The Touch Bar on the MacBook Pro is well implemented, but serves no useful purpose

14567810»

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 189
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member
    DuhSesame said:
    Because there are people simply didn't like Windows, it's philosophy and that "easy-to-use" UI.  They couldn't even get the fonts correct.

    How's Wine "almost worst of the worlds all around?"  The only downside I can think of is making your system just as insecure as an Windows environment when you tried to run something, but that's it.
    I suppose if you leave the Mac and refuse Windows, then yes, it is your only choice.

    But, I guess what I mean is that while the 'guts' of Unix are much better, most users are going to be in a world of hurt with either Windows or Unix from a making it work and maintenance perspective. So, you get the rawness or crudeness of Unix along with having to run software emulation and Windows software anyway. I'm just thinking unless you had some special reason to do so, you may as well just go Windows at that point.

    DuhSesame said:
    Begging a GTX1080 inside MacBooks won't solve anything, he just pretend it sounds like a good idea.  But if Tim said yes, I'm sure they can drop couple hundred dollars on their products, no reason to sold their core m laptop $1299.
    There must be something in-between what they use and a GTX1080. I agree that at some point, these super-performance laptops aren't really laptops any longer. But, I'm talking about stuff more like going quad-core, or 6-core, including the ports, going above 16GB RAM or things like that. It might not be a good choice across the product line, but it would make sense to have one high-end level laptop with such things for the pros.

    DuhSesame said:
    The reason for the major OEM to choose 4K is because standard resolutions costs less to produce.  Even is a sharper display, it only makes a difference when you're using it from 16 to 12 inches.  Other than that, it just wastes power.
    Oh yeah, agreed... but I wasn't talking about the screen. See above. (Personally, I'd give up some resolution in some of these modern devices to gain some performance. Retina is nice, but starts to become a bit of a waste at some point, especially on devices where you're 12+ inches away. But, my eyes are getting older too... so maybe I'd appreciate it more if I were younger. :)

    DuhSesame said:
    It's more about performance.  Intel hits the wall two times recently with both Haswell and Coffee Lake, both of them are power hogs that caused most laptop to throttle, and lasts more than one generation.  At least with their own silicon, the power consumption can be well controlled.
    What I don't get is that while you call these chips 'power hogs' they use the same or less power than previous generations that these laptops seemed to be able to cool. So, either something else is cause the issue, or they've also reduced cooling capacity in the laptop designs. What I'd rather see is the cooling capacity of something like the mid-2000s MBPs with a current generation CPU.... at least in a higher end model. There would probably be enough space in there to also increase the battery to offset things like the controller to get over 16GB RAM or such, too.

    But, my point was that I doubt we'll Apple's A series chips keep leaping in performance every generation anymore either. They'll also have to go more cores and more power to make speed jumps (if people expect them). Intel's issues are partly their own, but I think a good part physics at this point.

    DuhSesame said:
    cgWerks said:
    Are the majority of Apple's customers pro users?
    That idea would put someone in a loop forever: "I didn't like the products, but the majority likes it.  Since I'm a pro user but majority aren't, therefore it's definitely not pro".  With that thought, you can against every products that went popular.
    My point was that true pro machines aren't supposed to be aimed at the masses. The pro users will always be a minority of use-cases. Apple seems to have wanted to make a pro laptop aimed more at sales quantity than use-case. That's part of the problem I'm talking about. While a company always cares somewhat about sales numbers, Apple used to make machines that were more targeted at use-case than what the marketing department would think optimal.
  • Reply 182 of 189
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,722member
    cgWerks said:

    k2kw said:
    I'm happily looking forward to the next 5 years when I expect the introduction of A series laptops running a macOS that looks and feels more and more like iOS.
    That’s not happening. Why would switching macOS to ARM have anything to do with how it “looks and feels”?
    Because a lot of iOS developers are clueless about the UI design practices Apple so strongly suggested for so long. And, it seems Apple's internal people somewhat are as well. But, you have a point that this isn't so necessarily tied to ARM... it will happen anyway.
    What 3rd party developers do with their software is irrelevant to how macOS looks and feels. Why the macOS UI/UX designers would suddenly change anything because the OS is running on a different architecture is ridiculous and has no basis in reality. 
  • Reply 183 of 189
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member

    anome said:
    ... Along the lines of "If we already have that there, we can do this cool thing, too!"

