MacBook Pro Prototypes and Design Details?

[Davidkoh]

Now is when the "quality" comments arrive.

I'll admit to buying a computer for quality... but not longevity. So if anyone chimes in saying Apples last 5 years... then I'll pre-ask: "Who wants a 4 or 5 y.o. laptop?"

So many of us go with cheaper machines because we know we'll want a new one within a year or two.

Why would cheaper machine = be able to change sooner? Apple computers have a bettery second hand value. So you can actually change sooner. I'm ending up just spending $1000 per year on my computer when I sell my old one and get a new.

And even if I couldn't sell I still wouldn't keep my computer for more than 2 years, it's not practical.

 

[MowingDevil]

And even if I couldn't sell I still wouldn't keep my computer for more than 2 years, it's not practical.

I suppose it depends on what you're using it for, but in general that type of thinking is insane. If a computer is relatively fast & operates all your required software then there is no real need to upgrade at all. This whole cycle of having to have the latest & greatest is what fuels this upgrade game. I've scored films on computers that would be considered dreadfully out of date. If they do the job they do the job. For your average user a good computer should last over 4 years at least.

 

[motulist]

there will never be a limit, maybe one to what we think is feasable, but 5 years later that ceiling will be shattered.

I remember a quote of bill gates saying he couldnt see anyone ever using more than (correct me on this cuz i know its wrong) about 500 kb or sumthing, a number we find laughable today, but it was massive at the time.

Technology grows in leaps and bounds my friend.

Oh, I disagree with that. Yes there will always be more powerful computers, but that doesn't mean people will need that extra power. In fact, we've already reached that limit for most people. Most people do word processing, some simple photo touch ups, mp3 playing, spreadsheets, and things like that. The computer industry effective reached the threshold for all the power that is necessary to do all of those tasks in a desktop with essentially instantaneous results.

Even at the expert level, tasks like word processing will be just as instantaneous on a well maintained 3 year old computer as they are on a brand new modern machine. As newer machines get faster and faster, they will eventually reach the threshold where even most expert photo users will have a machine that almost instantaneously does what they want. We aren't at that point yet, but certainly within 10 years we will be.

But that's not to say people will stop wanting new computers. People will want new computers for the new features and capabilities that they add, a big example of which is portability. Laptops are taking up more and more of the computer market (over 50% of the new computers sold iirc), not because they're faster or more powerful than desktops, but because they offer a new functionality - portability.

So my prediction: within 10 years you'll have desktop computers that are fast and powerful enough to run basically every standard expert photo function at near instantaneous speed. But within 10 years we'll have brand new uses for our computers which will continue driving the need for more powerful machines, such as 3D photography or some other such thing.

p.s. That quote about Gates said 640k of ram, and it happens to be a completely untrue story.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484

 

[Davidkoh]

I suppose it depends on what you're using it for, but in general that type of thinking is insane. If a computer is relatively fast & operates all your required software then there is no real need to upgrade at all. This whole cycle of having to have the latest & greatest is what fuels this upgrade game. I've scored films on computers that would be considered dreadfully out of date. If they do the job they do the job. For your average user a good computer should last over 4 years at least.

Why is it insane? As long as my joy from having a new computer every year/every second year is higher than the price it's not a biggie. I am a student so I dun have a fat wallet, but putting down $1000 a year is not that hard, it's just a matter of if I am willing to work an extra day per month

 

[Digital Skunk]

I would definitely keep a machine around for as long as I can. Use it until the thing dies, or until it just can't keep up.

Changing every two years is nice to stay up to date, but when you throw down $4000 for your pro tower or laptop you can just go out and buy a new $4000 system simply for looks.

For me anyway, the machine will be used until it starts to slow me down, much like my dual core G5 which can't handle HD footage like my MBP can. That machine is about 3 years old now. And I will keep it for another year at least.

 

[ndstrenge]

I would definitely keep a machine around for as long as I can. Use it until the thing dies, or until it just can't keep up.

Changing every two years is nice to stay up to date, but when you throw down $4000 for your pro tower or laptop you can just go out and buy a new $4000 system simply for looks.

For me anyway, the machine will be used until it starts to slow me down, much like my dual core G5 which can't handle HD footage like my MBP can. That machine is about 3 years old now. And I will keep it for another year at least.

^^ that's my point.

Technology evolves quickly. Like- really quickly. The machine from which I currently type is a 3yo 1.60Ghz Pentium, maxed out at 2gig of ram, rebuilt with a 256 video card to handle vista (also maxed out), and a maxed out 100gig HD. Everything is maxed out, yet... this laptop is GIGANTIC. It weighs like 8 pounds.

It presents images beautifully. But... it can't multi-task. It heats up and slows down.

WHY WOULD I EVEN CONSIDER KEEPING ANY LAPTOP FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS?

(edit- I'm talking laptops, not desktops.)

 

[Tex-Twil]

WHY WOULD I EVEN CONSIDER KEEPING ANY LAPTOP FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS?

I bought a Sony VAIO 1.5 year ago 1300 € now I sell it for 300 €. This is a good reason to keep a competitive notebook for more than 2 years.

