Calm yourself. You keep getting confused. You're now arguing against something I have been saying all along haha. I have constantly said the small case size (and therefore volume) of the MacBook means the surface area of it is smaller, therefore less able to dissipate heat, and Apple can't fit sensible sized heat sinks in. Which means they reduce the clock speed to compensate.
Oh and you've not told me how you can increase the surface area on the case without increasing the volume yet. Please do tell.
Calm yourself. You keep getting confused. You're now arguing against something I have been saying all along haha. I have constantly said the small case size (and therefore volume) of the MacBook means the surface area of it is smaller, therefore less able to dissipate heat, and Apple can't fit sensible sized heat sinks in. Which means they reduce the clock speed to compensate.
Oh and you've not told me how you can increase the surface area on the case without increasing the volume yet. Please do tell.
For the last time, terms like small and big are useless. At this point I have to assume you're choosing to be obtuse since you keep ignoring the simplest concepts.
Unfortuntately (or fortunately perhaps, depending on your point of view), thermal transport in a structure such as a laptop is more complex than the simple consideration of heat generation by the components, surface area, or surface area-to-volume ratio. Apple has spent a lot of time and money on thermal management, which is surprisingly hard to model.
To state the obvious, at the component level, dissipation occurs by a combination of conductive and convective cooling. Most components have some form of thermal sink, to which the bulk of the heat is conducted, followed by a convective and/or conductive mechanism to remove that heat to the outside world. Radiative cooling is insignificant at these temperatures.
In the classic desktop design, fans blow air through the overall enclosure and over the thermal sinks, heating the air which the exits the enclosure. Conduction through the enclosure is not significant. Enclosure volume only matters to the extent that it affects overall airflow rates - as the enclosure becomes smaller the airflow (air volume per unit time) decreases and so the enclosure runs hotter for a given heat generation rate.
In a laptop with fans the removal of heat is also accomplished by airflow through the enclosure and, for some machines, heat conduction to the enclosure casing followed by convective cooling of the casing. The latter mechanism of heat loss will increase with case surface area provided that the increased area is in the heat conduction pathway.
In a fanless design the movement of air through the enclosure is essentially insignificant, and so all heat generated must be conducted to the casing and then lost by convection. That makes a big difference. Internal volume is not a factor in the steady-state solution (though it is in the unsteady regime) - which is determined by the heat generation rate (which must equal the heat loss rate), the thermal resistivity of the path(s) to the casing, and the rate of convective loss from the casing to the air which is a linear function of both the surface area of the casing and the temperature of the surrounding air. Making the enclosure thinner, per se, has no direct effect since it makes only a small change to the surface area for the form factor of a laptop, but may have indirect effects; it may change the thermal resistance of the thermal paths from the components to the casing. If it brings components closer to the casing then it may reduce the thermal resistivity from component to casing, leading to a lower component temperature for the necessary steady state rate of heat loss or, alternatively, a higher rate of heat loss for the same component temperature. Whether or not the internal design requirements permit that is a quite different question.
You have failed because you chose to label someone who has reasoned and defended his posts as a whiner, spreading BS and FUD, none of which is actually true. ... Would you care to put my comment 'nightmare' back into context? You stripped it of any context because it was convenient (but totally lame of you to do so) and labelled it FUD!
I have seen many swollen batteries. I have had them myself. They can swell. They do swell. When they swell they swell upwards, straight through the trackpad. These new MBPs have the battery glued to the casing in such a way that even a professional repair shop with infinite experience in pulling all kinds of Macs apart, COULD NOT REMOVE IT. Believe me, if in four or five years (or less if you are unlucky) your battery begins to swell, you will want to get it out pronto. Trying to prise it off will be a nightmare, swapping it out will also be a nightmare because you will have to replace the casing it is glued to and you don't know if that part will even be available. Now, in a previous post someone tried to defend Apple's decision due to thermal considerations and I answered that issue too.
I have reasoned my opinion and defended it clearly, even against the attempts to defend Apple. This potential (because nobody has said that every battery will swell, right?) battery nightmare is just one example and your only recourse is to label it FUD.
You are making yourself look stupid.
Small numbers of batteries swell. And it won't be a "nightmare" if mine does. I'd take it in to Apple and for $199 it gets fixed. Sometimes the battery replacement is free even out of warranty.
If it think the bulging is unsafe I can still remove the cover to relieve the pressure before bringing it in.
So more FUD on a post claiming you don't spread FUD. Your "reasoning" is to take a scenario for which Apple has already provided the customer a simple and relatively inexpensive solution and claim it's a "nightmare" because iFixit can't pull batteries off because they aren't meant to be pulled off.
