The people who hate Touch Bar are the same who think Macs need touch screens. They constantly talk about how great Surface is. They're PC people; they should buy PCs. If Touch Bar wasn't helping to sell Macs, the most data-driven marketing in the world would have figured that out by now. What Touch Bar does is differentiate Apple's machines from basic PCs. And if you haven't yet noticed, Surface isn't exactly selling on the same level as MacBooks.
What gives you the right to characterize people that way? I happen to like the touch bar—AND I think Apple should have a touchscreen, just like millions of other Mac users. I know how you follow the Apple line, but Apple is often wrong. This is one of those things where they’re wrong. And I’ll bet that at some point, we will have a touchscreen.
You mean the 5 people in tech message forums that want a touchscreen Mac. No one wants a touchscreen Mac. Who wants dirty fingerprints on their screen? So you want to bang on a keyboard, then have to reach up and touch the screen every time? Talk about the most inefficient way to get work done.
No. I mean pretty much everyone I know. I’ve read article after article about this. There is a very large nu7mber of people who want one. Don’t be a smart ass. Apple doesn’t want to do it, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want it.
Then maybe you should not claim that 'millions of people want it' and then suddenly claim that only the people you know want it. Big difference. Don't exaggerate what you think people want and don't want. I wasn't being a smart ass. Only people making comments in tech forums claim to want a touchscreen...and that is only a few hundred.
Most consumers and businesses are not going to buy these first generation M1 MacBooks because they are severely compromised because they cannot support more than one external display. Many at home and at work use two external displays for their workflow. The fact that these MacBooks are incapable of driving two external displays is a huge deal-breaker and companies will continue to buy the Intel models for the multiple display support, and the 4 USB-C ports. They may be faster and have longer battery life, but removing features that people use for their work was a huge mistake. Can't figure out what Apple was thinking. Even the 2011 MacBook Pro had support for two Thunderbolt Displays.
The M1 Mac mini does have support for two external displays, but only when you use one Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. It cannot even support Thunderbolt linked displays.
Most consumers and businesses are not going to buy these first generation M1 MacBooks because they are severely compromised because they cannot support more than one external display. Many at home and at work use two external displays for their workflow. The fact that these MacBooks are incapable of driving two external displays is a huge deal-breaker and companies will continue to buy the Intel models for the multiple display support, and the 4 USB-C ports. They may be faster and have longer battery life, but removing features that people use for their work was a huge mistake. Can't figure out what Apple was thinking. Even the 2011 MacBook Pro had support for two Thunderbolt Displays.
The M1 Mac mini does have support for two external displays, but only when you use one Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. It cannot even support Thunderbolt linked displays.
In the previous post you accused someone else of exaggerating and then you post this? Amazing. I doubt most consumers need more than a single external monitor. Businesses maybe more but I suspect that most business uses that require multiple monitors also need a higher end notebook.
Most consumers and businesses are not going to buy these first generation M1 MacBooks because they are severely compromised because they cannot support more than one external display. Many at home and at work use two external displays for their workflow. The fact that these MacBooks are incapable of driving two external displays is a huge deal-breaker and companies will continue to buy the Intel models for the multiple display support, and the 4 USB-C ports. They may be faster and have longer battery life, but removing features that people use for their work was a huge mistake. Can't figure out what Apple was thinking. Even the 2011 MacBook Pro had support for two Thunderbolt Displays.
The M1 Mac mini does have support for two external displays, but only when you use one Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. It cannot even support Thunderbolt linked displays.
In the previous post you accused someone else of exaggerating and then you post this? Amazing. I doubt most consumers need more than a single external monitor. Businesses maybe more but I suspect that most business uses that require multiple monitors also need a higher end notebook.
In my support experience over the decades here in metro DC, most consumers and businesses don't use more than the existing display on laptops. More than one external is far and away the exception to either zero or one external.
The people who hate Touch Bar are the same who think Macs need touch screens. They constantly talk about how great Surface is. They're PC people; they should buy PCs. If Touch Bar wasn't helping to sell Macs, the most data-driven marketing in the world would have figured that out by now. What Touch Bar does is differentiate Apple's machines from basic PCs. And if you haven't yet noticed, Surface isn't exactly selling on the same level as MacBooks.
What gives you the right to characterize people that way? I happen to like the touch bar—AND I think Apple should have a touchscreen, just like millions of other Mac users. I know how you follow the Apple line, but Apple is often wrong. This is one of those things where they’re wrong. And I’ll bet that at some point, we will have a touchscreen.
You mean the 5 people in tech message forums that want a touchscreen Mac. No one wants a touchscreen Mac. Who wants dirty fingerprints on their screen? So you want to bang on a keyboard, then have to reach up and touch the screen every time? Talk about the most inefficient way to get work done.
No. I mean pretty much everyone I know. I’ve read article after article about this. There is a very large nu7mber of people who want one. Don’t be a smart ass. Apple doesn’t want to do it, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want it.
Then maybe you should not claim that 'millions of people want it' and then suddenly claim that only the people you know want it. Big difference. Don't exaggerate what you think people want and don't want. I wasn't being a smart ass. Only people making comments in tech forums claim to want a touchscreen...and that is only a few hundred.
