Another random suggestion. I think OSX should take some design cues from tvOS, especially regarding Siri integration.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Waiting for Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Uff ... for a moment I thought you want Apple to build a keyboard with one row of keys ...
Totally. I, myself, went through the whole 2011 gpu saga. No more. Nothing beats the fact knowing your machine failed because of dgpu and the only way out is to have the whole motherboard replaced.
what he said...... but with 14".
Apple hardware does inspire me to do better work every day and a great design means more than a 5% increase in power, for me. My current 2014 MBP 15" has yet to stutter for me so a svelte 2016 Skylake RMBP should be fine for all my needs
This is a pretty good article of possible OS X changes, sharing ideas/UI/apps across from iOS, tvOS and watchOS
https://medium.com/swlh/macos-it-s-time-to-take-the-next-step-ee7871ccd3c7#.8ydtj5s8t
OS X becomes macOS
Be it Siri integration into Mac OS, Force 3D Touch
Maybe I'm backwards. Or old. But the more touch- and traditional OSes mix up the less I like them. Thinking of the one-size-fits all Windows 10 approach. When in reality the focus should be to make the OS more stable, sleek and slim. Especially true for Win 10 which STILL runs it's weird core depending on the registry and dll files like 20 years ago.
As for OS X, message center is all nice and Siri will come to the OS too but I hope they'll keep iOS and MacOS separate. But I doubt they will.
What I really haven't wrapped my head around yet is why no OS-maker has ever thought about tailoring the OS for a use-case scenario during install, with the option of "upgrading" installs later on. Like, when you install Win 10 for example, you could choose: Office, Gaming, Design and Production, Consumer and based on this it installs features and service, maybe even has a slightly different UI too. Gaming mode for example installs only the bare minimum of system apps required, mainly only sound/graphics/browser and boom off we go.
I could see the same for Mac OS X, choose somewhere during install or maybe even during running the OS (kinda like spaces) if you want PRO, CONSUMER, OFFICE settings running. Kinda like Adobe Creative Suite gives you different palette Layouts and Workspaces depending on your use-case.
I know this ain't happening and fear EVERYTHING from hardware to software to OS'es will just be PROSUMERIZED like Final Cut Pro X...
[doublepost=1459759759][/doublepost]My thoughts to the "I need inspirational products to be creative and bring out the best in my work"-crowd in here. To some extent, I get where you're coming from, I also enjoy an inspiring environment to work in and tools/software/hardware that make my working life easier but - with no offense intended - I strongly believe good code, good design, good work as such comes from you as a person and not from outside influences. I must not come from that. It's a bit like those millions of PRO-photographers that (if lucky) read an eBook about photography, went and got a 3.000,- camera and are now top photographers. While in reality I strongly believe a good photographer will be able to shoot a good pic with a 30 year old Polaroid. It will lack the quality of todays standard, but the motive, image composition and perfect timing comes from within a good photographer and not some hightech product.
At least, that's what I believe in. That said I want to iterate once more that I am TOO dependent on my tools for my creative work, but giving those to someone else that is enthusiastic but lacks talent, education and dedication won't yield nearly the same results.
My 2 cents.
Maybe I'm backwards. Or old. But the more touch- and traditional OSes mix up the less I like them. Thinking of the one-size-fits all Windows 10 approach. When in reality the focus should be to make the OS more stable, sleek and slim. Especially true for Win 10 which STILL runs it's weird core depending on the registry and dll files like 20 years ago.
As for OS X, message center is all nice and Siri will come to the OS too but I hope they'll keep iOS and MacOS separate. But I doubt they will.
What I really haven't wrapped my head around yet is why no OS-maker has ever thought about tailoring the OS for a use-case scenario during install, with the option of "upgrading" installs later on. Like, when you install Win 10 for example, you could choose: Office, Gaming, Design and Production, Consumer and based on this it installs features and service, maybe even has a slightly different UI too. Gaming mode for example installs only the bare minimum of system apps required, mainly only sound/graphics/browser and boom off we go.
I could see the same for Mac OS X, choose somewhere during install or maybe even during running the OS (kinda like spaces) if you want PRO, CONSUMER, OFFICE settings running. Kinda like Adobe Creative Suite gives you different palette Layouts and Workspaces depending on your use-case.
I know this ain't happening and fear EVERYTHING from hardware to software to OS'es will just be PROSUMERIZED like Final Cut Pro X...
