Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Apple's Oct 30, 2018 Mac/iPad event

Apple's Oct 30, 2018 Mac/iPad event
Thread Tools
mindwaves
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2018, 01:17 PM
 
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/18/...e-announcement

Hope some major Mac event is announced as their current line (MacBook Pro and Macbook line excluded) is stale, stale, stale.

A new MacBook Air would be nice (or merged with the current MacBooks) as a new Mac mini would be nice.

Don't care for new iPad Pros, personally.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2018, 01:47 PM
 
hmm. kind of retro graphics.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2018, 04:06 PM
 
New iPads with FaceID are a duh.

New low cost Macbook... the 12” notebook is already a year and a half old. It’s also been in the rumor mill.

I still have my doubts about the Mac mini. I think that some updates to the iMac Pro are more likely.
Yours truly, And.reg, "The Mighty" Pain in the Ass
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2018, 04:25 PM
 
Looking forward to them raising prices on everything.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2018, 08:27 PM
 
They have been doing that too.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2018, 11:29 AM
 
Most likely is a MacBook Air replacement in the case of the non-TB MBP, cut down enough to get it under $999. My bet is the graphics down to HD620, display to Retina but not HDR (like the 12” MacBook) and no Thunderbolt, only USB-C. I would also love if it came with my favorite idea, a new charger with a few USB-A ports (although I own one of those myself already, so I don’t need one).

iMacs are overdue for an update. There has been talk about a “Polaris 30”, a “shrunk” version of the GPU in the current iMac to be lower power, and I think it is for an iMac update. It is also notable that the 15” MBP is arguably more capable than the top iMac (it has 6 cores), and that is historically rare, so I think a new iMac with at least 6 cores at the top is likely. Intel has that, and even an 8-core, in the regular desktop format now.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2018, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
display to Retina but not HDR (like the 12” MacBook)
...uh...?

Where is that in Apple's tech specs page?

Moreover, 12" MacBook doesn't even have a P3 gamut as do the notebooks in the Pro line, so, I'm not understanding why you would assign the HDR to the 12" in the current lineup.
Yours truly, And.reg, "The Mighty" Pain in the Ass
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2018, 11:04 PM
 
My 2012 i7 mini has been awesome—1Tb SS drive replaced the failed original a couple years ago, 16gigs of ram and a 5-bay Thunderbolt JBOD enclosure for a ton of media storage and backup. However, there have always been overheating issues with the i7 (mine gets to 212F super quickly in the summer with any kind of moderately strenuous activity like video editing, h265 transcoding or audio file conversions, which makes me nervous for the long term), and would love some Thunderbolt 3 options to replace the 5-year old drive enclosure and maybe a remotely modern graphics card.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2018, 06:13 AM
 
I’ve heard rumors Apple is finally refreshing the iPad Mini. I had almost given up on that one.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2018, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by And.reg View Post
...uh...?

Where is that in Apple's tech specs page?

Moreover, 12" MacBook doesn't even have a P3 gamut as do the notebooks in the Pro line, so, I'm not understanding why you would assign the HDR to the 12" in the current lineup.
I mean that the display in the 12" Macbook is Retina but not HDR today (regular sRGB gamut, if you will), so the best way to save money on the current 13" non-Touchbar is to downgrade its display - which is Retina and HDR (P3) - to the same quality.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 12:45 PM
 
Remember when Apple would replace products with new products that were better and the price would stay the same and not go up by 20% or more?

I remember...

Every single new product they announced today costs significantly more than the product it's replacing. Even the pencil and keyboard case.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
mindwaves  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 12:52 PM
 
Yeah, the prices are insane. I know inflation is a factor but not this much. Prices used to stay the same. 128GB bass HD on the Air is puny for the price.

Love the iPad intro video today with the new technologies, super fast speed ( can’t wait for benchmarks) and the magnetic Apple Pencil.

I wonder what the purpose of the MacBook is now. It is $100 more now than the Air with one less port and a smaller screen.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 12:55 PM
 
The MacBook lineup is a total mess right now. A hot confusing expensive mess.

Remember when Steve jobs came back and did this?



What would todays grid look like? It would have like 20 squares on it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 01:00 PM
 
The MacBook lineup...

12" MacBook
13" Air
13" Retina Air
13" MacBook Pro without Touchbar
13" MacBook Pro with Touchbar
15" MacBook Pro

Why do the 12" and the Air both exist?

