It frustrates me more than it should when these high profile articles make mistakes about basic Mac hardware facts. >.<
> Recall that Apple made the discrete GPU-less 13.3” Retina MacBook Pro thinner last year, but not the 15.4” model. These facts would match up nicely with a three-tier laptop segmentation strategy. Eventually, Apple would sell only three Retina MacBooks ranging from thinnest to thickest, stratified by price and screen size: 11.9”, 13.3”, and 15.4”.
The latest 13" rMBP was made thinner than the 13" rMBP before it, but it only _caught up_ to the thinness of the original 15" rMBP. The first 13" rMBP was actually thicker than 15" rMBP (something I found quite odd when it first happened).
(Mid 2012, Early 2013, Late 2013) 15" rMBP - 0.71 in high
(Late 2012, Early 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.75 in high
(Late 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.71 in high
So that entire paragraph is making an argument based on an incorrect statement.
Time to upgrade from my 2009 MBP? It's so hard to "throw away" a perfectly functional laptop that does everything I need - just not as well (I realize) as a faster, lighter, machine would.
If you want the new shiny, just sell your old MPB on. Stays out of landfill, makes someone happy &c. Else, just 'Use It Up, Wear It Out, Make It Do, or Do Without'.
Is there anything your laptop can't do that is important to you?
I would wait a bit for reports of how well the retina displays are doing. I have a MBP 15" that I need to take back in to get the display replaced since it ghosts the old images for minutes. Also, I am curious if the chipset drives the display decently.
There will probably be multiple suppliers of these displays, like there were for the Macbook Pros. If the new panel is IPS and from LG, it will probably have the same ghosting problem. (If you have a LG IPS display, you can see this issue clearly by watching a Youtube video in a window for 15-30 minutes and then immediately loading Metafilter in the same window.)
Actually, I would buy right away. Apple generally sources higher-binned (higher quality) components early on. i.e., only Samsung panels when the Retina MBP first launched in 2012.
Broadwell will be perfectly capable of driving the display.
I know what you mean my Vostro from a few years ago is still a decent spec (i5-2430/16Gb DDR) however I found out today you can now get the X1 Carbon with the 2560x1440...my Vostro is looking more and more like it needs replacing.
If you're a developer - take a look at the keyboard first. They replaced the F keys with capacitive buttons (ie. touch sensitive buttons as opposed to physical buttons) and the capslock key was split into a home/end key instead. Sure it's still a nice laptop, but that sort of thing would drive me crazy.
I would check out the X1 Carbon in person before making that decision. The display is terrible. It's the only device over ever used that's given me significant headaches after even moderate use.
I guess, but would you consider the existing 13" MBP to be "significantly" thicker and heavier? There's already very little differentiation between the models.
I bought a 13" MBP to replace my 11" MBA because I was tired of waiting for retina and the size/weight difference seemed negligible. Regretted it within a couple of days of just using it around the house.
On a purely numbers basis, the difference doesn't seem significant (hence how I talked myself into the purchase), but there's a massive "human scale" threshold that's crossed in that difference. IMO, an 11" MBA feels more "like an iPad" in those respects vs. a 13" MBP very much feeling "like a computer".
Yes I would. I know the difference looks small on paper, but I find the difference huge in day to day use. For example I can curl up on the sofa and comfortable use my 11" MBA cradle in one arm, I can't do that with the 13" MBP.
This new model would certainly represent one step towards John Siracusa’s goal for Apple to “introduce more, better Retina Macs” in 2014.
This makes sense to me: I'm actually replacing a 2008-era MacBook with a Retina MBP primarily because of the screen and the machine's smaller physical size.
A couple people in my firm are also using older but still functional iMacs, and we'll replace those when the Retina versions hit. Better displays are actually compelling reasons to update (despite what I wrote here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/mac-os-10-7-is-out-... a couple years ago).
An 11/12" MacBook Air with a touchscreen that could also run iOS apps with cellular connectivity would be the ideal iPad Pro for my needs. Using a touchscreen on a small laptop is no worse than using an iPad in a stand or flat on a desk.
Supposedly the new panel is IGZO, which should take less power than previously. I use a retina macbook pro as my daily driver, but I don't even care about the retina myself. I guess I do care about battery life and lightness, though.
