New MacBook Pro to probably be thinner..

[Yixian]

Because we've lived through the iterations of the MacBook Pro, and although the Core Duo ones were really hot, the heat issues have remained throughout the updates with newer components.

There is nothing to suggest that even if they kept the same thickness as the current generation, the heat wouldn't be as bad. And if they made it thinner, then we're just going back a step in regard to heat control.

Heat control, most likely structural integrity, and internal specs.

Three things a pro laptop should absolutely under no circumstances bring upon itself. Heat would be forgivable if we were getting an impressive GPU and large internal HDD, but durability and performance are not something a pro laptop should ever even dream of sacrificing...

 

[andrewdale]

Heat control, most likely structural integrity, and internal specs.

Three things a pro laptop should absolutely under no circumstances bring upon itself. Heat would be forgivable if we were getting an impressive GPU and large internal HDD, but durability and performance are not something a pro laptop should ever even dream of sacrificing...

Heat is never forgivable in a notebook when it is beyond certain extremes.

NEVER.

And what you're asking for would produce this unforgivable heat.

 

[kolax]

Heat is never forgivable in a notebook when it is beyond certain extremes.

And what you're asking for would produce this unforgivable heat.

Only if the thinness was retained. If they made the case a bit thicker, and had small grills at the sides/bottom to blast out the heat, then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Yixian]

Heat is never forgivable in a notebook when it is beyond certain extremes.

NEVER.

And what you're asking for would produce this unforgivable heat.

I'm asking for either a 9650M GT in a 1" chassis (or more) or an increase in the thickness of the chassis and a high end card of some kind, 9700M GT or GTS for example.

And yeah I'd say I wouldn't be able to tolerate any more heat than the current MacBook Pro, but also I wouldn't be able to tolerate any lower end specs than we're used to from this line recently.

Looks like we're getting both.. lulz -_- I bet FireFly can't wet to get frying that bacon on the palm rest while maxxxxxing out OpenCL on word processing!!11!1

 

[iMacmatician]

...why does everyone assume that the thinner laptops will be hotter?

Its not like apple is using the same exact components and stuffing them into a thinner case. There will be new components. Things like CPUs are updated to more current tech, meaning more computing power that takes lower voltages. I can see the heat levels remaining similar to the current systems, but up? why make that assumption before we even know what we are being offered

You forget that components at the same heat levels will be even more powerful.

 

[winninganthem]

OSX is not meant for gaming at all...

Apple aims to fit the needs of prosumers and creative professionals, prosumer does not mean gamer, and the graphics cards they pick are good enough to run pro-apps without a hitch.

If you really want OSX on a laptop and want your high end graphics, buy an Alienware and turn it into a Hackintosh.

 

[iMacmatician]

OSX is not meant for gaming at all...

Apple aims to fit the needs of prosumers and creative professionals, prosumer does not mean gamer, and the graphics cards they pick are good enough to run pro-apps without a hitch.

If you really want OSX on a laptop and want your high end graphics, buy an Alienware and turn it into a Hackintosh.

What about the CPU?

 

[kolax]

1. OSX is not meant for gaming at all...

2. If you really want OSX on a laptop and want your high end graphics, buy an Alienware and turn it into a Hackintosh.

1. OS X isn't as much but Windows is. And Apple are really pushing their advertising of Boot Camp. Steve Jobs seemed really pleased to announce EA Sports were coming back to the Mac. He wouldn't even have bothered if he thought there was no market for games on the Mac. After all, if Apple is to gain more market share in the consumer market, they need to support games. One of the main reasons for people not switching is because they want to play games.

2. Not really an ideal solution at all. Especially on a laptop, where you'll most likely not be able to get the sound card working with OS X or other problems.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

... Please leave the thread.

And Ti > Al.

Oh and small HDDs.

But yeah, just for that graphics remark, it's not possible to take you seriously anymore. If you knew the first thing about modern GPUs you'd be in tears of laughter over someone claiming the 8600M GT was "one of the best" mobile GPUs around, ahaha

So? Will you use it to it's max? NO. I doubt it. And... that titanium vs aluminum remark OPINION. not everyone thinks it is. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not as if we or someone else tricked and lied to you about this issue. Stop whining. Grow up.

 

[winninganthem]

@kilamite:
Most mainstream consumers won't want to fuss with putting a separate Windows partition to run Bootcamp in order to get to their games; they just want to be able to run games natively in the same OS, and most game developers don't create for OSX.

I think Apple knows this and is trying to stick to what it does best: cater to creative professionals. Until game developers start coding popular titles natively for OSX, we can't really call OSX a gaming platform.

Most mainstream consumers also don't even really consider high end graphics cards. If they buy a laptop, they'll buy it because it has Windows and Windows has Direct X and Direct X supports games. Windows [and not OSX] supports the software and games that they want to run.

I think the people who want to run Crysis and make it sing on a laptop are a relatively small number compared to people who will be happy with a standard range solution.

 

[Yixian]

OSX is not meant for gaming at all...

No, but what other OS are Macs shipped to support? I'll give you a hint: lots of gamers use it.

But those very same gamers are in my experience only too eager to do everything else on OS X.

