...as I cling to my trusty 17" mbp... Oh how a 'portable desktop' cool running quad core retina option with 16GB+ of ram would be welcome...
I don't understand this. I prefer the smaller screen, in fact, I'd be happy with a 13" -- if it had the GPU and preferably 32GB of RAM. I use my laptop in two places mainly- home and work, and I have external displays there much, much larger than 17". Hell a 4k display in the 40" range can be had for $500.
The only time I really use the laptop screen is when traveling.
So I don't even need it to be retina.
Well I hope everyone gets their needs satisfied...
What I don't understand is why some feel their needs are the only ones that may matter?
For consideration: - with very detailed documents at client meetings and (my/their) aging eyes a larger screen is often very helpful, as well with groups or even watching a movie... - working on same away from a stand alone monitor (at a client's, library, bus, park, coffee shop, etc) a larger screen can be very helpful, especially multiple windows. - dual page display, larger battery capacity, bigger speakers, etc. may all be desirable for some. - desktop monitors use 100+ watts of power (less 'green') and don't last very long even with a large UPS if the power goes out. - external monitors have previously had heat issues with internal GPU, which may be helped by the rumoured design changes
I also hate squinting <grin>
...and yes 16GB+ (ideally more) would be helpful, although I read a technical bit a while back that explained the limitation in addressing, and the benefits of soldered RAM, offering much tighter spec tolerance, and thus speed tuning, with Apple RAM being some of the fastest performing available, if limited to 16GB... The SSD speeds also seem pretty fast according to BareFeats.com - and even with 8GB I've been pretty impressed by current El Cap memory management, and SSD swap speed helps - go Apple!
Jet black with "invisible" touch bar would be beautiful.
Yeah, just like the black space ship in the Hitchhikers Guide through Galaxy!
Seeing that DA was a great Apple fan and evangelist, it would be a fitting tribute. Heck, even the jet black iPhone 7 and the iPad line itself already are. Surely there must be some iPad cases with “DON'T PANIC” inscribed in large, friendly letters available on the market.
They should probably give us the consumer more time to prepare. Since this purchase is so expensive, maybe we should be afforded info on the new models before the last minute.
They should probably give us the consumer more time to prepare. Since this purchase is so expensive, maybe we should be afforded info on the new models before the last minute.
Or, knowing that new Macs do come out you start saving for your next Mac immediately after buying your last one.
I wonder if Apple will call the next version of macOS "11"? In 2017 we could have number synchronization across the two major OSes: - macOS 11 - iOS 11
At that point why not just unify OS branding and call it appleOS?
Why doesn't Mercedes just unify class branding from A-class, C-class, E-class, S-class, V-class, etc. and call it "Mercedes class"?
wrong analogy. I'm talking about unifying the branding of the OS, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that macOS, tvOS, iOS, and watchOS could be a single OS that would be installed a Mac, Apple TV, iDevice, or Watch without consideration for the HW in which it's being installed?
Not exactly. What I'm suggesting is have an OS that has a unified architecture & ecosystem but can optimize / tailor the UI based on the device it's loaded on. At the end of the day it's one OS, just different UI layer. It simplifies the branding and there's less confusion for the average user.
Unify the branding and you set a customer expectation.
Why doesn't the app I bought for appleOS on my iPhone work on appleOS on my my Mac? Or, why do I need to buy it again?
How about an iMac update. Would be nice as many still use an iMac in business as well as home.
I carry my 2012 MacBook with me practically everywhere but my "home" computer is my 2010 iMac. I still have need to boot occasionally into Mac OS 10.6 and it fills that need very nicely. However the i3 processor is showing it's age and I wouldn't mind moving onto an updated 21.5" 4K iMac if I could at least upgrade the RAM in it. (I have a 2010 Mini I could move 10.6 onto in place of the iMac.)
I wonder if Apple will call the next version of macOS "11"? In 2017 we could have number synchronization across the two major OSes: - macOS 11 - iOS 11
At that point why not just unify OS branding and call it appleOS?
Why doesn't Mercedes just unify class branding from A-class, C-class, E-class, S-class, V-class, etc. and call it "Mercedes class"?
wrong analogy. I'm talking about unifying the branding of the OS, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that macOS, tvOS, iOS, and watchOS could be a single OS that would be installed a Mac, Apple TV, iDevice, or Watch without consideration for the HW in which it's being installed?
Not exactly. What I'm suggesting is have an OS that has a unified architecture & ecosystem but can optimize / tailor the UI based on the device it's loaded on. At the end of the day it's one OS, just different UI layer. It simplifies the branding and there's less confusion for the average user.
Unify the branding and you set a customer expectation.
Why doesn't the app I bought for appleOS on my iPhone work on appleOS on my my Mac? Or, why do I need to buy it again?
That's how Windows 10 Universal Windows (UWP) apps work. You buy them once and they work across all devices that have Windows 10. When it comes to mobile (not desktop) apps, why can't Apple do this? Great idea, in my opinion.
