I was shocked to see the new MacBook Pro. It really looks fat. Heavy.
It is. For anybody who likes to travel, the 14 inch seems better and the 16 inch looks to be one pound heavier in weight. I’d do the 14 inch if I was considering one.
So it has come to this? Body shaming laptops. Well, then, I guess looks are deceiving, or at least they deceived these two. The new MBP 14.2 is equally fat/thick to the MBP 13 at .61 inches. It gains very slightly in width and depth to accommodate the larger screen. The new MBP 16" is near identical in thickness to the Intel 16", gaining just 2/100ths of an inch or less than half of a millimeter. Other dimensions are virtually unchanged.
Interestingly, both sizes of the new MBPs are heavier by a half pound vs previous models. Percentage wise, that's a bigger increase for the 14.2, at about 17%, while the 16" tips in at 11% heavier.
This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more enclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
You have it backwards. You're confusing heat with temperature. If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components. The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention. A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.
In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure. You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry. What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area. (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body. At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components. And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.
Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative. If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.
This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic. The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more oenclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
You have it backwards. You're confusing heat with temperature. If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components. The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention. A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.
In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure. You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry. What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area. (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body. At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components. And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.
Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative. If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.
This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic. The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
That's where the vicious death cycle begins. Put bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks, they will require bigger batteries and bigger enclosures that will retain even more heat that will require even bigger fans, bigger pipes, bigger sinks that will require.... and so on.
Bigger enclosure may absorb more heat, but once it absorbs that it becomes a heat source itself. According to your mentality we can cool down a hot object faster if we put it into an enclosure instead of leaving it in the open air !..
This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more enclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
You have it backwards. You're confusing heat with temperature. If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components. The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention. A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.
In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure. You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry. What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area. (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body. At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components. And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.
Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative. If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.
This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic. The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
If that’s the case, the current 16” will be hotter & less efficient than older retina.
That’s not the case. Theories works in one way, but you have more than one options in practice.
Make your fans bigger, faster, change your heat pipe so it’ll be more efficient, increase your heatsink…. These are all the improvements on the new 16” despite still being smaller than previous Retina & unibody, as they never got enough power to reach 80W.
Also, just because you have a large space, it doesn’t mean all the cooling power will be focused on one chip. There are dedicated GPUs and many laptops have separate cooling system. You only got so much for the CPU, which defeats the point.
This has nothing to do with Jony Ive. Intel forced Apple to go minimalistic because of the generous heat it produces. Give it more enclosure it would retain more heat. Now that Intel has gone, with Apple Silicon you can make it as large as you want because the heat is minimal.
You have it backwards. You're confusing heat with temperature. If you go minimalistic on a device that generates a lot of heat, that heat will be 'concentrated' on a smaller volume, causing temperature to be higher, and it is temperature that damages internal components. The key is to think in terms of heat dissipation not heat retention. A larger enclosed volume (all other things equal) would have better heat dissipation especially if a lot of that enclosed volume is empty space that can be used for airflow to cool the internal components.
This is the metal mass that retains heat the most not the air that flows over or in it. Besides, the air flows only from the processor to the heat sink by means of a pipe and the fan, the flow is constrained to the pipe. There is no air "moving freely" in a larger enclosure. Since the air flows only from the processor to the sink, it has no (or minimal) effect on the overall cooldown of the enclosure. To make it cool down faster, you have to make it smaller so that it retains less heat and dissipates it faster. That "cooling air in a larger enclosure" is an urban legend. There is no such thing.
I didn't spell it out explicitly but of course when I said airflow, I'm speaking about it in the context of the MacBook Pro which has fans.
In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure. You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry. What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area. (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body. At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components. And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.
Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative. If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.
This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic. The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
If that’s the case, the current 16” will be hotter & less efficient than older retina.
That’s not the case. Theories works in one way, but you have more than one options in practice.
Make your fans bigger, faster, change your heat pipe so it’ll be more efficient, increase your heatsink…. These are all the improvements on the new 16” despite still being smaller than previous Retina & unibody, as they never got enough power to reach 80W.
Also, just because you have a large space, it doesn’t mean all the cooling power will be focused on one chip. There are dedicated GPUs and many laptops have separate cooling system. You only got so much for the CPU, which defeats the point.
The example comparing large and small enclosures that I gave pointedly said 'all other things equal', which includes the components and the heat generated by the components. So saying that what I said is wrong because it implies that 'the current 16" will be hotter and less efficient than older retina' is a logically invalid argument because the current 16" uses Apple Silicon which **generates a lot less heat** than the Intel. "All other things equal" is violated in your counterexample.
And theories work in one way, but you have more than one option in practice? So you mean when it comes to heat management, the theory of thermodynamics works in one way, but in practice there are options available that violate the the theory of thermodynamics?
Captain Obvious here. Reading these comments, it is perfectly clear—if it ever wasn’t, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. There is no conceivable product that Apple could have produced that would make everyone happy.