So, you have the biggest entertainment industry on earth and it's huge consumer base, many of whom are dying to switch if only Apple will provide them with the hardware they need.. they'll bring the software.

 

[kolax]

I think Apple knows this and is trying to stick to what it does best: cater to creative professionals. Until game developers start coding popular titles natively for OSX, we can't really call OSX a gaming platform.

What it does best? You don't think Apple is leaping into the student market too?

 

[Aranince]

I think you guys are over reacting to this thinness stuff. I think Apple will be able to pull it off.

 

[J the Ninja]

No, but what other OS are Macs shipped to support? I'll give you a hint: lots of gamers use it.

But those very same gamers are in my experience only too eager to do everything else on OS X.

So, you have the biggest entertainment industry on earth and it's huge consumer base, many of whom are dying to switch if only Apple will provide them with the hardware they need.. they'll bring the software.

No, they aren't dying to switch. They hate Macs just as much as they hate all premade PCs. Go to Tom's Hardware or IGN PC, or whatever and see what their opinion on Macs is. Most gamers want consoles, and most of those who don't are more than happy with assembling their own Windows boxes. I don't know where you found hordes of people who want to use OS X for daily use and then Windows for games. In my experience, these people are very, very few and far between. (Actually, knowing you, you probably just assumed there were lots of these people because you are one of them)

And the majority of the gaming market is consoles, not computers, and it's only swinging further to the console gaming side. Companies don't want to bother with PC/Mac versions of their games, due to the comparatively small market, and the much higher chance for piracy.

 

[NT1440]

I think you guys are over reacting to this thinness stuff. I think Apple will be able to pull it off.

+1 some people act like apples laptops are unuseable because they get so hot. Uncomfortable? yes. Un-useable? Far from it.

 

[kolax]

+1 some people act like apples laptops are unuseable because they get so hot. Uncomfortable? yes. Un-useable? Far from it.

Becomes a bit of an issue when you aren't doing anything, yet the fans are going at 6000rpm though. Making a racket. Unusable? Yes, when you are in a silent environment and when the fans creep up past 2500rpm everyone within a 10 meter radius can hear.

 

[ntrigue]

This thread is a gross overreaction. Did you ever consider that with the current MBP we are shoving current technology into a six-year old shell? Between advances in materials and a redesigned interior that allows exacting distribution of heat it is unfair to suggest this more advanced MBP will step backward.

Just think they can design every bit of the casing to vent the newer GFX cards. They can incorporate fans in improved locations that require less intervention.

 

[Yixian]

Becomes a bit of an issue when you aren't doing anything, yet the fans are going at 6000rpm though. Making a racket. Unusable? Yes, when you are in a silent environment and when the fans creep up past 2500rpm everyone within a 10 meter radius can hear.

I'm sitting browsing MR right now and both my fans are 6000rpm+, the base of my Pro is untouchable it's so hot, I have to put a book underneath it.

 

[andrewdale]

This thread is a gross overreaction. Did you ever consider that with the current MBP we are shoving current technology into a six-year old shell? Between advances in materials and a redesigned interior that allows exacting distribution of heat it is unfair to suggest this more advanced MBP will step backward.

Just think they can design every bit of the casing to vent the newer GFX cards. They can incorporate fans in improved locations that require less intervention.

Yup, that "current technology into a six-year old shell" part is what excites me. They've had a lot of time to figure new things out. That's what I can't wait about. Something new that will make it possible for advancements to be made in every direction.

 

[Scottsdale]

Hey, it's not launch day yet.

Perhaps they will not call it the MacBook Pro anymore. We don't even know that. Maybe just maybe it's now called the MacBook Thin.

The new MacBook Thin. It never was a Professional computer; it's meant for the Professional that wants a "thin" MacBook.

 

[Yixian]

Yup, that "current technology into a six-year old shell" part is what excites me. They've had a lot of time to figure new things out. That's what I can't wait about. Something new that will make it possible for advancements to be made in every direction.

If it gets any thinner all that innovation will go into keeping the MacBook Pro at it's current mediocre med-range performance.

 

[Coldwater]

Why do YOU think everyone should share your exact needs? Some us aren't planning on using this as a gaming machine. Some of us want a machine that can easily be carried with us anywhere, yet is still capable of doing some heavy lifting. The current "1in thin" design does that perfectly. You might want the thing 1.5in thick and 8 pounds with 1 and half hours of battery life, but I'd really rather it didn't. I like the machine as it is, and I hope it stays that way, merely getting a sexier case and newer versions of the current hardware.

This. You're my new favorite poster.

Seriously, to everyone who makes 10 threads complaining: What are you planning on using a MBP for? Last time I checked I could run Photoshop, Logic Pro, and even a good bit of Final Cut on it no problem. Anything heavier is done on my desktop. Those are "pro" applications, as much as I hate the moniker. I'm fine with the price because I value OS X that much higher then any Windows operating system, especially after the 15+ years I used it.

