Apple Predicted to Release Ultra-Slim 12-Inch MacBook with Retina Display in Mid-2014

[9000]

What's all this talk about 16:10? Shouldn't it be 8:5?

----------

And no... a 16:10 display is not almost square. It's still a widescreen... with just a little extra height:

Image

And that extra height is just what you need if you're playing 16:9 video not at fullscreen since the menu bar at the top takes up a little space. Also, it's better to have a laptop be narrower than wider... unless you're fat.

 

[newdeal]

A single 12" air makes some sense but they really cant thin it out because the ports are why its as thick as it is

 

[Glideslope]

Duff-Man says...I'd rather have a 15" Air, and the Mrs would like to replace her 17" with something that size. I get that smaller and lighter is good and desirable but it doesn't cover the needs of everyone, especially not having that 17" option anymore...oh yeah!

Maybe a 16.9 option iPad 6 next year? Getting close.

 

[gnomeisland]

A new line of laptops?

Crazy idea but maybe this laptop will run an ARM 64-bit variant. It would run OSX but on a much, much faster A7/A8 variant. Apple will again return to universal apps but this time they will include X64 and A64 instruction sets.

It would also make sense to start off with a laptop because:

A. a new, cooler, thinner design would showcase the advantages of using ARM over Intel

B. there's plenty of overlap with the Air/Pro lines if consumers & developers show resistance.

Apple started the Intel transition with laptops and didn't shift to the MP until almost a year later. Plus this laptop would be less geared towards "Pro" users who are more likely to be dependent on legacy/3rd party programs that will take longer to transition.

Also with a custom ARM processor the laptop could actually be *cheaper* than the current airs while adding a retina class display. This would create the kind of disruption Apple loves.

 

[mortenandersen]

Thank you for the images!

I was me who posted that... learn how to quote

I'd rather have a little more screen height... especially if I'm using the laptop for work. But yeah... it's totally a personal preference.

You're in luck, though... Apple is one of the only manufacturers who make 16:10 screens.

Almost every other laptop on the market is 16:9

And no... a 16:10 display is not almost square. It's still a widescreen... with just a little extra height:

Image

You're right that 16:10 still is a widescreen. But IMO it's not a "natural" or "pretty" widescreen - and that's my point. As you said, it's totally a personal preference. Looking back, today I cannot understand why I in fact liked the almost square displays on the early IBM laptops, if I remember right? My preferences have totally changed the last years: The more widescreen-like, the better - to a certain degree, though. Looking at the telling and good images in your post: I must say that "in my eyes" I dislike the 16:10, as I like the view of the 16:9.

 

[Michael Scrip]

And that extra height is just what you need if you're playing 16:9 video not at fullscreen since the menu bar at the top takes up a little space. Also, it's better to have a laptop be narrower than wider... unless you're fat.

A laptop can only be as narrow as its keyboard.

So assuming laptops have a standard width... I'd like as much screen height as I can get.

Again... it's personal preference.

 

[gnomeisland]

Slightly different tack here:

What do people here feel about the utility of a retina display (in these size ranges) to someone ~60 years old (e.g., my wife - who's in the market for a new MacBook) with naturally-decreasing visual acuity? She already has an iPhone 4 w/retina display.

If it doesn't make much difference (think reading glasses...), maybe a current, non-retina display is the right approach for her.

What do folks here think?

Go retina.The "effective" resolutions at the optimal settings are lower than the classic counterparts (1280 vs 1440 in 13") while being sharper which is easier on the eyes. I really wish I could convince my father, who's very anti-Apple, to switch simply because I think the lower effective resolution with increased sharpness would be much better for him.

 

[HenryDJP]

A retina MBA is plausible. But can the gpu handle it? That is the question.

It should considering the iPad has a Retina display.

 

[WardC]

I was me who posted that... learn how to quote

I'd rather have a little more screen height... especially if I'm using the laptop for work. But yeah... it's totally a personal preference.

You're in luck, though... Apple is one of the only manufacturers who make 16:10 screens.