    Of course, the iMac Pro has the T2 chip for the Secure Enclave etc, but neither TouchID nor a Touch Bar. ...

    I think you nailed it there. It was a, 'look what we can do' thing that missed a few stages in the planning process.

    But, as you say, while there might be dependencies (on T2 chip), there is no need for the TouchBar to be there (as it isn't on the iMac Pro).
  • Reply 184 of 189
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member
    fastasleep said:
    What 3rd party developers do with their software is irrelevant to how macOS looks and feels. Why the macOS UI/UX designers would suddenly change anything because the OS is running on a different architecture is ridiculous and has no basis in reality. 
    Somewhat, but there is a strong influence. For example, consider how much apps changed in their 'look' and UIs after iOS 7's 'flat' design change.
    And, the issue isn't as much what long-time macOS developers do (although, they change too), but what iOS developers do who decide to make a macOS version, or new developers to the platform do with the more cross-platform toolkits.

    I just don't want the Mac to end up like Windows where were were a zillion apps available, but only a dozen reasonably OK ones. Back in the day, there was a continuity and refinement to most Mac apps that really stood out. There has already been a lot of erosion of that, but I worry how much companies will make an macOS version as an afterthought to the iOS app.
  • Reply 185 of 189
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 283member
    cgWerks said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Because there are people simply didn't like Windows, it's philosophy and that "easy-to-use" UI.  They couldn't even get the fonts correct.

    How's Wine "almost worst of the worlds all around?"  The only downside I can think of is making your system just as insecure as an Windows environment when you tried to run something, but that's it.
    I suppose if you leave the Mac and refuse Windows, then yes, it is your only choice.

    But, I guess what I mean is that while the 'guts' of Unix are much better, most users are going to be in a world of hurt with either Windows or Unix from a making it work and maintenance perspective. So, you get the rawness or crudeness of Unix along with having to run software emulation and Windows software anyway. I'm just thinking unless you had some special reason to do so, you may as well just go Windows at that point.
    My reason being that Windows is huge, obsolete and chaotic...  For example they gave up many new features because backward compatibility, like the memory management and font rendering, which falls way behind than modern Unix-like OSes.
    cgWerks said:
    DuhSesame said:
    It's more about performance.  Intel hits the wall two times recently with both Haswell and Coffee Lake, both of them are power hogs that caused most laptop to throttle, and lasts more than one generation.  At least with their own silicon, the power consumption can be well controlled.
    What I don't get is that while you call these chips 'power hogs' they use the same or less power than previous generations that these laptops seemed to be able to cool. So, either something else is cause the issue, or they've also reduced cooling capacity in the laptop designs. What I'd rather see is the cooling capacity of something like the mid-2000s MBPs with a current generation CPU.... at least in a higher end model. There would probably be enough space in there to also increase the battery to offset things like the controller to get over 16GB RAM or such, too.

    But, my point was that I doubt we'll Apple's A series chips keep leaping in performance every generation anymore either. They'll also have to go more cores and more power to make speed jumps (if people expect them). Intel's issues are partly their own, but I think a good part physics at this point.
    Just realized that I made a typo.  What I really meant to say is "it has more to do than just performance".

    8th-gen thermals, they're not. they might look better in idle (if true, but probably worse), but it makes a huge difference if you put any workload.  Most new laptops have to redesign their thermal system and still performs badly.

    All of these throttles:
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-15-i7-8750H-GTX-1070-Max-Q-FHD-Laptop-Review.305426.0.html
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Gigabyte-Aero-15X-v8-i7-8750H-GTX-1070-Max-Q-Full-HD-Laptop-Review.296594.0.html
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-13-9370-i5-8250U-4K-UHD-Laptop-Review.279736.0.html

    While gaming laptops barely holds, they're very noisy and will burn.
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-ROG-Chimera-G703GI-i9-8950HK-GTX-1080-Full-HD-Laptop-Review.308366.0.html
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Alienware-15-R3-i7-7820HK-GTX-1080-Max-Q-Full-HD-Laptop-Review.261176.0.html
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-GT75-8RG-Titan-i9-8950HK-GTX-1080-Full-HD-Laptop-Review.303182.0.html

    14nm had its limit when comes to thermal, otherwise we won't be crying for 10nm.

