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.
Does the next MacBook Pro REALLY need to be thinner?
- Thread starter dba415
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wish the 13 pros be the same thickness, with a slight tamper like the air..
I wouldn't mind a i7 used in the air coupled with a decent graphics card (Alienware 11mx style)
I didn't sell my MBA because of the weak CPU, I sold it because of the lack of a decent gpu..
I wouldn't mind a i7 used in the air coupled with a decent graphics card (Alienware 11mx style)
I didn't sell my MBA because of the weak CPU, I sold it because of the lack of a decent gpu..
I'm pretty happy with the current size of the MBP.
I know those will howl that it is too large and needs to be more MBA like but I think for some tasks, smaller is going to be slower:
1. If you increase the MBP display to be a Retina Display, it will require a larger battery to maintain it current battery life. If you remove the ODD you do gain room to increase battery life. If you reduce the size to that of a MBA you loose that ability.
2. I'm not sure you can continue to push the CPU and GPU and reduce the size of the MBP. The body helps to dissipate heat and smaller is more confined.
3. I wonder how many people would like to keep the current size, move the ODD to external, expand the battery, and really increase the battery life? I think that is a valid argument.
I think all of this falls into the two cliched camps of Pro and Consumer:
1. Consumer: Light, thin, weak on the high-end features.
2. Pro: Current size/weight, longer battery life, better CPU/GPU, more ram (CPU/GPU), larger HD.
Given Apple's move away from Pro level support (When was the Mac Pro last updated?) I could see the MBP become more like camp 1.
In the end, only Apple knows for sure...
-P
I know those will howl that it is too large and needs to be more MBA like but I think for some tasks, smaller is going to be slower:
1. If you increase the MBP display to be a Retina Display, it will require a larger battery to maintain it current battery life. If you remove the ODD you do gain room to increase battery life. If you reduce the size to that of a MBA you loose that ability.
2. I'm not sure you can continue to push the CPU and GPU and reduce the size of the MBP. The body helps to dissipate heat and smaller is more confined.
3. I wonder how many people would like to keep the current size, move the ODD to external, expand the battery, and really increase the battery life? I think that is a valid argument.
I think all of this falls into the two cliched camps of Pro and Consumer:
1. Consumer: Light, thin, weak on the high-end features.
2. Pro: Current size/weight, longer battery life, better CPU/GPU, more ram (CPU/GPU), larger HD.
Given Apple's move away from Pro level support (When was the Mac Pro last updated?) I could see the MBP become more like camp 1.
In the end, only Apple knows for sure...
-P
SSD`s are still too expensive per GB, next generation MBP may loose the ODD, the hard disk will remain as at present there is no rational alternative for storage capacity and reliability. SSD`s same as today will be an option for those that are wiling to trade storage capacity for launch speed and premium cost.
I know this may upset some people but I agree that Apple should remove the CD/DVD reader because they are, to me, outdated. CD/DVD takes up quite a lot of space. Using a USB storage device or cloud storage may be a better solution. I believe Apple with eliminate the CD reader and make the laptop thinner. Cant wait to see the new line of Macs.
I really hope he doesn't respect those apparent wishes. blue ray is good technology.
That's like saying "VHS is a good technology." Of course it is, but it came at the wrong time. Flash is much more efficient, and starting to drop down to Blu-Ray prices.
You know, I hope Apple doesn't make the next line of MBP's run cooler. If you think about it, if the CPU hovers around 90˚C at full load, it means the cooling system has been well designed, and optimised for efficiency vs weight.
As the old adage goes, if the CPU is at half maximum heat, the optimist says it's half cold, the pessimist says it's half melting, and the engineer says the cooling system is twice as big as it needs to be.
P.S. I have never had my mac shut down due to overheating. Even when torching the CPU with handbrake for hours on end. Anyone who has had this happen to them should take their mac to a genius bar and GET IT FIXED.
As the old adage goes, if the CPU is at half maximum heat, the optimist says it's half cold, the pessimist says it's half melting, and the engineer says the cooling system is twice as big as it needs to be.
P.S. I have never had my mac shut down due to overheating. Even when torching the CPU with handbrake for hours on end. Anyone who has had this happen to them should take their mac to a genius bar and GET IT FIXED.
