Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by wheels | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

wheels

Color me disappointed. I was hoping for:

• Ditching the optical media for longer battery life

• 4 cores in the 13"

• Max RAM of 12 GB (this one isn't listed ... maybe?)

• The higher resolution 1440x900 resolution in the 13" that the Macbook Air has

Altogether it's a pretty wussy update. Basically it looks like the diff (on the 13" model, which is what I care about) is:

• Faster CPU (finally!)

• Thunderbolt port (count on buying another $30 display adapter like every generation)

• 3 hours less battery life

View on HN

>Thunderbolt port (count on buying another $30 display adapter like every generation)

Existing (edit: mini)displayport adapters will work. Per the Apple Thunderbolt site (http://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/):

"And because Thunderbolt is based on DisplayPort technology, the video standard for high-resolution displays, any Mini DisplayPort display plugs right into the Thunderbolt port. To connect a DisplayPort, DVI, HDMI, or VGA display, just use an existing adapter."

Yes, and you can pick up a cheap $7 mini-display port to DVI connector from Monoprice.com. I'm using one now to connect my early 2010 MBP to an el-cheapo Dell 22" LCD.

What happens when you plug a Thunderbolt plug into a DisplayPort port?

Probably nothing. If they're smart, they've made it physically not fit (like SAS into SATA).

It's $100 for the mini-display port to dual-dvi, and it doesn't even work very well.

I was scared away from purchasing a MacBook Pro with a Mini-Display Port just because of all the reviews on Apple.com saying how that converter was horrible. I'm happy I did, because it caused me to wait for a MacBook Air 13", and not only did I get a computer that is better for me (I really don't need all the features and power of the latest and greatest MBP) - They also seemed to have fixed the problems with the converter. I spend 10-12 hours a day with my MBAir 13" 1440x900and my Dell 2560x1600.

The Converter works fine, I _love_ the mini-display port form factor, Happy to hear they are adapting it for thunderbolt, (Interesting to see the similarity in Bus Naming "FIRE WIRE" "THUNDER BOLT") - Only downside is that it requires a USB port to power it, but, on the pro side, the MBAir comes with two!

I believe your monitor has a Displayport-in, which means you only need a $5 cable from monoprice that is mini-DP to DP. I have one and it works quite well. Much cheaper than the $100 adapter.

I have the dell 3007wfp, which does not have display port, the 3008wfp does.

>>• 3 hours less battery life

The old battery tests were unrealistic. They advertised 8 hours on the 17'', but who really got even close to that under normal use?

I'm thankful they're taking the hit on pure battery life numbers to report an honest, realistic test.

I'd be surprised if that's what happened. I suspect this is just another unrealistic number that's the same proportion of reality as the previous numbers.

That said, when I'm traveling and going for extended battery life (read: trans-atlantic flights) I get pretty close to the rated number by dimming my backlight and shutting off wifi and bluetooth.

Apple reported that they were changing the way they measured/reported battery life with the last MacBook air launch, and explained that it was less favorable, but more realistic.

During transitions like this it would be nice to give both numbers on the new and old machines. This at least gives people some type of comparison point.

While that would be nice for the techie crowd, it would read to the typical user like "we were lying before, sorry about that". Not very feasible.

Well, I do get very close to 8 hours on my 17" MBP (when the cpu is not too stressed). That number will go down if any serious work is done, but light browsing etc. takes it all the way up to 8h.

The key I find with my mid 2010 17 is to manually force intel graphics. Several web browsers and plugins seem to invoke the NVidia discrete chip which sucks power.

Thank you for this reminder.

http://codykrieger.com/gfxCardStatus is a great tool for this.

Yep. My MBP, which was hte latest verison as of last week, gets about 3-4 hours on battery. Way less than they advertised. In the past they've been pretty reasonable. Not so much any more.

They advertised 10 hours for my (now) last-gen MacBook pro. I can easily do 12 hours. And have. Screen brightness at minimum, using terminal.app. I prefer vim to any graphical editor (haven't tried emacs), and nethack is one of my favorite games ever. That's what I spend my long plane rides doing.

I'm not sure if they're being more realistic.

The previous MBPs had CPUs with a TDP of 35W. The TDP of the CPUs in the 2011 MBPs are 45W. Battery life seems to have dropped inline with the increase in power envelope.

We should see improved battery life next year with Ivy Bridge, or if there's a mid-year refresh with Sandy Bridge processors with new steppings.

Regardless, I plunked down for a 15" today so I could rid myself of the large brick my workplace saddled with me. They didn't believe me when I said I'd buy my own laptop with my own case. Hell, I meant it.

