Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Even with a keyboard the iPad has no shortcuts and no modifier keys. So the following OS X commands have no meaning in iOS.

⌘A ⌘C ⇧⌘N Subfolder ↵ ⌘O ⌥⌘V ⌘W
No need to wait, you're wrong.

That's incorrect, there are many keyboard shortcuts. I can copy, cut and paste ⌘C ⌘X ⌘V with my BT keyboard on my iPhone and my iPad. ⌘ and the arrow keys jump you to begging/ends of lines and documents. ⌘Z is undo. The function keys do many of the same functions: dim/brighten screen, up/down volume, mute, play/pause, skip forward/back. And many other options that I'm sure I can't think of. I'm pretty sure ⌘A works too, but I'd have to run out to the car to get my keyboard (and it's cold out there!).

I just read you can command-tab to switch apps too. I was googling trying to remember if they ever added bold and italics which appear to start working in Pages in Dec. 2012 (not sure about other apps).

Of course you can't do a "close window" since there aren't any, you can't eject a nonexistent CD either :)

Gary
 
Last edited:
Seriously?? 1 Pound? Maybe for a hand-held device, but not really for a laptop that you have to set down to use. But hey, to each his own.

I'd rather Apple add to their portfolio than take away. Unfortunately, it's not in their M.O.

I can see how they'll kill a larger screen for a smaller one; they've done it before. And I HATE that. A bigger screen is more useful than a small one. Period. We're not talking about TB displays here. In addition, the 12" PowerBook nostalgia is a bit misguided here; the form-factor was completely different. I just don't understand it.

Apple's constant downsizing is incredibly unnecessary. This is not the 90s. Apple is not on the edge of collapse. It is at it's most successful. They should EXPAND the lines to cater to different segments. A 3 on 3 setup for each product, like they had in the past, could be successful and makes perfect sense.

13", 15", 17" MBP
11", 13", 15" MBAir
21", 27", 30" iMac
3.5", 4", 5" iPhone
iPad mini, 9.7" Air, 12" Pro

Still focused, but market cornering. They have the money to do this. Loosen the reigns Apple!!!

OMG it's John Sculley!
 
I think he said he was mourning the loss of capabilities, not the inevitable progress of tech.
That's what she said, but not what actually happened. The 15" rMBP is able to show any arbitrary amount of logical pixels you have developed nostalgic feelings for. No capabilities were lost in the switch to Retina. The mourning is just about change, for the sake of - we don't like it when things change.
I really feel cheated. Before switching to the Mac, I had been an IBM Thinkpad A/T p-series user. That was the highest-end of all laptops available, with the best quality screens (IPS even as of 2001, in the a22p), (back in the time) largest and highest resolutions (UXGA, that is, 1600*1200, even in 2001).
See! This crybaby is even convinced, his 4:3 15" laptop from 2001 was somehow superior.

Display Resolution Standards

1280 x 800 = 1.0 MP (WXGA) 13" cMBP
1440 x 900 = 1.3 MP (WXGA+) 15" cMBP
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 MP (UXGA) 15" IBM Thinkpad A22p
1920 x 1200 = 2.3 MP (WUXGA) 17" cMBP
2560 x 1600 = 4.1 MP (WQXGA) 13" rMBP
2880 x 1800 = 5.2 MP (WQXGA+) 15" rMBP
3840 x 2400 = 9.2 MP (WQUXGA) 17" rMBP

Oh no, Apple has more than doubled the megapixel count in its top of the line notebooks. :eek:
How could they do that to me? I really feel betrayed.
When I switched to the Mac and made some serious investments in apps, I wouldn't have thought I would later be deprived of the highest-end model. Had I known some 4-5 years ago the 17" line (the only one suitable for me) would be stopped, I personally wouldn't have bothered with switching to OSX (and investing heavily in software on it) at all.
And you seriously believe, other companies will make 9 MP 17" WQUXGA notebooks? Come on!
 
It's a natural progression IMO, another sensor.

Sooner or later Macbooks will have touchscreens, LTE, GPS and many other chips, it's just progress.

Besides have you tried using a Windows laptop with a touchscreen? It's really good, especially when you want to scroll show somebody something, you can just touch the screen and scroll. Feels like a more immersive experience.

You sound like you never used an Apple trackpad.
 
I think this would benefit from better speakers as well @ the apple you can't even hear a movie on netflix without putting your head up to the air. But I do like the portability of it.
 
OMG it's John Sculley!

