[Kensington]

Anyone else stoked about the return of the MacBook?

I think I'll get one in gold to match my grille.

[ibook_steve]

Nice looking machine, but those $80 video adapters? Monoprice, where are you?

I'm also concerned about the performance since I read that it does not use a true Core i5 processor. It's using a Core M.

Steve

[Mike Wuerthele]

General populace response to new MacBook: "Holy crap, that thing is thin, and COOL, when can I get one."

Apple Enthusiasts' response: "This doesn't do what I need it to."

Both answers are correct, and valid responses.

[P]

The CPU is indeed "Core-M", which is the latest name that Intel has stuck on its lowest energy processors. It's not really anything new, they drop the lowest TDP tier every other gen or so, Intel just felt the need to relaunch it. TDP is down to 4.5W, which is the reason that it is fanless now. CPU cores are two Broadwell cores - i.e., shrunk versions of the same Haswell cores we used to have, with base clock down to 1.1 GHz and max turbo in the 2.4-2.9 GHz range. GPU is "Intel HD Graphics 5300", which is the Broadwell version of the middling Intel integrated graphics (GT2), downclocked as low as it goes. So...24 CUs, one set of slice common... The best way I can describe it is that we're back down to the integrated graphics we got in the MBAs as late as 2012, except upgraded two generations along with everything else. I'd say that given enough cooling, it should perform 50% better than the 2012 MBA - but that "enough cooling" is the important bit.

In all, it relies heavily on being able to turbo up for short bursts and then clock down directly before it heats up. This means that in something that keeps loading CPU or GPU, it won't run well at all. I suspect that 3D gaming is right out unless you feel the need to carry around an external cooling block.

I actually think that it is interesting. I could very well see myself using one as a secondary Mac, but it means that I'd have to have another computer - and I have a phone, and an iPad, and only one set of hands, so I'm not sure it would be very useful. I do think they could have squeezed in a second USB port on the other side with the headphone port further forward - if they could fit one on those old ultra thin iPod nanos, they could fit one here.

[mindwaves]

Only one USB-C port? Reminds me of the original MacBook Air. I'll stick to my rMBP 15''.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mindwaves 

Only one USB-C port? Reminds me of the original MacBook Air. I'll stick to my rMBP 15''.

Because it is the analog of the first MacBook Air, it's reimagining this machine – and Apple seems to think so as well: they said that they think all computers will be like this in a few years (to be fair, they said this when they introduced the 2010 redesign of the Air). And these machines do resemble each other: initially, a step back in terms of performance, too few ports, etc. But it's clear that this is where things are going, and the new MacBook will arrive there first. I'm sad that they stuck to MacBook, I never came to liking that moniker. PowerBook, now that was a name … 

[The Final Dakar]

Also, why the hell did they get rid of the magsafe adaptor? I know its almost worthless on my Air because they weakened the magnet for no reason, but still.

[OreoCookie]

Because they wanted one single connector to rule them all. It's a pity that USB-C does not have a Lightning-style connector, though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Because they wanted one single connector to rule them all. It's a pity that USB-C does not have a Lightning-style connector, though.

Boo. I don't see why they kept the headphone jack over having a usb connector one side and the plug on the other.

[Spheric Harlot]

Because it's more important.

[P]

Just looked up the latest iPod nano. It is 5.4 mm thick, and features a headphone jack. The new Macbook is 13.1-3.5 mm thick, according to Apple, so at its midpoint it would be 8.3 mm thick - more than enough for a headphone jack. Surely they could have fit one in next to USB-C port on the same side?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Because it's more important.

Obviously that's the train of thought, but is that actually true?

[ajprice]

I don't get the single USB port thing. I know Apple have previous for forcing new tech by dropping common parts (floppy disks, USB only iMac, optical drives etc), but 1 port for the charger, I/O and external display is pushing it.

There's a new Chromebook Pixel too, with a USB-C on each side, headphone jack, i5 or i7 processor and an SD card slot. The price is £799 or £999 (Macbook is £1049 or £1299). It weighs 3.3lb (MacBook is 2lb) and runs Chrome though .

New Chromebook Pixel takes on new MacBook with USB-C | Computing News | TechRadar

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Obviously that's the train of thought, but is that actually true?

For FaceTime/Skype/GoToMeeting/whatever, using a headset is definitely preferable.

I think the idea is that this kind of thing is and will grow ever more a mainstream activity (and I do see this at least anecdotally, both in my life and in those around me), while the need for consumers to physically attach peripherals is dying.

