I didn't realized Core M-5Y71 doesn't offer virtualization. I'm curious how that will affect running Fusion or Parallels.
Outwardly, not much. You can still run Parallels or VMWare Fusion. The VTx features are for hypervisor support. Both host and guest OS much support (Type 2) hypervisors, or else Parallels and VMWare fall back to software emulation of hardware. A hypervisor allows the guest OS to access the hardware device directly. In theory, this improves performance, though originally those performance benefits were slim. It's supposed to be better now. The PS4 runs console games on a hypervisor.
Wow! That's impressive considering they launched the same year and the tray price of the Core-i7 is more than $100 higher.
I didn't realized Core M-5Y71 doesn't offer virtualization. I'm curious how that will affect running Fusion or Parallels.
Indeed wow.
If the new MacBook is slower it is not the fault of the CPU, but rather the cooling solution. But if that is the price for a completely solid state computer (apart from keys and hinge) then I'm all for it.
Nothing worse than a fan, and even the sound of a HDD can be distracting in a quite environment. Also they are the first components to break down on a computer most often.
Perhaps I am shallow, but even though the speed will suffice for most of what I do and the size/weight/display are ideal, the absence of the glowing Apple logo is a deal breaker for me. I'd have been willing to sacrifice a bit of battery life for it.
Perhaps Apple could have thrown it in as a choice in System Prefs. Especially considering that the 2nd gen will probably have it....
Dude. If you don't mind your life slipping away in dribs and drabs waiting for your underpowered processor, then the new thin macbook is perfect for you. And thin!
Perhaps I am shallow, but even though the speed will suffice for most of what I do and the size/weight/display are ideal, the absence of the glowing Apple logo is a deal breaker for me. I'd have been willing to sacrifice a bit of battery life for it.
Perhaps Apple could have thrown it in as a choice in System Prefs. Especially considering that the 2nd gen will probably have it....
I wish this was sarcasm, not just idiotic.
Not everyone could know it's lit by the display backlight and essentially just a hole. If you shine a light at the back, it affects the display:
Some of the backlight is being lost out the logo too. I like the feature but it's plastic and they seem to have tried to get rid of plastic. No plastic hinge, no plastic logo. It's really just the keyboard keys left as plastic and they wanted to switch them for some kind of stone at one point but then they'd be cold to press.
They didn't remove the logo from the 13" rMBP but maybe they will at a future revision.
Oh my, how did Mac OS X ever run on PowerBook G4s? And how did we ever think it was fast?
Mac OS X Panther & Tiger were much faster operating systems than any other version released after that. Leopard began the bloating, and it was slower than Tiger, and not better.
Didn't Apple learn with the failed Power Mac G4 Cube? I guess not.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores). One USB-C port, lacking MagSafe, and requires expensive optional dongles to connect anything and still have power. So the price will increase with additional dongles.
MacBook Pro w/Retina for $1,299. Considerably faster performance, multiple ports, MagSafe, no dongles needed. No extra costs needed. Only a fool would buy a new MacBook over a MacBook Pro retina or MacBook Air.
The Power Mac G4 Cube failed because it was $300 more expensive than the faster and more expandable Power Mac G4 minitower. Both computers needed an external display. So guess which one sold more, the G4 minitower and Apple killed the Cube 1 year later. Smart shoppers will buy the MacBook Pro w/retina and pass on the crippled MacBook. Style did not win with the Cube, and it won't win with the MacBook.
Dude. If you don't mind your life slipping away in dribs and drabs waiting for your underpowered processor, then the new thin macbook is perfect for you. And thin!
Computer performance currently has little to do with CPU performance an a lot to do with poorly written software and antiquated paradigms for doing it in the first place.
Also virtual memory is very much a factor. Not as much as it used to be before the days of SSD, but still.
As Seymoure Cray said: Memory is like an orgasm, it's a lot better if you don't have to fake it.
I don't care about how it performs versus other models. Just tell me if the performance is adequate to operate mainstream apps. Very few people on this earth utilize all of the processing power of their devices. I understand the Geekbench can give you a comparison so you can relate to another device but really it is meaningless. They need to give a benchmark that relates to user satisfaction.
Comparing a new notebook to the experience you recall from a couple years ago using an older notebook for high end professional work fails to take into account that current professional applications are much more demanding than they were a few years ago.
Distractionary statement. Plenty can be done with even the "worst" of today's machines.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores).
Geekbench 3 does not properly compare ARM and x86 architectures. Geekbench is also a poor representation of overall performance and capabilities. Assuming you've ignored my first two statements, the Geekbench score for the 5Y71 in a fanless Windows tablet is close to 2x the performance of the iPhone 6 (source). We still don't have numbers for the 2015 MacBook, so I could only assume Apple will match, if not exceed, that level of performance in their Core M implementation.
