Autumn Wind
Member
Suppose Apple released a new Mac mini for next year? What would it have? Obviously the Kaby Lake processors with Iris aren't available yet and would that make sense?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mac Hardware and Software |OT| - All things Macintosh
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
The same stuff it has now, just with USB-C ports (at least replacing the TB2 ones, maybe the USB-A ones as well) and updated processors, etc. Worst case scenario it gets more locked down and they remove the second HDD bay, but as long as they insist on selling models with mechanical HDs that's probably safe.
Vivalaraza
Member
If I can get a 12" MacBook for £1000, should I go for it? (They're retailing at an insane £1250 in the U.K. right now...)
I'm coming from a 2012 13" MBA. Performance is still okay for the most part although occasionally the RAM struggles. But battery is suffering now. 2-3 hours at the very best.
I definitely don't want to go any bigger so the 13" MBP is not on my radar.
I'm tempted to wait for the next refresh of the 12" but is there anything to indicate major changes? Performance likely won't be an issue for me as I'm just web browsing, using basic software and watching stuff.
I'm coming from a 2012 13" MBA. Performance is still okay for the most part although occasionally the RAM struggles. But battery is suffering now. 2-3 hours at the very best.
I definitely don't want to go any bigger so the 13" MBP is not on my radar.
I'm tempted to wait for the next refresh of the 12" but is there anything to indicate major changes? Performance likely won't be an issue for me as I'm just web browsing, using basic software and watching stuff.
The next update would probably get a bump to flash speeds, and the 7th gen processors (which aren't out for the entire line, only the m3.) Doesn't look like anything crazy exciting for the line, the 615 Intel GPU seems like a marginal update over the 515, you get a slightly faster base and boost clock.
Only possible significant update would be adding another USB-C port (which is possible, I suppose) and/or getting Thunderbolt 3, although I'm not sure about native TB support with the Core M line.
Whether it's worth the risk performance wise is up to you and you don't really seem to care all too much so sure why not. Keeping 2 ports for the lower end 13" pro seems like a very apple thing to do so feature wise there's not likely to be huge changes. No way to really know for sure though of course.
I've done the same upgrade as you from a 2012ish MBA to a Macbook 2016 (m5 tho but I kinda regret that as cpu wise it's very little difference and I don't really need the 512 gb as much as I thought lol) and I quite like it! Had some wifi problems at first (only at home though) but those seem to have gone away. It's rather pricey but you got a good deal anyway.
Gruber on the 32GB ram controversy - "Apple simply places a higher priority on thinness and lightness than performance-hungry pro users do. Intel just doesnt make the chips that Apple needs. This is why Apple designs its own chips for iOS. You dont see people complaining that the iPhone or iPad Pro are underpowered. Weve all been speculating for years that Apple might start designing its own chips for Macs. At this point it looks like they have to do it."
Even MacBook Pro capable KabyLake processors won't support low power LPDDR4.
Even MacBook Pro capable KabyLake processors won't support low power LPDDR4.
Zeyphersan
Banned
So do Skylake and Kaby Lake not support LPDDR4 in any way shape or form at all?
"The true reason behind the lack of 32 GB or DDR4 is Intel. Skylake does not support LPDDR4 (LP for low power) RAM. Kabylake is set to include support, but only for the U category of chips. So no LPDDR4 support for mobile until 2018 I think."
Zeyphersan
Banned
C'mon Intel, get your shit together
Zeyphersan
Banned
As down as I am for both of those things, I can't wait a year. Gonna have to keep my order in for this year's models
* but the prediction say if Intel Launches "Canonlake by then" (which going by recent history then lolnope). Even Kuo is not stupid enough to predict that Intel will launch on time.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Looks like even the President was concerned with the new MacBooks:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/31/presidents-council-launches-semiconductor-working-group
We'll see. The simplest Canonlake chips could be ready by then. Remember, we essentially will have had two years of Skylake. Canonlake will be the third iteration of the architecture, now on a new process.
