tundraboy

DuhSesame said:

tundraboy said:

macplusplus said:

tundraboy said:

macplusplus said:

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?

macplusplus said:

tundraboy said:

macplusplus said:

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.

macplusplus said:

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.

Yeah, as great as a designer as he is, Jony started to sacrifice too much utility and durability at the altar of form.  (Much like Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings and houses looked great and innovative but were prone to structural and water damage.)  Jony's departure was timely.  He was probably getting bored too as there is only so much designing one can do on thin rectangular bricks.

Tim Cook can afford to play around with Bitcoin.  Not sure about the other Bitcoin players out there.  Especially those investing significant chunks of their savings in the hope of hitting the jackpot (and keeping it).