Waiting for the 2019 MBP [Merged]

[Ries]

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-156-inch-oled-display/

Get ready for the Macbook Pro X, no laptop will ever rape your wallet like this.

 

[Falhófnir]

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-156-inch-oled-display/

Get ready for the Macbook Pro X, no laptop will ever rape your wallet like this.

OLED really shouldn't be a priority for Apple with the MBP, and especially if it means inflating the price even further...

 

[DeepIn2U]

I had a nightmare dream about the 2020 MacBook Pro.

I dreamt 2020 MacBook Pro would lose all ports, replaced by a smart connector charger, with a built in Intel 5G modem for always on connectivity.

The computer will use a native A series SoC for managing more of the internal components, but will include a Intel CPU for application compatibility.

The intriguing part of the dream was when I asked the employee demoing at the Steve Jobs Theatre if this is optional. He said no, Apple is all in on this. Then I saw Jony Ive walking out with a huge smile on his face.

Why the Intel for "application compatibility"?

Rosetta ... could be re-introduced in a much more updated fashion ... like Apple did with the last major transition from Power PC to Intel. No need to increase R&D in hardware and cost to the end user when not really needed. Plus isn't Apple's internal coding mantra to be processor agnostic in the first place, considering the kernel is open source?

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

Was going to post here about the new OLED screens coming out. I would buy an OLED MBP day one. I've been waiting for a real device to implement OLED since I fell in love with my iPhone X. A 15" 4k OLED would be huge for me. A fixed keyboard and that screen and I'm set for another 4 years.

Seeing as Apple will want to keep "innovating" the MBP's and seeing as the screen hasn't really changed much over the last few years, seems like there is a real possibility we might see this in the new model?

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I could see them going 4K before OLED. I mean, having the true "default" resolution (i.e. the one that's exactly half the native resolution) be 1440x900 in 2019 seems so antiquated. They could go 4K and have the 21" iMac's 2048 x 1152 resolution.

I'll be excited about OLED if it's not plagued by burn-in issues. I can already see the complaints and lawsuits.

 

[Falhófnir]

I could see them going 4K before OLED. I mean, having the true "default" resolution (i.e. the one that's exactly half the native resolution) be 1440x900 in 2019 seems so antiquated.

I'll be excited about OLED if it's not plagued by burn-in issues. I can already see the complaints and lawsuits.

4k would mean a retina 'looks like' resolution of 1920x1200, which is uncomfortably small at 15.4", maybe they will use a 4k panel (for cost/ procurement reasons?) but non-integer scale it to the current 1680x1050 resolution? Though a lot of the benefit is lost when much content is produced at 16:9 and the screen is 16:10 aspect

 

[rutrack]

4k would mean a retina 'looks like' resolution of 1920x1200, which is uncomfortably small at 15.4", maybe they will use a 4k panel (for cost/ procurement reasons?) but non-integer scale it to the current 1680x1050 resolution? Though a lot of the benefit is lost when much content is produced at 16:9 and the screen is 16:10 aspect

What kind of content are you talking about for a laptop ? 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution required for any kind of productive work and 16:10 is the major and one of very few advantages that apple laptops have over competition to do any work.

 

[Howard2k]

What kind of content are you talking about for a laptop ? 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution required for any kind of productive work and 16:10 is the major and one of very few advantages that apple laptops have over competition to do any work.

My work laptop is 1366x786. How is it possible that I'm getting work done?

 

[Mr. Dee]

Why the Intel for "application compatibility"?

Rosetta ... could be re-introduced in a much more updated fashion ... like Apple did with the last major transition from Power PC to Intel. No need to increase R&D in hardware and cost to the end user when not really needed. Plus isn't Apple's internal coding mantra to be processor agnostic in the first place, considering the kernel is open source?

I don’t think the A-Series is or will be that powerful enough run x86 software like Intel chips were able to with PowerPC. Besides, they are already doing this in some ways with the T2 chips on current Macs. Apple likely wants use a transparent, seamless dual strategy until they can go solo with the A Series for desktop needs. Take into Apple disabled Rosetta after two releases (10.4, 10.5). So, Apple would likely do the same for a dual A-Series/Intel for about 2 generations.

 

[Falhófnir]

What kind of content are you talking about for a laptop ? 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution required for any kind of productive work and 16:10 is the major and one of very few advantages that apple laptops have over competition to do any work.

I also prefer 16:10 - but for most doing video work it’s 16:9 or wider.

 

[c0ppo]

My work laptop is 1366x786. How is it possible that I'm getting work done?

You could do your work in 640x480 as well. But 1920x1200 is way more comfortable.
[doublepost=1548358304][/doublepost]

I also prefer 16:10 - but for most doing video work it’s 16:9 or wider.

Actually it's not wider. They have exactly the same width, just that the 16:10 has more height. So you get more space to work with. How is that bad?