Like it or not, it certainly didn't give Apple enough reason to drop it, unlike the keyboard.
Why would they support 40 GB/s over TB3 and not USB4 which is mostly the same specification? Doesn't seem likely. If they have the bandwidth for 40 GB/s over TB3 they have enough for USB4 as well.
Because they probably use an existing Intel TB3 + USB chip, which doesn't do USB speeds greater than 10 Gbps.
Not from what I understand. The TB3/USB4 controller is on the SoC die and it is an Apple design.
Where did you see that? I don't think it is, at least I never saw that controller drawn onto the M1 chip die photo, like here from Anandtech: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16252/M1.png
1080p camera. HELLO? Even post-pandemic, Zoom meetings for business will be essential--honestly, how do you stick a 720p camera in a new 'Pro" laptop that you're essentially rolling out in 2021? Sure, the image processing may make it look "good for 720p," but the added cost to Apple for a better camera would have been miniscule.
It’s 2020, not 2021. That being said, I’ve been working on a large federal contract where all of the staff is remote. Do you know how often we use video conferencing the past 5 years? No times. Not a single one. We use tools like Jabber and Webex and Teams and conduct meetings all the time, but they’re teleconference, as that’s all that’s needed to talk. We don’t need crummy video conference where everyone is looking slightly off-camera; there’s nothing gained when it comes to discussing projects and work to be done. Normals think Zoom is omg important, but it isn’t. It’s been teleconference for the past decade on our other contracts too.
Your experience is not universal. Zoom has basically taken over the financial industry and others. What happened to WebexX ? Cisco dropped the ball.
Look at Zoom share price ; most of the big push here is from business
My experience may not be universal, but I have decades of Fortune 500 and 100 experience in enterprise IT. We've been teleconferencing for decades. That hasn't changed, just because consumers are infatuated with a new video conference tool. (one with a lousy security track record, btw). My work for energy companies is global, it's teleconference. My work for the US federal government is national, it's teleconference.
Share price is not indicative of tool value. Investors often don't know what they don't know.
I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the IT function in corporate and government organizations is the most despised function of most members in the organization. It’s notorious for blocking the adoption of new technologies and putting up obstacle after obstacle In front of business teams. So citing that experience as authority does not come across nearly the way you think it might.
Why would they support 40 GB/s over TB3 and not USB4 which is mostly the same specification? Doesn't seem likely. If they have the bandwidth for 40 GB/s over TB3 they have enough for USB4 as well.
Because they probably use an existing Intel TB3 + USB chip, which doesn't do USB speeds greater than 10 Gbps.
Not from what I understand. The TB3/USB4 controller is on the SoC die and it is an Apple design.
Where did you see that? I don't think it is, at least I never saw that controller drawn onto the M1 chip die photo, like here from Anandtech: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16252/M1.png
You’re incorrect. The TB/USB controller is on the M1 and is not a separate chip. Watch the Apple Event starting at 7:10. For the diagram of what’s on the M1 itself, see 12:10.
The people who hate Touch Bar are the same who think Macs need touch screens. They constantly talk about how great Surface is. They're PC people; they should buy PCs. If Touch Bar wasn't helping to sell Macs, the most data-driven marketing in the world would have figured that out by now. What Touch Bar does is differentiate Apple's machines from basic PCs. And if you haven't yet noticed, Surface isn't exactly selling on the same level as MacBooks.
What gives you the right to characterize people that way? I happen to like the touch bar—AND I think Apple should have a touchscreen, just like millions of other Mac users. I know how you follow the Apple line, but Apple is often wrong. This is one of those things where they’re wrong. And I’ll bet that at some point, we will have a touchscreen.
You mean the 5 people in tech message forums that want a touchscreen Mac. No one wants a touchscreen Mac. Who wants dirty fingerprints on their screen? So you want to bang on a keyboard, then have to reach up and touch the screen every time? Talk about the most inefficient way to get work done.
No. I mean pretty much everyone I know. I’ve read article after article about this. There is a very large nu7mber of people who want one. Don’t be a smart ass. Apple doesn’t want to do it, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want it.
Then maybe you should not claim that 'millions of people want it' and then suddenly claim that only the people you know want it. Big difference. Don't exaggerate what you think people want and don't want. I wasn't being a smart ass. Only people making comments in tech forums claim to want a touchscreen...and that is only a few hundred.
Virtually everywhere, on every forum, in every article, people have been asking for touchscreens. Pretty much every known writer has asked for it.
You sound like the guys who, when the iPhone came out, claimed that the touchscreen was no good, nobody would want it. All the sad Blackberry peop,e whining for obsolete keyboards. Yeah, the five of them that continued to buy them. It will come.
Is it currently possible to run Mojave in emulation via Parallels or other virtualization? My brother's business depends on some 32-bit software that isn't going to be updated.
Is it currently possible to run Mojave in emulation via Parallels or other virtualization? My brother's business depends on some 32-bit software that isn't going to be updated.
Not on an M1, which has zero capability to run 32 bit code and there’s almost zero chance anyone would bother to implement an emulation layer to do it.