I don't think it would be fair to judge Core M's capabilities based off of a terrible implementation by Lenovo (as referenced in the OP).
I don't care about how it performs versus other models. Just tell me if the performance is adequate to operate mainstream apps. Very few people on this earth utilize all of the processing power of their devices. I understand the Geekbench can give you a comparison so you can relate to another device but really it is meaningless. They need to give a benchmark that relates to user satisfaction.
That's called buy one and f'ing use it. The thing most people doing the bitching in this thread won't ever do.
Usually everything I read other idiots write turns out to be wrong in my own experience.
The fact is, many people have extremely overpowered rMBPs that overserve their needs; they'll never use that power on an ECON 101 paper or an iMessage to Granny.
Using that logic they should just get an Iphone.
By the way I understand what you are saying, but people value their time differently and a machine that is seen as slow offends their sensibilities. I have an old LINUX machine down in the cellar right now that works fine and likely will become a CNC controller soon, but man is that machine slow!!! Given an iPad or my new MBP I'd grab them before using that old machine to send an E-mail.
Paralleles and Vmware ought still to be able to work without VT-x and VT-d, but it has to make it much slower. I used to run both on an ATOM processor (before Apple made the Air) and yes - it ran - but very slow. This is something you may need to try - it could be a showstopper in your particular application.
This is disappointing. I may need to have BootCamp and Parallels installed, then. I could use Parallels for basic stuff in Windows and move to BootCamp for applications needing maximum power. It's more of an annoyance for me than a show stopper.
Comparing a new notebook to the experience you recall from a couple years ago using an older notebook for high end professional work fails to take into account that current professional applications are much more demanding than they were a few years ago.
Distractionary statement. Plenty can be done with even the "worst" of today's machines.
I'll probably get a lot of flame for advocating Adobe CC but every collaborating professional designer is using it, and it demands a lot of resources. I'm not saying you can't do professional design work using older hardware and software or modern hardware with specs roughly equal to older machines, but if you want to stay current and share among your peers, you'll need much more power and RAM than you did only a few years ago. Just because you could run Photoshop CS5 on a MBP from 2011 doesn't mean you can run CC 2015 on that same MBP with equal effectiveness.
Like the Apple Watch, this shows the new trend of Apple post-Jobs that is more willing to put its 'No' products in front of the public as well as its 'Yes' products. It's a similar strategy to Google, and certainly helps to keep the street talking, if not exactly buzzing, in the absence of the mega hits to which Apple has become accustomed. The danger, of course, is implosion Google Glass-style.
It'll be interesting to see the reviews.
In what fucking world is the new Macbook comparable to Google Glass- a socially abhorrent product that Google hyped for years, only to release it silently and go on to pretend it does not even exist. It can't have sold more than a few thousand, while this new Macbook will sell millions and become the template for all future laptops.
Oh, and love your "post-Jobs" horse-shit, while he's the guy that proudly announced the first Macbook Air, a product that was infinitely more a "proof of concept" than this machine is. But hey, don't let that make you miss an opportunity to lie, and drag Jobs out of the grave once again to use him as a battering ram against Apple. There is no "trend" of Apple doing anything like Google- you're twisting reality to fit your pre-conceived, contrived argument, in order to benefit your trolling. No sane person things the new Macbook is something Apple is "throwing out there" to see if it will stick. It's a focused product that has been engineered to hell and back, and clearly one they have considered extremely heavily. It is no more of a "No" product than most of the products Steve unveiled- at least not based in any kind of emperical fact. But of course, it's a "No" product because you baselessly decide to define it as such, just like every single one of your other baseless posts which have no rooting in reality, honesty. or sanity.
Didn't Apple learn with the failed Power Mac G4 Cube? I guess not.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores). One USB-C port, lacking MagSafe, and requires expensive optional dongles to connect anything and still have power. So the price will increase with additional dongles.
MacBook Pro w/Retina for $1,299. Considerably faster performance, multiple ports, MagSafe, no dongles needed. No extra costs needed. Only a fool would buy a new MacBook over a MacBook Pro retina or MacBook Air.
The Power Mac G4 Cube failed because it was $300 more expensive than the faster and more expandable Power Mac G4 minitower. Both computers needed an external display. So guess which one sold more, the G4 minitower and Apple killed the Cube 1 year later. Smart shoppers will buy the MacBook Pro w/retina and pass on the crippled MacBook. Style did not win with the Cube, and it won't win with the MacBook.
