Waiting for the 2018 MBP

[Queen6]

What are the chances we will see a bigger screen? Used to be the MB “PRO” was for”Professionals”. I used it constantly in my web design. I keep replacing parts on my 17” and I don’t want a 13” or 15” laptop for designing.
I feel like my days are numbered anymore...

I’m limited on space so a laptop is a must...Why did they discontinue the larger screen in the first place? I’ll have to google it.

Bottom line is the 17" MBP didn't sell in sufficient numbers and Apple's not focused on the performance end of the market in the portable space; large display's, port diversification, maximum battery capacity, ergonomic keyboards, powerful dGPU etc. above all scalability are just not on the table unless Apple brings a new product to market on similar lines to the iMac Pro.

There's many unhappy about the situation, personally I've never seen to many leaving the platform, equally Apple has little interest outside of wanting it's professionals users to endorse the MBP for the feel-good factor of the average consumers. Option's are unfortunately straight forward, settle for the current 15" MBP or switch platforms...

If you read posts 2471 & 2472 they summarise the situation very well. Apple was literally shamed into acting with the Mac Pro with a huge up swell of negativity from the users and the tech press. The MBP is very much a different issue, nor do I see the trend changing Apple will continue to produce thinner lighter notebooks who for some are excessively compromised versus their needs, equally the same notebooks will likely serve the needs of majority of basic users, likely being the majority of the target audience.

Q-6

 

[Poki]

It was a downgrade in potential/ipotetic performance....if they had used a better GPU, since the 35W is not a limit some alien superpower forced them to adopt but only a dumb design choice, the 15" could have achieved much better performances in GPGPU computing and, adopting nVidia GPU, even with CUDA optimized software...

And you are another one who think that the fact that apple never did means they never will...

But we have to agree that we have a different concept of what a pro laptop should and should not be so it...

EDIT: and BTW is not for you to decide if i can or can not post in this or another thread....I am as entitled as you to my own opinion...

This thread is not about any "pro" laptop, it is about the MacBook Pro specifically. Semantic debates what a "pro" notebook should or shouldn't be won't bring us anywhere. The MacBook Pro has been in the same category of devices ever since it first launched, and there's no reason to expect them to change this. This discussion just clutters up this thread, but if you insist ...

You obviously want a thicker, heavier notebook with a shorter battery life. That's fine. That's just not what the MacBook Pro is about. And you still didn't present even a single application that would benefit from even faster GPUs. Obviously there are use cases for notebooks with faster GPUs, but what I have been saying for what feels like ages now is that these are rare, relatively speaking, and thous in Apple's market research probably less important to them than offering a more mobile product.

It's okay to want something different. But it would also be okay to discuss this in a manner that's not filled with a tone of entitlement that's just not productive in a dialogue.

 

[ugru]

This thread is not about any "pro" laptop, it is about the MacBook Pro specifically.

No. This thread is about 2018 MBP, so i am precisely in topic since there is a slight possibility that Apple will change course, as they did in the desktop space, and release a Real MB - PRO.

 

[Poki]

No. This thread is about 2018 MBP, so i am precisely in topic since there is a slight possibility that Apple changed course, as they did in the desktop space, and release a Real MB - PRO.

And once more (did you even read anything I wrote here?) – Apple did not change the iMac line. They added a new product category – the iMac Pro. Sure, it's entirely possible they'll do something like this in the notebook space. But this won't be the new MacBook Pro, this would be a new product line of workstation notebooks.

 

[ugru]

And once more (did you even read anything I wrote here?) – Apple did not change the iMac line. They added a new product category – the iMac Pro. Sure, it's entirely possible they'll do something like this in the notebook space. But this won't be the new MacBook Pro, this would be a new product line of workstation notebooks.

...Or transform the current MBP line in the new MB line, kill the MBA and replce it with the current MB line and introduce a thicker more powerful MBP.

Since we do not know what apple will really do, this is the tread to talk about the future (2018) line/lines of Apple's Professional laptops...If this is an inconvenience for you, feel free to ignore my posts...

 

[TheralSadurns]

Hope they include the Intel+Vega GH combo in the MacBook pro refresh this year. Would allow them to have more room for battery or making laptop smaller but still include performance similar to nvidia 1050 ti/1060.

