Speculation on the next MacBook Pro
marco.org
marco.org
I'd be bummed out if they made the MBP basically a larger MacBook Air. I think most people buy the 15" MBP because they want a mobile workstation, rather than an ultraportable. For example, I hope the new 15" MBP has a top end video card.
The changes you mention wouldn't be bad, it's more the other Air-like attributes that I wouldn't want.
Recall, it's also the best-selling MBP.
I'm hoping they announce the new lineup soon though, been holding off on upgrading my 2006 MBP since November (it's still using a 7200RPM spindle, painful).
[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820161...
Actually, I think that is a real possibility. With the last MacBook Air refresh, screen resolution went up from 1280x800 to 1440x900. The current MacBook Pro 15" has a resolution of 1440x900, based on past refreshes I think it's safe to assume that the new MBP 15" will have a higher resolution than the current MBA. Most likely 1680x1050 but 1920x1080 isn't impossible.
"I would love to see the optical drive dropped in place of more battery life"
If Apple drops the optical drive in the next MBP 15", they'll likely reduce the thickness of the notebook, as well as increase the battery life.
However, the DELL notebook in question is a monstrosity in comparison with Apple's MacBook Pro. The DELL XPS 15 is all plastic, while it's half an inch thicker and a pound heavier.
The problem is that resolution independence is nowhere near finished and the new MBPs will likely arrive before OS X Lion (which could conceivably have resolution independence). Seeing as resolution independence has seen no improvements with Snow Leopard it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple just gave up on it.
The current MacBook Air has a PPI of 135. The BTO 1680x1050 MacBook Pro has a PPI of 128. 1920x1200 on a 15" is probably overkill, even on a 17" screen that's a PPI of 132.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_densi....
Next gen, the 15" will get 1680x1050 standard (instead of option) and the 13" MB/MBP should default to 1440x900, or at least get it as an option. But the 15" won't see 1920x1200 before the 17" is bumped.
Furthermore, OSX is hardly resolution-independent, a 1920x1200 15" would make for some small targets.
means it's a rule inferred from Apple's previous behavior…
> And are there any laptops with a resolution higher than 1920x1200?
I've yet to see one, but I don't think there's anything preventing it technically: there were WUXGA 15" laptops 5+ years ago, so why not a WQXGA 17" now (a WXQGA 17" would yield ~177DPI versus 151 on a WUXGA 15", nothing to sneeze at but still very much feasible, IBM's T220 was above 200DPI in 2001)
I didn't plan on reselling this computer ever, but if I were, I assume that the buyer would be just as happy with more HDD space and a super-fast system disk, plus an external SuperDrive. Worst case I could always build this back to stock configuration within half an hour.
I know a lot of people are gushing over the SSD drives but aren't they going to be bummed out in 12 months when it starts degrading?
TRIM itself doesn’t seem to be an issue. For whatever mysterious reason. (Or their methodology is in some way flawed.)
Edit: Since we really shouldn’t be looking at the old MacBook Airs but at the most recent models, this review by Anandtech is certainly also helpful: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-1...
No more substandard SSD performance, TRIM doesn’t seem to be an issue. The author suspects that Apple’s custom firmware is to blame.
Apple, the company that will probably be the first major computer manufacturer to eliminate the spinning disks, the company that is doing whatever it can to snatch up flash memory production capacity. That same company is going to let the performance suffer on, like, all of their devices? Really?
If you have an answer, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it, because as far as I know, that little thing is needed for SSDs to work properly over long term, since overwriting pages in a flash disk is significantly more costly than writing data to fresh pages.
If you don't have an answer, well, your comment seems to be fairly content-free.
a) TRIM is generally needed to be supported by the OS in order to make SSDs work well over time (and is supported by Windows and Linux kernels, among others)
b) Mac OS X up to Snow Leopard doesn't support TRIM
I would tend to believe SSDs used by Mac OS X will degrade in performance over time. Clearly its possible that either (a) or (b) are wrong. In which case, it would be cool to hear which part I've gotten wrong (probably the first part).
