A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement. Smart phones and iPads have further lessened the need to bring along a laptop on trips. I finally gave my 2009 Macbook Pro to my niece because I never used it anymore. My phone and iPad got the job done when I travel. Then again I don't have any heavy duty needs while on vacation or short trips, usually email is sufficient. For this reason I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to re-release a 17" or dare I say 19" Macbook for all the people that rarely take it further than the backyard.
"Haswell's integrated GPU doubles the performance of Ivy Bridge, which is already good enough to run OS X."
That depends on which version of the Haswell processor you're referring to. If it's the Haswell GT3e processor with the embedded DRAM then I agree. Supposedly, that specific version of Haswell does have GPU performance equivalent to Nvidia's GT650 mobile GPU. If you're referring to any Haswell processor lower than that, then there's no guarantee of double performance. Yes, they will be faster than Ivy Bridge, but necessarily 2X faster.
Still, evolutionary improvement to CPU, moderately boosted integrated graphics & better power saving would make for an attractive upgrade.
It kind of seemed to be Apples conviction that the 17" is not the machine they want to build.
I hope that it comes back so there is more variation but a retina display on the 17" is questionable because it would be even more pixels to push.
The only real problem with the 17" MBP is the bulk of the thing. It's really awkward and heavy to move from desk to meeting room and back again.
The 15" retina knocked 540g off the weight, a 21% reduction. Taking 21% off the weight of the 17" MBP would make it noticeably lighter than the old 15" model. It would still be bulky, but the extra display size is worth it to me.
I find having 1200 vertical pixels to be a huge advantage when running mobile phone simulators. My external display is 1920x1080 and it can't display the iPhone 5 simulator full size (needs 1136 pixels).
Celebration of the obvious. The real surprise would be if Apple failed to announce a Haswell MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
They need to dump the optical drive on all models. This is 2013, and these analyst's fascination with "emerging markets" is downright disgusting. There will always be regions of the world where internet access is not up to date, so screw them. Why should Apple be making it's machines worse, just because of a microscopic minority? That makes no sense at all. And if somebody does live in the middle of nowhere, and they can afford a Macbook Pro, then they can certainly afford to buy an external optical drive. Does it make more sense to inconvenience three people or 3 million people? Analysts aren't the brightest people around.
I will never buy any Apple laptop in the future, as long as it still has an optical drive included.
That is a little extreme. I can't imagine areas without consistent internet service represent huge potential growth for Macs that start around $1000 in the US and tend to be priced higher in other countries. The big cities have connectivity just as they do here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rash12
If Hashwell based macbook get rid of separate GPU and lower TDP, I suppose overall weight of mac would go down. My 13 inch mac Ivybridge processor/graphics performance seems more than adequate but with 2013 mac refresh, I like to see longer battery life and under 3lb for retina and under 4lb weight with Sdrive. Intel with ultrabook effort based on Hashwell is to reduce the weight and provide whole day battery without recharging.
Do you mean for the 15"? The current 13" doesn't have a discrete gpu. I don't expect any major exterior design changes for at least a couple years assuming they continue on with the same pattern.
"Expert analyst predicts Apple product refresh in line with the MacRumors buyers guide. Improvements to include incremental refreshes to processing power and storage space" is a very safe and boring enough prediction. Reasonable, believable prediction that surprises nobody.
Until, of course the part where he thinks they'll also refresh the non-retina computers because of how many people in developing countries rely on optical drives.
Maybe it wasn't possible pixel-wise to do a 17" Retina back then, and they wanted the 15" Retina to be undisputed top of the line, so discontinued the 17" non-retina for that reason.
Shame that he thinks Apple are capable of nothing more than upgrading with standard components. I'm wondering if the timing is important. Cook mentioned new products in the fall and this seems to coincide with both new silicon but also new software (OSX10.9).
Sure Apple needs to roll out Haswell CPUs & 802.11ac just to keep in the premier league but SSDs work so much better than HDDs and once tried there's no turning back from Retina displays, they make other displays look crap. These should be standard across all Macs. Then it would make sense for Apple to switch its form-factors around and replace the 13" MBP with the 13" MBA as the standard model, the low-profile MBP as the mid-range with dGPU and the older format retained as a Fusion-drive option for those who must have all their eggs in one basket. To do this we'd also need new information management software, an external (cabled or wireless) Fusion Drive which copies rather than moves and serves as a replacement for the current time capsule. This would need a CoreStorage update in OSX10.9.
[...] once tried there's no turning back from Retina displays, they make other displays look crap.
You think? My reaction was "meh." Better, sure, but not a deal-breaker either way.
