine the complaints... not enough thunderbolt, or not enough of this or that....
Comments
There is mouse, there is keyboard and you add touch as a third user interaction level. Touch in its complimentary role you assign to it won't be more than just a gimmick. And would make the Macbook screens unnecessarily thicker. The idea behind the Metro interface was just that and we've seen the outcome of it. That created also the convertibles frenzy that pushed the PC industry several years backwards. Now with Surface Studio Microsoft strives to undo the damages it created with that convertibles frenzy under the management of Steve Ballmer.
As for two slots, well that would require using my camera! Ever thought about situations where you have the card and not the camera? Or SD cards that are not from a classic camera?
If it is from a camera (which makes up almost all of the "professional outrage" talk) -- if you have a card and not the camera you are likely at the office or home and not doing work -- and if you have a lot of weird connectors then a dock is the best answer. If you are on the road -- it is coming from your camera. I have asked many why they don't just plug their camera in and they say.... to slow.... and I take them at their word.... I use to use a DSLR and I found it slow but then I usually just am transferring a few photos and not in a rush so I would just let it copy normally across the wire (been 5 years since I used my DSLR) -- too bulky to carry around for casual photography.... I just find all the complaining that Apple has discarded "old standards" to be misplaced.... if the reason is that your camera cannot transfer fast then the blame is on the camera maker and Apple was just catching what the camera maker dropped.... but no more. But then a lot of the arguments about the MacBook Pro not being "pro" is a fraction of the "pro" users who have anointed themselves as standard bearers of what a pro is.... there are many professions that have no use for extraneous stuff like SD slots and "must have" 32GB or it is not pro. If the laptop is not for you or "your profession" then there are many other computer makers that are willing to sell you computer junk in the form of does everything for everyone ... but does nothing really that great.
As a "windows exile" (I have been dry for 8 years now
https://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&field-keywords=Nifty minidrive&linkCode=ur2&rh=i:aps,k:Nifty minidrive&tag=9to503-20&url=search-alias=aps&linkId=WW67TLE2QW4YNBVR
If they had the 15" retina MBP the upgrade to 512GB (from 256GB) is only $300.
For the 2016 MBP the comparison is even more stark. The new SSDs average 2855 MB/sec.
But hey, why don't you buy the 2015 model and get the fastest 128GB SD card at 300MB/s read for $229. The microsdxc version from Sandisk is only $210 for 128GB and get 275MB/s. That's almost fast enough to be an order of magnitude slower.
Yep, every professional you know bought a relatively expensive 90-95MB/s SDXC or microSDXC card rather than a $30 SanDisk ultra fit (128GB) with 150MB/s sequential read speeds http://a.co/4nA7uY7 or the Samsung version http://a.co/b2Bq1TR.
I gave up on separate number pads several years ago. I went through three. The first two didn't behave as expected. They duplicated the number keys above the QWERTY keys so they didn't work with Pro Tools. The third one worked, but he key quality was so poor it was unpleasant to use so I just started carrying around a wired Apple keyboard. That was a long time ago though so maybe it's time to take another look.
Maybe the things you do with a computer wouldn't benefit from touch so you don't see any benefit, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that it can be a real treat in many applications.
I'd lighten up, but I hate to see people like Marco Arment and others here still shilling for this port. I think this lack of understanding of the integrity of Apple's engineers could cause them to lose their appetite for working as hard as they do for future-perfecting their products.
But anyway, point taken.
Edit: Forgot to include thanks for recognizing the light-hearted, poke-in-the-ribs, tongue-in-cheek intent of my earlier comment. I know what you meant!
In this case there was zero need to ditch your so called 'ancient' ports.
Transition, in my book, means gradual change.
I am not anti USB-C or anti thinness/lightness but compromises shouldn't be a large part of the final machine. When that happens you should rethink your design and how you got there.
Apple could have built the perfect transitional generation of MBPs. A full spread of present ports plus two USB-C ports. Hey, they could even have included a lightning port and let users connect their iDevices and have the touchbar displayed on a nice big screen. Not those miniscule icons.
Those 20-year-old USB ports have stuck around for so long because they are pretty darn good. USB-C is an advance but devices with A-type Connectors will not vanish overnight. There is no rush to phase them out because the market for them is so big. They will go, but in their own time. There is no need to push users onto new technology. Platter drives still serve a purpose. Make it available and the users will move onto it when market conditions allow. No fuss. No dongles. No problem. Can you see Ethernet going anywhere soon and how old is that?
They could have chosen not to solder those USB-C ports directly to the motherboard. Ditto RAM and SSD. They could have made one of the best Macs ever. The designer took decisions that compromised the machine in the name of unnecessary thinness and lightness. Thinness and lightness that nobody was demanding.
What we have now, are extremely expensive machines and I hope those USB-C ports are affixed in such a way as to resist the stress of constant use. You are stuck (by design!) with the RAM and SSD you purchase when you place your order, and should either of the three element's fail, you are definitely up a creek without a paddle. Oh! I forgot. That's why they have AppleCare!
They had other options too. What about the machine I just described PLUS this new one that makes a clean break with the (ehem) present, to jump feet first into the future?
Which one would sell better?