Seriously?
Can people STOP THAT. We do not need a PAPER THIN MacBook PRO (PRO!!!). Ask Apple for a new MacBook. Or MacBook Air if you want THIN THIN THIN. It is too thin ALREADY. As the technology is NOT there yet.

 

[Queen6]

...Or transform the current MBP line in the new MB line, kill the MBA and replce it with the current MB line and introduce a thicker more powerful MBP.

Truthfully the only hope we have is if Apple brings a new line to market reinvents the PowerBook etc. MBP trend is cast in stone, nothing's changing here. I did read some time back that Apple remains to hold the PowerBook TM, equally even this a huge stretch by anyone's imagination.

MBP reality = just a thinner more consumer focused product...

Q-6

 

[TheralSadurns]

Wrong, both are Ultrabooks. The MacBook Pro fits the description perfectly:

"Intel has specified and trademarked Ultrabook[1] for a line of high-end subnotebook computersfeaturing reduced bulk without compromising battery life. Ultrabooks use low-powerIntel Core processors, solid-state drives, and a unibodychassis to help meet these criteria.[2] Due to their limited size, Ultrabooks typically omit common laptop features such as optical disc drives[3] and Ethernet ports."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook

Exactly. This does NOT fit the MacBook Pro AT ALL.
MacBook Pro is NOT a subnotebook.
It does NOT use low-power Intel Core CPUs.

 

[Poki]

Exactly. This does NOT fit the MacBook Pro AT ALL.
MacBook Pro is NOT a subnotebook.
It does NOT use low-power Intel Core CPUs.

It does use U-series CPUs, which are low-power. If you scroll down and look at the specifications, 15W CPUs are included. Also, the "subnotebook" category does include relatively thin and light 13" notebooks.

But regardless, this is just about semantics. What I think we can agree on is that the current MacBook Pro line consists of notebooks which are relatively thin and light while still offering competent performance. And the "thin and light" part would be totally thrown away if you more than doubled the CPU+GPU TDP, that was the point.

 

[TheralSadurns]

Zero chance. Don't take this the wrong way but you folks who cling on to your slowly disintegrating 17"s in hopes they will release a new one need a reality check. The 17" is gone. The 15" now has a higher resolution than the 17" have. Ye don't need a 17" screen. All you need to is try a retina 15" for a few days and you will wonder why you didn't change years ago.

Nah, the problem is the canvas size/workspace. The 15" rMBP does not give you 1080p/1200p workspace @2x.
You can only achieve that workspace with a scaled resolution which is horrible for any design work. (see: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/ )

That's my (personal) gripe. I'd be cool with a 15" MBP with 4k display to enable this. But I also now that things get really small on screen. Just try that scaled resolution. I'm still fine with this... but I can see a lot of people of wouldn't.

 

[leman]

Since we are talking about logic, yours is a perfect example of one who think that the fact that apple never did means they never will, and in the desktop space they already proved you wrong...

They proved me wrong how exactly? Did I ever claim that a product such as iMac Pro is impossible? In fact, how does this count as Apple doing something they never did? The iMac Pro is just the cylindrical Mac Pro with less ports, less user-upgradeability and a built-in screen. Which makes it a more reasonable product then the nMP it replaces since it better reflects its purpose as a focused limited-config workstation.
[doublepost=1519035294][/doublepost]

It was a downgrade in potential/ipotetic performance....if they had used a better GPU, since the 35W is not a limit some alien superpower forced them to adopt but only a dumb design choice, the 15" could have achieved much better performances in GPGPU computing and, adopting nVidia GPU, even with CUDA optimized software...

So they managed to put a same-bracket GPU (30-40W TDP) they always used (for more then 20 years) into a slightly thinner chassis. How does this bring you to a conclusion that they could have used a substantially hotter GPU (60W+) in the old slightly thicker chassis? You are not making much sense I am afraid. Your "potential performance" argument only works if the pre-2016 form factor could actually host a faster GPU which it simply can't. Next faster GPU, the 1060 is twice the TDP.

If you want a larger MBP with a faster GPU, sure. But this has nothing to do with the existing MBP which uses exactly the same class of components as before and couldn't use anything better if it didn't go thinner. Putting a faster GPU into he MBP would require a substantial redesign of the laptop and a total change of the formula Apple has been using for again, at least last two decades.