These models (unfortunately) would not be a good choice for virtualization, even if it became available.
While they seem to have great CPU chops and very efficient memory utilization, virtualization means taking big blocks of memory and parceling them out to virtual clients, and these models with only up to 16 GB of high bandwidth memory would not be a good hypervisor host.
Wait for the M1x (or whatever) when Apple has figured out how they want to handle external memory.
You left out the speed difference between the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac mini: You are paying a lot more for the MacBook Pro for only a small speed difference. The MacBook Air seems like the one to get if you want a laptop. Otherwise the Mac mini is the top performer for the dollar at a starting price far below either of the laptops.
System: Mac mini (Late 2020) Apple M1 3192 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1728
Multi-Core Score: 7377
System: MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) Apple M1 3197 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1734
Multi-Core Score: 7534
System: MacBook Air (Late 2020) Apple M1 3187 MHz (8 cores)
You left out the speed difference between the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac mini: You are paying a lot more for the MacBook Pro for only a small speed difference. The MacBook Air seems like the one to get if you want a laptop. Otherwise the Mac mini is the top performer for the dollar at a starting price far below either of the laptops.
System: Mac mini (Late 2020) Apple M1 3192 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1728
Multi-Core Score: 7377
System: MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) Apple M1 3197 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1734
Multi-Core Score: 7534
System: MacBook Air (Late 2020) Apple M1 3187 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1516
Multi-Core Score: 5735
Performance is only one metric to consider. Battery / Power is another and might be more important to some. And the MB Pro 13 definitely beats the Air based on that need. Each model has a sweet spot, so individuals will need to balance which one meets their needs ... just like those will high compute, storage, display, or other needs might determine it’s best to wait for the next iteration(s) of the Mac chips.
You left out the speed difference between the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac mini: You are paying a lot more for the MacBook Pro for only a small speed difference. The MacBook Air seems like the one to get if you want a laptop. Otherwise the Mac mini is the top performer for the dollar at a starting price far below either of the laptops.
System: Mac mini (Late 2020) Apple M1 3192 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1728
Multi-Core Score: 7377
System: MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) Apple M1 3197 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1734
Multi-Core Score: 7534
System: MacBook Air (Late 2020) Apple M1 3187 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1516
Multi-Core Score: 5735
That's in a different piece, that's also still on the homepage.
You left out the speed difference between the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac mini: You are paying a lot more for the MacBook Pro for only a small speed difference. The MacBook Air seems like the one to get if you want a laptop. Otherwise the Mac mini is the top performer for the dollar at a starting price far below either of the laptops.
System: Mac mini (Late 2020) Apple M1 3192 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1728
Multi-Core Score: 7377
System: MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020) Apple M1 3197 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1734
Multi-Core Score: 7534
System: MacBook Air (Late 2020) Apple M1 3187 MHz (8 cores)
Single-Core Score: 1516
Multi-Core Score: 5735
Incorrect. The speed difference is notable during sustained performance draw. The Air will throttle, while the Pro will not.
Anyone who does “pro” things will benefit much.
Video editing, compositing, animation, etc. will take the Air down a few notches while the Pro continues to sing along nicely.
Most consumers and businesses are not going to buy these first generation M1 MacBooks because they are severely compromised because they cannot support more than one external display. Many at home and at work use two external displays for their workflow. The fact that these MacBooks are incapable of driving two external displays is a huge deal-breaker and companies will continue to buy the Intel models for the multiple display support, and the 4 USB-C ports. They may be faster and have longer battery life, but removing features that people use for their work was a huge mistake. Can't figure out what Apple was thinking. Even the 2011 MacBook Pro had support for two Thunderbolt Displays.
The M1 Mac mini does have support for two external displays, but only when you use one Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. It cannot even support Thunderbolt linked displays.
In the previous post you accused someone else of exaggerating and then you post this? Amazing. I doubt most consumers need more than a single external monitor. Businesses maybe more but I suspect that most business uses that require multiple monitors also need a higher end notebook.
In my support experience over the decades here in metro DC, most consumers and businesses don't use more than the existing display on laptops. More than one external is far and away the exception to either zero or one external.
I’m not a developer or power user, but I know of no one who uses more than one external screen; I would completely agree with you- two external monitors is the exception, not the norm.
DED! Great piece as expected, by a top tier writer. Been reading you here for more years than I care to count. Great to see you even responding to the plebs in comments
Comments
The M1 Mac mini does have support for two external displays, but only when you use one Thunderbolt port and the HDMI port. It cannot even support Thunderbolt linked displays.
While they seem to have great CPU chops and very efficient memory utilization, virtualization means taking big blocks of memory and parceling them out to virtual clients, and these models with only up to 16 GB of high bandwidth memory would not be a good hypervisor host.
Wait for the M1x (or whatever) when Apple has figured out how they want to handle external memory.
You are paying a lot more for the MacBook Pro for only a small speed difference. The MacBook Air seems like the one to get if you want a laptop. Otherwise the Mac mini is the top performer for the dollar at a starting price far below either of the laptops.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/11/17/m1-benchmarks-proves-apple-silicon-outclasses-nearly-all-current-intel-mac-chips