You did the same thing regarding the SSD but there is a tool to pull off the data which is done for free for the user if a motherboard replacement is required. Another non-issue you blew out of proportion with FUD.
You're trolling. Maybe 5-10% of your posts have something nice to say about Apple and usually in a backhanded way.
Most amusing is that the single CPU PowerMac you whined about in 2004 is the kind of machine you wished Apple built today. A lower cost tower you claimed in 2004 was a huge mistake that didn't sell but in 2016 you think would sell really well.
Here we go again.
'Small numbers of batteries swell'. 'Small' but you just don't know nor can you define 'small'. How convenient!
"Failure rates for rechargeable Li-ion batteries are on the order of one in 10 million cells, he says. “That’s not a reliability problem. It’s an exception.”
Batteries have come a long way since the mid 2000s when there was a series of battery recalls.
The failure rate is estimated to be 1 in 40 million in a more recent 2011 source.
Source: J. Dahn and G. M. Erlich, “Lithium Ion
Batteries,” p. 26, Linden’s Handbook
of Batteries, 4th edition, T. B. Reddy,
Ed., McGraw Hill, 2011.
Which is 5 years old.
Failures include two general categories: non-energetic (aka swelling) and energetic (thermal runaway).
Typically in the US failure rates that exceed 1 in 1 million triggers recalls. Hence the Galaxy Note 7 recall.
Small. Therefore FUD.
SSD? There is a tool. Yes, an Apple tool that will attempt to get the data off the drive. Out of warranty you're back in the Apple corral, literally because out of warranty, you're going to have to visit an Apple shop just to get access to that tool, and possibly, your data.
I doubt that if Apple is unsuccessful that anyone else would have succeeded. With TimeMachine and remote backup there should be little to no data loss even if the drive is completely unrecoverable.
More FUD.
Having very expensive pro machines shipping in 2017 with base 256GB, non-upgeadeable SSDs that have to be BTOd with your future needs at purchase time, was also on my list.
Expense is relative to income and 256GB is adequate on a base model. While this is a somewhat valid complaint it has been true of Apple since 1984 where the first Macintosh was expensive and non-upgradable relative to the Apple ][ variants. It certainly is not a Cook and Ive invention as you have claimed.
Yep. That's a 0 on the FUD scale. Wasn't it you that wanted to ignore me? I've told you straight. If you don't like my opinion, fine but if you can't handle 'negative' opinions, don't read them. You are making a fool of yourself by throwing your stupid accusations around. It doesn't matter what percentage of my posts are saying 'nice' thngs about Apple. This is a discussion board. I am a Mac user and my voice is just as valid as yours and any other mac user. 'Likes' and 'dislikes' are not representative of anything. Even bringing up the subject of ratios is childish.
The ratio of positive to negative posts is relevant when determining if an account is a troll account. Your "voice" is invalid because you're a "concern troll" who has been complaining about at the same things for a decade and predicting doom and gloom for Apple if they don't change their ways.
They haven't changed their ways and are more profitable than ever. Your idiocy of claiming that Ive and Cook are bad for apple and soon to be removed also indicates that you are a troll.
So on the Troll Scale you're an 8 or so. Concern trolls tend to weight lower, sorry. With a little work you might rate a little higher.
The old Mac Pro was bigger than the current Mac Pro and yet it wasn't nearly as efficient with removing heat.
So you think it's possible to increase surface area on a case with a smooth surface without making it bigger? Damn! Engineers have been making things bigger for so many years to dissipate heat better but you have a solution! Please enlighten the engineering world? ... It was almost good at removing heat, but there were more hot components than there are in the newer one; and there was no convection due to horizontal airways instead of vertical.
Doesn't apply to the MBP but iMacs have a vertical airflow. Thinner doesn't necessarily end up being cooler but the selection of low power parts and using aluminum as a case does. This typically results in a cooler running machine with lower fan noise.
There are a lot of folks claiming that Intel is holding Apple back but I think Intel has been catering to Apple's needs with lower power parts. They went from a 35W Core i5-2435M in the 2011 MBP with 11.5 power / watt to a 28W i5-5257U and a 20.78 performance / watt in 2015 to a 15W i5-6360U in 2016 (the 6267U is 28W).
The Core M 6Y54 used in the MB is 4.5W and 118.5 p/W and the Core M 6Y75 is 132.95 p/W.
Essentially Intel has matched ARM's power advantage so for a $2000 laptop maintaining easy windows capability probably is worth the BOM cost delta given the number of enterprise deployments of the MBP.