What's the difference to a normal person between the 13" Pro without touchpad and the Retina Air? They both seem like they target the exact same group, but are totally different computers... WHY?

I bet the old Air will continue to be the most popular one... why? Because it still costs less (the #1 reason) and because it doesn't have the weird keyboard and it has USB-A ports.

How many trashcan Mac Pros do you think Apple sells in a month? My guess is less than 100. In 2018, who the hell is the target audience for that thing?
( Last edited by ort888; Oct 30, 2018 at 03:25 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
mindwaves  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 01:35 PM
 
Kind of sad Apple advertising the Mac mini as being 5x faster than before. It would be a nice to have such a speed boost if it weren't taken out of context. The previous gen was last updated in 2014!
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
mindwaves  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 01:38 PM
 
For 90% of the people who want a 12-13" Mac laptop, the Air is simply the one to get. You get a good screen, portability, 2 USB-C ports, and decent speed.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 01:41 PM
 
I think most people will still go for the old Air.

It's $200 cheaper, has a traditional keyboard and USB-A ports.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Why does the 12" and the Air both exist?
My sense is that the 12" probably doesn't have long for this world. It hasn't sold that well, has it?

What's the difference to a normal person between the 13" Pro without touchpad and the Retina Air? They both seem like they target the exact same group, but are totally different computers... WHY?
The 13" Pro without the touchbar is the 2017 model. They only updated the touchbar ones last summer, and this is probably the reason. Like the 12", my guess is that it will go away once they sell the ones they've still got lying around in the warehouse. If they ever do. The Retina Air is cheaper, lighter, and has the new keyboard that supposedly fixes that sticky key problem. I sure wouldn't buy the 2017 13" Pro at this point.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
Yeah, the prices are insane. I know inflation is a factor but not this much. Prices used to stay the same. 128GB bass HD on the Air is puny for the price.

Love the iPad intro video today with the new technologies, super fast speed ( can’t wait for benchmarks) and the magnetic Apple Pencil.

I wonder what the purpose of the MacBook is now. It is $100 more now than the Air with one less port and a smaller screen.
It feels like Apple is going full-tilt luxury brand at this point.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The MacBook lineup...

12" MacBook
13" Air
13" Retina Air
13" MacBook Pro without Touchbar
13" MacBook Pro with Touchbar
15" MacBook Pro

Why do the 12" and the Air both exist?
The 12" is quite a bit smaller and lighter. It is essentially the old 11" Macbook Air, except with a 16:10 display so the size is 12.1" instead. Both the 11" Air and the 13" Air sold well for a long time.

What's the difference to a normal person between the 13" Pro without touchpad and the Retina Air? They both seem like they target the exact same group, but are totally different computers... WHY?
ITYM Touchbar, and yes, I agree. I'm amazed that the non-Touchbar MBP is still around, but I suppose it is a better deal since they didn't cut the Air price enough.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
Kind of sad Apple advertising the Mac mini as being 5x faster than before. It would be a nice to have such a speed boost if it weren't taken out of context. The previous gen was last updated in 2014!
It also beats the top (non-Pro) iMac in quite a few respects, because Apple didn't update the iMac for whatever reason.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 04:09 PM
 
Ahhh cool. Expensive as hell for the base Mini, but it addresses almost all concerns — assuming overheating issues have been fixed. Pretty great.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
ITYM Touchbar, and yes, I agree. I'm amazed that the non-Touchbar MBP is still around, but I suppose it is a better deal since they didn't cut the Air price enough.
How? It costs $100 more than the Retina Air, and has previous-gen specs.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 04:18 PM
 
So Apple has two iPad lines that support an Apple pencil, but they both require different pencils and the pencils don't work on both iPads.

Nice.

Also, the new Pencil costs $29 more than the old one. The new keyboard case costs more too. In fact, every single product they announced today costs more than the product it replaced.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 06:40 PM
 
I couldn't afford a new Mac as it was. This doesn't help. Agree that 128GB option with the price rises is shameful if not surprising. I thought they would merge the MacBook and Air and just add a 14" model and drop prices. The MacBooks are beautiful machines but the money for any Mac is just silly these days.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
How? It costs $100 more than the Retina Air, and has previous-gen specs.
The non-Touchbar MBP is $100 more and has:

* A 15W CPU instead of the 7W (probably) of the new Air
* Iris Plus graphics
* P3 display with 500 nits

The new Air has TouchID, but is otherwise weaker at everything. It is a little lighter, but actually a hair thicker. It also didn’t get all the minor updates that the 2018 MBPs got with faster WiFi and better Bluetooth etc.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mindwaves  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 07:46 PM
 
Interestingly, the new Air (i5) uses a 30W USB-C charger, the same as the 12" Macbook (i3) (for reference: the 13" MBP uses a 61W adapter). I love the portability of the 12" Macbook, but would choose the Air over it anytime of the day.