Nice.

Steve implemented the 3 on 3 setup I am referring to. Forgot the good, better, best configurations for Power Macs? PowerBook 12", 15", 17"? 21", 24", 30" Cinema Displays? iPod, iPod Nano, iPod shuffle? MBP 13", 15", 17"?

I just want it back instead of the two on two they have now. John wanted too much stuff. Now Apple's whitling it down to not enough. The 3 on 3 was the sweet spot, in my opinion.
 
Fanless is a good thing.

Err... sure, if all you do is Facebook and watch YouTube.

Something will have to give, either the computer will be slow because the CPU is throttled because of a lack of fan, or it'll just be a limited computer in general, like iPads running iOS.

Currently, the 11" is a very capable machine. And I don't hear fans whirring away in it, in fact, it's almost always dead quiet.

But hey, maybe Apple realizes that people use the 11" as a $1000 Facebook machine, and by cutting corners, they'll make more money ;)
 
99% of people dont carry these monster sized 17inch laptops

That is true.

But Apple's 17 was unique. 1-inch thin (same as the other existing Apple laptops), 6.6 lbs., every conceivable connection port, absolutely fantastic screen, unibody aluminum enclosure...the list goes on. No other laptop in the market has existed like that. And it was available for almost 10 years (!), so it's (trans)portability wasn't in question. Even if it had, it didn't run OS X.

This is not a laptop you take out on your regular commute to work. It was a transportable, desktop replacement.

And I agree with most defending it's disappearance in that it'll probably never come back.

Apple took the "computer" off their name for a reason. They're a business. They're here to make money, not provide the tools we want. I have come to accept that.

So fellas, I hope that you don't come to love and rely on a product they produce (like the poor souls that trusted Apple with XServe units), because they can yank the rug from under you at any time, regardless of how many billions they have already hoarded in the bank.
 
But seriously, progress? Taking features, capability away is progress? OK, then.
Seriously, it is progress. And its even a necessity for progress.

Anecdote: When the Mac introduced USB, it promptly discontinued its predecessor port ADB. So everyone had to get a new keyboard and mouse (and the first hockey puck usb mouse was awful). A painful transition but a necessary one, until all peripherals eventually used USB. On the PC side of things, USB was introduced, but color-coded PS/2 ports for mouse and keyboard were never discontinued. Up until today you can run into booting problems, because you have switched purple and turquoise.

The minute you have a more universal solution to a problem, replacing the need for more special features and capabilities, you need to remove them immediately. Right when the 15" rMBP could emulate the resolution of the 17" cMBP, the last one needed to go. Keeping the 17" around any longer, would have hindered progress.
 
That's what she said, but not what actually happened. The 15" rMBP is able to show any arbitrary amount of logical pixels you have developed nostalgic feelings for. No capabilities were lost in the switch to Retina. The mourning is just about change, for the sake of - we don't like it when things change.
See! This crybaby is even convinced, his 4:3 15" laptop from 2001 was somehow superior.

Display Resolution Standards

1280 x 800 = 1.0 MP (WXGA) 13" cMBP
1440 x 900 = 1.3 MP (WXGA+) 15" cMBP
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 MP (UXGA) 15" IBM Thinkpad A22p
1920 x 1200 = 2.3 MP (WUXGA) 17" cMBP
2560 x 1600 = 4.1 MP (WQXGA) 13" rMBP
2880 x 1800 = 5.2 MP (WQXGA+) 15" rMBP
3840 x 2400 = 9.2 MP (WQUXGA) 17" rMBP

Oh no, Apple has more than doubled the megapixel count in its top of the line notebooks. :eek:
How could they do that to me? I really feel betrayed.
And you seriously believe, other companies will make 9 MP 17" WQUXGA notebooks? Come on!

BS.

If you increase the resolution of a screen the size of a postage stamp infinitely, it still does not make it more visible than a larger screen. And that is the point. At a normal viewing distance, a 15" screen has 2 inches less real estate to view what's on screen. I prefer a larger screen. Period. Apple used to make one, now it doesn't, and now wants me to use a smaller one. Why should I be happy about this?