I suppose retina is a good bullet point for them over other laptops, though, so maybe it is worth it for them for improving sales.
That's true and Apple probably knows that. They wouldn't add retina screen to MBA and compromise on battery life. Battery life would probably stay the same.
To create the MacBook Air, Apple took out the spinning HD, the optical drive, and soldered in the battery.
To create the new Retina MacBook Pro, Apple took out the spinning HD, optical drive, and soldered in the battery. But they also put in a Retina display--as well as the more powerful GPU and larger battery it requires
The current MacBook Pro IS the Retina Air in everything but name only. It's the thinnest and lightest laptop that Apple can make with a retina display.
In summary: the hard part of a Retina Air is not the pixel density, the hard part is the power. Any blog post that does not address that question is not adding much to the conversation.
The Macbook Air runs on a CPU with a nominal TDP of 15W vs 28W for the Macbook Pro Retina. I'm pretty sure a Retina display could run with the current Macbook air CPU given that they share the same integrated GPU. That will make a difference.
> I'm pretty sure a Retina display could run with the current Macbook air CPU given that they share the same integrated GPU
They don't share the same integrated GPU; the MBA is a HD5000; the 13" Retina is a HD5100, the 15" Retina is a HD5200.
The major practical difference between the HD5000 and HD5100 is clock speed; while they have a similar theoretical cap, at full speed the HD5000 uses 22W (more than the TDP of the chip it lives in!), so in practice generally operates at far lower speeds.
They could probably get away with a HD5000 powered Retina thing, but screen power consumption would still be a factor. IGZO should deal with this sooner or later, though.
I don't understand your point. Technology improves over time, and it's reasonable to expect that Apple will create an even smaller laptop with a Retina display which it might call a "Macbook Air."
Not so much in battery tech. It's really holding back a lot of hardware innovation on computers and also holding back the viability of EVs for many consumers.
That is true but CPUs and panels do decrease in power usage over time to the point that you can adopt Retina in MBA without harming the battery life. Not to mention if they find a way to cut down on the weight, they can also increase the battery's capacity.
The Retina display in iPad Air is much more power efficient compared to the retina display in 3rd gen iPad due to reduction of backlight LEDs and move to IGZO type of panel.
I really wish more people recognized this relationship between the number of pixels and power necessary to drive those pixels. Journalists seem to constantly call for higher pixel densities on everything, ignoring the practical reasons and tradeoffs that must be considered.
The current Macbook Pro/Air situation is fairly elegant- it's a simple tradeoff between portability and resolution when you choose between the two 13" Macbooks. And it's not as if you get shafted by that choice, given how similar the machines are aside from their displays.
The Air is 0.68" at the back. The Pro is 0.71". There's not much room there for a distinction between "thicker Air" and "thinner Pro," even if we think they'd be willing to make the Air less wedgey.
And when Broadwell chips roll out they will be placed in the Pro just as easily as the Air. They're both on Haswell right now.
Product differentiation matters to Apple. I just don't think a slightly slower processor and a 0.01" thickness cuts it.
That's exactly what I wanted too. Coming from an old 15" MBP to the new 13" rMBP was a pain. All I need is a light enough laptop, but with a not so small screen.
I'd prefer a 13" form factor personally, but I'd still be excited to upgrade from my trusted 2010 13 MBA. What a wonderful workhorse that has been so far!
What a poor headline. It only goes to 2 decimal places, not nearly enough accuracy for us to know whether it is suitable for our needs!! I really need an 11.88483" laptop...
> Recall that Apple made the discrete GPU-less 13.3” Retina MacBook Pro thinner last year, but not the 15.4” model. These facts would match up nicely with a three-tier laptop segmentation strategy. Eventually, Apple would sell only three Retina MacBooks ranging from thinnest to thickest, stratified by price and screen size: 11.9”, 13.3”, and 15.4”.
The latest 13" rMBP was made thinner than the 13" rMBP before it, but it only _caught up_ to the thinness of the original 15" rMBP. The first 13" rMBP was actually thicker than 15" rMBP (something I found quite odd when it first happened).
(Mid 2012, Early 2013, Late 2013) 15" rMBP - 0.71 in high
(Late 2012, Early 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.75 in high
(Late 2013) 13" rMBP - 0.71 in high
So that entire paragraph is making an argument based on an incorrect statement.