Waiting for Skylake MBP thread

[Woochoo]

Different experience here. My work app, banking apps, and health apps all easily unlock with TouchID. Love it.

But I have no idea where it would go on a notebook, and with a keyboard right there it does seem totally irrelevant.

Unlock startup screen, electronic payments, fullfill all the passwords on webs... In this last case, it bsically would be like 1Password but instead typing the master password to fullfill other forms and web logins, you'd just unlock it via Touch ID instead of typing.
About where it would go: in the same spot where the old startup button was, there's plenty space there in the actual Macbooks. Maybe if the 2016 Macbooks have the bezels like the new Macbook, it could go on the trackpad itself, there are rumours of Touch ID being avoided in the future to integrate it on the force touch.
And no, it's not an imperative need in a laptop (as it wasn't on a smartphone when they implemented it) but it would be a welcome implementation in future Macs.

 

[killawat]

Apple's touch ID implementation is the biggest load of crap...adds absolutely no utility since 90% of the time all of Apples IOS apps ask me for a damn password. I wish there was a LET ME USE YOUR DAMN TOUCH ID AND STOP ASKING ME FOR PASSWORDS option...

I'm not sure I follow your beef. It's up to the App dev to switch over to Touch ID functionality, more are everyday. Nearly all of my banking apps do, Amazon, Apple Store app , private photo lockers, 1password. If some app dev won't update their fart app from 2008 not much Apple can do.

Anyway, Yes, Intel GDC. Anyone got tickets to do a Live Stream?

 

[TheralSadurns]

Sorry you want 4k to scale down to 1200p ? So mabye you want just 1200p on 15'' (good enough)

What are you talking about?!
Nobody wants scaling, quite the opposite.

Your current rMBP doesn't run at 2880x1800 which is its native resolution. You wouldn't be able to read a think.
Instead it natively runs at 1440x900 @2x.
Giving you a usable workspace that is the equivalent of 1440x900, but at the same time is quite as sharp.

Same goes for the wish to have a 4k Macbook.
Workspace the size of Full HD. But with double the resolution for double the sharpness.

 

[AirdanMR]

What are you talking about?!
Nobody wants scaling, quite the opposite.

Your current rMBP doesn't run at 2880x1800 which is it's native resolution. You wouldn't be able to read a think.
Instead it natively runs at 1440x900 @2x.
Giving you a usable workspace that is the equivalent of 1440x900, but at the same time is quite as sharp.

Same goes for the wish to have a 4k Macbook.
Workspace the size of Full HD. But with double the resolution for double the sharpness.

That scaling thing had confused me for years. So you run at 900p and then upscale to 1800p? (makes no sense) or downscale the 1800p to 900p...

It's more simple than that, you got 2880x1800 panel, and OS X just do a 200% scale so everything is bigger like it woud be on a 900p screen but you keep the 1800p DPI and therefore the quality.

 

[WRONG]

why aren't more people in this thread excited about this? isn't GDC march 14-18???? inline with getting a MBP update in march?

I don't know, I was thinking that news about the probably upcoming dGPU for MBP were more interesting then speculate on a minor feature. Of course I was wrong. (Hell, but I am wrong!)

Speaking of which, one of the many reasons I'm waiting for Skylake is that if it will come with an ugly/useless redesign, at least I could buy the old one at a decent price.
I know it sounds crazy, and I'm strongly hoping that Apple will make a great redesign, but, you know, sh*t happens...

 

[Flex77]

Wondering what may change about the sizes, displays and bezels, I've been thinking about those resolutions as well.

When Apple introduced the Retina MBPs, they basically kept the old MBP workspaces of 1280x800 (13") and 1440x900 (15") and doubled them vertically and horizontally, resulting in 4x the pixels: 2560x1600 (13") and 2880x1800 (15").

So if you want to have the "clean" retina rescaling you're stuck with a relatively small workspace that has the advantage of being well readable / clickable. Well before introducing Retina however, Apple had already introduced a bigger workspace with smaller text/controls on the 13" screen in the MacBook Air (1440x900). Does anybody know why that was never introduced as a resolution baseline for the 13" MBPs?

Would it be a refresh scenario for Apple to bump the 13" to a Macbook Air workspace, thus giving it the 2880x1800 resolution that was so far reserved for the 15" MBP? And what would be the next bigger logical choice of resolution for the 15" in that kind of scenario?