I haven't checked... have Illustrator and After Effects been updated with Retina compatibility? If not, that IS a deal-breaker, because if you wanna talk about "look crap," try a non-optimized app on a Retina display. Ick.
I refuse to use spinning drives in my laptops, since they don't respond well to being dropped, unlike the SSDs, which don't care.
Who said there was anything wrong with an SSD? Fusion Drive is an SSD+HDD essentially in a special RAID 0 configuration. This allows for SSD speeds with HDD like storage at a fraction of the cost of an SSD setup of that capacity.
And what's this new argument that HDDs don't respond well to being dropped? What computer components do respond well to being drop? Are you saying that notebooks can't be successful if they have an HDD in them?
HDDs are the only moving part in modern laptops. In my experience, they are the most fail-prone component of portable Macs and classic iPods. It's just a fact of physics that moving parts are susceptible to inertia.
My SO has given her MBP a heavy helping of aluminum dents, where any other plastic laptop would have shattered. On the whole, it responds better than most laptops, and a SDD can only improve the odds of avoiding a trip to the Apple Store.
Apple ||
They need to dump the optical drive on all models. This is 2013, and these analyst's fascination with "emerging markets" is downright disgusting. There will always be regions of the world where internet access is not up to date, so screw them. Why should Apple be making it's machines worse, just because of a microscopic minority? That makes no sense at all. And if somebody does live in the middle of nowhere, and they can afford a Macbook Pro, then they can certainly afford to buy an external optical drive. Does it make more sense to inconvenience three people or 3 million people? Analysts aren't the brightest people around.
I will never buy any Apple laptop in the future, as long as it still has an optical drive included.
Then... don't. You have the option.
Apple isn't "making its machines worse" at all. It's retaining an older form factor for budget users, just as they continue to sell the iPhone 4S and non-retina iPad.
How exactly are you inconvenienced by just seeing options other than the MBA and rMBP? I could easily apply your argument to any company selling a current and previous gen product together, and it would make just as little sense. If you are this incensed by having two Macbook gens sold together, look at the enormous SKU sheet of any other computer maker.
And that mentality of "screw everyone who isn't entitled like me" is what's driving always-online game consoles.
gwmac
A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement.
I would love to see actual statistics on this, or a reliable source, or anything that says this is more than false consensus.
Maybe it wasn't possible pixel-wise to do a 17" Retina back then, and they wanted the 15" Retina to be undisputed top of the line, so discontinued the 17" non-retina for that reason.
Well, they didn't drop the 17" when it wasn't updated to the first unibody design. On the contrary, they updated the old model to equivalent hardware!
They dropped it here. The last time they dropped a product, it stayed dead.
A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement. Smart phones and iPads have further lessened the need to bring along a laptop on trips. I finally gave my 2009 Macbook Pro to my niece because I never used it anymore. My phone and iPad got the job done when I travel. Then again I don't have any heavy duty needs while on vacation or short trips, usually email is sufficient. For this reason I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to re-release a 17" or dare I say 19" Macbook for all the people that rarely take it further than the backyard.
Really? That is not my experience at all (not moving the laptop), Part of the point is that you carry your laptop from home to office, and always have the same environment. This is less important in this age of Dropbox, but still nontrivial.
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
Was Spring specifically stated? If so, can't Apple still make their self imposed deadline by annouuncing it at WWDC since Spring ends June 20th?
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
Did Apple announce that they were going to announce in the spring? If not, nothing to see here, move along... (my personal view is that since Apple has not refreshed the line in two years, it is trying to kill it by attrition).
If there's one thing that's not needed at all it's a MacBook Air design change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Agreed.
Feel free to upgrade those specs, but that beautiful body needs no changing.
That's what people said about the original Macbook Pro, the original Macbook Air, the original iPhone, and every other Apple product since then. Why should Apple bother updating anything anymore?
Comments
Would 256 make any real world difference if its a fusion drive?
A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement. Smart phones and iPads have further lessened the need to bring along a laptop on trips. I finally gave my 2009 Macbook Pro to my niece because I never used it anymore. My phone and iPad got the job done when I travel. Then again I don't have any heavy duty needs while on vacation or short trips, usually email is sufficient. For this reason I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to re-release a 17" or dare I say 19" Macbook for all the people that rarely take it further than the backyard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
"Haswell's integrated GPU doubles the performance of Ivy Bridge, which is already good enough to run OS X."