Your analogy is so insanely flawed it's hilarious. Also, all those "BUT IT DOESNT HAVE XXXX!!" argument could have been levelled against every single Apple product that became insanely successful, the argument is meaningless, irrelevant, and frankly boring. A "fool" would buy the new Macbook over the MBA, really? In your intellectual dishonesty, I guess it's convenient to ignore the fact that the Macbook has 4X as many pixels, starts at 2X the RAM, as well as 2X the SSD storage of the Air- not to mention the improvements in weight, trackpad, keyboard, etc. Frankly, the Air would be a bad choice for most compared to the new Macbook. So, all you've got left is the "ports" argument, that trolls have used to attack every new Apple product, as if that has EVER determined success or failure. There's like 50 examples in recent history how lack of ports did NOT negatively affect an Apple product compared to its predecessors, so you had to dig through ancient history with the G4 cube to bring up a really, really bad analogy to support your non-point. Yes, the Macbook is bold, but I'll start worrying when Apple ceases to be bold, and starts listening to people like you who are so terrified of change and of losing ports.
Comments
I didn't realized Core M-5Y71 doesn't offer virtualization. I'm curious how that will affect running Fusion or Parallels.
Outwardly, not much. You can still run Parallels or VMWare Fusion. The VTx features are for hypervisor support. Both host and guest OS much support (Type 2) hypervisors, or else Parallels and VMWare fall back to software emulation of hardware. A hypervisor allows the guest OS to access the hardware device directly. In theory, this improves performance, though originally those performance benefits were slim. It's supposed to be better now. The PS4 runs console games on a hypervisor.
If the new MacBook is slower it is not the fault of the CPU, but rather the cooling solution. But if that is the price for a completely solid state computer (apart from keys and hinge) then I'm all for it.
Nothing worse than a fan, and even the sound of a HDD can be distracting in a quite environment. Also they are the first components to break down on a computer most often.
Oh my, how did Mac OS X ever run on PowerBook G4s? And how did we ever think it was fast?
PowerBooks were small and light too.
Perhaps I am shallow, but even though the speed will suffice for most of what I do and the size/weight/display are ideal, the absence of the glowing Apple logo is a deal breaker for me. I'd have been willing to sacrifice a bit of battery life for it.
Perhaps Apple could have thrown it in as a choice in System Prefs. Especially considering that the 2nd gen will probably have it....
I wish this was sarcasm, not just idiotic.
Not everyone could know it's lit by the display backlight and essentially just a hole. If you shine a light at the back, it affects the display:
Some of the backlight is being lost out the logo too. I like the feature but it's plastic and they seem to have tried to get rid of plastic. No plastic hinge, no plastic logo. It's really just the keyboard keys left as plastic and they wanted to switch them for some kind of stone at one point but then they'd be cold to press.
They didn't remove the logo from the 13" rMBP but maybe they will at a future revision.
Oh my, how did Mac OS X ever run on PowerBook G4s? And how did we ever think it was fast?
Mac OS X Panther & Tiger were much faster operating systems than any other version released after that. Leopard began the bloating, and it was slower than Tiger, and not better.
Didn't Apple learn with the failed Power Mac G4 Cube? I guess not.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores). One USB-C port, lacking MagSafe, and requires expensive optional dongles to connect anything and still have power. So the price will increase with additional dongles.
MacBook Pro w/Retina for $1,299. Considerably faster performance, multiple ports, MagSafe, no dongles needed. No extra costs needed. Only a fool would buy a new MacBook over a MacBook Pro retina or MacBook Air.
The Power Mac G4 Cube failed because it was $300 more expensive than the faster and more expandable Power Mac G4 minitower. Both computers needed an external display. So guess which one sold more, the G4 minitower and Apple killed the Cube 1 year later. Smart shoppers will buy the MacBook Pro w/retina and pass on the crippled MacBook. Style did not win with the Cube, and it won't win with the MacBook.
It takes one to know one.
Hmmm... am I being sarcastic or idiotic?
Also virtual memory is very much a factor. Not as much as it used to be before the days of SSD, but still.
As Seymoure Cray said: Memory is like an orgasm, it's a lot better if you don't have to fake it.
Distractionary statement. Plenty can be done with even the "worst" of today's machines.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores).
Geekbench 3 does not properly compare ARM and x86 architectures. Geekbench is also a poor representation of overall performance and capabilities. Assuming you've ignored my first two statements, the Geekbench score for the 5Y71 in a fanless Windows tablet is close to 2x the performance of the iPhone 6 (source). We still don't have numbers for the 2015 MacBook, so I could only assume Apple will match, if not exceed, that level of performance in their Core M implementation.
I don't think it would be fair to judge Core M's capabilities based off of a terrible implementation by Lenovo (as referenced in the OP).
That's called buy one and f'ing use it. The thing most people doing the bitching in this thread won't ever do.
Usually everything I read other idiots write turns out to be wrong in my own experience.
Using that logic they should just get an Iphone.