Another scenario: IF Apple were to jump on the 4k train somehow because of Final Cut users etc, what would be a resolution they could adopt without sacrificing their usual 16:10 ish aspect ratio? 3840 x 2400? Wouldn't this be a waste of pixels on a 15" machine because the increase in pixel density would be beyond recognizable? Would it, on the other hand, make sense in a 16" display (say if they really were to get rid of those annoying bezels, like Dell did)?

 

[senthor]

@Flex77:

Let's compare PPIs:
Classic MacBook Pro 13'' (1280x800): 113.5 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' (1440x900): 110.3 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' HighRes (1680x1050): 128.7 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 17'' (1920x1200): 133.2 ppi
MacBook Air 11'' (1366x768): 135.1 ppi
MacBook Air 13'' (1440x900): 127.7 ppi
Retina MacBook (1152x720@2x): 113.2 ppi

Seems like Apple settled with roughly two PPIs: 130 and 110. For the Pro line, 110 has always been the standard (even at @2x), only the high-res option, the 17'' and the MacBook Air get higher ppis. The rMB also got the lower PPI (@2x).
Higher @2x resolutions for the rMBP could be as follows:
New Retina MacBook Pro 13'' (1440x900 @2x): 127.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1440x900 @2x): 121.3 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1680x1050 @2x): 128.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1680x1050 @2x): 123.8 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1920x1200 @2x): 147 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1920x1200 @2x): 141.5 ppi

So, if Apple chooses the higher PPI for the New rMBPs, and keeps the sizes, we would most likely see a 1440x900 @2x 13'' and a 1680x1050 @2x 15''.
If Apple changes the screen sizes, it all comes down to what screen size exactly (13'' means 13.3'', 15'' 15.4'', 11'' 11.6''). If they were exactly 14'' and 16'', we could see something as this:
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1520x950 @2x): 128 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1744x1090 @2x): 128.5 ppi

The rMB shows that Apple is willing to choose very uncommon resolutions. All in all, we see that Apple uses mostly ~110 or ~130 ppi, which gives us clues: A 4k display is not going to happen in either a 15'' or a 16'' model. Otherwise, everything is possible.

 

[Woochoo]

@Flex77:

Let's compare PPIs:
Classic MacBook Pro 13'' (1280x800): 113.5 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' (1440x900): 110.3 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' HighRes (1680x1050): 128.7 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 17'' (1920x1200): 133.2 ppi
MacBook Air 11'' (1366x768): 135.1 ppi
MacBook Air 13'' (1440x900): 127.7 ppi
Retina MacBook (1152x720@2x): 113.2 ppi

I'm confused about your statements, or you don't understand the concept or ppi. PPI means pixels per inch, so if you have a native 1152x720 res downscaled in a retina display, you clearly have more than 113.2 ppi. Resolution doesn't translate in ppi when you downscale stuff and now various pixels do the job of one (to make it sharper). Yeah, it's a lower resolution, but you still have more pixels per inch doing that job.

@Flex77:
The rMB shows that Apple is willing to choose very uncommon resolutions. All in all, we see that Apple uses mostly ~110 or ~130 ppi, which gives us clues: A 4k display is not going to happen in either a 15'' or a 16'' model. Otherwise, everything is possible.

If Apple choses that uncommon resolutions, why not one that fits the correlation of a 4K display on a 15"-16" screen? I mean, Apple has done more strange movements in the past: I bet you didn't expect the beast with that thermal core and dual GPU's they made on 2013, because it didn't fit Apple's way of doing stuff (when they seemed to only care about iPhones and iPads).
So appart from newer CPUs and all the changes they can bring (new ports, eGPUs, new buses...) the only big changes that can be made on Macbooks are the display, and hard drive (which is already scoring speed records at the point of many people not being worried about more improvements in that field).

So in general, Retina Displays are actually good, but definitely a 4K would be welcome (and probable in future Macbooks, if not this year's update).

 

[shareef777]

What are you talking about?!
Nobody wants scaling, quite the opposite.

Your current rMBP doesn't run at 2880x1800 which is it's native resolution. You wouldn't be able to read a think.
Instead it natively runs at 1440x900 @2x.
Giving you a usable workspace that is the equivalent of 1440x900, but at the same time is quite as sharp.