Almost every other laptop on the market is 16:9

And no... a 16:10 display is not almost square. It's still a widescreen... with just a little extra height:

Image

A 4:3 display is a traditional "square" display

Resolutions such as:

512x384
640x480
800x600
832x624
1024x768
1600x1200

To name a few. The traditional Macintosh displays in the Apple Color RGB CRT displays, and the Apple Multiple Scan Display, as well as the Blue and Graphite colored Apple Studio display were all 4:3 monitors. Apple did not start using 16:10 or 16:9 until they went to flat panel LCD displays. The first Apple Flat Panel LCD, the Apple Studio Display 15" was a 4:3 display however, with a native resolution of 1024x768. It was not until the Titanium PowerBook G4 that Apple introduced a wider aspect ratio to its notebooks....with 16:10. The PowerBook G3 line was all 4:3 1024x768 ratio displays.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You're right that 16:10 still is a widescreen. But IMO it's not a "natural" or "pretty" widescreen - and that's my point. As you said, it's totally a personal preference. Looking back, I cannot understand why I in fact liked the almost square displays on the early IBM laptops. My preferences have totally changed the last years: The more widescreen-like, the better - to a certain degree, though. Looking at the telling and good images in your post: I must say that "in my eyes" I dislike the 16:10, as I like the view of the 16:9.

But like I said just a minute ago... a laptop can only be a certain width because of the keyboard.

And if two laptops are the same width... a 16:9 screen will be "shorter" than a 16:10 screen.

So I don't know why you would want "less" stuff on the screen because of the 16:9 display.

I experienced this directly not too long ago. I was helping a friend transfer all her stuff from an old laptop to a new laptop.

The old laptop had a 1280x800 screen at 14" (16:10)

The new laptop had a 1366x768 screen at 14" (16:9)

With the two laptops sitting side-by-side... the 16:9 screen was much shorter. In other words... you get a narrower view of the content on a 16:9 screen.

So why again do you prefer the view of 16:9 ?

 

[Bubba Satori]

What's 'PRO' about any of the current 13" line up?

The name.

 

[Michael Scrip]

A 4:3 display is a traditional "square" display

Resolutions such as:

512x384
640x480
800x600
832x624
1024x768
1600x1200

To name a few. The traditional Macintosh displays in the Apple Color RGB CRT displays, and the Apple Multiple Scan Display, as well as the Blue and Graphite colored Apple Studio display were all 4:3 monitors. Apple did not start using 16:10 or 16:9 until they went to flat panel LCD displays. The first Apple Flat Panel LCD, the Apple Studio Display 15" was a 4:3 display however, with a native resolution of 1024x768. It was not until the Titanium PowerBook G4 that Apple introduced a wider aspect ratio to its notebooks....with 16:10. The PowerBook G3 line was all 4:3 1024x768 ratio displays.

Thanks for the history lesson... but I already knew all of that

 

[D.T.]

I was me who posted that... learn how to quote

I'd rather have a little more screen height... especially if I'm using the laptop for work. But yeah... it's totally a personal preference.

You're in luck, though... Apple is one of the only manufacturers who make 16:10 screens.

Almost every other laptop on the market is 16:9

And no... a 16:10 display is not almost square. It's still a widescreen... with just a little extra height:

Image

Same here, I prefer the 16:10, I have lots of tasks, that are "height intensive"

Heck, I actually prefer the 4:3 AR of the iPad vs. the 16:9 of many/most other tablets, I like the extra width/height depending on the orientation.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Same here, I prefer the 16:10, I have lots of tasks, that are "height intensive"

Heck, I actually prefer the 4:3 AR of the iPad vs. the 16:9 of many/most other tablets, I like the extra width/height depending on the orientation.

Exactly... thank you.

 

[osx11]

What's all this talk about 16:10? Shouldn't it be 8:5?

NO!

It should actually be 2:1.25

 

[mortenandersen]

Michael Scrip wrote in post 289:

"So why again do you prefer the view of 16:9 ?"

Although the 16:10 ratio gives more height, I can do without it easily and will rather please my eyes with the - for me - much more "natural" and "harmonical" ratio of the 16:9. That's subjective all the way. The 16:9 format just is more good to look at - with my eyes, etc.

It's a personal preference.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Michael Scrip wrote in post 289:

"So why again do you prefer the view of 16:9 ?"

Although the 16:10 ratio gives more height, I can do without it easily and will rather please my eyes with the - for me - much more "natural" and "harmonical" ratio of the 16:9. That's subjective all the way. The 16:9 format just is more good to look at - with my eyes, etc.