Telling me that 'Apple surely would have taken this into consideration as they love their customers and charge a premium for their products' doesn't really address it.
[1] via the discard() method on IOStorage objects: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Darwin...
a) SSDs "need" TRIM support and driver support or the storage performance will greatly suffer b) Apple doesn't support TRIM, at least not officially c) Apple hasn't stated they will have TRIM support in the future
and from those three things, you're just sure that Apple's customers will pay some terrible price.
But you need to ask a few questions to back up what you "know":
1) Where are all of the "my MBA/MBP slows to crawl when the SSD is full" complaints? 2) Why would Apple bet the future of their OS X and iOS line of products on storage performance that painfully degrades with usage? 3) When, ever, has Apple displayed a stunning lack of foresight with their technology shifts that left millions of customers to twist in the wind?
When you add these to the mix, something doesn't add up. That should cause you to pause for a moment and say, hmm, perhaps I don't "know" everything. My reply was supposed to get you to say, "ah, I hadn't considered that." I was adding to the discussion by (trying to) provoke a bit of insightful reasoning beyond the typical "I'm sure I know what I'm talking about even though I haven't tested it."
Ignore me, though. It's just a debate with our opinions and perspectives. Look at the data, instead.
ugh's comment deserves to be upvoted because it links to benchmarked testing of Apple's SSD-bearing devices. The conclusion is clear: Apple's SSD performance isn't affected by a) and thus your line of reasoning is garbage. They were stunned and you should be too. I can confirm these benchmarks, if you don't trust them, by filling up the SSD on my own MBA. No performance penalties that I can see.
So, at least one of the three things that you "know" from a), b), and c) is wrong. Since you seemed to be teetering on the side of Schadenfreude with your original comment, I'm going to guess that you generally avoid Apple products and had genuinely wished that you were right or will be proven right. Ask yourself some questions from a different perspective next time or, better yet, look up some hard data. That way you will either learn that you are wrong earlier or will have some evidence to back up your opinion.
Yes, and I upvoted him for that. He provided an actual answer instead of just knee-jerk condescension and deriding me for even asking the question.
Since you seemed to be teetering on the side of Schadenfreude with your original comment, I'm going to guess that you generally avoid Apple products and had genuinely wished that you were right or will be proven right.
Yes, I suspected that this was your opinion based on the tone of your post and really, you have no basis whatsoever for reaching this conclusion.
Not that it should even matter but I have a 13" MacBook, a Mac-Mini at home and an iPhone 3GS. So maybe you should remember this the next time you start to make assumptions on a person commenting without knowing anything whatsoever about them :)
or, better yet, look up some hard data
Yes, some people knowledgeable on the topic commented and showed that my original hypothesis was wrong, and that's fine. I was looking for a reason 'why' disks would work, and I got it.
Your comment provided no such value to the conversation.
An SSD is a wear item, and consequently a revenue stream. Imagine a replacement plan similar to the current battery replacement policy. Right now, you pay a fixed price, and they'll crack the case and swap out the battery.
Doing it for an SSD after some fixed amount of time would follow quite nicely, and give them the upsell opportunity. "Hey, while we're replacing the SSD, if you pay an extra $99, we'll swap in a bigger drive."
Apple is in the consumer electronics business, and part of their genius is in figuring out how to raise the annualized spend of their customers. The SSD is just another way to do that.
TRIM, like all such standards, is a compromise born out of the need for different parties (namely OS makers and hardware makers who have different priorities) to agree on a common solution.
Apple doesn't need to make such a compromise, and can thus produce a better solution. I'm not saying they will, they may not consider the issue sufficient for the effort required and may simply support TRIM, or they may decide that TRIM is the best practical solution for them.
But in my experience watching Apple for a couple decades, them "doing nothing" and it seemingly being well past the time they should have done something, usually means that they are working on what they consider to be a much better solution, and it isn't yet ready.
I think there's a lot of room for innovation in this fundamental shift from hard drives to SSDs.
I think it could be a wedge, just not as thin as the Air, and fit the ports.
I occasionally need to rip rare CDs with music I can’t get online, maybe twice a year or so. I’m probably just going to keep my old MBP around for that. I don’t think such a special problem deserves a built-in solution.