By your logic, Apple should just cut all other laptop screen sizes down to 11", make it 4K, and everything will be OK for everybody. Hey, their product line will be focused now, one product to rule them all. Be happy people, this is progress!!
 
to all those monkeys here that do not understand the needs of others. Just cause you don't need 17" screen as you can use your 13" with external monitor doesn't mean that we all have the same option! For crying out loud if I could always connect the external screen then why would I even bother with a laptop? I could get mac pro and get all the power I need and have all the screen space I want with as many screens as I need!
To me, 13" is ridiculous computer. Too small to do anything yet I don't come here bashing everyone around just cause your model sells more! There is a lot of people asking for 17" and those people ask for a reason. They don't invent their desire and they do have needs for it so why do you keep coming and bashing them for it? I want and need 17" for the screen estate. I have 15" and its just damn small. No, I can't plug in external screen everywhere I go! If I was like everyone of you then I would be coming here and saying that I hope they will discontinue 13" and 15" so you can all use fricking 11" MBA! Now lets see how you would like that when your NEED is different!!!

For crying out loud, leave the people alone. There are people that actually need 17" for a valid reason so stop attacking them! Be understanding that there is a group of people that have different needs than you! Yes, 13" is fine for facebook but those that need 17" are in a different software group. In fact, try to do anything in Maya on 15" for extensive period of time and let me know how that goes. Having just graph editor, hypershade, outliner and perspective view + shot view open. Then come here and boast how great the 13 or 15" is great for anyone!

tumblr_lnrhzrbtw61qc9z2jo1_400.gif
 
Seriously, it is progress. And its even a necessity for progress.

Anecdote: When the Mac introduced USB, it promptly discontinued its predecessor port ADB. So everyone had to get a new keyboard and mouse (and the first hockey puck usb mouse was awful). A painful transition but a necessary one, until all peripherals eventually used USB. On the PC side of things, USB was introduced, but color-coded PS/2 ports for mouse and keyboard were never discontinued. Up until today you can run into booting problems, because you have switched purple and turquoise.

The minute you have a more universal solution to a problem, replacing the need for more special features and capabilities, you need to remove them immediately. Right when the 15" rMBP could emulate the resolution of the 17" cMBP, the last one needed to go. Keeping the 17" around any longer, would have hindered progress.

Discontinuing the 17" hindered progress towards what goal exactly?

We're talking about the most important item here, what I use to SEE what's going on. Why would smaller be better for that specific purpose (to see)?

I can see making the screen smaller for a different purpose, say, reduce weight, or fitting an airline tray table.

But you are sacrificing visibility for the sake portability in that scenario. With a larger screen, you sacrifice portability for the sake of visibility. And I mean visibility, not clarity (which is where resolution falls into). Apple use to cover both use cases, now it doesn't. I'm merely pointing out that both use cases have merit.

Just because one use case doesn't fit your particular one, does not mean it is without merit.

I mean, if clarity is the only thing that matters, why make different sizes in the first place??
 
Steve implemented the 3 on 3 setup I am referring to. Forgot the good, better, best configurations for Power Macs? PowerBook 12", 15", 17"? I just want it back instead of the two on two they have now.
Not every idea is good, only because Steve had it. People don't care about good and better, they always want the best. What the best size is, depends on wether you value bigger screen higher than lower weight or vice versa. Either way you always only want the biggest or the lightest one. So with only two options you're guaranteed to be on one of the extreme ends of either the biggest or the lightest device in its class. So two options are preferable and help with making not a but the decision. 16:9 or 16:10? Air or Pro? Small or Big? Standard or Upgrade? Those are easy questions with clear alternatives.
 
Discontinuing the 17" hindered progress towards what goal exactly?
To offer the maximum amount of differentiation, with the least amount of variants. MacBook Air and Pro are vastly different, not only because one has Retina and the other has not. But also 13" and 15" rMBP are different, 35W vs. 45W TDP, Dual- vs. Quad-Core, iGPU vs. dGPU. What more could a 17" rMBP offer? Its only differentiator would be 2 more inches, which is not enough anymore to justify another device.
We're talking about the most important item here, what I use to SEE what's going on. Why would smaller be better for that specific purpose (to see)?
Because everything has to have a size and 17" isn't the sweet spot for the majority of users. Most people chose 13" and than there is 15" for those who want more.
Just because one use case doesn't fit your particular one, does not mean it is without merit.
No its without merit, because it doesn't have merit. To offer even more visibility than with a 15" rMBP is unimportant to Apple and most of its customers.
I mean, if clarity is the only thing that matters, why make different sizes in the first place??
Because two different sizes offer choice and three different sizes create confusion.
 