 

[TheralSadurns]

It does use U-series CPUs, which are low-power. If you scroll down and look at the specifications, 15W CPUs are included. Also, the "subnotebook" category does include relatively thin and light 13" notebooks.

But regardless, this is just about semantics. What I think we can agree on is that the current MacBook Pro line consists of notebooks which are relatively thin and light while still offering competent performance. And the "thin and light" part would be totally thrown away if you more than doubled the CPU+GPU TDP, that was the point.

Talking about 15" H-class 45W CPUs. People asking for more RAM and more power etc. don't give a rat's as* about the 13" TB MBP. Or the fake non-TB MBP that is basically a MBA.

 

[leman]

Talking about 15" H-class 45W CPUs. People asking for more RAM and more power etc. don't give a rat's as* about the 13" TB MBP. Or the fake non-TB MBP that is basically a MBA.

The 15" has been an "ultrabook" since it was initially released, since it was always thinner and lighter then the competition and was always designed around getting top-in-class battery life. If you want more RAM and power, you go and buy a proper workstation. This was true 10 years ago, this was true 5 years ago, and this is true now. But then again, we already had this discussion.

 

[ugru]

They proved me wrong how exactly? Did I ever claim that a product such as iMac Pro is impossible? In fact, how does this count as Apple doing something they never did? The iMac Pro is just the cylindrical Mac Pro with less ports, less user-upgradeability and a built-in screen. Which makes it a more reasonable product then the nMP it replaces since it better reflects its purpose as a focused limited-config workstation.

The iMac Pro do not replace the Mac Pro.
Apple said it is just a stop gap product while they redesign from the ground up the New Mac Pro because they understood their error in designing a too small, from the thermal point of view, professional desktop. In Apple's own words: "we designed ourselves in a thermal corner" specifically speaking about GPUs....

See the analogy?

 

[Poki]

Talking about 15" H-class 45W CPUs. People asking for more RAM and more power etc. don't give a rat's as* about the 13" TB MBP. Or the fake non-TB MBP that is basically a MBA.

So you aren't allowed to want or need more power in a small and light 13" notebook?

Also, the 15" MacBook Pro fits the definition of an "ultrabook" also quite well, if we are just using the usual definition of "thin, light, relatively powerful". So just replace the term "Ultrabook" with "Relatively thin, light and powerful notebook" if you feel better, but that's what the MacBook Pro line always has been.

 

[leman]

The iMac Pro do not replace the Mac Pro.
Apple said it is just a stop gap product while they redesign from the ground up the New Mac Pro because they understood their error in designing a too small, from the thermal point of view, professional desktop.

It replaces the non-modular, cylindrical Mac Pro! It doesn't replace the modular Mac Pro (which Apple discontinued original but now apparently wants to ring back in some sort of form). The iMac Pro is there for the people who were happy with the nMP despite its lack of modularity. This has nothing to do with a modular MBP which is an entirely different product. And I doubt that they will drop the iMac Pro after the new MP is released — the later will most likely be an expensive multiprocessor, possibly multi-GPU platform that fulfils a different need from the iMac Pro.

In Apple's own words: "we designed ourselves in a thermal corner" specifically speaking about GPUs....

See the analogy?

Honestly, I don't. They were talking about desktop-class workstation GPUs here, in a desktop computer, and that they have wrongly estimated how the power requirements of those GPUs would develop. A mobile platform is a very different thing since it has other constraints to be satisfied. Apple's power limit of mobile GPUs is nothing new, it has been there since the very first Powerbook they made. But who knows, maybe they will find a way to break this limit without sacrificing their other criteria (I'm rather sceptical though).

 

[ugru]

So they managed to put a same-bracket GPU (30-40W TDP) they always used (for more then 20 years) into a slightly thinner chassis. How does this bring you to a conclusion that they could have used a substantially hotter GPU (60W+) in the old slightly thicker chassis? You are not making much sense I am afraid. Your "potential performance" argument only works if the pre-2016 form factor could actually host a faster GPU which it simply can't. Next faster GPU, the 1060 is twice the TDP.

The fact that you do not agree does not mean i do not make sense...Again I, and many, as we said countless times, would be perfecly comfortable with a 1" thick, 3kg MBP and 6 hrs battery....