...as I cling to my trusty 17" mbp... Oh how a 'portable desktop' cool running quad core retina option with 16GB+ of ram would be welcome...
I don't understand this. I prefer the smaller screen, in fact, I'd be happy with a 13" -- if it had the GPU and preferably 32GB of RAM. I use my laptop in two places mainly- home and work, and I have external displays there much, much larger than 17". Hell a 4k display in the 40" range can be had for $500.
The only time I really use the laptop screen is when traveling.
So I don't even need it to be retina.
We don't all have 20 year old eyes anymore. Wait till you're fifty and squinting and you want a bigger screen too.
Are you suggesting that UI elements and text are smaller on the 13" than the 15"? That may be the case only because the 13" has very slightly higher pixel density than the 15" (227 vs 220ppi), but it's not like the 13's default point size is proportionally smaller because it's a smaller screen than the 15".
As I use my 57 year old eyes to read this on my 2012 13" MacBook Pro I would suggest to you that you get better glasses. You shouldn't generalize that all older people have trouble reading screens or need text blown up to the point the text resembles the top line of an eye chart.
I wonder if Apple will call the next version of macOS "11"? In 2017 we could have number synchronization across the two major OSes: - macOS 11 - iOS 11
At that point why not just unify OS branding and call it appleOS?
Why doesn't Mercedes just unify class branding from A-class, C-class, E-class, S-class, V-class, etc. and call it "Mercedes class"?
wrong analogy. I'm talking about unifying the branding of the OS, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that macOS, tvOS, iOS, and watchOS could be a single OS that would be installed a Mac, Apple TV, iDevice, or Watch without consideration for the HW in which it's being installed?
Not exactly. What I'm suggesting is have an OS that has a unified architecture & ecosystem but can optimize / tailor the UI based on the device it's loaded on. At the end of the day it's one OS, just different UI layer. It simplifies the branding and there's less confusion for the average user.
Unify the branding and you set a customer expectation.
Why doesn't the app I bought for appleOS on my iPhone work on appleOS on my my Mac? Or, why do I need to buy it again?
That's how Windows 10 Universal Windows (UWP) apps work. You buy them once and they work across all devices that have Windows 10. When it comes to mobile (not desktop) apps, why can't Apple do this? Great idea, in my opinion.
Microsoft only did that because they had only the Windows brand to capitalise on, and the tried EVERYTHING to leverage that brand for their entry into mobile. It didn't work.
Apple has no reason to do this. Both the Mac brand and the iOS brand are the strongest in their respective fields.
I wonder if Apple will call the next version of macOS "11"? In 2017 we could have number synchronization across the two major OSes: - macOS 11 - iOS 11
At that point why not just unify OS branding and call it appleOS?
Why doesn't Mercedes just unify class branding from A-class, C-class, E-class, S-class, V-class, etc. and call it "Mercedes class"?
wrong analogy. I'm talking about unifying the branding of the OS, not the hardware.
Are you suggesting that macOS, tvOS, iOS, and watchOS could be a single OS that would be installed a Mac, Apple TV, iDevice, or Watch without consideration for the HW in which it's being installed?
Not exactly. What I'm suggesting is have an OS that has a unified architecture & ecosystem but can optimize / tailor the UI based on the device it's loaded on. At the end of the day it's one OS, just different UI layer. It simplifies the branding and there's less confusion for the average user.
Unify the branding and you set a customer expectation.
Why doesn't the app I bought for appleOS on my iPhone work on appleOS on my my Mac? Or, why do I need to buy it again?
That's how Windows 10 Universal Windows (UWP) apps work. You buy them once and they work across all devices that have Windows 10. When it comes to mobile (not desktop) apps, why can't Apple do this? Great idea, in my opinion.
Microsoft only did that because they had only the Windows brand to capitalise on, and the tried EVERYTHING to leverage that brand for their entry into mobile. It didn't work.
Apple has no reason to do this. Both the Mac brand and the iOS brand are the strongest in their respective fields.
The iOS brand definitely is. But the Mac brand - depends on if you believe this thread (or not):
What does the fact that some media pros are unhappy with how Apple makes decisions have to do with the strength of the brand???
Because (and it is my understanding) that the Mac built its brand (and for the most part still maintains it) because of its popularity with creative media pros & software developers.
What does the fact that some media pros are unhappy with how Apple makes decisions have to do with the strength of the brand???
Because (and it is my understanding) that the Mac built its brand (and for the most part still maintains it) because of its popularity with creative media pros & software developers.
No. Graphics and media pros are a tiny portion of Apple's Mac customers. They were all Apple had left in the late 90s.
But that was twenty years ago.
The number of customers affected by Apple's elimination of rack-mountable stage computers is TINY. Yes, they are understandably annoyed. But they are very, very few.
This I'm looking forward to. If it won't have a graphics card it might run the risk of not being a true work horse. So I really hope they include some.. I don't know.. Tegra magic at least.. or something. I mean, professional video editing, animation, post production, heavy graphical UI without a dedicated graphics card sounds like a strain to me. I don't know how good the latest Intel integrated graphics has become.. Is it getting there?