The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now.
Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port?
My take is that Apple is simply trying to gain marketshare in the corporate sector where cutting edge design, aesthetics, and fashion statements don’t hold as much sway as practicality, bottom line ROI, and as a fundamental tool to enable productivity workers to get stuff done with as little friction as possible.
Nobody is going to feature a Dell Latitude in all of its plasticy glory as a backdrop in a flashy tv show or movie, but Dell is going to sell boatloads of these things to corporate customers. Apple wants a piece of this action.
Then you’re out of touch with the corporate sector. I contract into multiple companies and the dock connectors with proprietary PCIE buses have been replaced with guess what? Thunderbolt docks with a single, convenient TB cable to PCs which (finally) ship with the only single TB port they’ll ever need. PC enthusiasts on YouTube are even bragging how PC laptops easily support more TB/USB-C docks than Macs. Sad to see how Apple users, who used to embrace future tech, are now just a bunch of worn-out Luddites moving backwards as the PC world moves forwards.
I still don't get why people are bitching so much about the HDMI port. Does it somehow offend your 'Apple' sensibilities? Honestly, who has a better cause to whine - the people missing a port that they need or the people who have to 'put up' with a port that they don't need?
The fact of the matter is HDMI is THE standard if you ever need to give a presentation in a conference and is still far more common than USB C and display port. If you don't use it, fine. you lose nothing unless you actually need 4 TB 4 ports (and even then you've got the MagSafe so you're not using a port for charging. So far I've seen exactly one person who says they use all 4 TB ports. If the sight of it is that offensive to you you can take some silver epoxy and fill it in so it disappears.
I think some of them had psychically moved so far into the suburbs of dongletown they can’t wrap their head around the change. As if they rug has been pulled out from under them. Built-in port variety > all Thunderbolt any day of the week. Besides, people now have a bus for each of the three Thunderbolt, before they were limited to two buses. The new machine is better than the previous machine in every way and all but Thunderbolt puritans can see it.
Why did Apple back track on the MacBook Pro? Well, customers kept telling them that they were not buying a new MacBook if it does not have the ports they need and a keyboard they can type on. Why don't you ask why Apple did not listen to customers before they made the previous MacBook? Secrecy is killing this company. You shouldn't have to release a product in order to figure out what customers want.
Now get rid of the notch, it sucks always has and always will…….
i dont think the extra ports alone explains the extent of the size and weight increase. At this size i would expect a DVD drive in it. It's more of a portable desktop than a laptop and the design with curved bottom is horrible. Whilst iphones and ipads have gone square edged, Is not what I expected at all. I won't be buying one, have to hope the Air does not go down the same route. Oh, and yes would love to see a touchscreen, my sons 2-1 Chromebook combo is a brilliant example of a touchscreen laptop and it's completely natural to him, as a Gen A, who expects all screens to be touchscreen (including the TV :-).
Reaching for a touchscreen at the end of a workday is for the birds on a laptop or desktop screen, on a iPad it just works….
The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now.
Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port?
So they never should given up on FireWire better faster and more versatile, and more importantly a superior in house solution not dependent upon tech from outside patent trolls…..
The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now.
Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port?
So they never should given up on FireWire better faster and more versatile, and more importantly a superior in house solution not dependent upon tech from outside patent trolls…..
Huh? USBC and Thunderbolt are more flexible than HDMI and SD card readers.
One of the features I really miss is the dual purpose headphone jack that also served as a toslink optical connector. My complete music library is digitized, and I use my MacBook Pro to play it through a high quality stereo system. Apple may have saved a dollar on each Mac by eliminating this ability, but it made my life more complicated. I also miss the headphone jack on iOS devices. That may have been deleted to force customers to buy wireless headsets. I see that as another Ivey error.
Dongles & converters can be flaky, But could you get a USB to HDMI (or RCA) converter?
i dont think the extra ports alone explains the extent of the size and weight increase. At this size i would expect a DVD drive in it. It's more of a portable desktop than a laptop and the design with curved bottom is horrible. Whilst iphones and ipads have gone square edged, Is not what I expected at all. I won't be buying one, have to hope the Air does not go down the same route. Oh, and yes would love to see a touchscreen, my sons 2-1 Chromebook combo is a brilliant example of a touchscreen laptop and it's completely natural to him, as a Gen A, who expects all screens to be touchscreen (including the TV :-).
Reaching for a touchscreen at the end of a workday is for the birds on a laptop or desktop screen, on a iPad it just works….
Correct.
But, since you can do things with a touch screen (particularly with a pencil) that you can't without, then sometimes that touch screen goes from being a convenience to necessity - unless, as you point out, you like buying and carrying two devices to do the job of one.
The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now.
Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port?
So they never should given up on FireWire better faster and more versatile, and more importantly a superior in house solution not dependent upon tech from outside patent trolls…..