(I'd comment on the page, but there are no comments enabled).
That's not to say that I don't wish compilation times were faster on my current Macbook Pro...
I believe Apple has made a deliberate choice that quad core offers little benefit over dual core with unjustifiably higher power usage.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen is also dual core only.
I don't expect the MBP to die in the next gen either. Performance is much better than the Ars.
make -j 2
It's more along the lines of Intel not having any quad arrandale in acceptable TDPs.
Also don't take just my word for it: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/867741/ssd-drives-and-vis...
Zooom.
Honestly, I'm actually super excited about Sandy Bridge. I think if you downclock the i7s enough, you can get a quad core under 40W, probably clocked round 2.6 or something. And it'd still have turbo boost on, so single/dual thread performance will still be really competitive.
"CPUs are the least exciting (and usually least relevant) upgrades in modern mass-market personal computers."
It's quite probable that the MacBook Pro gets a faster CPU, but for mobile Macs, that's never a major sales driver. What is? A slimmer, lighter enclosure and better battery life. Switching from HDD to SSD will allow that, like it has for the MacBook Air.
17'' machines seem to be OK with it though.
The MacBook Pro has a 2.5" HDD [1]. The SSD in the MacBook Air has no enclosure at all, the module is placed directly on the logic board [2].
[1] http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repair/Installing-MacBook-Pro-15...
[2] http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repair/Installing-MacBook-Air-13...
The glass has caused me two problems so far: I was in bed with it moving around, and the notebook went off balance. The edge of the screen part hit me in the nose. If it was plastic, it would have been a lot less heavy.
Next, the glass broke when the lid was closed with a USB cable near the hinge, between the top of the keyboard the screen. It didn't take much pressure. Plastic would have, I think, saved me from that.
It was a bit foggy under the camera, and started making some screechy noises when I was talking on Skype. The good news is I left it by a heater vent all night and now it's as good as new.
I wouldn't mind being given a choice between an optical drive and an extra battery or hard drive in that space.
No mention of USB3? The Apple Store is already selling harddrives with fast USB3 hookups (though none of their current laptops can take advantage of it).
In delicious colors!
I really don't regret my decision, but if Apple would just consider adding a 3G module to their MBP-lines, I honestly think they would attract more power-users. Lack of 3G is such an incredibly lame thing in Europe where 3G is everywhere and wifi is a hastle.
I'm an American, and don't understand this statement. Why is WiFi a hassle? And how does the 3g work? Do you just get it through your normal mobile phone provider?
This is annoying.
3G is basically what your phone has with theoretical speedlimits up to 3-4mbps. Get a laptop with a built in 3G-adapter, insert the SIM card. You're done. You now always have internet. Always. Anywhere.
No asking anyone for anything. No confirming silly agreements. No need to stay in one specific place to stay connected. Heck, you can use it in the back of a car while getting driven off somewhere. Why would I want place-restricted wifi over this?
Yes, it's probably slower than Wifi, but watch me care: It just works(tm).
3G coverage is not ideal (it falls back to basic GPRS or 2G in many locations) but it's enough for getting emails.
I wish phone manufacturers or Apple would offer a PAN solution, a personal network that every device in a person's vicinity could use for net access. Ideally, this would be a mini WiFi or Bluetooth router inside the cell phone that's always on. Of course, such a setup is doable with a lot of hassle with some very specific combination of devices, but it would be really great if it simply worked without painful hacks. Portable 3G routers are a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, they are clunky standalone devices with a very limited battery life...
I've used it for about a year with no problems at all. If you're using the WiFi hotspot for a long time and you find you're running out of battery, you can just plug it in to your laptop to charge over USB.
I also think that Firewire is pretty important, as I backed up to external drives over USB for awhile and really have come to appreciate the FW800 port for that purpose.
A Wedge shaped MacBook Pro would still be bigger than an air, and probably thicker, and I presume would have room for a FW port still.
I don't see the need or reason to go to SSD only. The people who would be happy with that are likely to be happy with the macbook Air anyway.