It's a personal preference.

I've just never heard anyone sing the praises of 16:9 on a computer screen...

TV? Yeah.

But not on computer screens.

 

[Tech198]

12-inch ????

I think you can now saftely sat that Apple is the same market atAndroid, you you see multiple devices... While Apple has less choice, its growing..

Just look at many phones Apple has now, and now Macbooks, all in different sizes.

Its getting to be another Dell. Gone are the days when you could say "Apple is all about one device"


No its not.

apple kind of just "fills the empoty space" now, just like Samsung do with their phones.

On the other hand. The question comes to mind "11-inch, or 12-inch" on a vacation??


Now we're just clutching at straws.

 

[DaveN]

Serious Question:

If this thing is coming out mid-2014. Would it be a Haswell or Broadwell machine ? I doubt broadwell will be ready in less than 12 months. But mid 2014 seems awfully late to release a Haswell ultrabook

It will be a Runswell machine.

 

[Sym0]

A single 12" air makes some sense but they really cant thin it out because the ports are why its as thick as it is

Not really, go have a look at one up close, the edge you are referring too is close to minimum thickness, but the base curves downward and creates the illusion it is thin when it is actually double the edge thickness in total.

I was not surprised by this when I saw my wifes, makes sense actually as I could not see how they could make it so thin, the truth is they haven't.

like the iMac it is reasonably thick, just not at the points of interest we all take note off. Like the original ipad it is quite thick in the middle, but curved at the edge with a thin edge that sits up off the desk giving the illusion of thinness and slightly floating.

The could make the Air 1/2 the thickness it is now and it would still look the same as the current model, only you probably couldn't get you fingers underneath to pick it up!

 

[jazz1]

Will Apple finally build in cellular service?

 

[iRun26.2]

A fanless 12" in a present 11" size would be perfect! And thick enough to have a very good battery time also in the future!

I really like the 'fan-less' MBA idea. If Apple is able to push Intel more down the conservation road (rather than performance) with Broadwell, we may truly see a MBA without a fan. That would simply be awesome!

The fan weight and volume could be replaced with more battery capacity. That is one characteristic I'd like the MBA to share with my iPhone.

----------

My guess is that the 12" got its extra inch via reduced bezel and isn't physically any bigger than the 11. As such, there would be no reason for the 11 to even exist.

I'm hoping the 11" MBA exists simple for the lower price. I want to pay more for my new 12" MBA because I want advances in technology not found in the current MBA (IGZO display, liquid metal casing, larger SSD, thinner and lighter). I want the MBA to return to being the leader in thin and light computer designs (not an entry level computer).

 

[Santabean2000]

Serious Question:

If this thing is coming out mid-2014. Would it be a Haswell or Broadwell machine ? I doubt broadwell will be ready in less than 12 months. But mid 2014 seems awfully late to release a Haswell ultrabook

Interesting question.

Crazy idea but maybe this laptop will run an ARM 64-bit variant. It would run OSX but on a much, much faster A7/A8 variant. Apple will again return to universal apps but this time they will include X64 and A64 instruction sets.

It would also make sense to start off with a laptop because:

A. a new, cooler, thinner design would showcase the advantages of using ARM over Intel

B. there's plenty of overlap with the Air/Pro lines if consumers & developers show resistance.

Apple started the Intel transition with laptops and didn't shift to the MP until almost a year later. Plus this laptop would be less geared towards "Pro" users who are more likely to be dependent on legacy/3rd party programs that will take longer to transition.

Also with a custom ARM processor the laptop could actually be *cheaper* than the current airs while adding a retina class display. This would create the kind of disruption Apple loves.

Interesting answer.


Apple's counter to the Chromebook..?

 

[twoodcc]

sounds good to me! bring it on!

 

[-AG-]

I have no issues with a 12" Air but would prefer a Pro.

If they could modify the pros to take dual mSATA SSDs (one large capacity and one fast smaller capacity) they could configure it for speed using Fusion. Dedicated GFX chip, Quad Core CPU and 3 Thunderbolt + 2 USB3 ports. Oh and LOTS of ram 16-32GB, even if its soldered onboard.

Id be happy.

Small light and powerful.