Comments
Oh and you've not told me how you can increase the surface area on the case without increasing the volume yet. Please do tell.
To state the obvious, at the component level, dissipation occurs by a combination of conductive and convective cooling. Most components have some form of thermal sink, to which the bulk of the heat is conducted, followed by a convective and/or conductive mechanism to remove that heat to the outside world. Radiative cooling is insignificant at these temperatures.
In the classic desktop design, fans blow air through the overall enclosure and over the thermal sinks, heating the air which the exits the enclosure. Conduction through the enclosure is not significant. Enclosure volume only matters to the extent that it affects overall airflow rates - as the enclosure becomes smaller the airflow (air volume per unit time) decreases and so the enclosure runs hotter for a given heat generation rate.
In a laptop with fans the removal of heat is also accomplished by airflow through the enclosure and, for some machines, heat conduction to the enclosure casing followed by convective cooling of the casing. The latter mechanism of heat loss will increase with case surface area provided that the increased area is in the heat conduction pathway.
In a fanless design the movement of air through the enclosure is essentially insignificant, and so all heat generated must be conducted to the casing and then lost by convection. That makes a big difference. Internal volume is not a factor in the steady-state solution (though it is in the unsteady regime) - which is determined by the heat generation rate (which must equal the heat loss rate), the thermal resistivity of the path(s) to the casing, and the rate of convective loss from the casing to the air which is a linear function of both the surface area of the casing and the temperature of the surrounding air. Making the enclosure thinner, per se, has no direct effect since it makes only a small change to the surface area for the form factor of a laptop, but may have indirect effects; it may change the thermal resistance of the thermal paths from the components to the casing. If it brings components closer to the casing then it may reduce the thermal resistivity from component to casing, leading to a lower component temperature for the necessary steady state rate of heat loss or, alternatively, a higher rate of heat loss for the same component temperature. Whether or not the internal design requirements permit that is a quite different question.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i6/Assessing-Safety-Lithium-Ion-Batteries.html
Batteries have come a long way since the mid 2000s when there was a series of battery recalls.
The failure rate is estimated to be 1 in 40 million in a more recent 2011 source.
Source: J. Dahn and G. M. Erlich, “Lithium Ion Batteries,” p. 26, Linden’s Handbook of Batteries, 4th edition, T. B. Reddy, Ed., McGraw Hill, 2011.
Failures include two general categories: non-energetic (aka swelling) and energetic (thermal runaway).
Typically in the US failure rates that exceed 1 in 1 million triggers recalls. Hence the Galaxy Note 7 recall.
Small. Therefore FUD.
I doubt that if Apple is unsuccessful that anyone else would have succeeded. With TimeMachine and remote backup there should be little to no data loss even if the drive is completely unrecoverable.
More FUD.
Expense is relative to income and 256GB is adequate on a base model. While this is a somewhat valid complaint it has been true of Apple since 1984 where the first Macintosh was expensive and non-upgradable relative to the Apple ][ variants. It certainly is not a Cook and Ive invention as you have claimed.
The ratio of positive to negative posts is relevant when determining if an account is a troll account. Your "voice" is invalid because you're a "concern troll" who has been complaining about at the same things for a decade and predicting doom and gloom for Apple if they don't change their ways.
They haven't changed their ways and are more profitable than ever. Your idiocy of claiming that Ive and Cook are bad for apple and soon to be removed also indicates that you are a troll.
So on the Troll Scale you're an 8 or so. Concern trolls tend to weight lower, sorry. With a little work you might rate a little higher.
Doesn't apply to the MBP but iMacs have a vertical airflow. Thinner doesn't necessarily end up being cooler but the selection of low power parts and using aluminum as a case does. This typically results in a cooler running machine with lower fan noise.
There are a lot of folks claiming that Intel is holding Apple back but I think Intel has been catering to Apple's needs with lower power parts. They went from a 35W Core i5-2435M in the 2011 MBP with 11.5 power / watt to a 28W i5-5257U and a 20.78 performance / watt in 2015 to a 15W i5-6360U in 2016 (the 6267U is 28W).
The Core M 6Y54 used in the MB is 4.5W and 118.5 p/W and the Core M 6Y75 is 132.95 p/W.
http://www.comparecpus.com/en/intel-i5-5257u-power-consumption/model-166-10
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9x-goes-head-to-head-against-intels-core-m-in-arm-x86-grudge-match
Essentially Intel has matched ARM's power advantage so for a $2000 laptop maintaining easy windows capability probably is worth the BOM cost delta given the number of enterprise deployments of the MBP.