What peripherals does the average user realistically need to attach?

- A USB stick - taken care of by Dropbox or email (Apple's own MailDrop has a limit of 5 GB).

- printers - wireless these days.

- mouse. Heh. No.

- iOS stuff. When it syncs, it does wirelessly (most of the time, my devices don't sync, but this thread is about MacBooks, not the (lack of) quality of iTunes).

- projectors. Yep. Dongle. But the available Apple dongles include USB and power simultaneously.

- cameras. Yep. Edge-case, though. By far the most popular camera is the iPhone. Photos.app for that. If you've got a DSLR, you're probably on a MB Pro.

Am I missing something? The USB stick is a big one, but over the past year, I've found myself doing everything via Dropbox, not ever touching my collection of USB sticks.

In academia and job settings, this will be a similar annoyance to dropping floppies in 1998.

And my friend who's an event technician (sound/video guy) is dreading every event service having to keep ANOTHER set of dongles in the drawer because speakers are CONSTANTLY forgetting theirs.
But this has been normal for almost fifteen years now, when Macs started going DVI-I.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

For FaceTime/Skype/GoToMeeting/whatever, using a headset is definitely preferable.

The irony here that they come in bluetooth as well.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Am I missing something? The USB stick is a big one, but over the past year, I've found myself doing everything via Dropbox, not ever touching my collection of USB sticks.

It is the big one, but the other one I was relying more on: USB charging. Your iPhone, your iPad, your kindle, etc.

I know: Separate wall charger. That's just making it a different complication.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

I don't get the single USB port thing. I know Apple have previous for forcing new tech by dropping common parts (floppy disks, USB only iMac, optical drives etc), but 1 port for the charger, I/O and external display is pushing it.

Look at it this way: it's a single docking port that does everything.
The external display is at a desk, permanently hooked up to the DVI dongle along with power and the USB-Ethernet thingy (does that work with these new books?).

A single plug to connect when you get to your desk.

I paid a lot of money for that comfort when I got my external Thunderbolt hub for the MacBook Pro, and even that only cut it down to TWO plugs (power is still MagSafe).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The irony here that they come in bluetooth as well.

True, but until they're included with everything by default, 3.5mm is what everybody has, and it will be for years to come.
My Jawbone has a battery life of about four hours. Not acceptable for mainstream use (though it's fine for hands-free in the car, where I just stick it on the charger when I get off the phone).

It is the big one, but the other one I was relying more on: USB charging. Your iPhone, your iPad, your kindle, etc.

I know: Separate wall charger. That's just making it a different complication.

I hear you. But a) I think that's more out of convenience than a necessity, and b) iPads and the newer iPhones don't charge properly via computers' USB ports, anyway.
This is going to go away, quickly, I think.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

True, but until they're included with everything by default, 3.5mm is what everybody has, and it will be for years to come.
My Jawbone has a battery life of about four hours. Not acceptable for mainstream use (though it's fine for hands-free in the car, where I just stick it on the charger when I get off the phone).

Which would just return it to the original problem of where to charge it...

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

b) iPads and the newer iPhones don't charge properly via computers' USB ports, anyway.

I'm guessing its is a doesn't give enough juice problem(?), but with a new protocol (USB C) you would think that could get solved in the future.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Which would just return it to the original problem of where to charge it...

...aaaaand hence the 3.5mm socket!

I'm guessing its is a doesn't give enough juice problem(?), but with a new protocol (USB C) you would think that could get solved in the future.

quite possibly, but not in this class of device. We'll maybe see that type of bus-power on boxes where battery life isn't a primary concern.

Keep in mind that the power supplies for those machines will need to provide enough to charge the internal battery plus power the computer itself plus power any external peripherals - the internal USB ports will always be bus-power capped.

[P]

I think Apple should release an AC-adapter with 4 USB-ports, HDMI and TB out. That would solve a lot of problems, I think.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

I think Apple should release an AC-adapter with 4 USB-ports, HDMI and TB out. That would solve a lot of problems, I think.

Now that's clever. No more needing to carry around a bunch of USB adaptors, etc.

[Spheric Harlot]

Let's see what happens with the next Pro revision. I'm on board!

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by P 

I think Apple should release an AC-adapter with 4 USB-ports, HDMI and TB out. That would solve a lot of problems, I think.

That's a brilliant idea. USB-C isn't patented by Apple like the Mag Safe connector. If Apple doesn't make it, maybe a third party will?

Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele 

General populace response to new MacBook: "Holy crap, that thing is thin, and COOL, when can I get one."

Apple Enthusiasts' response: "This doesn't do what I need it to."

I wasn't as enthusiastic as I used to be 12 years ago, I guess I don't fit into either category

However, by large and far I am most impressed with [1] how small the logic board is (although I'm still more so impressed with the S1 chip on WATCH) and [2] how little power the CPU uses (5 Watts).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by And.reg 

However, by large and far I am most impressed with [1] how small the logic board is (although I'm still more so impressed with the S1 chip on WATCH) and [2] how little power the CPU uses (5 Watts).

The cpu of my first Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga (aka 3500) also had a TDP of around 5 W if memory serves.

[P]

The CPU of my first Mac had a TDP of 1.5W. They didn't even put heatspreaders one them back then.

[pigmode]

Any thought on USB C, and if its worth waiting for an rMBP update mainly for that?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The cpu of my first Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga (aka 3500) also had a TDP of around 5 W if memory serves.

Was it dual core at over 2 GHz (turbo) each?

Originally Posted by pigmode 

Any thought on USB C, and if its worth waiting for an rMBP update mainly for that?

Why would you wait to get a USB C connector? Forbid that you accidentally jerk the cable because it gets caught and tugs on the whole port, causing it damage. At least with the MagSafe connector, if you tug on it, then it won't drag the whole computer along with it and/or damage the connector.

[CharlesS]

Does anyone know if you can charge from those display / USB combo adapters? Kind of a shame if you can't hook one up to your work setup without being on AC power.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I hear you. But a) I think that's more out of convenience than a necessity, and b) iPads and the newer iPhones don't charge properly via computers' USB ports, anyway.
This is going to go away, quickly, I think.

That's with the old USB ports, though. USB 2.0 ports only supplied 0.5A, which is not enough to power most modern smartphones, but USB-C ports can provide 1.5A to 3A. 1.5A is more than enough to power an iPhone or Android phone. 3A, OTOH, is enough to power an iPad and an iPhone at the same time.

I think this is the nicest thing on display here. As soon as the smartphone market switches to USB-C, you'll only have to carry around one charger for everything. It'll also make chargers cross-compatible between iOS and Android devices, which is handy when you need to borrow someone's charger, but they use a different platform. The non-proprietary nature of the port will also make it possible to get third-party backup batteries and the like for Apple devices.

Originally Posted by P 

I think Apple should release an AC-adapter with 4 USB-ports, HDMI and TB out. That would solve a lot of problems, I think.

I think TB is probably on its way out. It was an incredibly cool technology, but it never really took off.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Does anyone know if you can charge from those display / USB combo adapters? Kind of a shame if you can't hook one up to your work setup without being on AC power.

You can. That's the major selling point for them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think TB is probably on its way out. It was an incredibly cool technology, but it never really took off.

I doubt it. Not for a while.

[pigmode]

Why would you wait to get a USB C connector? Forbid that you accidentally jerk the cable because it gets caught and tugs on the whole port, causing it damage. At least with the MagSafe connector, if you tug on it, then it won't drag the whole computer along with it and/or damage the connector.[/QUOTE]


Not sure If I'd wait for it-- probably not unless something compelling is revealed. Its almost like a behavioral power play by Apple to remove the mouse from notebook converts, lol.

That USB 3.1 can act as a power adaptor, doesn't necessarily mean Apple will ditch magsafe in their pro units.

[Stogieman]

So what kind of performance can we expect out of these new MacBooks? How much faster do you think it will be compared to my current laptop?

2007 MacBook (black)
CPU: 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
RAM: 3 GB of DDR2
Storage: 240GB SSD

[P]

CPU: In short bursts, maybe 15-20% faster on single and dualthreaded code. When running more threads, the boost will be larger, maybe up to 50% faster in total, because your old Core 2 Duo doesn't have HT. If you're loading the CPU constantly over time, you will be lucky to match the old one.

GPU: A massive boost. Like going from a rusty horsedrawn buggy to a modern car. No sportscar by any measure, but it is at least a complete, modern GPU. This will also make the CPU seem faster, because it can offload more work (the incessant animations in OS X, for instance) to the GPU.

Memory: How do you even breathe with 3 GB of RAM? You must be paging out all the time. Yes, this will be a massive boost.