Same goes for the wish to have a 4k Macbook.
Workspace the size of Full HD. But with double the resolution for double the sharpness.

Yep, since I've had my 2012 rMBP ive been running at the scaled resolution giving me the most desktop work space. Being this is a professional machine, I would think most professionals need more Windows on the screen at once to better multitask.

 

[Flex77]

Excellent overview, thanks!
[doublepost=1455975037][/doublepost]

I'm confused about your statements, or you don't understand the concept or ppi. PPI means pixels per inch, so if you have a native 1152x720 res downscaled in a retina display, you clearly have more than 113.2 ppi. Resolution doesn't translate in ppi when you downscale stuff and now various pixels do the job of one (to make it sharper). Yeah, it's a lower resolution, but you still have more pixels per inch doing that job.

I think what senthor means are the "virtual" PPI of Apple's default (2x) scaling. So the PPI as they would relate to the workspace.

 

[GubbyMan]

Retina MacBook (1152x720@2x): 113.2 ppi

The Retina MacBook has a default scaling of 1280x800@2x so if you are comparing the desktop space then the Retina MacBook should have 125.79 ppi.

 

[shareef777]

Excellent overview, thanks!
[doublepost=1455975037][/doublepost]

I think what senthor means are the "virtual" PPI of Apple's default (2x) scaling. So the PPI as they would relate to the workspace.

Yeah, but no one uses PPI to describe workspace. lol, that's what the scaled resolution is. PPI is used to describe the 'sharpness' of the display and as someone previously mentioned, you determine that based on the native resolution. The higher the native resolution, the higher the PPI, and the sharper the display is.

Incidentally, going 4k would actually lower my usable desktop space. Today's rMBP scale to 1920x1200, whereas if they went to native 4k (3840x2160), we'd likely see them go with 2x scaling bringing the working resolution to 19200x1080. Which I'd be ok with to get 'retina' quality with added workspace.

 

[Flex77]

The Retina MacBook has a default scaling of 1280x800@2x so if you are comparing the desktop space then the Retina MacBook should have 125.79 ppi.

True, and that could be seen as a clue that if they stick with the 13" and 15" MBP screen sizes Apple might move to 1440x900 @2x and 1680x1050 @2x, respectively. Because that would mean all three MacBook (non-Air) devices sit in between 125 and 129 (scaled) PPI and there's a proper distinction in terms of workspace between them again.

Pure speculation obviously, but it seems to me they will need to change the MBPs in some way to turn their current mess of models, sizes and resolutions into a proper line up of products again.

 

[guychicago]

True, and that could be seen as a clue that if they stick with the 13" and 15" MBP screen sizes Apple might move to 1440x900 @2x and 1680x1050 @2x, respectively. Because that would mean all three MacBook (non-Air) devices sit in between 125 and 129 (scaled) PPI and there's a proper distinction in terms of workspace between them again.

Pure speculation obviously, but it seems to me they will need to change the MBPs in some way to turn their current mess of models, sizes and resolutions into a proper line up of products again.

That will be the best upgrade to the new rMBP..

 

[Arline]

@Flex77:

Let's compare PPIs:
Classic MacBook Pro 13'' (1280x800): 113.5 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' (1440x900): 110.3 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' HighRes (1680x1050): 128.7 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 17'' (1920x1200): 133.2 ppi
MacBook Air 11'' (1366x768): 135.1 ppi
MacBook Air 13'' (1440x900): 127.7 ppi
Retina MacBook (1152x720@2x): 113.2 ppi

Seems like Apple settled with roughly two PPIs: 130 and 110. For the Pro line, 110 has always been the standard (even at @2x), only the high-res option, the 17'' and the MacBook Air get higher ppis. The rMB also got the lower PPI (@2x).
Higher @2x resolutions for the rMBP could be as follows:
New Retina MacBook Pro 13'' (1440x900 @2x): 127.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1440x900 @2x): 121.3 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1680x1050 @2x): 128.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1680x1050 @2x): 123.8 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1920x1200 @2x): 147 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1920x1200 @2x): 141.5 ppi

So, if Apple chooses the higher PPI for the New rMBPs, and keeps the sizes, we would most likely see a 1440x900 @2x 13'' and a 1680x1050 @2x 15''.
If Apple changes the screen sizes, it all comes down to what screen size exactly (13'' means 13.3'', 15'' 15.4'', 11'' 11.6''). If they were exactly 14'' and 16'', we could see something as this:
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1520x950 @2x): 128 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1744x1090 @2x): 128.5 ppi

The rMB shows that Apple is willing to choose very uncommon resolutions. All in all, we see that Apple uses mostly ~110 or ~130 ppi, which gives us clues: A 4k display is not going to happen in either a 15'' or a 16'' model. Otherwise, everything is possible.