If I had a choice between a better graphics card and a thinner, lighter, more mobile system, I'd take the 2nd option every time. I've got to go everywhere with this thing and the fact that I can still do some heavy lifting is exactly what I need. The ten pound, three inch thick laptops are over there. With the amount of gear I carry, yes, two or four pounds really does make a difference. Am I fully satisfied? No, I could use a quicker processor. But I can live with what I can get, because I absolutely cannot go thicker. (And no, the Air doesn't cut it. Too weak with too small of a screen.) Hell, I'd sacrifice a 2.8Ghz CPU for some more battery life, as well. Give me a thin, light laptop that can drive Photoshop and Logic Pro and not need to be plugged in for a good 5.5 hours and I'd buy it in a second.

With the amount of complaining you've done, I hope they make it even thinner just to spite you.

 

[Scottsdale]

I second that... or third it.

This. You're my new favorite poster.

Seriously, to everyone who makes 10 threads complaining: What are you planning on using a MBP for? Last time I checked I could run Photoshop, Logic Pro, and even a good bit of Final Cut on it no problem. Anything heavier is done on my desktop. Those are "pro" applications, as much as I hate the moniker. I'm fine with the price because I value OS X that much higher then any Windows operating system, especially after the 15+ years I used it.

If I had a choice between a better graphics card and a thinner, lighter, more mobile system, I'd take the 2nd option every time. I've got to go everywhere with this thing and the fact that I can still do some heavy lifting is exactly what I need. The ten pound, three inch thick laptops are over there. With the amount of gear I carry, yes, two or four pounds really does make a difference. Am I fully satisfied? No, I could use a quicker processor. But I can live with what I can get, because I absolutely cannot go thicker. (And no, the Air doesn't cut it. Too weak with too small of a screen.) Hell, I'd sacrifice a 2.8Ghz CPU for some more battery life, as well. Give me a thin, light laptop that can drive Photoshop and Logic Pro and not need to be plugged in for a good 5.5 hours and I'd buy it in a second.

With the amount of complaining you've done, I hope they make it even thinner just to spite you.

I have a MacBook Pro as my primary computer. I had a MacBook Air but sold it due to the new lineup coming out next week. Before that I owned a MacBook as my carry around computer. I use the Pro primarily at home.

BUT, what I wouldn't give to be able to have ONE MacBook Pro as my everything computer. If my MacBook Pro could run some important apps, but still have some decent battery life, I would only need ONE MacBook. I don't NEED to have the best graphics card or the fastest computer, but I think the Pro should work for professionals who need their pro for more than one or two hours. I don't care if it's ultra thin and ultra lite to store the fastest everything. I care that it actually runs for three or four hours without a recharge. And has the dedicated graphics card that the MacBook does NOT have. That is how I differentiate the two.

What I wouldn't give for a one inch or a half inch MacBook Pro that actually was MOBILE! As thin or thick doesn't matter as much as making it MOBILE. It is a macBOOK pro. Since it's a BOOK, I expect it to be mobile which means battery life of more than an hour.

 

[jTreu]

I really dont think it needs to be any thinner, especially when I compare it to my windows laptop. If they do make it thinner they better no make me sacrifice any of the ports or features on the current pro.

 

[m1stake]

I play games. The computer in my signature might clue you off on that. I've also got a PS3 that gets used heavily, a Wii that is good at collecting dust, and a new 60GB 360 that I bought for $99 through MS. Even if Apple starts supporting more games, I won't touch them.

Why? Because OSX has bad OpenGL code. Well, that's mainly because OpenGL has been stagnating terribly and OpenGL 3 was and is a total bust. Because of the conglomeration of companies that write and vote on what makes the cut, they can't keep up with Direct3D.

Don't get me wrong, D3D is about as bloated and decentralized as OS9. But it destroys OpenGL.

Why play games on a platform that's not capable of competing in terms of FPS, or visuals (OpenGL has no DX10 style effects)?

The Mac platform in it's current state is in no way competitive with the set up that Microsoft has going for it. I'd like to think that Snow Leopard and a reliance on GPGPU will change this for the better, but those are pretty high hopes for a company that's had 8 years to deliver.

Some personal history also:

From 2004 to May 2007, I was a Mac gamer. Granted I only played Halo competitively and a little COD, but I gave them a good bit of time. I had an iMac G5 with a 5200FX. A terrible card by any measure. I built this PC because I wanted to have a better experience, because I could not afford a Mac Pro at the time and would not be able to rely on Bootcamp because of my PPC processor and terrible-under-any-circumstances graphics card.

With this in mind, the future:

I'm picking up a Mac Pro when the new one comes out. I do much better financially these days, which is nice. And when the Nehalem MBP comes out, I'll ditch the PC and run an all Mac household again. Boot Camp is a must, but unless you're getting a Mac Pro (And even if you're getting a MP, really), a dedicated vista64 machine is in your cards. I would recommend getting a Mini or an iMac and building a fancy PC with the leftovers. $1K is plenty. So that's maybe $2500 total, and you're all set. A better gaming experience than the Mac Pro for sure.

Arguments against this dual-computer set up as opposed to a Mac Pro or MBP: I don't have enough space, I want one computer, I only use OSX. Those are excuses, not reasons. If they work for you, I'm sorry that you've boxed yourself into those beliefs.