 

[fxstb2002]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndstrenge View Post
WHY WOULD I EVEN CONSIDER KEEPING ANY LAPTOP FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS?

It really just depends on your usage. For most people, an older computer is fine. The only reason to upgrade is software performance.

I still use an almost 6 year old Gateway Laptop and Desktop on a daily basis. They cost around $1200-1300 each when I bought them (with Office XP Professional I might add). They also run CS2 (kinda slow, but work for most tasks).

I am about to upgrade, not because there is anything wrong with the computers, but they will not run the new software I want to use.

 

[Davidkoh]

I would definitely keep a machine around for as long as I can. Use it until the thing dies, or until it just can't keep up.

Changing every two years is nice to stay up to date, but when you throw down $4000 for your pro tower or laptop you can just go out and buy a new $4000 system simply for looks.

For me anyway, the machine will be used until it starts to slow me down, much like my dual core G5 which can't handle HD footage like my MBP can. That machine is about 3 years old now. And I will keep it for another year at least.

First off, the MBP is only like $2500 here in sweden And a year old sells for around $1800, so basically I would lose $700 per year with constant refreshes. That isn't even money to talk about, thats like work 1 extra day every other month during the year.

I like having new things anyway, and there are always things you can do with new machines you cannot with the older ones. I value a new machine every year more than I value being off work/school those extra 8 hours every other month.

And if I didn't buy a new computer I would have to get Applecare, so that's something you need to take into the calculations, then getting a new computer is even cheaper

 

[Tex-Twil]

First off, the MBP is only like $2500 here in sweden

really ? I've just checked and I see MBP 2,5GHz 21,995 kr -> 2,268.78 EUR. This is more or less the same price as everywhere in EU but this is 3,128 USD ...

 

[aleksandra.]

Oh, I disagree with that. Yes there will always be more powerful computers, but that doesn't mean people will need that extra power. In fact, we've already reached that limit for most people. Most people do word processing, some simple photo touch ups, mp3 playing, spreadsheets, and things like that. The computer industry effective reached the threshold for all the power that is necessary to do all of those tasks in a desktop with essentially instantaneous results.

Even at the expert level, tasks like word processing will be just as instantaneous on a well maintained 3 year old computer as they are on a brand new modern machine. As newer machines get faster and faster, they will eventually reach the threshold where even most expert photo users will have a machine that almost instantaneously does what they want. We aren't at that point yet, but certainly within 10 years we will be.

But that's not to say people will stop wanting new computers. People will want new computers for the new features and capabilities that they add, a big example of which is portability. Laptops are taking up more and more of the computer market (over 50% of the new computers sold iirc), not because they're faster or more powerful than desktops, but because they offer a new functionality - portability.

So my prediction: within 10 years you'll have desktop computers that are fast and powerful enough to run basically every standard expert photo function at near instantaneous speed. But within 10 years we'll have brand new uses for our computers which will continue driving the need for more powerful machines, such as 3D photography or some other such thing.

p.s. That quote about Gates said 640k of ram, and it happens to be a completely untrue story.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484

I disagree completely. I thought the same when I first had 6GB HDD. It turned out I needed 10x bigger one only a few years later. The point is, when faster/bigger/better comes, software developers want to use it. Most people who do word processing aren't doing it very differently than they did 10 years ago, but current MS Office likely won't work on that old a computer. It's bigger, slower, more demanding. Even though most people don't need all the new features, they still need newer computer to run the new software, or to run it smoothly. In a few years, 4GB of RAM might become a minimum requirement for running any new software. I don't even know how much space Vista takes, but would it fit on 2GB partition of the HDD I mentioned above? I don't think it's possible. But it was enough for Win 2k.

I see how it might seem as current computers are incomparable to a decade previous, but then they seemed to be incomparable to the previous ones. It's just an illusion, appearing most often when for a year or more computers don't improve significantly, only their prices fall. I've read an article once about how it's the end of processors' development since after ~2GHz their performance very often don't improve. Yet we are getting new ones, and even 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo is way better than what top-of-the-line used to be then. If the limit is reached, it usually means something different is coming.

So my prediction is: within 10 years we will have operating systems and basic software that won't work on the computers we are using today.

 

[Davidkoh]

really ? I've just checked and I see MBP 2,5GHz 21,995 kr -> 2,268.78 EUR. This is more or less the same price as everywhere in EU but this is 3,128 USD ...

Yeah if you buy the more expensive MBP, but there is nothing in it that would make me get that, the performance to price ratio is not really optimal Rather buy the cheaper one and buy a new one in a year.

 

[MowingDevil]

Why is it insane? As long as my joy from having a new computer every year/every second year is higher than the price it's not a biggie. I am a student so I dun have a fat wallet, but putting down $1000 a year is not that hard, it's just a matter of if I am willing to work an extra day per month

Not insane for you necessarily, I said I don't know what your needs w/ it are. I said for the average user specifically. You said having a computer over 2 years wasn't practical...it should be for most people. This sounds like a want vs need thing and if you want to buy a new one thats your prerogative. Life's short, whatever floats your boat.

 

[MowingDevil]

Technology grows in leaps and bounds my friend.