Last edited:
One, consistent long standing fact about Apple, is their obsession with thin devices. They adopted Super Model Mentality years ago. Device runs warm? No problem, program it to shut down. That's Apples answer. Odd yet original.
That's why when I'm doing a long stint of resource intense computing & pushing it hard, I use my ThinkPad workstation class laptop. It's purpose is to handle any engineering, scientific, design, or other heavy task, while running fast, cool & quite. It only shuts down when I am done for the day and elect to shut it down. Not because it can't stay cool.
It's housing is 0.3" thicker than a Mac, but it's a tool that I use, not something I stare at and admire. It's also 0.5 lb. heavier than my MBP, yet I enjoy staying fit, so that's no big deal either.
At the end of the day, I know how much Apple loves style & bragging rights about looks. That's fine with me. I happen to like OS X.
That's why when I'm doing a long stint of resource intense computing & pushing it hard, I use my ThinkPad workstation class laptop. It's purpose is to handle any engineering, scientific, design, or other heavy task, while running fast, cool & quite. It only shuts down when I am done for the day and elect to shut it down. Not because it can't stay cool.
It's housing is 0.3" thicker than a Mac, but it's a tool that I use, not something I stare at and admire. It's also 0.5 lb. heavier than my MBP, yet I enjoy staying fit, so that's no big deal either.
At the end of the day, I know how much Apple loves style & bragging rights about looks. That's fine with me. I happen to like OS X.
Do films on flash drives exist in shops? Never seen them. Blue ray is a long way off becoming redundant.
BR in a home entertainment system might still have a place but not in a 13" laptop.
For most people that's the only place it has ever had. While some people might want the ability to play a Blu Ray disc in their laptop, I'd say that's a small niche.
For video pros (or prosumers) the ability to create Blu Ray discs would be appealing, but I would think that would be a better fit in a Mac Pro than a laptop.
With the addition of USB 3.0 and the omission of optical drives from new Macs, it might not be shocking to see Apple upgrade their external SuperDrive to a USB 3.0 compatible Blu Ray drive. Users who want it could have it, users who don't care, wouldn't need to pay for it. This makes the most sense in the long run. Apple makes these external drives anyway, why not update them to be compatible with the latest technology?
Now, before we go back to Jobs' comments about Blu Ray being a "Bag of hurt", remember that he followed that well known statement up with some qualifiers. He said that Apple was waiting to pursue Blu Ray until a point that licensing became more realistic and the format became widely accepted.
A single, USB 3.0 connected option would be an ideal solution to this problem. Most users don't really care about Blu Ray in their computers, but a large minority would surely like to see it. You can't please everyone, but again, why not update the existing product with up to date tech.
I don't think it needs to be thinner. I would rather have better battery life, a higher resolution, and the ability to replace my own ram/HD. Those three alone would make me happy, if the 13" pros (if they still exist) also had a discrete gpu...that would be great, but not necessary.
I don't think many people care about how hot their actual CPU is running (so long as it is within operating temperatures). What people care about is whether or not the chassis of their laptop gets hot as a result. In the case of the MBP, the chassis can get ball blistering hot.
Of course, CPU temperature and chassis temperature go hand in hand ... but as long as the chassis of my laptop doesn't get hot, I could care less how hot my CPU is running (as long as its within operating temperatures, but this is par for the course for most laptops)
Last edited:
I haven't read all of the posts but I can see that many of us conlcude that the Macbook Pros should not necessary be thinner. I do agree with this as well. I really like the "thickness" (if not thinness) of my 2011 MBP and I do believe is not necessary at all to make it even more thin. What is this obsession? I don't know.
Here is an example. My MBP has this Radeon HD 6770 1Gb card which is a descent card. But wait, it has to be downclocked so that it can operate in the slim case of the MBP. So whats the point of fitting a fast card and a fast processor in a case that won't be capable of cooling enough. So what I'm trying to say here is that if Apple were to make a thinner MBP, how the hell are they planning to cool that rumored GT 650, which I believe runs hotter than the HD6770. It just doesn't make sense. I already have had experience with my MBP throttling down because of too much heat caused by the card and/or cpu.
I know many of you will agree on this, some may not. But the fact is that making a thinner Macbook Pro is just not necessary for the sake this computer is built.