I think the TDP increase is mostly due to the integrated graphics being moved on to the CPU. Overall platform power usage should be lower than the previous generation.

The increase in TDP mostly has to do with the increased GPU power - I think (speculating) that if you were running the 2010 CPU + the nvidia gpu hot for equivalent performance you'd be seeing at least as high a total power draw.

My 2010 15" MBP (i7, anti-glare upgrade) routinely gets 5-6+ hours on battery -- unless I'm doing something that causes the discrete GPU to kick in. Then, I'm lucky to get two hours.

I can totally vouch for this. My 5,3 MBP only got about 4 hours max when brand new as long as I was running OS X and had the power-saving video mode selected. Running Debian, I usually see around 2 hours if I'm lucky.

I don't think the laptop versions of the Core i* have 3 memory channels (neither do the Socket-1155/1156 desktop versions), so 3x4GB of RAM would be a strange/suboptimal configuration. There probably isn't enough physical space in a 13" laptop for more than 2 modules anyway (unless you sacrifice battery or optical drive space). Even soldering them to the motherboard wouldn't save much space - I think all current 4GB modules use 16 DRAM chips.

The move from Core2Duo to Core i* alone should bag you a substantial improvement in processing power, at least; the lack of a quad-core model is presumably a battery life and cooling system trade-off.

Wasn't there a problem with some of the core processors? I don't remember which ones, but I'd check very carefully.

Also worth checking out is what scale they are made at, I remember some of the core i processors were only being made at the higher nanometers scale (e.g. older less heat efficient technology).

It would be ironic if the Core i5 four core model was more battery efficient and produced less heat than the core i5 two core models...

Edit: no, I'm not referring to the recent thing with the sandy bridge architecture, but a previous architecture. Did some more research and it sounds like back in September some of them were produced at 32 nanometers and others were produced at 45 nanometers. Also there may have been some initial problems going to their new 32nm process.

Presumably by now they've got the issues that I remembered sorted out (so that they can have new and different issues like sandy bridge ports and so forth).

All the new MacBook Pros use the latest "Sandy Bridge" generation CPUs. You can tell by the type of integrated GPU. There was a problem with the secondary SATA controller in the first revision of Intel's chipset for these CPUs. This has since been fixed, and also only surfaces in systems with more than 2 SATA ports.

It's the Sandy Bridge series (the affected one), but it was the chipsets that were affected, and that supposedly won't be a problem with these laptops.

Yep, those CPUs only support 8GB max.

See the Intel Core i7 2620M (the 2.7Ghz part in the high-end 13" model) spec sheet for example: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52231

Interesting, I didn't realise the mobile versions don't even support multiple memory modules per channel. (which would allow for 4 modules like on many desktop systems, including the iMacs)

unless you sacrifice [...] optical drive space

What they really sacrificed here was the opportunity to make a compelling product. It's 2011, when have you last time used an optical drive?

I have no idea why they're still so popular. I can only assume people don't think about it rationally. I don't know anyone who drags DVDs around with them, so why drag around the drive?

Frankly, I haven't needed an optical drive in a laptop since booting from USB drives became practical a few years ago. (happy MacBook Air user here)

It'll be interesting to see if Apple fleshes out its Cinema display into a combined docking station and screen using the Thunderbolt port's potential. Add a DVD drive, HDD for Time Machine, USB/Firewire controllers, ExpressCard slot, whatever, using the PCIe channel in the Thunderbolt.

It's 2011, when have you last time used an optical drive?

I see where you're standing. But actually I receive two DVDs per week in my mailbox, so last time was today. And I still buy CDs, yes.

I think what you really want is the next iteration of the Air with whatnot is missing from the current model.

So, honest question, would you not trade the internal CD-Rom for better battery life, more ram, lighter weight or some other tangible advantage?

The only situation where I could imagine an external CD-Rom to get in the way would be for watching DVDs on the go. But afaik even for that most people copy the movie to the harddrive beforehand - to prevent the drive from sucking the battery dry while watching.

Instead of the above trade off, I think I'd buy two machines if needed.

I see the MBP as a laptop to use plugged in a socket and with a lan cable at home, work, a client's place or a library, and only need decent portability and battery life. For all other uses I'd prefer the ipad or the Air(wish I get the $$ for it).

Last night, to rip a DVD from Netflix. Before that, I didn't use it often, to be fair, but I've still used it to install Office, to install OS X, and to burn a DVD with the complete audio _Ulysses_ on it.