I'll be happy with a 1680x1050 @2x for 15" or 1920x1200 @2x for 16".

When the original rMBP was out, I was disappointed that Apple chose the lower res MBP 15 resolution (1440x900) and turned it into a retina, rather than the higher res.

 

[nicovh]

I hope they stick with the current aspect ratio's though. The extra vertical space makes life so much easier in multiple applications

 

[Wowereit]

If you ask me they should use 3:2, but keeping 16:10 is fine, too.
Please Apple, don't start with 16:9.

 

[guychicago]

I'll be happy with a 1680x1050 @2x for 15" or 1920x1200 @2x for 16".

When the original rMBP was out, I was disappointed that Apple chose the lower res MBP 15 resolution (1440x900) and turned it into a retina, rather than the higher res.

Totally agree. The new 13" should have the resolution of the current 15" and the 15 inherits the enhanced screen resolution.

 

[volcomvenom]

Hey guys let's make our own rMBP 2016 13 and 15 if apple doesn't come out with them in march. Let's call it hackintosh.

 

[Henkna]

Almost 3 weeks before the event and still no rumors. Boohoo!

 

[Sugarbear33]

Hey guys let's make our own rMBP 2016 13 and 15 if apple doesn't come out with them in march. Let's call it hackintosh.

i'm actually building a budget hackintosh to abide my inpatience

and also why is it only me and Wrong1 that are excited about the polaris release in march! the macbook was kept under similar wraps for a long time before any leaks. where is the beating optimism that pumps through this thread?

 

[PFKMan23]

where is the beating optimism that pumps through this thread?

In hibernation.

 

[nicovh]

astonishingly still here, just like donald trump

 

[volcomvenom]

Don't even get me started with Donald Trump.

 

[cmChimera]

@Flex77:

Let's compare PPIs:
Classic MacBook Pro 13'' (1280x800): 113.5 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' (1440x900): 110.3 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 15'' HighRes (1680x1050): 128.7 ppi
Classic MacBook Pro 17'' (1920x1200): 133.2 ppi
MacBook Air 11'' (1366x768): 135.1 ppi
MacBook Air 13'' (1440x900): 127.7 ppi
Retina MacBook (1152x720@2x): 113.2 ppi

Seems like Apple settled with roughly two PPIs: 130 and 110. For the Pro line, 110 has always been the standard (even at @2x), only the high-res option, the 17'' and the MacBook Air get higher ppis. The rMB also got the lower PPI (@2x).
Higher @2x resolutions for the rMBP could be as follows:
New Retina MacBook Pro 13'' (1440x900 @2x): 127.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1440x900 @2x): 121.3 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1680x1050 @2x): 128.7 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1680x1050 @2x): 123.8 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 15'' (1920x1200 @2x): 147 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1920x1200 @2x): 141.5 ppi

So, if Apple chooses the higher PPI for the New rMBPs, and keeps the sizes, we would most likely see a 1440x900 @2x 13'' and a 1680x1050 @2x 15''.
If Apple changes the screen sizes, it all comes down to what screen size exactly (13'' means 13.3'', 15'' 15.4'', 11'' 11.6''). If they were exactly 14'' and 16'', we could see something as this:
New Retina MacBook Pro 14'' (1520x950 @2x): 128 ppi
New Retina MacBook Pro 16'' (1744x1090 @2x): 128.5 ppi

The rMB shows that Apple is willing to choose very uncommon resolutions. All in all, we see that Apple uses mostly ~110 or ~130 ppi, which gives us clues: A 4k display is not going to happen in either a 15'' or a 16'' model. Otherwise, everything is possible.

Wait the retina screens are over 200 ppi though. Or did you mean before the 2x?