That depends on which version of the Haswell processor you're referring to. If it's the Haswell GT3e processor with the embedded DRAM then I agree. Supposedly, that specific version of Haswell does have GPU performance equivalent to Nvidia's GT650 mobile GPU. If you're referring to any Haswell processor lower than that, then there's no guarantee of double performance. Yes, they will be faster than Ivy Bridge, but necessarily 2X faster.
Still, evolutionary improvement to CPU, moderately boosted integrated graphics & better power saving would make for an attractive upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
Behold! My next laptop. My Core 2 Duo is getting a little long in the tooth.
++
MacBook 2,1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onexy
The joy of the consumers.
It kind of seemed to be Apples conviction that the 17" is not the machine they want to build.
I hope that it comes back so there is more variation but a retina display on the 17" is questionable because it would be even more pixels to push.
The only real problem with the 17" MBP is the bulk of the thing. It's really awkward and heavy to move from desk to meeting room and back again.
The 15" retina knocked 540g off the weight, a 21% reduction. Taking 21% off the weight of the 17" MBP would make it noticeably lighter than the old 15" model. It would still be bulky, but the extra display size is worth it to me.
I find having 1200 vertical pixels to be a huge advantage when running mobile phone simulators. My external display is 1920x1080 and it can't display the iPhone 5 simulator full size (needs 1136 pixels).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
Celebration of the obvious. The real surprise would be if Apple failed to announce a Haswell MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
They need to dump the optical drive on all models. This is 2013, and these analyst's fascination with "emerging markets" is downright disgusting. There will always be regions of the world where internet access is not up to date, so screw them. Why should Apple be making it's machines worse, just because of a microscopic minority? That makes no sense at all. And if somebody does live in the middle of nowhere, and they can afford a Macbook Pro, then they can certainly afford to buy an external optical drive. Does it make more sense to inconvenience three people or 3 million people? Analysts aren't the brightest people around.
I will never buy any Apple laptop in the future, as long as it still has an optical drive included.
That is a little extreme. I can't imagine areas without consistent internet service represent huge potential growth for Macs that start around $1000 in the US and tend to be priced higher in other countries. The big cities have connectivity just as they do here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rash12
If Hashwell based macbook get rid of separate GPU and lower TDP, I suppose overall weight of mac would go down. My 13 inch mac Ivybridge processor/graphics performance seems more than adequate but with 2013 mac refresh, I like to see longer battery life and under 3lb for retina and under 4lb weight with Sdrive. Intel with ultrabook effort based on Hashwell is to reduce the weight and provide whole day battery without recharging.
Do you mean for the 15"? The current 13" doesn't have a discrete gpu. I don't expect any major exterior design changes for at least a couple years assuming they continue on with the same pattern.
"Expert analyst predicts Apple product refresh in line with the MacRumors buyers guide. Improvements to include incremental refreshes to processing power and storage space" is a very safe and boring enough prediction. Reasonable, believable prediction that surprises nobody.
Until, of course the part where he thinks they'll also refresh the non-retina computers because of how many people in developing countries rely on optical drives.
ANALYSIS FAIL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because they got rid of the model.
Maybe it wasn't possible pixel-wise to do a 17" Retina back then, and they wanted the 15" Retina to be undisputed top of the line, so discontinued the 17" non-retina for that reason.
Shame that he thinks Apple are capable of nothing more than upgrading with standard components. I'm wondering if the timing is important. Cook mentioned new products in the fall and this seems to coincide with both new silicon but also new software (OSX10.9).
Sure Apple needs to roll out Haswell CPUs & 802.11ac just to keep in the premier league but SSDs work so much better than HDDs and once tried there's no turning back from Retina displays, they make other displays look crap. These should be standard across all Macs. Then it would make sense for Apple to switch its form-factors around and replace the 13" MBP with the 13" MBA as the standard model, the low-profile MBP as the mid-range with dGPU and the older format retained as a Fusion-drive option for those who must have all their eggs in one basket. To do this we'd also need new information management software, an external (cabled or wireless) Fusion Drive which copies rather than moves and serves as a replacement for the current time capsule. This would need a CoreStorage update in OSX10.9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
If there's one thing that's not needed at all it's a MacBook Air design change.
If you ask me, you may post this same sentence next year and the year after as well.
The MBA design still tops everything in this price segment (and below). I tend to call it timeless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
[...] once tried there's no turning back from Retina displays, they make other displays look crap.
You think? My reaction was "meh." Better, sure, but not a deal-breaker either way.
I haven't checked... have Illustrator and After Effects been updated with Retina compatibility? If not, that IS a deal-breaker, because if you wanna talk about "look crap," try a non-optimized app on a Retina display. Ick.
