For the most part, the increase in processor power over time has dramatically outstripped software’s increasing demands for that power.
Microsoft: "Hold my beer"
For the most part, the increase in processor power over time has dramatically outstripped software’s increasing demands for that power.
For me for example yesIs the touch bar really a measurable advantage?
Since it can't dissipate heat as well as the MBP, it would be wisest to configure it with the lowest power CPU and just deal with the waiting.
All reviewers say , air base processor fine, macrumors says , give Apple 100 dollar more ... mhhh ... why would that happen?
You forgot: What's the Same:
Size. The Air isn't smaller as the name would imply. In fact it's even slightly thicker.
This is very important to mention because it debunks the claim that "there wasn't enough space for a proper cooler".
Microsoft did a better job on the Surfaces... they even have a thermal buffer so themperature doesn't jump immediately to thermal throttle levels when load is applied.
Macbook Air i7 Geekbench multicore score is not 2800...
Wrong information. Air’s don‘t use Y series CPU’s anymore.
Argh. Enough with the tired memes! We’ve been seeing comparisons where the low-end computer is only “best for web browsing and making spreadsheets“ for at least 20 years now.
For the most part, the increase in processor power over time has dramatically outstripped software’s increasing demands for that power. The new, low-end Air can likely run circles around most higher-end laptops from the first half of this decade.
I realize an Apple-centric forum is probably the wrong place to say this, but - people need to become more cynical regarding marketing claims.
[automerge]1589050706[/automerge]Generally speaking, the MacBook Air remains best suited for lightweight day-to-day tasks like web browsing and creating spreadsheets, while the MacBook Pro is better equipped to handle more intensive tasks like rendering large video files.
I was of the opinion the first ARM-powered Mac would be a revival of the 12" MacBook, but now I think it could be the MacBook Air. An ARM CPU should not need a fan (and could very well be faster than the Ice Lake-Y models in the Air) and with the larger battery pack of Air it could last for some time.
Hmm - my 2015 MacBook Pro (i5) currently has a 720 single core, 1594 multi-core Geekbench score. The computer runs everything I current need very well - I don't do video editing or games. The MacBook Air scores suggest that I could be fine even with an i3 2020 MacBook Air for several years if I bump it up to 16G RAM - does that make sense?
how do you explain that? if you don't want to use that Touch Bar, don't use it, and you still have a n option, options are good. You know you cn set the Touch Bar to basic configurarions, like fn keys, right?. No probably not, the would ruin. perfectly good complaintGreat comparison, and it's surprising to see how similar the Air is to the Pro in terms of features. The MacBook Air is pretty good value!
To some this would actually be a disadvantage to the Pro and an advantage to the Air!
Having a TouchBar doesn't make a computer "worse". The question is whether a TouchBar is better or worse than having physical function keys.Dealing with the question myself and have concluded it’s an altogether better value option to spec up the svelte MBA (10th gen i5, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD) than go for the base spec MBP (8th Gen i5, 8GB RAM and 512GB) for exactly the same price.
The (lack of) Touch Bar just clinches it!
Touch Bar is awesome!Touch Bar, really?
Good enough, in what sense? My 2014 MBP runs a 4k display exceptionally well. I'm not a gamer, but hey if you read gaming forums, you don't buy a Mac to game, so that can't be it. Movies, no sweat, as a second display, no sweat, playing different movies on both displays - no sweat, playing movies on one display and working on another display, no sweat. So I'm not saying you just made that up, but if you are forming a conclusion on a particular use case, it may not apply to other use cases.I would hate to see what it's like running a 6K display off a MBA. My 2018 13" quad core MBP is just barely good enough to run a 4K display. Just because the specs support it doesn't mean it would be a good idea to buy that laptop to drive a 6K
I was of the opinion the first ARM-powered Mac would be a revival of the 12" MacBook, but now I think it could be the MacBook Air.
Thats a curious statement, why would they not support it? I have a similar machine, run Catalina (public betas) and have 0 issues. So the computer works, it is still fast enough for everything I do, and runs all the latest software. I could see if you are in graphics, the graphics processing is getting old (still works great, but new graphics are way faster), the SSD interface speeds are slow (but still faster than a Dell XPS), and the ram is very slow compared to 10th generation intel chips, but still the fastest that the CPU supportsI have a mid 2014 MBP i7 with 16GB Ram. It is still working fine but is no more supported by my company.
Touch bar is only reason I buy PRO.I’m surprised it’s still on those machines. I think besides Samsung’s eye scrolling, this was easily the second worst tchotchke ever conceived in the tech world.
Yes, really.Touch Bar, really?
The MacBook Air is thicker on the end that doesn't matter. Where it does matter is up front near the trackpad/armrest area, where it's noticeably thinner than that of the MBP.You forgot: What's the Same:
Size. The Air isn't smaller as the name would imply. In fact it's even slightly thicker.
This is very important to mention because it debunks the claim that "there wasn't enough space for a proper cooler".
Microsoft did a better job on the Surfaces... they even have a thermal buffer so themperature doesn't jump immediately to thermal throttle levels when load is applied.
Air wins alone in form factor and weight. Its a nice machine for everyday use.
I'm confused why the Touchbar would classed as an 'advantage'.
I actually don't really understand it either. The argument was that they don't want to have legacy support hanging around and therefore do not support anything older than 5 years. But as you, I run Catalina without issues. I am not sure whether this was aimed at old PCs, or whether their migration software that makes our machines corporate compatible has issues with older specs.Thats a curious statement, why would they not support it? I have a similar machine, run Catalina (public betas) and have 0 issues. So the computer works, it is still fast enough for everything I do, and runs all the latest software. I could see if you are in graphics, the graphics processing is getting old (still works great, but new graphics are way faster), the SSD interface speeds are slow (but still faster than a Dell XPS), and the ram is very slow compared to 10th generation intel chips, but still the fastest that the CPU supports