Apple is leaving the 13" MBP non-touchbar to the pasture as it was released in 2017 and hasn't been updated since. The Air is the replacement for it.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The MacBook lineup...

12" MacBook
13" Air ?
13" Retina Air
13" MacBook Pro without Touchbar ?
13" MacBook Pro with Touchbar
15" MacBook Pro

Why do the 12" and the Air both exist?
I suspect the old 13" Air is only around for the education market.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
What's the difference to a normal person between the 13" Pro without touchpad and the Retina Air? They both seem like they target the exact same group, but are totally different computers... WHY?
The 13" MacBook Pro w/o Touch Bar didn't get updated in 2017. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple discontinues it in favor of the 2018 MacBook Air. It has a more powerful CPU and graphics but in nearly all other respects the new Air surpasses it.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I bet the old Air will continue to be the most popular one... why? Because it still costs less (the #1 reason) and because it doesn't have the weird keyboard and it has USB-A ports.
I doubt it. That machine is ancient. Yeah it's significantly cheaper but the value one would sacrifice just isn't worth it.

I see the 12 inch MacBook as the "ultra portable laptop". The 13 inch Retina MacBook Air as the "mainstream consumer laptop". And the 13/15 inch MBP with Touch Bar as the "professional laptop". Apple simply isn't in the sub-$1000 laptop market anymore.



OAW
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 09:53 PM
 
What is taking so long for >1 TB hard drives to come down in price?

I mean, it was like 10 years ago that you could have a 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drive. A premium back then, but not today. Yet there is still a premium above 1-2 TB of SSD storage.
Why is the curve lagging? Why are we not at like affordable 4 TB SSD drives?
Yours truly, And.reg, "The Mighty" Pain in the Ass
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The MacBook lineup...

12" MacBook
13" Air
13" Retina Air
13" MacBook Pro without Touchbar
13" MacBook Pro with Touchbar
15" MacBook Pro

Why do the 12" and the Air both exist?
I think Apple can sustain three notebook lines, although historically the names should be reversed: the Air should be the as-light-as-possible 12" MacBook, and the new MacBook Air should be called the MacBook, the light-but-not-as-light-as-the-Air machine for everyone who don't need the absolute best performance. Apple should also can the non-Touchbar 13" MacBook Pro. I don't mind that the Pro comes in two sizes. That isn't new either, even in the PowerBook/iBook days could you choose amongst different screen types and sizes.
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
What's the difference to a normal person between the 13" Pro without touchpad and the Retina Air?
None, and that's why the “normal” users should opt for the Air as they have been. But if you know your way around computers, then you know that the 13" Pro has twice as many cores, higher base clocks and faster graphics. Plus, you get a better screen. I think the differentiation here is fine and nothing new. Apple sold the 12" iBook G3/G4 alongside the 12" PowerBook G4, and here the performance delta was much smaller.


Honestly, I think Apple's problem lies somewhere else: compare a 12.9" iPad Pro with 512 GB storage ($1349) to a new Air with 256 GB storage ($1399).* The iPad has a CPU that smokes the puny two-core Intel Core i5, it has twice the storage, a much better screen (wide color gamut, higher resolution and pixel density, “mood lighting” mode) and the only point where the iPad Pro has a lower spec is RAM (6 GB vs. 8 GB). I thought the Air was a decent machine and worthy successor until they revealed what powers the iPad Pro. Suddenly, my urge to ask work for a new machine has completely subsided.

* You could argue that I should add the price of a keyboard cover. Yes, although then I would upgrade the Air to 512 GB for an extra $200. Even if I added a pencil, the prices for the two machines would still be comparable.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by And.reg View Post
What is taking so long for >1 TB hard drives to come down in price?