SSD: I guess that this is how you survive on 3GB of RAM. The new Macbook is faster, but I don't think you will notice all that much

In total, more RAM will be great, and you actually get a real GPU instead of the excuse you have now, but CPU is only a small boost.

[Stogieman]

Thanks for the response P. 3GB of RAM isn't so bad when you're running Snow Leopard. Most of my video editing and photoshopping is done on my iMac.

[The Final Dakar]

Stogie, I replaced a Early 2008 Blackbook (4GB RAM, 128 GB HDD) with a refurb MacBook Air a year and half ago. The difference was pants-shitting for me. It doesn't matter if the new Air is a step back, because with the extra year should make up for it. The only thing is you won't be as wowed by the SSD.

Was it 8 GB of RAM? Because if I get a new laptop then I would want it to have ideally at least 16 GB of blazing fast RAM.

[The Final Dakar]

Yes, the Air has 8GB of RAM. I remember I had to make a point to make sure it was that much because the base was still at 4GB.

[P]

Now that we have memory compression, 8 GB is fine. I even get by with 4GB in this MBA.

[OreoCookie]

I have 8 GB, and as long as I don't open Aperture while having Safari open, it's fine.

So I get how to computer CPU speeds (# of cores and frequency), but how do I compare GPU speeds? For instance, how do I compare the performance of the Macbook GPU to that in the Macbook Air, if Apple does not provide a speed?

[P]

GPU performance is gated by several things:

1) Shader and texturing performance (front end)
2) ROP performance (back end)
3) Memory bandwidth

and, as a tie breaker, video memory capacity, but let's leave that aside for a moment. It is by far the least important variable, for all that it gets talked up sometimes.

1) is determined by the number of shader units and texture units, multiplied by the clockspeed. All three manufacturers organize shaders and texture units in groups, where one scheduler distributes work to multiple vector calculation units (shaders) and texture management units. Intel calls these groups EUs, AMD calls them CUs, and nVidia changes the names for each generation but currently calls them SMMs. If you are comparing inside a single manufacturer, as I am doing here, just compare the number of EUs and multiply by the clockspeed.

These EUs etc are equivalent to processor cores - and this is what Apple refers to when they sometimes speaks of the "graphics cores" of iPads - but both nVidia and AMD use the term "shader core" for something completely different. The number of shader cores, in their parlance, is the number of single precision floating point operations it can complete per clock. It is mostly marketing, because they're not independent cores - focus on the EUs, CUs and SMMs.

2) The ROPs are easier. There is a number of them common to the GPU, and they run at a certain clock. Usually this should not be limiting, but it has been in a few cases recently, so I mention it here. They are not as logically organized as the front end, but you can count the ROPs manually and get a pretty good view of what is going on.

3) Memory bandwidth is the difference between the pretenders and the real thing. Modern powerful GPUs have insane amounts of memory bandwidth - about 10 times of the bandwidth of an integrated GPU+CPU together. For a discrete GPU, it is the memory bus width (something like 256 bit) times the effective memory clockspeed (something like 6 GHz), but it is usually spelled out. For integrated graphics, it is the speed of the memory interface - DDR3-1866 is faster than DDR3-1600, for instance. The bonus is that some integrated GPUs include a special cache to alleviate this problem.

If we look at Intel for a while, they have two different integrated GPUs for each generation that we are interested here, but they number them to confuse. The Haswell GPUs (4th generation, what we had in 2013-2014) have "GT2" chips with graphics numbered HD 4200, 4400, and 4600. All of these have 20 CUs organized in 2 subslices, with one set of "slice common" (aka backend, the ROPs etc), running at different clockspeeds depending on the exact model number.

The Haswell "GT3" chips are numbered HD 5000 and Iris 5100. They are effectively GT2 doubled - 40 CUs in 4 subslices, with two sets of "slice common", running at different clocks. Ideally they should be twice the speed of the GT2 chips, but they aren't, because of factor 3 in the list above.

The solution to this is in "GT3e", or Iris Pro 5200. It adds a special cache (an eDRAM) to help with the memory bandwidth issue. Other than that, it is the same chip as the regular GT3 chips.

Now, for the recent updates in 2015, Broadwell, Intel made an update to the graphics but kept the structure - except they didn't launch all of the chips yet. The GT2 chips are now 24 CUs organized in 3 subslices, with one set of slice common. The GT3 chips are again a doubling. Unfortunately the numbering is set to confuse here as well, because the GT2 Broadwell chips start at "HD 5300", and they are far weaker than the "Iris Pro 5200" from last generation. GT3 chips are HD 6000 and Iris 6100, presumably with a 6200 to follow once Intel releases a new model with the eDRAM cache.