SolipsismX
igriv
I refuse to use spinning drives in my laptops, since they don't respond well to being dropped, unlike the SSDs, which don't care.
Who said there was anything wrong with an SSD? Fusion Drive is an SSD+HDD essentially in a special RAID 0 configuration. This allows for SSD speeds with HDD like storage at a fraction of the cost of an SSD setup of that capacity.
And what's this new argument that HDDs don't respond well to being dropped? What computer components do respond well to being drop? Are you saying that notebooks can't be successful if they have an HDD in them?
HDDs are the only moving part in modern laptops. In my experience, they are the most fail-prone component of portable Macs and classic iPods. It's just a fact of physics that moving parts are susceptible to inertia.
My SO has given her MBP a heavy helping of aluminum dents, where any other plastic laptop would have shattered. On the whole, it responds better than most laptops, and a SDD can only improve the odds of avoiding a trip to the Apple Store.
Apple ||
They need to dump the optical drive on all models. This is 2013, and these analyst's fascination with "emerging markets" is downright disgusting. There will always be regions of the world where internet access is not up to date, so screw them. Why should Apple be making it's machines worse, just because of a microscopic minority? That makes no sense at all. And if somebody does live in the middle of nowhere, and they can afford a Macbook Pro, then they can certainly afford to buy an external optical drive. Does it make more sense to inconvenience three people or 3 million people? Analysts aren't the brightest people around.
I will never buy any Apple laptop in the future, as long as it still has an optical drive included.
Then... don't. You have the option.
Apple isn't "making its machines worse" at all. It's retaining an older form factor for budget users, just as they continue to sell the iPhone 4S and non-retina iPad.
How exactly are you inconvenienced by just seeing options other than the MBA and rMBP? I could easily apply your argument to any company selling a current and previous gen product together, and it would make just as little sense. If you are this incensed by having two Macbook gens sold together, look at the enormous SKU sheet of any other computer maker.
And that mentality of "screw everyone who isn't entitled like me" is what's driving always-online game consoles.
gwmac
A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement.
I would love to see actual statistics on this, or a reliable source, or anything that says this is more than false consensus.
Originally Posted by ascii
Maybe it wasn't possible pixel-wise to do a 17" Retina back then, and they wanted the 15" Retina to be undisputed top of the line, so discontinued the 17" non-retina for that reason.
Well, they didn't drop the 17" when it wasn't updated to the first unibody design. On the contrary, they updated the old model to equivalent hardware!
They dropped it here. The last time they dropped a product, it stayed dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
A significant amount of people now rarely move their laptop off their desk besides to another part of the house or yard. Even though it is meant to be a portable device it is now used much more as a desktop replacement. Smart phones and iPads have further lessened the need to bring along a laptop on trips. I finally gave my 2009 Macbook Pro to my niece because I never used it anymore. My phone and iPad got the job done when I travel. Then again I don't have any heavy duty needs while on vacation or short trips, usually email is sufficient. For this reason I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to re-release a 17" or dare I say 19" Macbook for all the people that rarely take it further than the backyard.
Really? That is not my experience at all (not moving the laptop), Part of the point is that you carry your laptop from home to office, and always have the same environment. This is less important in this age of Dropbox, but still nontrivial.
There is one drawback I can think of - processing power.
Driving that many pixels is sure to be a drain on the GPU.
Still, that's nothing a new generation of mobile GPUs shouldn't be able to handle with aplomb.
17" MBPr would be amazing.
I'd buy in an instant.
Was Spring specifically stated? If so, can't Apple still make their self imposed deadline by annouuncing it at WWDC since Spring ends June 20th?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shredx1
What happened to the new Mac Pro that was supposed to be announced this spring? Or all we all just expected to have amnesia because it's the great and glorious Apple?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Did Apple announce that they were going to announce in the spring? If not, nothing to see here, move along... (my personal view is that since Apple has not refreshed the line in two years, it is trying to kill it by attrition).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
I also think a 17" Retina laptop would be an astoundingly brilliant thing to do.
There is one drawback I can think of - processing power.
Driving that many pixels is sure to be a drain on the GPU.
Still, that's nothing a new generation of mobile GPUs shouldn't be able to handle with aplomb.
17" MBPr would be amazing.
I'd buy in an instant.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I would rather just get a 4K desktop display. That would not suck.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
If there's one thing that's not needed at all it's a MacBook Air design change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Agreed.
Feel free to upgrade those specs, but that beautiful body needs no changing.
That's what people said about the original Macbook Pro, the original Macbook Air, the original iPhone, and every other Apple product since then. Why should Apple bother updating anything anymore?