I mean, it was like 10 years ago that you could have a 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drive. A premium back then, but not today. Yet there is still a premium above 1-2 TB of SSD storage.
Why is the curve lagging? Why are we not at like affordable 4 TB SSD drives?
Two things: (1) Yes, Apple charges a premium. (2) SSDs ≠ SSDs. Apple uses a custom controller that is state of the art in terms of speed, and unfortunately that means you can't use many slower-but-cheaper memory chips.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2018, 11:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by And.reg View Post
What is taking so long for >1 TB hard drives to come down in price?

I mean, it was like 10 years ago that you could have a 1 TB 7200 RPM hard drive. A premium back then, but not today. Yet there is still a premium above 1-2 TB of SSD storage.
Because they're soldered now. You can find a 2 TB SSD on Newegg for around $300 (even PCI-Express: I found an Intel for $330). But of course you can't just swap a third-party drive in anymore, so you can only go up to 1.5 GB and for that you have to pay Apple... (checks) ... $1200.

*whistles*

Sure, Apple's controller is faster, but I dunno about $900 faster.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I couldn't afford a new Mac as it was. This doesn't help. Agree that 128GB option with the price rises is shameful if not surprising. I thought they would merge the MacBook and Air and just add a 14" model and drop prices. The MacBooks are beautiful machines but the money for any Mac is just silly these days.
I wish they would go 12/14/16”, it makes more sense than 12/13/15 to me. Maybe when they get FaceID and edge to edge screens ( you know its coming).

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And the 13/15 inch MBP with Touch Bar as the "professional laptop". Apple simply isn't in the sub-$1000 anything market anymore.
Fixed that for you.

My two cents on today’s announcements (mostly iPad):

The Industrial design is telling - the past few iPads have looked like giant iPhones. The new iPad looks like a MacBook without a bottomcase.

USB-C over lightning just seals the deal - as does Creative Cloud being ported to the iPad. Apple sees this as the future. I am willing to bet Apple announcing Xcode for iPad at WWDC next year. As soon as Apple opens up iOS to external HDs and the rest of the USB ecosystem, this thing could really take off. Hope the iPhone goes USB-C soon though, too many freakin’ dongles.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Because they're soldered now. You can find a 2 TB SSD on Newegg for around $300 (even PCI-Express: I found an Intel for $330). But of course you can't just swap a third-party drive in anymore, so you can only go up to 1.5 GB and for that you have to pay Apple... (checks) ... $1200.

*whistles*

Sure, Apple's controller is faster, but I dunno about $900 faster.
I don’t know if it’s worth the price, but Apple SSDs are insanely fast.

SATA6 tops out at 550MB/s. Apple drives do a hair under 2GB/s.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Because they're soldered now. You can find a 2 TB SSD on Newegg for around $300 (even PCI-Express: I found an Intel for $330). But of course you can't just swap a third-party drive in anymore, so you can only go up to 1.5 GB and for that you have to pay Apple... (checks) ... $1200.
But the performance differences can be quite substantial here: I think you might be referring to Intel's 660p 2 TB SSD here, correct ($329.99)? It uses quad level memory cells (QLC) that, as the name suggests, save 4 bits per transistor. It is the latest iteration of the same idea, usually collectively referred to as MLC (multi level cells), e. g. there are also TLC (triple level cells). Hence, you can put more data into the same number of transistors, which makes mass storage SSDs cheaper.

Sounds great. So what is the catch? Performance, write performance. And performance degrades more strongly, the more your drive is filled. (You can find the 660p on the bottom of many of the benchmarks; also have a look at pages 3 and 4.) The point, though, is that this may not matter to you, e. g. because even a slow 2 TB SSD runs circles around a spinning platter hard drive. And that a smaller, faster SSD isn't all that useful once you have run out of space. Reading all of this, you would think that it was reviewed badly by Anandtech — it wasn't. The benchmarks just reveal the technological limitations of >2 bit MLC memory. But under normal circumstances this is concealed by the controller, its cache and a certain amount of SLC (single level cell) memory.
Originally Posted by Anandtech
Intel doesn't provide any official spec for write performance after the SLC cache is filled, but we've measured about 100 MB/s on our 1TB sample.
Nevertheless, the fastest SSDs currently on sale use either Intel's X point technology (which is a new type of memory cell that is blisteringly fast when compared to ordinary memory cells, but comes at an eye watering price at which even Apple's SSD upgrades will seem cheap). Or 2 bit-cell drives like Samsung's 970 Pro (≠ 970 Evo which uses TLC). Notably, the 970 Pro tops out a 1 TB at the moment. So if Apple wants to offer SSDs that have large capacity and are the fastest on the market, it won't be cheap. Add to that Apple's 40 % margin, and you know what you are paying for.