to all those monkeys here that do not understand the needs of others. Just cause you don't need 17" screen as you can use your 13" with external monitor doesn't mean that we all have the same option! For crying out loud if I could always connect the external screen then why would I even bother with a laptop? I could get mac pro and get all the power I need and have all the screen space I want with as many screens as I need!
To me, 13" is ridiculous computer. Too small to do anything yet I don't come here bashing everyone around just cause your model sells more! There is a lot of people asking for 17" and those people ask for a reason. They don't invent their desire and they do have needs for it so why do you keep coming and bashing them for it? I want and need 17" for the screen estate. I have 15" and its just damn small. No, I can't plug in external screen everywhere I go! If I was like everyone of you then I would be coming here and saying that I hope they will discontinue 13" and 15" so you can all use fricking 11" MBA! Now lets see how you would like that when your NEED is different!!!

For crying out loud, leave the people alone. There are people that actually need 17" for a valid reason so stop attacking them! Be understanding that there is a group of people that have different needs than you! Yes, 13" is fine for facebook but those that need 17" are in a different software group. In fact, try to do anything in Maya on 15" for extensive period of time and let me know how that goes. Having just graph editor, hypershade, outliner and perspective view + shot view open. Then come here and boast how great the 13 or 15" is great for anyone!

I don't think many people are trying to deny your right to choose the tools you need, although admittedly there are those who have almost religious fervour to "convert" everyone else to their particular preference.

There is no doubt that working on a larger screen is more productive for most tasks - many studies have shown that two 22-24 inch monitors are optimal for common productivity tasks, and some people prefer 3 or 4 screens. If you are really stuck with only a laptop (e.g. you're a travelling musician, stage manager, service engineer, or someone who doesn't use a computer on a desk ) then I can see that having a 17" screen could be useful.

The problem is that this kind of computer is not what Apple wants to associate itself with these days. Thin is "in", and pushing a 7lb (3kg) laptop isn't the image that Apple wants to sell, even if it's really useful for many people.

Apart from screen size, Apple no longer makes "desktop replacement" spec machines. Quite a lot of my colleagues have 32GB Lenovo W510s (which come in 15" or 17" screens & can fit 3 SSDs) and these are pretty good developer machines for those who have to travel.

Apple simply doesn't play in this market any more.

My solution is just to have a load of external monitors (I have about 4 screens at work & home). They are cheap enough ($100-200) to just leave wherever I need one. You can often plug in to HD TVs in hotels these days, which isn't too bad.

If we think about it, the future of computers must find some kind of solution to the physical size limits of laptops. We probably will end up with very small computing devices (or terminals into some kind of cloud computing resource), that will project video to display devices - maybe "glasses" or a HUD, or even simply an development of the meeting room projector. We can already use AirPlay to display our laptop / iPad screens on an HD TV, so why not develop this idea, and have a computer the size of an iPhone?

I don't see the keyboard and some kind of pointing device going away for some time, but display technology is likely to evolve into something more physically compact whilst giving us a larger virtual desktop.
 
I think most of you are missing the point here. If you like the current 13" Macbook Air, then the new Retina Macbook Pro is probably fine for you as well. The 13" Macbook Air was a good product back when the 13" Macbook Pro was 1" thick and had an internal DVD drive. Now that the Macbook Pro is almost as thin as the Air, there is really little difference between them. The Pro cost more, is slightly thicker, and has the retina display. The next version of the Pro will be as thin as the current Macbook Air, and then there will be no reason to have both lines.

This new 12" Macbook is going to be something different, and I think the hints have been there for a long time. This is going to be iOS in a laptop format with an arm processor. If you need a thin 13" Macbook, then one is available for you --- it's called the Retina Macbook Pro. No point in having 2 products that occupy the same space.
 
The only distinction between 8" and 10" iPad is the size of device itself, the specs are identical. Size is enough of differentiation to justify two devices. No reasons for making a compromise.

The air has dual mics and a few other things the mini doesn't.
 
I think most of you are missing the point here. If you like the current 13" Macbook Air, then the new Retina Macbook Pro is probably fine for you as well. The 13" Macbook Air was a good product back when the 13" Macbook Pro was 1" thick and had an internal DVD drive. Now that the Macbook Pro is almost as thin as the Air, there is really little difference between them. The Pro cost more, is slightly thicker, and has the retina display. The next version of the Pro will be as thin as the current Macbook Air, and then there will be no reason to have both lines..

