Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Let's Build a 'True Pro' Machine

E

Exile714

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 14, 2015
718
1,175
Ok, so it's been almost a week since the MacBook Pro 2016 was announced. Some people were disappointed, and they're voicing their opinion online.

You're the new CEO of Apple. You've decided you need to create a new MacBook Pro to satisfy these users.

What specs does it have? What specific processors, hard drives, memory, input devices, connectivity, etc? What does it look like? How big is the battery? How much does it weigh? And most importantly, how much does it cost?

Remember, this machine must use technology reasonably expected to exist by 4Q2017, and it must obey the laws of physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMac1996
DDR4 RAM, to start.

Make it a little heavier, a little fatter. SD Card Slot. 32 GB of RAM. At least one USB A slot.

I'm not super excited about clock speed and all that garbage, but it might be time for Apple to start developing Mac ARM chips because I'm concerned it's the shortcomings of intel that are setting Apple back.
 
AustinIllini said:
DDR4 RAM, to start.
Click to expand...

So, not LPDDR4? Because then we're talking either a big machine or one with 2-3 hour battery life.

DDR4 is desktop memory. LPDDR4 isn't supported by current processors. We could always use Kaby Lake processors but that means no quad core because H-series Kaby Lakes won't exist.

Let'a play seriously here. Desktop class DDR4, are you sure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdonisSMU and Skika
Exile714 said:
Ok, so it's been almost a week since the MacBook Pro 2016 was announced. Some people were disappointed, and they're voicing their opinion online.

You're the new CEO of Apple. You've decided you need to create a new MacBook Pro to satisfy these users.

What specs does it have? What specific processors, hard drives, memory, input devices, connectivity, etc? What does it look like? How big is the battery? How much does it weigh? And most importantly, how much does it cost?

Remember, this machine must use technology reasonably expected to exist by 4Q2017, and it must obey the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

:) I would do it exactly like Apple without Redesign.
Take the new components, throw them inside the old unibody and fill up the rest with shaped battery cells, so Jhonny ive is pleased. :D
2 USB 3.0 Ports and 4 USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 Ports, HDMI, Displayport, Headphone jack, pressable Battery-indicator at the side. :rolleyes:
Replacing FN-Keys through the Touch-Bar, pushing the p3 color display in, paint it in Space-grey & Jet black and good.
 
Exile714 said:
So, not LPDDR4? Because then we're talking either a big machine or one with 2-3 hour battery life.

DDR4 is desktop memory. LPDDR4 isn't supported by current processors. We could always use Kaby Lake processors but that means no quad core because H-series Kaby Lakes won't exist.

Let'a play seriously here. Desktop class DDR4, are you sure?
Click to expand...
That's your criticism? Is this a troll thread?

Fine, LPDDR4 memory. And read the rest of my post. I have admitted that Intel may be holding back Apple.
 
That answers my question. This is a "Let me justify why Apple made the Macbook Pro worse" thread.

A real Pro machine has more RAM and more ports.
 
AustinIllini said:
Fine, LPDDR4 memory. And read the rest of my post. I have admitted that Intel may be holding back Apple.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the original question about using technology that currently exists? Intel CPUs currently don't support LPDDR4 if I understand currently, so that RAM is out of question.
 
Also, probably a touch screen, but that's not specifically a Pro requirement.
[doublepost=1478097750][/doublepost]
T5BRICK said:
And you seriously think Arm is a solution?
Click to expand...
You're using Intel's chips as an excuse for all of their shortcomings. All I'm suggesting is Apple should go another direction if that is the case.
 
AustinIllini said:
That's your criticism? Is this a troll thread?

Fine, LPDDR4 memory. And read the rest of my post. I have admitted that Intel may be holding back Apple.
Click to expand...

I read your post in its entirety, it's literally four words long.

You're not addressing the issue here. If you go LPDDR4 there are serious drawbacks including weight, size, battery and processing power (not all at the same time).

We're not here to assess blame. Who cares if Intel is holding Apple back? Let's just build the machine everyone wants.
 
Exile714 said:
I read your post in its entirety, it's literally four words long.

You're not addressing the issue here. If you go LPDDR4 there are serious drawbacks including weight, size, battery and processing power (not all at the same time).

We're not here to assess blame. Who cares if Intel is holding Apple back? Let's just build the machine everyone wants.
Click to expand...
The excuses thread continues.

Better keyboard travel.
 
AustinIllini said:
The excuses thread continues.

Better keyboard travel.
Click to expand...