I hope to be able to replace my NAS harddrives with SSDs in two years or so, and QLC-based SSDs will be perfect for that. That'd be really neat.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Sure, Apple's controller is faster, but I dunno about $900 faster.
That's a much more subtle conversation, I think. Given that Apple is a premium brand, I think customers should expect the fastest SSDs that are technologically possible.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 03:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I wish they would go 12/14/16”, it makes more sense than 12/13/15 to me. Maybe when they get FaceID and edge to edge screens ( you know its coming).
Agreed.
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
My two cents on today’s announcements (mostly iPad):

The Industrial design is telling - the past few iPads have looked like giant iPhones. The new iPad looks like a MacBook without a bottomcase.
I love the industrial design of the new iPad Pro. And my wife has been lusting over it even though her first-gen 12.9 inch iPad Pro works perfectly still. Adobe's announcement also made her ears perk up, although she lamented that she (= we) would have to pay for a yearly subscription.*

Just the sheer amount of processing power which frankly embarrasses the MacBook Air (and probably at the very least the 13" Pro) makes me want to use one. I really like the idea that the iPad Pro is a “naked robotic core” (John Siracusa™) that you can attach things to via USB3 and make it your own — even an external 5K screen. All I need is some software now.

I have no good reason to update from my 9.7" first-gen iPad Pro, though. But I am thinking about it anyway … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 03:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But the performance differences can be quite substantial here: I think you might be referring to Intel's 660p 2 TB SSD here, correct ($329.99)? It uses quad level memory cells (QLC) that, as the name suggests, save 4 bits per transistor. It is the latest iteration of the same idea, usually collectively referred to as MLC (multi level cells), e. g. there are also TLC (triple level cells). Hence, you can put more data into the same number of transistors, which makes mass storage SSDs cheaper.

Sounds great. So what is the catch? Performance, write performance. And performance degrades more strongly, the more your drive is filled. (You can find the 660p on the bottom of many of the benchmarks; also have a look at pages 3 and 4.) The point, though, is that this may not matter to you, e. g. because even a slow 2 TB SSD runs circles around a spinning platter hard drive. And that a smaller, faster SSD isn't all that useful once you have run out of space. Reading all of this, you would think that it was reviewed badly by Anandtech — it wasn't. The benchmarks just reveal the technological limitations of >2 bit MLC memory. But under normal circumstances this is concealed by the controller, its cache and a certain amount of SLC (single level cell) memory.

Nevertheless, the fastest SSDs currently on sale use either Intel's X point technology (which is a new type of memory cell that is blisteringly fast when compared to ordinary memory cells, but comes at an eye watering price at which even Apple's SSD upgrades will seem cheap). Or 2 bit-cell drives like Samsung's 970 Pro (≠ 970 Evo which uses TLC). Notably, the 970 Pro tops out a 1 TB at the moment. So if Apple wants to offer SSDs that have large capacity and are the fastest on the market, it won't be cheap. Add to that Apple's 40 % margin, and you know what you are paying for.

I hope to be able to replace my NAS harddrives with SSDs in two years or so, and QLC-based SSDs will be perfect for that. That'd be really neat.

That's a much more subtle conversation, I think. Given that Apple is a premium brand, I think customers should expect the fastest SSDs that are technologically possible.
Yeah, but if you don't actually need that speed, but just need a lot of storage space, the markup of almost a grand is a bit hard to take (or even the ~$600-$800 markup vs. the MLC Samsung 970 EVO, which is $336.35 for 1 TB, $579.65 for 2 TB on Newegg). Basically I just wish for the days when these things were swappable so we could make our own decisions on which two to choose of big, fast, and cheap. Actually it'd be nice if there were even some kind of middle ground between 512GB (+$400) and 1.5GB (+$1200). Ah well.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Yeah, but if you don't actually need that speed, but just need a lot of storage space, the markup of almost a grand is a bit hard to take (or even the ~$600-$800 markup vs. the MLC Samsung 970 EVO, which is $336.35 for 1 TB, $579.65 for 2 TB on Newegg).
I wouldn't call it markup, because you are getting more as well. (Note that the EVO uses cheaper TLC memory, you should compare the per-GB pricing to the 970 Pro, which also happens to be one of the fastest SSDs on the market).
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Basically I just wish for the days when these things were swappable so we could make our own decisions on which two to choose of big, fast, and cheap. Ah well.
I understand, but the times when you are able to upgrade notebooks are truly over and have been for quite some time. Unlike in earlier years where Apple was a bit petty for not using standard NVMe SSDs, once Apple switched to its custom controller on the T2, it also makes technological sense why you can't upgrade. Because the T2's SSD controller is top notch and gives a security benefit, I think it is overall a worthwhile compromise.