Here is an example. My MBP has this Radeon HD 6770 1Gb card which is a descent card. But wait, it has to be downclocked so that it can operate in the slim case of the MBP. So whats the point of fitting a fast card and a fast processor in a case that won't be capable of cooling enough. So what I'm trying to say here is that if Apple were to make a thinner MBP, how the hell are they planning to cool that rumored GT 650, which I believe runs hotter than the HD6770. It just doesn't make sense. I already have had experience with my MBP throttling down because of too much heat caused by the card and/or cpu.
I know many of you will agree on this, some may not. But the fact is that making a thinner Macbook Pro is just not necessary for the sake this computer is built.
It doesn't have to be thinner, but I'm really hoping Apple comes up with a lighter, more upgradable machine than what is currently offered. I don't care if it's a tricked out MBA or a dumbed down MBP.
I have 2 work related 15" MBPs (different contracts provide the computers) and often bike 16 miles each way to work. I'd love to swap them out for MBA and drop 8 lbs. off my back but need the upgraded memory and HDD/SDD combo I currently have.
I have 2 work related 15" MBPs (different contracts provide the computers) and often bike 16 miles each way to work. I'd love to swap them out for MBA and drop 8 lbs. off my back but need the upgraded memory and HDD/SDD combo I currently have.
Excuse me but I'm an engineer and your argument may not be valid. What a real engineer should say about this is, "hotter the system runs, the less efficient it is." Electrical conductivity is less eficient at higher temperatures.
Also a computer is designed to work and operate numbers, it is not made to have a balance between melting or not. Having a CPU hoovering at 90° is just not good. If its a LAPTOP it means it has to run cool in order not to burn your LAP with its toasting capabilities.
No, I've never seen movies on flash drives before... I think Blu Ray will be redundant some time within the next 5 years.
Really? I'm an engineer too! How nice for us!
Considering semiconductor resistance DECREASES with increasing temperature, the energy efficiency of such devices will increase with temperature, as voltage can be lowered while keeping the same current. However realistically, the efficiency difference is insignificant compared to inductive and capacitive losses that are not affected at all by heat.
But of course, being an engineer, you already know that.
A LAPTOP is meant to be light. Having a huge heat sink and power sucking fans that keep the CPU at 50˚C at full load is a complete waste. The CPU isn't going to fail just because it hits 90˚C degrees, because they are designed to get that hot without problems.
And a general note, CPU temperature and case temperature are not necessarily linked. There are a lot of other bits in a computer that can generate a lot of heat, for example the battery. All a hot case means is that the heat from the CPU and other sources is not being transferred to the air through the heat sinks well enough, and is instead going through the case, likely because of a poor thermal paste job...
...And therefore people who have MBP cases that regularly get uncomfortably hot should GET THEM FIXED!
It does throttle before the point of shutdown. Note that these are designed as portable options, yet the higher end ones are optimized for some amount of power. They're not all running ulv cpus and integrated graphics. Overall I'd like to see them go more conservative on acceptable temperatures by leaving it about where it's at in density and letting future cooler chips bring it to a point where it won't run at its limit. These things do collect dust over time, and thermal paste starts to dry out. Given these things, I don't think it's wise for them to run so close to their maximum temperatures when they are working as intended. Some allowance needs to be made for aging factors without pushing the machine to a point of throttling frequently. These should be workhorse machines, especially at their higher end. Not everyone will use them that way, but the capability to really use the hardware should be there.
All I can say is my 2007 MBP got much too hot (the NVIDIA GPU died too, but that was NVIDIA's fault, not Apple's design flaws), but my year old 2011 MBP does not get uncomfortably hot. Therefore it can only follow that I do not feel the next line of MBPs need to be made to run cooler, especially as doing so would negatively impact on speed, weight and/or noise.
OMG, deform it with one hand? is this true? this is a very serious problem. I thought unibody macbooks are stronger.
I just don't understand how a fraction of an inch in thickness is gonna mean a real-world benefit to anyone.... Why is it something that people either want so damn bad, or are o.k. w/ doing away w/ things like ethernet/FW800 ports to achieve? IMHO, thinness fanatics are no better than those who demand either that the ODD stays or goes.