Huh? USBC and Thunderbolt are more flexible than HDMI and SD card readers.
The silly thing with these new laptops is we’ve gone from 4 universal ports that will do anything to 3 universal ports and 2 ports that can only do one thing, so technically a less flexible machine now.
Also, where’s the outcry about Apple using a proprietary charging port?
So they never should given up on FireWire better faster and more versatile, and more importantly a superior in house solution not dependent upon tech from outside patent trolls…..
Huh? USBC and Thunderbolt are more flexible than HDMI and SD card readers.
Oh sure, the "infamous" butterfly keyboard...it was supposedly more prone to failure than the prior scissor mechanism (according to tech blogs), yet nobody could provide any actual evidence or numbers that proved it. In fact, nobody could provide the repair rate of previous generation scissor keyboards, so it wasn't even possible to make a comparison.
Oh sure, the "infamous" butterfly keyboard...it was supposedly more prone to failure than the prior scissor mechanism (according to tech blogs), yet nobody could provide any actual evidence or numbers that proved it. In fact, nobody could provide the repair rate of previous generation scissor keyboards, so it wasn't even possible to make a comparison.
Can you find me a person who enjoyed the butterfly keyboard and never had any issue with it?
I never had what you'd call a failure, but keys on my MacBook Air would either get stuck or acquire a sticky feel on a fairly regular basis. Blowing air into the keyboard sometimes fixed the issue, though never more than temporarily. To my knowledge that was a common occurrence for users, and that's why it became infamous, not because of hard data, but because a large number of people had the same crappy experience, and it happened regularly.
The MacBook Air I had previous to that (and is still in the family) never had any issues with key failure or key stickiness in 7 years. The M1 Max MacBook Pro I have now has given every indication that it will have no issues either; it's a lovely machine to type on.
So sure, maybe data isn't there to prove the matter in a court of law, but infamy isn't based on verifiable evidence, and I'll take lived experience every time anyway.
Comments
Interestingly, both sizes of the new MBPs are heavier by a half pound vs previous models. Percentage wise, that's a bigger increase for the 14.2, at about 17%, while the 16" tips in at 11% heavier.
In an electronic device, the internal components generate the heat, not the enclosure. You want to dissipate that heat so that the temperature of the internal components don't rise to the point that they fry. What an enclosure does is absorb the heat generated by the components and then dissipate it by radiating it off its external surface area. (Heat never ever flows from a cold body to a hot body. At least not in this universe.) So, all other things equal, the smaller your enclosure, the less mass it has to absorb the heat from the components, and the less external surface area it has to dissipate that heat it absorbed from the components. And that's not even talking about heat sinks and cooling fans.
Now let's stick heat sinks and cooling fans into the narrative. If a smaller enclosure gives you less internal space, forcing you to use smaller heat sinks, smaller fans and smaller airflow channels, then clearly going minimalistic is going to reduce, not increase, your ability to dissipate the heat generated by the components.
This is why your assertion that the generous heat produced by Intel chips caused Apple to go minimalistic is problematic. The heat generated by a chip is in fact an obstacle to going minimalistic.
Bigger enclosure may absorb more heat, but once it absorbs that it becomes a heat source itself. According to your mentality we can cool down a hot object faster if we put it into an enclosure instead of leaving it in the open air !..
That’s not the case. Theories works in one way, but you have more than one options in practice.
Make your fans bigger, faster, change your heat pipe so it’ll be more efficient, increase your heatsink…. These are all the improvements on the new 16” despite still being smaller than previous Retina & unibody, as they never got enough power to reach 80W.
Also, just because you have a large space, it doesn’t mean all the cooling power will be focused on one chip. There are dedicated GPUs and many laptops have separate cooling system. You only got so much for the CPU, which defeats the point.
And theories work in one way, but you have more than one option in practice? So you mean when it comes to heat management, the theory of thermodynamics works in one way, but in practice there are options available that violate the the theory of thermodynamics?
Sad to see how Apple users, who used to embrace future tech, are now just a bunch of worn-out Luddites moving backwards as the PC world moves forwards.
Reminds me of the old PowerBooks.
Dongles & converters can be flaky, But could you get a USB to HDMI (or RCA) converter?
I never had what you'd call a failure, but keys on my MacBook Air would either get stuck or acquire a sticky feel on a fairly regular basis. Blowing air into the keyboard sometimes fixed the issue, though never more than temporarily. To my knowledge that was a common occurrence for users, and that's why it became infamous, not because of hard data, but because a large number of people had the same crappy experience, and it happened regularly.
The MacBook Air I had previous to that (and is still in the family) never had any issues with key failure or key stickiness in 7 years.
The M1 Max MacBook Pro I have now has given every indication that it will have no issues either; it's a lovely machine to type on.
So sure, maybe data isn't there to prove the matter in a court of law, but infamy isn't based on verifiable evidence, and I'll take lived experience every time anyway.