[Stogieman]

So last Friday I walked into my local Apple Store to tryout the new track pads. I ended up walking out with a new 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display, 512GB storage with 8GB of RAM. Dakar's description of the speed difference from a BlackBook was spot on. Pants-shitting fast. I''m really digging the new Force Touch trackpads. When I was trying out the demo units at the Apple store, I had to double check and make sure it was a new unit. The pad actually feels like it moves down when you press it but if you look closely the darn thing doesn't move. Very cool.

[The Final Dakar]

Congrats on the new laptop and soiled underpants

Glad you went with the Pro.

So with the gold MacBooks, I'm still expecting that the keys will continue to press into the screen with the laptop closed and more consumers will be walking around with ugly screens after a few months.
It's not worth a $1300 risk... just upgrade to a Pro Macbook.

However... if Apple had taken Force Touch one step farther by designing the entire keyboard to be Force Touch (or rather, Force Type), then the keyboard membrane would be as flat as the trackpad, and the screen would be better preserved. (Not to mention typing would be almost totally quiet.) That alone would be worth the current price tag of admission.

I expect that in a few years, Apple will be changing out their new MacBooks to have said Force Type. They're already experimenting with it in their iPhone 7 prototypes so I'm almost absolutely sure that it's going to happen, and when it does, any laptop with a mechanical keyboard will seem outdated.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by And.reg 

So with the gold MacBooks, I'm still expecting that the keys will continue to press into the screen with the laptop closed and more consumers will be walking around with ugly screens after a few months.

I haven't had a problem with key impressions ever since getting an original 15" MacBook Pro. Just put a keyboard cover on your keys and the problem is solved one way or another.

Originally Posted by And.reg 

It's not worth a $1300 risk... just upgrade to a Pro Macbook.

The MacBook is not a risk, it just may not be the right computer for you.

Originally Posted by And.reg 

However... if Apple had taken Force Touch one step farther by designing the entire keyboard to be Force Touch (or rather, Force Type), then the keyboard membrane would be as flat as the trackpad, and the screen would be better preserved. (Not to mention typing would be almost totally quiet.) That alone would be worth the current price tag of admission.

Such a keyboard would have horrendous feel, even now the thought of a keyboard with less key travel than my current machine doesn't make me jump up and down in joy. There is a good reason why my desk is adorned with an IBM Model M keyboard … 

[ibook_steve]

Originally Posted by And.reg 

However... if Apple had taken Force Touch one step farther by designing the entire keyboard to be Force Touch (or rather, Force Type), then the keyboard membrane would be as flat as the trackpad, and the screen would be better preserved. (Not to mention typing would be almost totally quiet.) That alone would be worth the current price tag of admission.

Yeah, I'm guessing you never experienced the "joy" of the Atari 400 membrane keyboard, which is dangerously close to what you're talking about here. The more expensive Atari 800 had a real keyboard, but the 400 (one of my first computers) had this awful keyboard with flat membrane switches that did a little beep each time you were lucky enough to register a key press. It was impossible to do real touch typing on it, only slightly better than a flat touchscreen since it at least had raised bumps for the different keys.

This complaining about marks on the screen due to the keys must be a real issue for some people, but I have never experienced it in almost 20 years of Apple laptop ownership.

Steve

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by And.reg 

Glad you went with the Pro.

So with the gold MacBooks, I'm still expecting that the keys will continue to press into the screen with the laptop closed and more consumers will be walking around with ugly screens after a few months.
It's not worth a $1300 risk... just upgrade to a Pro Macbook.

I've been throwing my 13" MacBook Pro in my pretty-packed messenger bag daily for four years now, and there are no marks on the screen.

I did see this on my 12" Powerbook, and the 15" Powerbook I had. But not on this machine.

FYI.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just put a keyboard cover on your keys and the problem is solved one way or another.

I've used all sorts of different keyboard covers, on my old Pro Macbook 2011, and on my current Macbook Air 2012. I always get imprints from the keys, to the point where you can read the actual key letters directly off the screen. Even then I wipe the screen with a microfiber cloth and sometimes an iKlear solution every week and it comes back. I don't see how to avoid this issue. People need to travel with laptops, so I don't see why some people get it and some people don't.

Just saying... I would approach the screen of the new Macbook with some caution in terms of its long-term-use durability.