[doublepost=1459759759][/doublepost]My thoughts to the "I need inspirational products to be creative and bring out the best in my work"-crowd in here. To some extent, I get where you're coming from, I also enjoy an inspiring environment to work in and tools/software/hardware that make my working life easier but - with no offense intended - I strongly believe good code, good design, good work as such comes from you as a person and not from outside influences. I must not come from that. It's a bit like those millions of PRO-photographers that (if lucky) read an eBook about photography, went and got a 3.000,- camera and are now top photographers. While in reality I strongly believe a good photographer will be able to shoot a good pic with a 30 year old Polaroid. It will lack the quality of todays standard, but the motive, image composition and perfect timing comes from within a good photographer and not some hightech product.
At least, that's what I believe in. That said I want to iterate once more that I am TOO dependent on my tools for my creative work, but giving those to someone else that is enthusiastic but lacks talent, education and dedication won't yield nearly the same results.
My 2 cents.
Hi, while I respect your opinion and am not looking to get into a debate.. actually, you just described maximizing shareholder wealth. Even if they fail to do so with a not so successful product, it's what they were attempting to do. No mattar how you look at it, Apple is trying to come out with successful products.. and this is maximizing shareholder wealth. It so happens, the iPhone is a successful product and it helps to make Apple a wealthy company. The 17 inch MacBook Pro, Mac Server, and the Mac Pro do not make the company a lot of money, so they are either ignored, deleted, or slowly updated. If you look at the Apple refresh cycle, the top selling items get a lot more focus than the slow selling ones.. lets not hijack the thread, more than welcome to start another one if you feel strongly enough
I think the word that is not quite right is 'need' inspirational products. Of course I can design anything on a scrap piece of paper and a biro pen and then model it on a 8 year old beige PC box. The outcome would probably be no different to sketching the design on an iPad Pro and modeling it on an Mac Pro. However, it is the process and experience of producing it on nice equipment which helps. All I can say is in my own experience I love working on my Mac and find little joy on the HP workstation I use for 3 days a week.
Maybe it is I enjoy working with tools I love but can do fine with tools that I tolerate.
In addition to the usual internal options (CPU, memory, disk space), I would like to see the following external options:
Optional 3.5mm jack
Optional dGPU
Optional keyboards for touch/feel preferences
But I'm not sure how the above is possible without ruining the overarching design.
3.5mm jack through a sleek, flush USB-C connector should be possible? A dGPU could run over USB-C too with extremely high bandwidth and low latency?
Optional 3.5mm jack
Optional dGPU
Optional keyboards for touch/feel preferences
But I'm not sure how the above is possible without ruining the overarching design.
3.5mm jack through a sleek, flush USB-C connector should be possible? A dGPU could run over USB-C too with extremely high bandwidth and low latency?
Haha, no that would be stupid.
[doublepost=1459781843][/doublepost]
The navigational interface (perhaps this can be implemented into OS X apps) and an inspired UI/UX...especially the layered design. I would just like for OS X, tvOS, watchOS, iOS, to have a unified design - not necessarily the same, as they serve different purposes, however a similar design language.
I still don't understand.
Actually, I'm really confused.
A lot of people here want a super-thinner computer, but still a lot of people are worried by the thermal constraint and consequently by the problems that the dGPU could have, and even people that would love to have a battery that last long.
I think that you cannot have all the benefits together.
If it's thinner, it means less battery, worst cooling, less powerful.
And all for the same price, 2000 and more €.
Before you answer, for "less battery and less powerful" I mean that Apple is going to say "now the MBP has 10% more battery life and 10% of its predecessor!", but unfortunately, its predecessor is 3 years old.
And this is not an improvement. I would feel pissed off by this.
Am I the only that want just a powerful MacBook Pro with exactly the same shape of the current MacBook Pro?!
If the shape remain the same, Apple can put more battery in it. Or can make a better vent system. Or put a Polaris which is low-consumption but still powerful.
But at last, we can actually wish how much we want, still Apple will do whatever it wants. We are not important.
And certainly someone will be displeased with the next MBP.
Anyway, I feel sorry if I seem rude, I don't mean to be so.
Peace, friends.
Actually, I'm really confused.
A lot of people here want a super-thinner computer, but still a lot of people are worried by the thermal constraint and consequently by the problems that the dGPU could have, and even people that would love to have a battery that last long.
I think that you cannot have all the benefits together.
If it's thinner, it means less battery, worst cooling, less powerful.
And all for the same price, 2000 and more €.
Before you answer, for "less battery and less powerful" I mean that Apple is going to say "now the MBP has 10% more battery life and 10% of its predecessor!", but unfortunately, its predecessor is 3 years old.
And this is not an improvement. I would feel pissed off by this.
Am I the only that want just a powerful MacBook Pro with exactly the same shape of the current MacBook Pro?!
If the shape remain the same, Apple can put more battery in it. Or can make a better vent system. Or put a Polaris which is low-consumption but still powerful.