Edit: I'm most interested to see how the Canonlake MacBooks perform. The 10nm die shrink could be enough to make the MacBook powerful enough for like 95% of users. Drop the price and add in the v2 version of the butterfly keyboard, and people will be in.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/31/presidents-council-launches-semiconductor-working-group
We'll see. The simplest Canonlake chips could be ready by then. Remember, we essentially will have had two years of Skylake. Canonlake will be the third iteration of the architecture, now on a new process.
Edit: I'm most interested to see how the Canonlake MacBooks perform. The 10nm die shrink could be enough to make the MacBook powerful enough for like 95% of users. Drop the price and add in the v2 version of the butterfly keyboard, and people will be in.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Reread what I said. Nothing I said was wrong. Intel timelines are uncertain. I wasn't talking about MacBook Pros. If you had a point other than that, please use words.
MrMephistoX
Member
So is the stock Iris graphics chip still shit for PC gaming? I've had the OG Retina pro with the dedicated (AMD?) GPU since day one in 2012 so just curious if things have improved enough to where I wouldn't necessarily need the $2999 model this time.
The Iris 550 in a DDR3 config is a little lower than the performance of a 930M, for comparison; Notebookcheck has it as marginally faster than the 650M of the 2012 model. In contrast the entry-level dGPU option, the Radeon 450, is basically a 1Tflop cutdown of the RX460. So basically if you want to play current games coming out at medium or possibly higher, you still need the dGPU. If you're fine with low-res, go with the Iris (given the possible eGPU capabilities coming down the line with TB3 you can also gamble on being able to get an external GPU later to boost the power.)
Zombie James
Banned
I wonder why Apple can't order a custom part? "We need X CPU with Y number of cores that supports Z memory." Sony and MS get custom parts from AMD and they probably have half the purchasing power Apple does, or is this something that Intel just doesn't do?
If this were the iPhone, sure, but Mac sales are very low volume in comparison. When you're shipping <5m units a quarter you probably don't have as much bargaining power.
jts
...hate me...
I was thinking of having an external SSD (nothing fancy, just a small cheapo one) with a Windows installation, for games and stuff. Probably even Windows 7 because 10 is expensive as hell. Unless I can't install 7 anymore.
Anyway, is a Thunderbolt enclosure (TB 1 or 2) worth it or is USB 3.0 plenty fine?
Anyway, is a Thunderbolt enclosure (TB 1 or 2) worth it or is USB 3.0 plenty fine?
Zeyphersan
Banned
StopMakingSense
Member
wtf are you talking about. usb3 is fine.
I am currently running my iMac off of an SSD fw400 enclosure as its better than my internal HD for 95% of IO tasks.
Speedwise usb3 would be completely fine and way cheaper than anything thunderbolt. Only thing though, is that installing a bootcamp install of windows is a pain in the ass, from what I can recall.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Oooh. Let me know if you find something good. Didn't think about that. I looked a couple of months ago for a good external m.2/NVMe enclosure, but didn't find much yet. Didn't look for SATA6.
Also, beyond speed, one of the major advantages of Gen 2 is lower overhead from the USB protocol as well.
Doubt it. iGPUs have come a long way from the HD4000, and the fact that Apple is now shipping the models at higher-than-native retina resolutions means they must be pretty confident about the performance.
If you listen to the people on MacRumors you'd think the keyboard will break from crumbs after a day of use, your dGPU will combust after a year, your $3,000 laptops UI will lag constantly, your dongles will bork your wifi card, your space gray laptop will scratch up like a bitch, and everyone needs 32GBs of RAM. LOL
Junior Mint
Member
I'm on a 2012 MBA and the UI still seems fine
It's only an issue on the earlier retina models.
The internet is full of people with marginal tech use cases who think that since they're the hero of their story, companies should forever cater to them.
I think Apple's skipping of updates for desktop Macs is inexcusable. I'd probably take a bit more weight for a longer battery, better thermals, and upgradable components in their computer lines. But I also realize I'm a minority, and that if Apple doesn't serve my needs, I can go somewhere else. With the general PC market contracting there's more and more people trying to make a play for the remaining profitable markets and people with money to spend have a lot more solid options these days.
jts
...hate me...
Thanks. I’d go thunderbolt for at least keeping the USBs clear for other usages, but I’ll go USB if I can’t find anything reasonably priced.