But trust me, I feel the pain. I have a very good 2014 13" MacBook Pro lying around which is in very good nick, and the only thing holding it back is the puny 256 GB SSD.

It'd be nice if Apple's Pro machines eventually offered a choice between fast, lower-capacity SSDs and slower, high-capacity SSDs, though, as they did in the past with spinning platter hard drives (I remember I had to pick between a 5,400 rpm 120 GB and a 7,200 rpm 100 GB drive when I ordered my first-gen MacBook Pro). I'd really want 4 TB of internal storage to keep all my photos on my computer instead of my NAS, but that won't happen for quite some time.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I wish they would go 12/14/16”, it makes more sense than 12/13/15 to me. Maybe when they get FaceID and edge to edge screens ( you know its coming)..
I’ve said that since I got my 2016 MBP - my 13” is smaller in two of three dimensions than my old 11” MBA was. If that was the extra-small Mac then, they could make the mainstream model a bit bigger. Then give that 14.1” model some range, moving all the way from a $999 model at the bottom to a very powerful model at the top.

I do suspect that if they move to a 14.1” base model, they will just kill the 15”, but I wish that they would instead to a 4K 17” that was truly a pro model.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 05:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I’ve said that since I got my 2016 MBP - my 13” is smaller in two of three dimensions than my old 11” MBA was. If that was the extra-small Mac then, they could make the mainstream model a bit bigger. Then give that 14.1” model some range, moving all the way from a $999 model at the bottom to a very powerful model at the top.
I think for a lot of people, there is an appreciable difference between a 12" and a 13" screen, so that is also something to consider.
Originally Posted by P View Post
I do suspect that if they move to a 14.1” base model, they will just kill the 15”, but I wish that they would instead to a 4K 17” that was truly a pro model.
I think that'd be a great line-up: unlike the 12" and 14" iBooks or the 11" and 12.9" iPad Pros, the 13" and the 15" MacBook Pro are not cut from the same cloth. The 13" Pro lacks the discrete graphics and comes with a significantly wimpier CPU (once you opt for the 6-core CPU in the 15"). Then Apple could make a mobile workstation with a 16" or 17" screen that used perhaps ECC RAM or a mobile Xeon.

Or, even better, it just used two higher-clocked A12Xs* whereas the 14" sports a single, higher-clocked A12Xs*. The Air shares the regularly clocked A12Xr with the iPad Pro. Apple could also differentiate the models by adding T2-type chips separately (as SSD controllers and perhaps to augment the Neural Engine), although I reckon much of the functionality is already contained in the A12Xs/r SoC itself.

* Increment the number accordingly. Inserted s and r for added snark.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 06:32 AM
 
Part of the issue is that we all use inches without decimals , which is really too rough, but the basic idea is this: If Apple made the decision back in dawn of time that 13.3" and 15.6" were appropriate display sizes for a laptop line, the size of the outer case had something to do with that decision. If the bezels are now smaller, Apple shouldn't shrink the case, they should increase the size of the display.

I think Apple should offer three sizes of laptop:

"Small" - previously the 11.6" Air, now the 12.1" MB. This should be a basic machine that runs MacOS and is just as fast as you need. I think that a 7W cTDP up is a better fit than the current 5W, and it does need more than one port, but the basic idea of having a small and light model is sound.

"Average" - currently the 13.3" display, this is what I would like to see move to 14.1". I would love if this display went to 2880*1600 - what the 15" currently has - but it would be great if there were options. If the top model is a 28W quadcore with Iris Plus graphics and P3 display, the bottom model doesn't need to be the same - and wouldn't it be possible to have a discrete graphics option? Yes it means moving to the H-series and that is a second design, but the customer doesn't need to know that. Make two 13" in the same case, with two displays and two motherboard configurations.