Porn & video games

But within 10 years we'll have brand new uses for our computers which will continue driving the need for more powerful machines, such as 3D photography or some other such thing.

...and I repeat, porn & video games.

 

[Davidkoh]

Not insane for you necessarily, I said I don't know what your needs w/ it are. I said for the average user specifically. You said having a computer over 2 years wasn't practical...it should be for most people. This sounds like a want vs need thing and if you want to buy a new one thats your prerogative. Life's short, whatever floats your boat.

Exactly I could go ahead and buy the better 1 which costs $700 more, but instead I wait a year, sell mine with a $700 loss and buy a new cheaper one Then I save some $200 on Applecare, and I get the joy of unpacking a new computer every year.

This of course is my preference, some people like buying the better one and keeping it for 3 years, I don't And as I said, im willing to work those 6-7 days per year it takes me to earn those $700 to have the luxery of buying a new computer every year

 

[puffnstuff]

You do not need the latest and greatest to do simple tasks. Average consumer is not worried about a computer that can run crysis, do hd video editing, photoshop, etc. Majority just need something for basic tasks. Netbooks are no faster the computers from years ago yet they sell like hot cakes because most just want to surf the web, do some word processing, listen to music, and watch a movie.

I think someone already stated that we have reached our cap for the average consumer. But for those who use computers daily for work etc I don't think we will ever reach it. Look at photoshop every damn time you turn around the release a new one that works better on a newer computer.

 

[Davidkoh]

You do not need the latest and greatest to do simple tasks. Average consumer is not worried about a computer that can run crysis, do hd video editing, photoshop, etc. Majority just need something for basic tasks. Netbooks are no faster the computers from years ago yet they sell like hot cakes because most just want to surf the web, do some word processing, listen to music, and watch a movie.

I think someone already stated that we have reached our cap for the average consumer. But for those who use computers daily for work etc I don't think we will ever reach it. Look at photoshop every damn time you turn around the release a new one that works better on a newer computer.

I don't get new ones because I need the performance, I get new ones because I enjoy having recent versions

 

[tiguk]

You do not need the latest and greatest to do simple tasks. Average consumer is not worried about a computer that can run crysis, do hd video editing, photoshop, etc. Majority just need something for basic tasks. Netbooks are no faster the computers from years ago yet they sell like hot cakes because most just want to surf the web, do some word processing, listen to music, and watch a movie.

I think someone already stated that we have reached our cap for the average consumer. But for those who use computers daily for work etc I don't think we will ever reach it. Look at photoshop every damn time you turn around the release a new one that works better on a newer computer.

Of course we haven't reached our capacity for the average consumer. Demand (for performance and speed) has always, and will always, outstrip supply both for residential and business users. And long may it continue, otherwise I'm out of a job!

Moore's Law has been going strong for about 30 years now, and that's not because some academic wants to keep producing faster, smaller processors, it's because the world is demanding it. I'll admit the main driver is commercially focussed, but home use of computing has grown with the increase in available capacity / performance. I don't see that letting up, pretty much ever.

How anyone can claim that computers are now able to cope with the demands of the 'average' consumer now is a mystery to me. There will always be new ways to make use of increased performance and speed. All that will happen is the 'average consumer' will do more of the things we consider to be 'advanced user' remit only today....

 

[brad.c]

Oh, I disagree with that. Yes there will always be more powerful computers, but that doesn't mean people will need that extra power. In fact, we've already reached that limit for most people. Most people do word processing, some simple photo touch ups, mp3 playing, spreadsheets, and things like that. The computer industry effective reached the threshold for all the power that is necessary to do all of those tasks in a desktop with essentially instantaneous results.

I disagree completely. I thought the same when I first had 6GB HDD. It turned out I needed 10x bigger one only a few years later. The point is, when faster/bigger/better comes, software developers want to use it. Most people who do word processing aren't doing it very differently than they did 10 years ago, but current MS Office likely won't work on that old a computer. It's bigger, slower, more demanding. Even though most people don't need all the new features, they still need newer computer to run the new software, or to run it smoothly.

I tend to agree with motulist. In the print graphics industry of ten years ago, you outfitted a studio with varying levels of hardware based on task requirements. If files were prepped in the same way today, you could give everybody a 24" iMac and still meet your deadlines.

aleksandra is right too, in an unfortunate way that trumps the old way of doing things. Now, it's "okay" to comp with original, oversized image files, using bloated apps, that run on a platform with huge system and library folders. Hey, you've got a 200 Gig hard drive. Who cares if you've got every ^&%# printer driver pre-installed? Have some more iDVD themes and GarageBand loops too.
Hell, my Library is 8 Gig. You gotta BTO your RAM just to boot CS3. Wait, here comes CS4!

The hardest part of my workflow is at the end, when everything has to be shrunk and downsampled to run over a T1. But since it's quicker to burn media/rubber for a 4 Gig project file, we're back to Sneakernet™.

 

[.Chris]

its all based on what the custmorer wants. not what you want. if someone wants something you dont like, let them have it. If you dont see your self using 1TB HD but your friends gets one, let him, enough complaning