Performance varies based on the software but comparing the 1080p extreme scores of both on Tomb Raider (12.5/28.5=44%), Bioshock Infinite (16.5/25.7=64%), GRID Autosport (20.5/26.8=76%) shows that the latest Skylake IGP can be under half the performance of the AMD GPU from last year.
It performs well with OpenCL though, the following video shows improvements of over 2x on computing:
For things like Final Cut Pro and similar, it should perform well but for real-time graphics, I expect the Polaris and Pascal GPUs to be over double the performance. It depends on the chips Apple gets from Intel, they may be configured differently from that Intel box.
The AMD RX 480M looks like it will be a decent GPU at 35W, which I expect Apple will be using in the highest model with 2-4GB of memory:
I think the mobile GPUs have been the holdup with the MBP/iMac etc. NVidia/AMD have had their desktop GPUs available for a while but haven't done much for the lower-end mobile GPUs. This is probably due to them being squeezed out of marketshare by Intel and the lower revenue.
With Apple's quarterly conference call scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 27th, I was already expecting Tuesday, the 25th, to be the date. It's far enough away from the new iPhone, yet still in October; and Monday is always executive meeting day at Apple.
For the event to announce the product announcement or for the product to finally sell?
Has Apple ever had their earning call the same week as a major product event?
I predict the following:
October 18 - MBP / Mac event October 25 - macOS Sierra 10.12.1 official release October 28 - MBP goes on sale.
How far in advance does apple usually post upcoming events? Is there still a chance that it will be this month?
Comments
What I don't understand is why some feel their needs are the only ones that may matter?
For consideration:
- with very detailed documents at client meetings and (my/their) aging eyes a larger screen is often very helpful, as well with groups or even watching a movie...
- working on same away from a stand alone monitor (at a client's, library, bus, park, coffee shop, etc) a larger screen can be very helpful, especially multiple windows.
- dual page display, larger battery capacity, bigger speakers, etc. may all be desirable for some.
- desktop monitors use 100+ watts of power (less 'green') and don't last very long even with a large UPS if the power goes out.
- external monitors have previously had heat issues with internal GPU, which may be helped by the rumoured design changes
I also hate squinting <grin>
...and yes 16GB+ (ideally more) would be helpful, although I read a technical bit a while back that explained the limitation in addressing, and the benefits of soldered RAM, offering much tighter spec tolerance, and thus speed tuning, with Apple RAM being some of the fastest performing available, if limited to 16GB... The SSD speeds also seem pretty fast according to BareFeats.com - and even with 8GB I've been pretty impressed by current El Cap memory management, and SSD swap speed helps - go Apple!
Why doesn't the app I bought for appleOS on my iPhone work on appleOS on my my Mac? Or, why do I need to buy it again?
I carry my 2012 MacBook with me practically everywhere but my "home" computer is my 2010 iMac. I still have need to boot occasionally into Mac OS 10.6 and it fills that need very nicely. However the i3 processor is showing it's age and I wouldn't mind moving onto an updated 21.5" 4K iMac if I could at least upgrade the RAM in it. (I have a 2010 Mini I could move 10.6 onto in place of the iMac.)
An update that includes the ability to upgrade the RAM. I hate the 2014 edition of the Mini for that reason.
Apple has no reason to do this. Both the Mac brand and the iOS brand are the strongest in their respective fields.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12593867
Replace ‘brand’ with ‘the US government’ and ‘strength’ with ‘trust’.
But that was twenty years ago.
The number of customers affected by Apple's elimination of rack-mountable stage computers is TINY. Yes, they are understandably annoyed. But they are very, very few.
I don't know how good the latest Intel integrated graphics has become.. Is it getting there?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10343/the-intel-skull-canyon-nuc6i7kyk-minipc-review/4
The R9 M370X (mid-2015) in the current MBP is here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M370X.142763.0.html
Performance varies based on the software but comparing the 1080p extreme scores of both on Tomb Raider (12.5/28.5=44%), Bioshock Infinite (16.5/25.7=64%), GRID Autosport (20.5/26.8=76%) shows that the latest Skylake IGP can be under half the performance of the AMD GPU from last year.
It performs well with OpenCL though, the following video shows improvements of over 2x on computing:
For things like Final Cut Pro and similar, it should perform well but for real-time graphics, I expect the Polaris and Pascal GPUs to be over double the performance. It depends on the chips Apple gets from Intel, they may be configured differently from that Intel box.
The AMD RX 480M looks like it will be a decent GPU at 35W, which I expect Apple will be using in the highest model with 2-4GB of memory:
I think the mobile GPUs have been the holdup with the MBP/iMac etc. NVidia/AMD have had their desktop GPUs available for a while but haven't done much for the lower-end mobile GPUs. This is probably due to them being squeezed out of marketshare by Intel and the lower revenue.