    There are quiet few advantage if Apple decide to build Mac processors:  They have the control in power consumption to fit certain Mac, don't have to wait Intel to update their architecture or process (Intel haven't update their architecture for 3 years now, while every other catches up!) , and made softwares deeply optimized like iOS devices.  Even someday if they slowed down in performance gain, it still have better results than Intel.
    edited July 9
  • Reply 186 of 189
    anomeanome Posts: 1,090member
    cgWerks said:

    anome said:
    ... Along the lines of "If we already have that there, we can do this cool thing, too!"

    Of course, the iMac Pro has the T2 chip for the Secure Enclave etc, but neither TouchID nor a Touch Bar. ...

    I think you nailed it there. It was a, 'look what we can do' thing that missed a few stages in the planning process.

    But, as you say, while there might be dependencies (on T2 chip), there is no need for the TouchBar to be there (as it isn't on the iMac Pro).

    That wasn't what I meant to imply. Perhaps I phrased it badly. I meant that both the TouchID and Touch Bar each use the T1 chip in such a way that it wasn't seen as useful to implement them separately on the MacBook Pro.

    The T2 chip may have a different implementation, since neither TouchID nor the Touch Bar are on the iMac Pro. Implementing either of them on that form factor is problematic. I don't know Apple's rationale behind the decision, but partly it may be the shift away from TouchID to FaceID meant they didn't want to bother implementing it in the existing iMac chassis. As for the Touch Bar, while that is less of a problem in a keyboard with no physical connection to the device than TouchID would be, it might put the cost of the keyboard beyond what they deemed a reasonable level. Or maybe it used too much battery in the wireless keyboard.

    Soli
  • Reply 187 of 189
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member
    DuhSesame said:
    My reason being that Windows is huge, obsolete and chaotic...  For example they gave up many new features because backward compatibility, like the memory management and font rendering, which falls way behind than modern Unix-like OSes.
    Do you see much of those benefits if mostly running Windows apps via WINE anyway? I suppose the memory management, as it's like a bunch of independent VMs almost? (I don't know much about how WINE works.) Or, I guess another way of putting it... if you're running mostly Windows apps anyway, is it beneficial to do that on WINE on Unix vs a normal Windows environment? Or, is that you also use certain Unix apps directly?

    I know there are apps out there, but a lot of them are things like GIMP, which I'd not really want to use. The UI/windowing environment on both Windows/Unix lacks a lot from where the Mac is at, and I've yet to see that overcome.

    anome said:
    That wasn't what I meant to imply. Perhaps I phrased it badly. I meant that both the TouchID and Touch Bar each use the T1 chip in such a way that it wasn't seen as useful to implement them separately on the MacBook Pro.
    No, I just simply meant that Apple could have added Touch ID to a function key laptop, and skipped the Touch Bar.
  • Reply 188 of 189
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 283member
    cgWerks said:
    DuhSesame said:
    My reason being that Windows is huge, obsolete and chaotic...  For example they gave up many new features because backward compatibility, like the memory management and font rendering, which falls way behind than modern Unix-like OSes.
    Do you see much of those benefits if mostly running Windows apps via WINE anyway? I suppose the memory management, as it's like a bunch of independent VMs almost? (I don't know much about how WINE works.) Or, I guess another way of putting it... if you're running mostly Windows apps anyway, is it beneficial to do that on WINE on Unix vs a normal Windows environment? Or, is that you also use certain Unix apps directly?

    I know there are apps out there, but a lot of them are things like GIMP, which I'd not really want to use. The UI/windowing environment on both Windows/Unix lacks a lot from where the Mac is at, and I've yet to see that overcome.

    anome said:
    That wasn't what I meant to imply. Perhaps I phrased it badly. I meant that both the TouchID and Touch Bar each use the T1 chip in such a way that it wasn't seen as useful to implement them separately on the MacBook Pro.
    No, I just simply meant that Apple could have added Touch ID to a function key laptop, and skipped the Touch Bar.
    I mainly run native applications, with occasionally using Wine to run some others.  It’s just as fast (if not faster) and works well most of the time.
  • Reply 189 of 189
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 283member
    mcdark said:
    My 2012 15 incher is still my go to machine. To me still the pinnacle of Mac laptops. Dreading the day when she dies. At that point, hoping the 2015 one is still available.

    You have to assume Apple will be keeping statistics about how many 2015ers are being sold. And if it's a sizeable number, that should hopefully send a message about what we think of their crippled Jony Ive thin-at-all-cost design direction.

    And people said Unibody is better back then.
Sign In or Register to comment.