But at last, we can actually wish how much we want, still Apple will do whatever it wants. We are not important.
And certainly someone will be displeased with the next MBP.
Anyway, I feel sorry if I seem rude, I don't mean to be so.
Peace, friends.
Last edited:
I still don't understand.
Actually, I'm really confused.
A lot of people here want a super-thinner computer, but still a lot of people are worried by the thermal constraint and consequently by the problems that the dGPU could have, and even people that would love to have a battery that last long.
I think that you cannot have all the benefits together.
If it's thinner, it means less battery, worst cooling, less powerful.
And all for the same price, 2000 and more €.
Before you answer, for "less battery and less powerful" I mean that Apple is going to say "now the MBP has 10% more battery life and 10% of its predecessor!", but unfortunately, its predecessor is 3 years old.
And this is not an improvement. I would feel pissed off by this.
Am I the only that want just a powerful MacBook Pro with exactly the same shape of the current MacBook Pro?!
If the shape remain the same, Apple can put more battery in it. Or can make a better vent system. Or put a Polaris which is low-consumption but still powerful.
But at last, we can actually wish how much we want, still Apple will do whatever it wants. We are not important.
And certainly someone will be displeased with the next MBP.
Anyway, I feel sorry if I seems rude, I don't mean to be so.
Peace, friends.
Hopefully they keep the segmentation between the Air and Pro for this reason. I don't really care about an extra 2mm of thickness or 1lb of weight. The 2011 MBP I have is plenty thin and light as it is, the newer rMBP are nice balance as well. I don't see the need to go any further down the thin and light path for the "Pro" version of something. But then again, maybe they figure out how to make it 4x smaller, cylindrical and then color it black, like they did with the Mac "Pro".
I'd like one of the following options:
- Same design, better battery performance or some other feature that is worth it to keep it the same size.
- Thinner design, Skylake, at least one USB-C port and same battery performance as 2015 MBP.
- Same design, better battery performance or some other feature that is worth it to keep it the same size.
- Thinner design, Skylake, at least one USB-C port and same battery performance as 2015 MBP.
maybe the next high end 17" Macbook Pro can use this
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-confirmed/
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-confirmed/
Good post, different people have different needs.
My guess (and a guess is all it is) is that we'll see the Air disappear, and we'll see two Macbook products (12" and 14") and two Macbook Pro products (14" and 16"). We then have the iPad and iPad Pro range, the Macbook and Macbook Pro range, and perhaps we'll see an iPhone and iPhone Pro range.
One of the 14" MacBooks will be based on the the current 12" format with a Skylake Core M type processor, the other (Pro) will be a revised chassis launched at WWDC with a thicker body and more ports and higher horsepower components.
Total guesswork though.
My guess (and a guess is all it is) is that we'll see the Air disappear, and we'll see two Macbook products (12" and 14") and two Macbook Pro products (14" and 16"). We then have the iPad and iPad Pro range, the Macbook and Macbook Pro range, and perhaps we'll see an iPhone and iPhone Pro range.
One of the 14" MacBooks will be based on the the current 12" format with a Skylake Core M type processor, the other (Pro) will be a revised chassis launched at WWDC with a thicker body and more ports and higher horsepower components.
Total guesswork though.
I still don't understand.
Actually, I'm really confused.
A lot of people here want a super-thinner computer, but still a lot of people are worried by the thermal constraint and consequently by the problems that the dGPU could have, and even people that would love to have a battery that last long.
I think that you cannot have all the benefits together.
If it's thinner, it means less battery, worst cooling, less powerful.
And all for the same price, 2000 and more €.
Before you answer, for "less battery and less powerful" I mean that Apple is going to say "now the MBP has 10% more battery life and 10% of its predecessor!", but unfortunately, its predecessor is 3 years old.
And this is not an improvement. I would feel pissed off by this.
Am I the only that want just a powerful MacBook Pro with exactly the same shape of the current MacBook Pro?!
If the shape remain the same, Apple can put more battery in it. Or can make a better vent system. Or put a Polaris which is low-consumption but still powerful.
But at last, we can actually wish how much we want, still Apple will do whatever it wants. We are not important.
And certainly someone will be displeased with the next MBP.
Anyway, I feel sorry if I seems rude, I don't mean to be so.
Peace, friends.
I think it's good to be realistic in our expectations to avoid disappointment, so here's my realistic take:
Higher performance, but not as high as some would like
Thinner chassis, lighter weight
Same battery life
2+ USB-C ports
Some features nobody is talking about at the moment, plus definitely Hey Siri and maybe fingerprint reader
And in my perfect world, Apple would rebrand the 2015 12'' MacBook to the MacBook Air and drop the price, release a 14'' MacBook which is comparable to the 13'' MacBook Pro in cost and performance, and add a 16'' MacBook Pro in a chassis the size of the current 15'' maybe a little smaller.