By the way I understand what you are saying, but people value their time differently and a machine that is seen as slow offends their sensibilities. I have an old LINUX machine down in the cellar right now that works fine and likely will become a CNC controller soon, but man is that machine slow!!! Given an iPad or my new MBP I'd grab them before using that old machine to send an E-mail.
This is disappointing. I may need to have BootCamp and Parallels installed, then. I could use Parallels for basic stuff in Windows and move to BootCamp for applications needing maximum power. It's more of an annoyance for me than a show stopper.
I think thats similar to that Mac Mini Core 2 Duo 1.83Ghz boxes I have been donating to homeless nuns. Can't do much with those.
- RC
Comparing a new notebook to the experience you recall from a couple years ago using an older notebook for high end professional work fails to take into account that current professional applications are much more demanding than they were a few years ago.
Distractionary statement. Plenty can be done with even the "worst" of today's machines.
I'll probably get a lot of flame for advocating Adobe CC but every collaborating professional designer is using it, and it demands a lot of resources. I'm not saying you can't do professional design work using older hardware and software or modern hardware with specs roughly equal to older machines, but if you want to stay current and share among your peers, you'll need much more power and RAM than you did only a few years ago. Just because you could run Photoshop CS5 on a MBP from 2011 doesn't mean you can run CC 2015 on that same MBP with equal effectiveness.
Software and hardware evolve in parallel.
This laptop appears to be a proof of concept.
Like the Apple Watch, this shows the new trend of Apple post-Jobs that is more willing to put its 'No' products in front of the public as well as its 'Yes' products. It's a similar strategy to Google, and certainly helps to keep the street talking, if not exactly buzzing, in the absence of the mega hits to which Apple has become accustomed. The danger, of course, is implosion Google Glass-style.
It'll be interesting to see the reviews.
In what fucking world is the new Macbook comparable to Google Glass- a socially abhorrent product that Google hyped for years, only to release it silently and go on to pretend it does not even exist. It can't have sold more than a few thousand, while this new Macbook will sell millions and become the template for all future laptops.
Oh, and love your "post-Jobs" horse-shit, while he's the guy that proudly announced the first Macbook Air, a product that was infinitely more a "proof of concept" than this machine is. But hey, don't let that make you miss an opportunity to lie, and drag Jobs out of the grave once again to use him as a battering ram against Apple. There is no "trend" of Apple doing anything like Google- you're twisting reality to fit your pre-conceived, contrived argument, in order to benefit your trolling. No sane person things the new Macbook is something Apple is "throwing out there" to see if it will stick. It's a focused product that has been engineered to hell and back, and clearly one they have considered extremely heavily. It is no more of a "No" product than most of the products Steve unveiled- at least not based in any kind of emperical fact. But of course, it's a "No" product because you baselessly decide to define it as such, just like every single one of your other baseless posts which have no rooting in reality, honesty. or sanity.
Didn't Apple learn with the failed Power Mac G4 Cube? I guess not.
New MacBook for $1,299. Offers slow performance (not even twice as fast as an iPhone 6 per Geekbench scores). One USB-C port, lacking MagSafe, and requires expensive optional dongles to connect anything and still have power. So the price will increase with additional dongles.
MacBook Pro w/Retina for $1,299. Considerably faster performance, multiple ports, MagSafe, no dongles needed. No extra costs needed. Only a fool would buy a new MacBook over a MacBook Pro retina or MacBook Air.
The Power Mac G4 Cube failed because it was $300 more expensive than the faster and more expandable Power Mac G4 minitower. Both computers needed an external display. So guess which one sold more, the G4 minitower and Apple killed the Cube 1 year later. Smart shoppers will buy the MacBook Pro w/retina and pass on the crippled MacBook. Style did not win with the Cube, and it won't win with the MacBook.
Your analogy is so insanely flawed it's hilarious. Also, all those "BUT IT DOESNT HAVE XXXX!!" argument could have been levelled against every single Apple product that became insanely successful, the argument is meaningless, irrelevant, and frankly boring. A "fool" would buy the new Macbook over the MBA, really? In your intellectual dishonesty, I guess it's convenient to ignore the fact that the Macbook has 4X as many pixels, starts at 2X the RAM, as well as 2X the SSD storage of the Air- not to mention the improvements in weight, trackpad, keyboard, etc. Frankly, the Air would be a bad choice for most compared to the new Macbook. So, all you've got left is the "ports" argument, that trolls have used to attack every new Apple product, as if that has EVER determined success or failure. There's like 50 examples in recent history how lack of ports did NOT negatively affect an Apple product compared to its predecessors, so you had to dig through ancient history with the G4 cube to bring up a really, really bad analogy to support your non-point. Yes, the Macbook is bold, but I'll start worrying when Apple ceases to be bold, and starts listening to people like you who are so terrified of change and of losing ports.