 

[TheralSadurns]

The iMac Pro do not replace the Mac Pro.
Apple said it is just a stop gap product while they redesign from the ground up the New Mac Pro because they understood their error in designing a too small, from the thermal point of view, professional desktop. In Apple's own words: "we designed ourselves in a thermal corner" specifically speaking about GPUs....

See the analogy?

Seriously. We should open our own thread and leave these nay-sayers alone. We can also take Queen 6 with us. The rest? It seems like it's a lost cause.

Edit:
It seems like everyone else here wants a 12-13" MacBook (some a 15") that is as thick as an iPad. Has a better keyboard than now. And switches to 28W and 15W CPUs across the board. And call it a day.

 

[Poki]

Seriously. We should open our own thread and leave these nay-sayers alone. We can also take Queen 6 with us. The rest? It seems like it's a lost cause.

Yes, please do that.

 

[ugru]

Seriously. We should open our own thread and leave these nay-sayers alone. We can also take Queen 6 with us. The rest? It seems like it's a lost cause.

I do not think so. I learned a lot following this thread...even from people like leman or poki who are at the opposite end of the spectrum from me....just keep the discussion civil and go on. Maybe if I appeared harsh is because english is not my first language....

 

[leman]

The fact that you do not agree does not mean i do not make sense...Again I, and many, as we said countless times, would be perfecly comfortable with a 1" thick, 3kg MBP and 6 hrs battery....

I think the main issue is that we are discussing different things. There is this beautiful German phrase which literally translates as "talking around each other". You are discussing a potential not-yet-released, more workstation-like MBP and that you'd like to see such a product. I am discussing these issues strictly in the context of the MBP design that Apple has been using since it was first released. So in the end, this is why we are clashing. Which is probably a bit dumb

[doublepost=1519038517][/doublepost]

Seriously. We should open our own thread and leave these nay-sayers alone. We can also take Queen 6 with us. The rest? It seems like it's a lost cause.

Yes, since walling off and isolating with similar-minded people has worked so well in the past in constructing progressive societies ^^

You still didn't reply to my rebuttal of your claim that MBP was a workstation at some point. I'd be interested in hearing why you think so in light of much more powerful workstation laptops being shipped at the same time.

It seems like everyone else here wants a 12-13" MacBook (some a 15") that is as thick as an iPad. Has a better keyboard than now. And switches to 28W and 15W CPUs across the board. And call it a day.

Not me! Its exactly what I don't want, and unfortunately what many manufacturers (not Apple though) are doing. I want basically what Apple is doing now — putting some rather serious hardware in a very mobile platform. There is currently basically no laptop on the market that would have a faster CPU than what you can get the 15" MBP with, and the GPU, while not fast, is more or less adequate. And the 15" MBP fits in a bag where the Surface Book won't (I tried). So if Apple can get even more performance out of this chassis, I'd be happy. The Intel+AMD packages seem like a step in the right direction here.

 

[Queen6]

Yes, please do that.

People are fully entitled to their opinion, if you don't care for the conversation no one is forcing you to interject and or respond...

Q-6

 

[MBX]

Seriously?
Can people STOP THAT. We do not need a PAPER THIN MacBook PRO (PRO!!!). Ask Apple for a new MacBook. Or MacBook Air if you want THIN THIN THIN. It is too thin ALREADY. As the technology is NOT there yet.

Why do you get so upset?

Do you think Tim Cook or Jony Ive reads these forums and thinks "Oh look this guy is outraged about another persons opinion!"

 

[AlekT]

As someone who's just looking for news on 2018 MacBooks, all this arguing over who's opinion is bigger seems quite silly. Apple are going to make what they're going to make and a lot of this just comes across as wild conjecture and baseless speculation.

 

[Poki]

People are fully entitled to their opinion, if you don't care for the conversation no one is forcing you to interject and or respond...

Q-6

Yes, they are. But keeping a thread in this forum clean and focused is just a nice thing to do, and nothing discriminatory. If you want to talk about this specific topic, please, go ahead and do so. But it doesn't really belong in this thread, and makes it quite tiresome to read.

We're obviously talking about two very different topics. You're talking about a potential new product line from Apple, a workstation class notebook, which may or may not take over the branding MacBook Pro. I'm talking about the next model in the current MacBook Pro line. On this basis, neither discussion will go anywhere.