Do I use it as often as I did, say, 10 years ago? No, but I can imagine why Apple would leave it.

When I updated the system to Snow Leopard.

Given the Air's recovery thumbdrive, I think Apple can start sell the next OS X version in thumbdrive form =).

1st thing I did when I receive my Snow Leopard DVD is to RIP it to my firewire HDD.

I'm curious why they didn't put in a Blu-Ray reader/writer, if they're going to put in an optical drive at all?

Because it costs more.

I was really hoping the stock models would ditch hard drives entirely (for SSDs) like the MB Air.

The only reason I wasn't hoping for that is because I intend to stuff a 512 GB aftermarket SSD into my next MBP and I'd rather not pay through the nose for Apple's upgrade option.

They are only charging $1100-$1200 for the upgrade. Where are you getting a high-quality aftermarket 512GB SSD for much less than that (forget that you have to install it yourself)?

edit: pricing differs slightly depending on model

Is hard drive replacement in an MBP really difficult enough to warrant any mention when high-end SSDs are in play?

Nope. I got my 13" Macbook Pro in early January of this year and it took me a total of 10 minutes to replace the stock HDD with an SSD.

If you ignore the hours of data copying or fresh install.

that's where lightpeak/thunderbolt steps in.

I actually cloned it with Carbon Copy Cloner before switching it in. It was about another 5 minutes of work, and then letting it sit and run in the background for an hour. Not much to worry or complain about.

Especially if you get a list price discount (negotiated for small business, big employer, association, government, military) the apple upgrade price is below market price, at least for the 512.

As of this morning, $1200 for a 512GB SSD is cheaper than what's available on newegg.com

still looking for an "official" statement but i believe that the thunderbolt port may be backwards compatible with minidisplay. i would assume apple would change it's form if it were not, as to prevent users from accidentally plugging in incompatible devices.

[updated] it is backwards compatible - source: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/features.html

The main thing that bothers me in your list that I was really hoping for, was the better resolution on the 13inch. boo.

I'm getting the 15" for just that reason. The extra weight is worth having two vim buffers side by side.

Great, it's the standard 1440x900 or the high-res option ? Did you get matte display ?

That they kept the optical drives wasn't a surprise. For most of us (power-users) — who download software and/or use disk images — it's not a necessity, but a lot of regular Joe's still burn CD's/DVD's.

I've had a lot of people look at a MacBook Air and then ask me "where's the DVD drive?".

Apple could easily leverage this to their advantage by selling an optional external drive and marketing it appropriately.

Or they could design the bay to accommodate an optional battery that would be factory installed.

I don't think it's less battery life - it's just measured more accurately.

Love the quad core.

Hate the CD drive - fill up that space with something useful, not a dead weight. I'd have to install an optibay adapter with SSD but I don't see why I'd want to to hack a brand new laptop.

I am still waiting for a 13" Macbook Air with an Apple ARM processor, 10 hours of battery, RAM upgradeable to 8GB and 512gb SSD drive by default, for less than $1500. Hopefully it'll be out in a year. Maybe two.

Lugging around my Core2Duo MBP weighing at over 2kg does get quite tiring. :( I need its battery life though.

Totally agreed on ditching optical media. I'm also wondering when they'll get around to adding mobile broadband support.

> Ditching the optical media for longer battery life

I doubt the optical drive uses any significant power at all when it's not in use.

That said, I ditched my own in favor of an SSD + HDD setup and haven't looked back.

I think what's meant is using that space for battery and not a useless optical drive.

I think he meant (or this is certainly what I was hoping for) that removing the optical bay would leave space for a much larger battery.

Ah, that makes more sense. Although a battery is a lot denser than an optical drive, so that would kick the system weight up. If you use some of the space gained to instead make the system thinner, you start to get essentially a Macbook Air. And I think it's fairly clear that Apple is moving in the direction of converging the Air and the 13" MBP.

The battery life score is based on Apple's new battery tests. 50% screen brightness whilst browsing 30 websites (including flash) in a normal fashion until the battery dies.

To add to your list: 3G internet.

Yeah, why not? Among top tier laptop and cellphone manufacturers, the only name that appears on both lists is Apple (well, I guess Samsung makes laptops too...). Adding a SIM/RUIM slot and a 3G chip makes so much sense. I know a lot of laptop manufacturers in Europe have offered this as an option. Why not Apple?

Because it's more profitable for Apple if you get your 3G from a tethered iPhone?