Exactly. The 13" MBA just doesn't really make any sense any more. People are still buying it, but they are, IMO, ill-informed or showing poor judgement. I guess the silver bezel and a 10% price difference are deal breakers for a few...

This new 12" Macbook is going to be something different, and I think the hints have been there for a long time. This is going to be iOS in a laptop format with an arm processor. If you need a thin 13" Macbook, then one is available for you --- it's called the Retina Macbook Pro. No point in having 2 products that occupy the same space.

This would only add confusion to their line up. I'm thinking they're doing the exact opposite and are going to make the decision process clearer for consumers.

11" Air is often said to be too small, 13" Air too close in form factor and price to the rMBP 13". Arise the ultra thin and super light 12" MBA, kill the previous MBAs (and cMBP), and everything is much easier for most consumers.

12" rMBA (ultra thin and light; road folk machine)
13" rMBP (everyone's machine)
15" rMBP (pros machine)

Trying to explain the full differences between a 13" MBA vs 13" MBP to Joe Average is just an exercise in frustration. Better (in Apple's view) to just make the decision for them. [Which they do all the time and is the cause of a lot of angst amongst Apple users who actually do know a bit and for critics of Apple in general.]
 
I don't recall trying to "force" you to do anything. Just saying it's an improved experience on newer hardware and worth trying out on said hardware. Maybe via a magic trackpad? It's a bit of a learning curve getting used to gestures but I feel like it's worth it.

If you really hate it though I hope they keep a hardware click in place for people who like it but I feel like it may be fazed out of all their stuff eventually.

I used an emoticon and everything. ;)
Okay, let me clarify something... magic trackpad, as in a big beautiful trackpad that has a clickable button under/inside the trackpad surface itself. THAT is what my Macbook (2009) has and I'm perfectly happy with it. In fact, I think that's by far one of the absolute best parts of the entire machine.

I love swiping with two, three, or four fingers to activate functions, while also being able to click things I point my cursor on.

What I'm upset by, is I get the vibe from this news that Apple wants to remove the button beneath the magic trackpad. So it will just be a trackpad with no separate or imbedded button and nothing to click whatsoever, it will act like the touchscreen on an iPad without any pixels or display. That's NOT what I want.
 
The mourning is just about change, for the sake of - we don't like it when things change.

That's a cop out answer, Gudi. It's not general change people don't like, it's when the change feels like a step back that they get bothered.

Now I could care less about a 17" MBA myself. I think it's too large for my needs. But I can see why some people would be bothered by it's absence in the Macbook lineup, even with Retina around.

See, the thing with Retina is that it gives you a nice, crisp picture, but the effective desktop space of a 1440x900 screen. For some people, that might not be enough. Depending on what they're doing, it might feel a little too cramped. And yeah, you can increase the effective resolution, giving you smaller screen elements, and thus more desktop real estate, but on a 15" screen, some people might think those elements are a little too small. Even with, yes, a retina display.

It's all about comfort and preference, and it has nothing to do with them fearing change.
 
This is going to be iOS in a laptop format with an arm processor.
A undesirable development if true. iOS and iOS applications are toys compared to OSX and OSX applications. Who will want to spend $1,000 for a 12" notebook that is nothing more than an iPad Air with a physical keyboard?

It makes more marketing sense to me if the upcoming 12" MBA is just like a 13" rMBP but weighs a pound less and has longer battery life and noticeably smaller overall physical dimensions. Such a notebook would be perfect for the iPad lover who desires an OSX capable computer that isn't a lot larger and heavier than an iPad (as the current 13" rMBP is).
 
Because of the higher degree of accuracy. It's a digital input rather than an analog one.

I've tried tapping, and it's absolutely not for me. Far to often I've tapped on something for a "click" and if I hit the surface the wrong way, one of my "clicks" ends up just moving the cursor instead of actually clicking on something.

Sure, maybe only 5% of the taps don't register the way I want them to on my iPod Touch, but that's very different from the 0% of clicks that don't register with my mouse or trackpad on my laptop. And considering the amount of clicking I do when using a computer, that 5% quickly becomes a big burden not just in one or two programs, but on my experience of the entire device.

A laptop without a button for the trackpad is a deal breaker for me. Strain? What, are you one of those people who uses two hands to manipulate the trackpad?

Maybe strain isn't the right word. It's just effortless to tap rather than physically click down, it actually takes a decent amount of pressure. I noticed that right away when I started to use tap to click.

Eh, different strokes I guess. I doubt buttons will be on them for much longer, might as well get used to it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.