So my ideal lineup:
12'' MacBook Air
14'' MacBook
16'' MacBook Pro
But that would be too simple for Apple in 2016 I think...
Higher performance, but not as high as some would like
Thinner chassis, lighter weight
Same battery life
2+ USB-C ports
Some features nobody is talking about at the moment, plus definitely Hey Siri and maybe fingerprint reader
And in my perfect world, Apple would rebrand the 2015 12'' MacBook to the MacBook Air and drop the price, release a 14'' MacBook which is comparable to the 13'' MacBook Pro in cost and performance, and add a 16'' MacBook Pro in a chassis the size of the current 15'' maybe a little smaller.
So my ideal lineup:
12'' MacBook Air
14'' MacBook
16'' MacBook Pro
But that would be too simple for Apple in 2016 I think...
Mmm this is a good idea as well, not too simple I think, we're talking about the same company that launched an updated 5S here
I'd prefer to have the 13,3 bumped to 14" and take on the 1440x900 resolution (2880x1800) just by decreasing the bezel, leave everything else as it is (thickness, footprint, weight) and give us the Skylake!.
Same for the 15, move to 16 and give it the formerly highres of 1650x1050 etc.
Don't make me buy more adapters!
Same for the 15, move to 16 and give it the formerly highres of 1650x1050 etc.
Don't make me buy more adapters!
I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are interpreting the "Pro" in MBP to mean "beast of a computer, high-end portable desktop". I'm not sure that that's what Apple intends the line to be.
I think we can all agree that the MB/MBA lines are targeted toward people doing mail/web/Office. In contrast, the MBP line is meant for people who are doing more resource-intensive work, but still want portability. E.g., software development, high-end photoshop, video editing. For that kind of person, an MB/MBA won't cut it. But they're also not looking for an 8 lb behemoth with two hours of battery life.
In the MBP line, Apple has done a good job of balancing power, portability and battery life. I expect them to continue with this formula, which means that the next MBP will probably have integrated graphics only (but better graphics performance than 2015), thinner case and lower weight, and better battery life. I fear that people expecting a high-end gaming computer are going to be disappointed.
I think we can all agree that the MB/MBA lines are targeted toward people doing mail/web/Office. In contrast, the MBP line is meant for people who are doing more resource-intensive work, but still want portability. E.g., software development, high-end photoshop, video editing. For that kind of person, an MB/MBA won't cut it. But they're also not looking for an 8 lb behemoth with two hours of battery life.
In the MBP line, Apple has done a good job of balancing power, portability and battery life. I expect them to continue with this formula, which means that the next MBP will probably have integrated graphics only (but better graphics performance than 2015), thinner case and lower weight, and better battery life. I fear that people expecting a high-end gaming computer are going to be disappointed.
Last edited:
I totally agree.
GPU consumes TDP. GTX 980 eats 160w.
I cannot imagine anyone figures out how to put that piece of workforce into a 99.5 watt hour battery machine within a few years.
Apple was able to slim down MBP in 2012 because of getting rid of Ethernet port and Superdrive DVD. The space freed Apple used to pack more hardware in logic board, and yet they still needed to use small SSD.I still don't understand.
Actually, I'm really confused.
A lot of people here want a super-thinner computer, but still a lot of people are worried by the thermal constraint and consequently by the problems that the dGPU could have, and even people that would love to have a battery that last long.
I think that you cannot have all the benefits together.
If it's thinner, it means less battery, worst cooling, less powerful.
And all for the same price, 2000 and more €.
Before you answer, for "less battery and less powerful" I mean that Apple is going to say "now the MBP has 10% more battery life and 10% of its predecessor!", but unfortunately, its predecessor is 3 years old.
And this is not an improvement. I would feel pissed off by this.
Am I the only that want just a powerful MacBook Pro with exactly the same shape of the current MacBook Pro?!
If the shape remain the same, Apple can put more battery in it. Or can make a better vent system. Or put a Polaris which is low-consumption but still powerful.
But at last, we can actually wish how much we want, still Apple will do whatever it wants. We are not important.
And certainly someone will be displeased with the next MBP.
Anyway, I feel sorry if I seem rude, I don't mean to be so.
Peace, friends.
Apple was able to build such slim laptop as Macbook because it has no cooling system apart from gigantic radiator - top case, and bottom case.
You have to sacrifice something if you want slimmer laptop, more powerful with longer battery life. It may very well be impossible to get all of that at once.
- Status