Maybe more profitable for AT&T. It's not like you're not going to buy an iPhone because they add 3G to their laptops.

why would it be tethering be profitable for Apple? AFAIK they do not get a cut of the tethering charge from providers.

Because then you have to buy an iPhone (and proprietary cables, and then you might find some fun apps etc.)

Because most people don't want to pay for two 3G data plans, and the types of people who would want 3G connectivity on their laptops probably have 3G smartphones with tethering already.

You don’t have to pay for a data plan. I use one of those prepaid 3G USB sticks and pay 2.50€ for one day unlimited HSDPA internet access (limited to GPRS speeds after 500MB).

That’s perfect for me since I’m maybe six hours in a train two or three times a month and no flatrate can beat the five or eight Euro I’m paying.

There are dozens of other options available (at least in Germany), suitable for pretty much any conceivable need and some will come with extra SIM cards for your smartphone or tablet.

How about this one: 15€ per month, unlimited HSDPA internet access (limited to GPRS speeds after 1GB), 9ct per minute for all phone calls and SMS (as always in Europe, incoming phone calls and SMS are free), two SIM cards. You could order an unlocked iPhone from Apple right now (I don’t know whether that’s possible in the US but it is now in Germany) and put one SIM card in the phone and use the other one for your laptop or whatever other device.

In the US and Canada you don't get anything like these offers, and Apple's not the kind to redesign their hardware just so that some people in Europe can do something easily accomplished with a smartphone or a $50-100 USB 3G modem.

It seems just so strange. The iPad does have 3G built in, why not their other mobile products? Plugging that 3G modem in is just so unelegant.

Maybe they're not confident that the number of people choosing this option would compensate for the extra training and infrastructure necessary to support it, plus the tie-ins with a carrier. It's one thing to do that for the iPhone where every customer wants it, another for 5% of Macbook buyers.

and a pony? :)

(see: http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/magazine/6/4/... )

I almost choked on a sip of tea when I noticed that the 13" "Pro" is still stuck with a 1280*800 display. Talk about boneheaded move.

Market segmentation.

Yeah. It segments away people who want more than 113 dpi in a sub-5 lb laptop with a hard drive larger than 256 GB quite effectively.

Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space.

If anything, 1400x900 on the new MBA seems a little bit small (and Apple doesn't allow you to bump the size of everything up like you can in Windows). It's interesting that 1680x1050 is still an upcharge on the 15".

> Why is that a boneheaded move?

Because people want higher resolutions without using an external display. Or at least a choice.

The fact that a 1920x1080 is only available on a single production laptop, the Sony Vaio Z and a small number of 17" laptops (possibly some 16"ers too) makes me suspect that the market for high resolution screens is very slim.

The best I can tell, the availability of high resolution screens on laptops has actually dropped over the past few years rather than increased. It seems rare now that screen resolution is even an option on laptops.

Personally I'm one of the people who is in the market for high resolution laptop screens. Unfortunately its a choice between high resolution and durability or size. I'm never traveling with a 17" screen again and I don't really want a poorly engineered Vaio Z.

We're talking about the 13". You do realize 1280x800 and 1920x1080 aren't the only choices, right? You don't have to look far, Apple's own Macbook Air comes with a 13" 1440x900. (And to rub it in, a 11" 1366x768.)

And the macbook air has a higher resolution in an 11" form-factor

The number of potential customers for this model that actually know what that means is very small.

If Apple put in a 1900x1080 screen, what you'd hear instead from consumers is that everything is too tiny to read.

Nice false dichotomy.

I think the kind of people who just look at the size of the screen and not the number of pixels, are likely the same people who will just buy the same size Windows PC because it's several hundred dollars less.

In other words, the people willing to pay Apple prices care enough about their computer purchase to actually read the specs. Like if you buy a high performance car, you at least want to do enough research not to look like a total idiot in front of your gear head friends after you've spent that much money.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and Apple customers really only care about how nice it will look on the coffee shop table.

I know at least 2 such Apple customers. It's an Apple, it's good enough, and that's all that matters to them; specs are the last things they care about.

A colleague has a Vaio with that resolution running Win7. It doesn't seem to respect DPI settings system wide, he is continually adjusting font sizes. I don't know why he puts up with it, it seems much more hassle than it is worth.

My work provided me with a 13" MacBook Pro and I hate how the display is only 1280 by 800. When we get our new budget I am hoping I can get an upgrade to a 15" with the hi-res display, but we shall see.

My MacBook Pro 15" from a couple of years ago has a 1440 by 900 display and that is MUCH better than this 1280 by 800. Shame that Apple still thinks that is acceptable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com