"Large" - this is the one I sometimes call "Pro^2" or something like that. If 15.6" was the compromise size before, it should be more now. 17" is the next standard size, and I'd like to see that. 4096*2304 would be a great resolution - and yes, go all in on Xeons with ECC RAM. A bigger GPU, a bunch of ports - just go wild.

This becomes 4 motherboard designs, the same as today. The one area that it doesn't cover is a big display with weaker hardware - "the 15" Air" - but I hope that the 14" will cover some of that.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 07:12 AM
 
Going back to storage, the entry level iMacs are still shipping with the slowest drives known to man. If you stop working long enough to scratch your nose they go to sleep and I've seen them take minutes to wake up.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 11:52 AM
 
Actually the bottom two iMacs have only spinning rust discs - and 2.5" 5400 rpm disks at that. They have seek times on the level of Performa from the nineties. Slowest iMac is also the last to not be Retina.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think Apple should offer three sizes of laptop:
I am not a fan of this idea: screen size and CPU/GPU grunt should not be coupled, I really like the Xs and iPad Pro line-up — just because I like smaller screens doesn't mean I want to sacrifice performance necessarily. Or perhaps I decide I want better battery life — and the smallest machine does not have the best battery life, the model in the middle does.

I am happy that the 13" Pro and a 13" Air coexist, because to me they fulfill very different roles and are optimized for different purposes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I wouldn't call it markup, because you are getting more as well. (Note that the EVO uses cheaper TLC memory, you should compare the per-GB pricing to the 970 Pro, which also happens to be one of the fastest SSDs on the market).
I know that was true with the older EVOs, but when I looked up the 970 EVO, it's listed as MLC, unless "V-NAND 3-bit MLC" is just what the kids are calling TLC these days (admittedly, my terminology may be out of date; I've been out of the market for a while, since I can't upgrade the SSD in my laptop anymore ). Newegg's calling it MLC in their description too.

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing...b-mz-v7e1t0bw/

Interestingly, Anandtech does say it's TLC, but also that its performance almost matches the Pro (and looking at the benchmark, it looks like it actually beats out some of the older Pros, probably because of PCIe vs. SATA, I'd presume).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12670...evo-ssd-review

What I do know for sure is that it would certainly be fast enough for someone like me who's old enough to remember the days when it was normal to boot a Mac 512Ke from a floppy.

I understand, but the times when you are able to upgrade notebooks are truly over and have been for quite some time. Unlike in earlier years where Apple was a bit petty for not using standard NVMe SSDs, once Apple switched to its custom controller on the T2, it also makes technological sense why you can't upgrade. Because the T2's SSD controller is top notch and gives a security benefit, I think it is overall a worthwhile compromise.
From what I can tell from a cursory Google search, it appears there are still laptops available from other manufacturers that have removable M.2 SSDs. Also, I see no reason why Apple couldn't offer their own TLC (or whatever the 970 EVO is) drive powered by their controller, as an option on the order page.

But trust me, I feel the pain. I have a very good 2014 13" MacBook Pro lying around which is in very good nick, and the only thing holding it back is the puny 256 GB SSD.
I just had to reboot the computer to clear out the VM in order to free up enough space to install the 10.14.1 update. It's driving me crazy.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 04:44 PM
 
This article delved into the architectural differences between the 12 inch MacBook, Retina MacBook Air, and the MacBook Pro. In a nutshell, I think it supports my earlier contention that Apple is consciously re-purposing the "Air" away from "thin and light ultra-portable" towards "mainstream consumer laptop" since it has been their most popular laptop for such a long time.