Macrumors is generally hyperbolic but then again almost all those concerns have occurred in the past five years (except RAM ― nobody needs more than 512K)
Rocky Raccoon
Banned
What would you guys choose?
I was able to get the Macbook Pro 13" at a price glitch on Amazon. Would this be enough for programming at 8GB RAM? Or do I need to pay more than double the amount for the 15" Macbooks with 16GB RAM.
I was able to get the Macbook Pro 13" at a price glitch on Amazon. Would this be enough for programming at 8GB RAM? Or do I need to pay more than double the amount for the 15" Macbooks with 16GB RAM.
eyeball_kid
Member
So how loud is the keyboard sound on the new MBP? I saw a video linked in the preview event thread that made it sound extremely loud compared with last year's keyboard.
Just got my 2015 MBP refurb, 15" with all the trim. Late 2008 model that I was stubbornly holding out with on Mavericks finally gave up the ghost.
My first several hours using El Capitan were the absolute worst on my eyes (what were Apple thinking with these post-Mavericks UI changes?) but after I upgraded to Sierra I feel better. Am I just getting used to it, or did they make some changes to make the windows pop better?
My first several hours using El Capitan were the absolute worst on my eyes (what were Apple thinking with these post-Mavericks UI changes?) but after I upgraded to Sierra I feel better. Am I just getting used to it, or did they make some changes to make the windows pop better?
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I'm so glad Apple reverted to the old style sorting of icon view with labels on the right.
Sierra introduced a new unintuitive way of sorting the icons when in Icon view with right-side labels where it would sort them left to right then down a row, which is how they sort when in bottom label mode. But this was unintuitive and didn't flow as well because your eyes follow the icons, which go lined up top to bottom. So you'd get lost looking for something when sorted alphabetically. Now they're back to normal with the icons sorting top to bottom then to the right column-wise. Much better flow with your eyes. Must have had a lot of people complain about it that it took until 10.12.2 for them to revert it. (It's still the other way in 10.12.1.
Sierra introduced a new unintuitive way of sorting the icons when in Icon view with right-side labels where it would sort them left to right then down a row, which is how they sort when in bottom label mode. But this was unintuitive and didn't flow as well because your eyes follow the icons, which go lined up top to bottom. So you'd get lost looking for something when sorted alphabetically. Now they're back to normal with the icons sorting top to bottom then to the right column-wise. Much better flow with your eyes. Must have had a lot of people complain about it that it took until 10.12.2 for them to revert it. (It's still the other way in 10.12.1.
Fairly certain it's the same light color scheme from Yosemite on.
Rocky Raccoon
Banned
If I use a MacBook Pro everyday, is it better to let it sleep during the night (8hrs) or turn it off?
My 2011 13" MacBook Pro never needed a restart. I could leave it on for months with no issues.
My work MacBook Pro 15" 2012 w/ Retina (Maxed sans SSD) needs reboots and its nvram flushed often.
My personal one needs reboots from time to time when it's lagging. Apple "Genius" says it's my antivirus and I don't need one(bullshit I read the stats. ) I used Sophos on all except the work one because it's not free for commercial use. The work one is the worst. It wakes from sleep horribly lagging just trying to log in.
Regardless, reboot only when things appear to not be working like they should. Same for windows 8 and 10. I have a cheap HP stream 9 for testing apps and that thing has not been rebooted. Works great after so much testing. (Needs reboot when updating though.)
Mr. Wonderful
Member
There have been a variety of small tweaks and improvements with both El Capitan and Sierra. For example, the system font was changed to San Francisco from a variant of Helvetica Nue, and the color of Control Center changed. Beyond that, a handleful of transparency adjustments, etc.
Also, performance and responsiveness majorly improved with the introduction of Metal, which makes the OS feel way better.
jts
...hate me...
Macs are meant to sleep. They even do some functions while at it if you have Power Nap turned on.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Sleeping is perfectly fine for Mac laptops. Apples even blurring the line between sleeping and shut off with the new machines that turn themselves on when you open the lid. Coupled with how fast they turn on they're practically almost impossible to tell the difference between.
Just sleep.
Just sleep.