Honestly, coming from a mid-2010 turd, the new machines pretty much hit everything I am looking for with one gross exception - 32 gigs of RAM. If the technical limitation is really there and that's on Intel, fine...but the next version that will have 32 gigs of RAM will be the one I will want. While my current machine is maxed out at 8 gigs and I don't really need 32 gigs, I won't spend $3k on another computer that's going to last me another 5-7 years without at least 32 gigs. It's not the need, it's the principle...16 gigs has been the max since 2012 and that was fine then, but not today.

Give me today's machine with 32 gigs and I'm in, even at $3k, which is what my original late-'08 BTO unibody cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinIllini
AustinIllini said:
You're using Intel's chips as an excuse for all of their shortcomings. All I'm suggesting is Apple should go another direction if that is the case.
Click to expand...

I haven't made any excuses for Intel. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that Arm is an option in any kind of computer that needs real horsepower.

The current Skylake CPUs are fast and capable. They run the software that they need to be able to run. I don't see why Kaby Lake is so special.

Note that I'm not a fan of these new MacBook Pros either. They have their share of problems.
 
T5BRICK said:
I haven't made any excuses for Intel. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that Arm is an option in any kind of computer that needs real horsepower.
Click to expand...
I just get the feeling that the company that makes the best mobile processors in the business should consider their own proprietary chip to provide better solutions.
 
Ok, so the consensus here is that either 1) you like the MBP2016 as is or 2) you want more memory.

Let's put in 32gb memory. Ok, so which processor do we use? Do we stick with Skylake and suffer DDR4 memory or do we go with Kaby Lake and suffer a processor hit?
 
Size : Make the bezels smaller. Make the laptop the same thickness and slightly lighter than the previous gen due to less bezel, so smaller size
Specs: i7-6770HQ for the 15", and choose from the nvidia 1050,1060 or 1070 in the top spec model
Offer a low end dGPU in the 13" (1050/1060)
Offer 13" and 15" without dGPU and pack the extra space with battery
Up to 64gb of ram in the 15 inch, 32 in the 13 inch. RAM tech has very little difference in performance, ie lpddr3 vs lpddr4.

Features:
Apple pencil support on the trackpad
Normal keyboard
2 x USB 3 A
2 x USB 3 C (tb3)
Magsafe
Either make the screen touch and integrate apple pencil support or make the touch bar an optional extra on all configs
Price:
No ridiculous upgrade prices. .
Keep the same Base costs as last gen
 
AustinIllini said:
I just get the feeling that the company that makes the best mobile processors in the business should consider their own proprietary chip to provide better solutions.
Click to expand...

Fine. But that takes more than a year. Let's assume we're building a machine for 2017 AND we're spending a ton on ARM research for 2020. Let's just focus on the 2017 machine.
 
Exile714 said:
Ok, so the consensus here is that either 1) you like the MBP2016 as is or 2) you want more memory.

Let's put in 32gb memory. Ok, so which processor do we use? Do we stick with Skylake and suffer DDR4 memory or do we go with Kaby Lake and suffer a processor hit?
Click to expand...

We wait until we can have LPDDR4 and have the same battery life as the new machines, whether that's Kaby/Coffee/Cannon Lake.

I used to have a secondary requirement of not buying a new machine until it could drive a 4k/5k external natively at 60 Hz. But now that Apple exited the display business, and being vain enough to not be willing to buy a non-Apple display and hold onto my 24" ACD until death (despite no retina it's just a beautiful panel...won the quality control lottery on that one, bigtime), that requirement pretty much evaporated. I just hope someone makes one hell of an adapter for it to work with USB-C, but not counting on it.
 
gooseta said:
Size : Make the bezels smaller. Make the laptop the same thickness and slightly lighter than the previous gen due to less bezel, so smaller size
Specs: i7-6770HQ for the 15", and choose from the nvidia 1050,1060 or 1070 in the top spec model
Offer a low end dGPU in the 13" (1050/1060)
Offer 13" and 15" without dGPU and pack the extra space with battery
Up to 64gb of ram in the 15 inch, 32 in the 13 inch. RAM tech has very little difference in performance, ie lpddr3 vs lpddr4.

Features:
Apple pencil support on the trackpad
Normal keyboard
2 x USB 3 A
2 x USB 3 C (tb3)
Magsafe
Either make the screen touch and integrate apple pencil support or make the touch bar an optional extra on all configs
Price:
No ridiculous upgrade prices. .
Keep the same Base costs as last gen
Click to expand...

A computer that size with DDR4 memory (because you went Skylake and DDR3 doesn't support more than 16gb) and extremely high TDP graphics cards would suck power like water through a fire hose. If you stick with the same chassis, the battery would last maybe an hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back