Why the new MacBook Air isn’t ‘a bigger MacBook’ | Endgadget

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2018, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I know that was true with the older EVOs, but when I looked up the 970 EVO, it's listed as MLC, unless "V-NAND 3-bit MLC" is just what the kids are calling TLC these days (admittedly, my terminology may be out of date; I've been out of the market for a while, since I can't upgrade the SSD in my laptop anymore ). Newegg's calling it MLC in their description too.
MLC = multi level cell, which strictly speaking means >1 bit per cell. That includes DLC, TLC, QLC, etc.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
What I do know for sure is that it would certainly be fast enough for someone like me who's old enough to remember the days when it was normal to boot a Mac 512Ke from a floppy.
My Amiga also booted off a floppy drive, but that isn't really an argument for sticking with slower technology in a premium product.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
From what I can tell from a cursory Google search, it appears there are still laptops available from other manufacturers that have removable M.2 SSDs.
None of them come close to Apple's SSDs in terms of performance, though, and it adds points of failure. A non-upgradable design can be made more reliable since you eliminate many subtle compatibility problems. It also impacts security (the T2 sports hardware encryption for the SSD and ensures the integrity of the hardware). And you can say that absolute best performance doesn't matter to you, but I think this is an important consideration on Apple's part: their SSD performance makes them stand out legitimately from the competition, and given their prices, I'd expect nothing less.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Also, I see no reason why Apple couldn't offer their own TLC (or whatever the 970 EVO is) drive powered by their controller, as an option on the order page.
That is a valid argument, but I think Apple wants to avoid this because many consumers don't really understand that this all means. They just see an option between a cheap, large capacity drive and a more expensive, large capacity drive. But I agree that this should be an option for pro machines.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I just had to reboot the computer to clear out the VM in order to free up enough space to install the 10.14.1 update. It's driving me crazy.
If Apple were less stingy (128 GB of storage on the base model, come on!), I think it'd be less of a problem for most of us. For my personal storage needs, I will be in uncanny valley for quite some time. I'd probably like 6 TB to have all my storage needs met with some room to spare. But it'll be years until this is an affordable option.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2018, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
My Amiga also booted off a floppy drive, but that isn't really an argument for sticking with slower technology in a premium product.
Of course Apple sticks with slower technology. Does the MacBook Air use the fastest CPU available? Is the Intel UHD 617 the pinnacle of GPU design? Of course not. Neither is the SSD, for that matter—the fastest technology available there, strictly, would have to be SLC.

It's all about trade-offs.

For a lot of people, storage space is a bigger deal than raw speed, especially in the (for Apple, anyway) entry-level product in the line.
None of them come close to Apple's SSDs in terms of performance, though, and it adds points of failure. A non-upgradable design can be made more reliable since you eliminate many subtle compatibility problems.
The least reliable upgradable SSD in existence is still more reliable than a non-upgradable one, because with the latter, a failure in the RAM or the video card or any other component anywhere on the motherboard becomes a failure in the SSD, since there's no way to remove the drive and recover your data, even if there's nothing actually wrong with the SSD itself.

It seems to me that with the advent of cheap backup drives, reliability is not really so much of a concern anymore. Back up your drive.

It also impacts security (the T2 sports hardware encryption for the SSD and ensures the integrity of the hardware). And you can say that absolute best performance doesn't matter to you, but I think this is an important consideration on Apple's part: their SSD performance makes them stand out legitimately from the competition, and given their prices, I'd expect nothing less.
Eh, in my view the OS has always been what we came for, since 1984. The hardware is just the pill we have to swallow.

That is a valid argument, but I think Apple wants to avoid this because many consumers don't really understand that this all means. They just see an option between a cheap, large capacity drive and a more expensive, large capacity drive. But I agree that this should be an option for pro machines.
Most consumers don't care about this distinction, or in fact need to. If Apple offered a 2 TB TLC drive, and didn't put a truly absurd markup on it, it would be at about the same price as the current 512 GB upgrade, and I daresay it would probably become the single most popular upgrade option for the whole product—and the only real consequence would be some really happy customers since come on, a PCIe TLC SSD is still absurdly fast.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2018, 06:01 PM
 
Those 1TB drives in the cheapest iMacs make them slower than 2011 iMacs in real world usage. It should be completely unacceptable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2018, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Those 1TB drives in the cheapest iMacs make them slower than 2011 iMacs in real world usage. It should be completely unacceptable.
I will admit that I haven’t checked each and every model, but I’m fairly sure that the current 21.5” iMacs with spinning rust have the worst random read performance in the history of the iMac, going back to 1998. They have 5400rpm 2.5” drives, which will be slower (on average) than any 5400rpm 3.5” drives. I don’t think Apple ever used 3600rpm drives in the iMac, and they didn’t use 2.5” drives before, so - congratulations! Slowest iMac ever - on this specific measure, which actually does affect real world performance.

(In practice OS X is so much better at caching and the modern iMacs have way more RAM to use for that, so it will hide the terrible random read performance to some extent).
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,