Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms Retina MacBook Build-to-Order Pricing for 1.3 GHz Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...I take it you missed the part where Apple is explicitly stating this is a machine for the wireless world?
And please, explain to me what "work" entails? Besides MS Office of course.
I asked for specifics and you gave me uploading photos, which can be done wirelessly or with an adapter. And "work" without giving me what that entails that somehow this machine is incapable of doing.
I have a 2012 MBA and always have Activity Monitor running, with the option to change the dock icon to display the processor usage history. So I've always got a visual display going of how busy the processor is.
With Mail, Safari, iTunes, VPN, Remote Desktop, 1Password and Quicken always running, opening iWork and Aperture throughout the day, and frequently using Dashboard with a bunch of widgets , I rarely see the processor being used more than 10-15%.
Sometimes when importing photos into Aperture it'll spike up to 50-60% for literally a second or two.
So what "computing needs" do you think the average person will have that the new MacBook isn't going to be able to handle?
You mean it will sell more units than other companies could possibly dream of had it been theirs, but just not as many as Apple would have liked.
I have a suspicion that will happen here.
Because some (actually, a lot of) people value portability over power. Educators, journalists, writers, scientists, consultants basically everyone that needs to move a lot with a laptop but does not work with processor-intensive applications. Hell, I would get one, but for my needs its really a bit too slow. Plus, I want to be able to play games on my work laptop
Yes. I would never consider one for myself, but my partner is a poet, is (like me) not young, travels a lot, does not work at a desk, and needs nothing more than the usual apps plus Word.
She started with an 2006 MBP 15", went to a tricked-out unibody 15" in 2010 (because at that time we thought she'd be doing InDesign and using other Adobe products . . . but that task eventually fell to me) and then for 3 years has been using an 11" Air, which we configured with an i7 and 8 GB and those upgrades were probably wasted money -- again because we thought she might be giving it a workout. She tolerates the screen (I think it sucks) but mostly loves it because of its size and weight and ease of (for her) use.
So she'll be getting one, even though she and I realize it's not a very good buy. But it's just perfect for her needs. It's completely unusable for my work, but I have a retina iMac and a rMBP to do the joint heavy lifting for our publishing company.
At nearly 400 posts for this thread and I think it is time to say: let's wait and see how it does when we get our own hands on it. Your own comments however give me hope for its success. I hate to see Apple fail.
I can't see buying a 3.5lb computer when one that weighs 2 lbs and has just as nice a screen is available. If something like this were available 2 years ago I'd have never purchased a 13" rMBP. It's too heavy for my tastes, but I liked the screen too much to go back to a MacBook Air.
----------
Apple expects to sell a ton of these ... in 2-3 years when it takes over as the mainstream notebook. Until then they will sell a smaller but still respectable amount, just like the MacBook Air did prior to October 2010 when it was repositioned as Apple's mainstream notebook.
The first time I tried an Air in an Apple Store I thought it was broken down so I called a Genius over to see if he could fix it.
He had a bit of a look and said it was okay, and I asked him why it was so slow and he said it wasn't.
I wouldn't even have paid $200 for the thing and yet they were selling them for $1200 plus.
This new Macbook might be okay for a photo frame if it can manage the power to change photos.
Notice the difference in posting style. One has facts and examples of real world usage...one has a simple anecdote. I think I know which one seems more convincing to me
The meaningful information will be how the new MacBook benchmarks in real use. I wouldn't make too much out of the CPU speeds until then. From what I've read the 1.1ghz CoreM outperforms the 2.8ghz Core2Duo in my mid 2009 MBP. And that computer is a workhorse still taking some heavy use running Logic Pro X. I expect Apple to have tweaked every bit of performance out of the whole package not just the CPU.
That first MacBook Air was underpowered and got the same harsh reviews from the Mac faithful as the new MacBook is getting. Macworld's forums were brutal on it back then. But that was the computer that brought me back into the Mac world. Sure, the November 2008 model was significantly better (as the late 2015/early 2016 MacBook is likely to be with Skylake coming), by just as the 2008 MacBook Air was the notebook of the future, so is today's MacBook.
Not that I am buying a MacBook, but I must agree with the above. I am still using a March 2009 iMac DuoCore 2.06GHz at the office, running Yosemite. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, FCPX, etc., despite it being much slower than the Core-M MacBook.
GeekBench side-by-side of Early 2009 iMac to 2015 MacBook:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/32056?baseline=2252365
The main problem I have on the iMac is its slow internal spinning platter HD and the fact 8GB is the RAM limit. If I had an SSD and 16GB of RAM, it would still be snappy enough for most tasks.
Intel rates the chips as 4.5 Watt but Apple called it 5 Watt. It could be rounding, but perhaps Apple designed the case so that the chips can sustain the Turbo Boost a bit longer than Intel's normal claims. The chips have been out for a few months and Lenovo and HP use them in a handful of products. Asus uses a slower version in one of their Ultrabooks, as well.
So what you're saying is, if I'm getting it right, you like painfully slow nice looking, very expensive computers.
What I'm saying is that I like my computers as thin and light as possible. Word, Excel, Outlook, Safari, Photos, iTunes, and even Windows in Parallels Desktop work just fine. Just because you like behemoths with 2-6 more cores than reasonably necessary doesn't mean the rest of us need or want them.
According to your logic, no one should buy a Honda Civic when they can get a Ford F-150 for the same price.
"- 1.3 GHz with 512 GB storage: $1749"
So, $2250 in Sweden then..
Or..
$400 on a trip to America, $1750 to AppleStore and $100 left for Dunkin Donughts #win
Or $1800 if you buy it through an entity that can reclaim moms/VAT....
...with a much larger footprint, 75% heavier, and that is a desktop computer replacement by design...
2 very different use cases.
I think they are targeting people who do not need a power machine, but do want the lightest thinnest macbook, and with a premium screen that is possible.
And what is wrong with that. It doesn't stop anyone else buying a rMBP does it?
Now you're just getting ridiculous, my whole thing about this is the price of this thing, you can get much faster computers at around the same weight but a whole lot less price.
You can't see past Apple so it's a waste of time trying to make you see sense.
I'd challenge Asus or Samsung to make an exact copy of the Macbook 12, same material, machining, trackpad all exactly the same (not their traditional plastic copies), +reasonable amount for R/D, just to see how much $$$ they would sell it. Less than 1299? not sure.
I don't need the speed. I prefer something light. I've given others examples of similar Windows PCs that I'd have no issue with if they were my work notebooks. The price is a function of everything else. The CPU isn't everything.
So for $250 you can get a .2 speed bump,or for $199 you can get a whole Asus X205TA 11.6" 2.11 lbs Signature (no crapware) Laptop from MS store.
I suspect 90% of the time, both the Macbook and Asus Laptop will be used to just to browse the internet.
Not only is the .2 speed bump hard to justify,but perhaps the whole Macbook in general!
I suspect 90% of the time, both the Macbook and Asus Laptop will be used to just to browse the internet.
Not only is the .2 speed bump hard to justify,but perhaps the whole Macbook in general!
Asus, Dell, Lenovo and others already do similar machines, but they are actually usable and cheaper and thinner. Why would they make something like this which only the Apple faithful will buy, it's pretty much a toy.
If you ride a fixed gear bike and sport a black beard this is for you.