 

[Howard2k]

You could do your work in 640x480 as well. But 1920x1200 is way more comfortable.

Exactly. Incredibly, people used to use computers with CGA and were able to be productive. The hyperbole on here is a bit out of control sometimes.

 

[Falhófnir]

Actually it's not wider. They have exactly the same width, just that the 16:10 has more height. So you get more space to work with. How is that bad?

I was thinking of the surface book 15 where they’ve subtracted the difference rather than added, ignore.

 

[c0ppo]

I was thinking of the surface book 15 where they’ve subtracted the difference rather than added, ignore.

But SB2 15" is 3:2

 

[R.P.G]

This thread will be followed by the 2020 vversion and
Complaning about the 2019 MBP

but there were no 'Complaining' threads for Macbook pro's before 2016..did you ever thought about it? there were some complaints but not at these levels.

 

[PeterJP]

Actually it's not wider. They have exactly the same width, just that the 16:10 has more height. So you get more space to work with. How is that bad?

If both screens have the same diagonal (e.g. 15.4"), then the 16:10 will be taller, but narrower. If it's as wide but higher, the diagonal goes up.

 

[YaBe]

but there were no 'Complaining' threads for Macbook pro's before 2016..did you ever thought about it? there were some complaints but not at these levels.

It was ment to be funny, not serious.

I mean yes there are big problems with the newest HW (I miself switched to Windows 2 years ago so i know very well), but it seems nowadays Apple can't win anyway.

I am a big critic at the "New Apple" but sometimes we exagerate a bit, flaws should be fixed product should be repaired on warranty, i mean I am all against a bent out of the box product, or a repeating faultu keyboard, but no matter what product you pic today tere are tons of complaints for the sake of it.

If you do not like a product, talk with your wallet (again i did as i bought a windows laptop, ....btw thanks Apple you made me try and now i quite like it, ìshouldn't have gave me the chance) because complaining on a forum would have limited effect.

Notsaying we should stop cmplaining altoghether, but there are also other ways than forum thread to do it, and some work even better ...i mean just look at the stock lately, that should tell them something (hopefully).

(P.S.) there have always been complaining (thread) about even older "G" era Mac, probably fewer because there were fewer users... (i remember the first retina mac, people loved the screen but mopped the floor with Apple for the lagging interface due to weaker than needed vcard....i think scrolling was a huge issue back then)

 

[c0ppo]

If both screens have the same diagonal (e.g. 15.4"), then the 16:10 will be taller, but narrower. If it's as wide but higher, the diagonal goes up.

 

[Falhófnir]

.

That illustrates what he's saying - the 16:10 in that image will have a larger diagonal.

 

[PeterJP]

I did a few calculations, for a 24 inch screen.
If you have a 16:9 24" screen, it will be 20.92" wide and 11.77" high.
If you have a 16:10 24" screen, it will be 20.35" wide and 12.72" high. In other words, as I said, it's narrower.
If you do it like your drawing suggests and just add extra space at the top, the screen will be 20.92" wide (as wide as the 16:9) and 13.07" high. However, that increases the diagonal to 24.67".
Simple Pythagoras, really.

 

[Dave245]

For those waiting on the 2019 Macbook Pro, do you not think it might be better to wait until next year 2020, Apple will probably redesign the Macbook Pro. 4 years will have passed since the last redesign and that is usually when we get the bigger updates/redesigns.

 

[Falhófnir]

For those waiting on the 2019 Macbook Pro, do you not think it might be better to wait until next year 2020, Apple will probably redesign the Macbook Pro. 4 years will have passed since the last redesign and that is usually when we get the bigger updates/redesigns.

Yeah I think most of us have now come to the conclusion the 2019 machines aren’t going to fix a lot of the problems we have with the 2018 (barring an unlikely surprise redesign) - the question now becomes whether to hop over to Windows for a few years until the expected 2020 machines have bedded in (assuming they are fundamentally better)

 

[Dave245]

Yeah I think most of us have now come to the conclusion the 2019 machines aren’t going to fix a lot of the problems we have with the 2018 (barring an unlikely surprise redesign) - the question now becomes whether to hop over to Windows for a few years until the expected 2020 machines have bedded in (assuming they are fundamentally better)

I have been using the Surface Pro 6 for the last few months. After having a longer period to use it, I would say that it’s not a bad device BUT it’s not as good as the Mac.

Windows 10 isn’t as good as MacOS, it’s not as refined and I have come across moments where it will stutter or freeze before working again.

It’s not a good tablet, not even close to the iPad Pro, the apps are very limited (there isn’t even a YouTube app) and for some reason Netflix and iTunes lag when watching anything.

The keyboard on the alcantara keyboard is nice but it does feel very plasticity, the trackpad isn’t as good as one on the Mac but the Alcantara material is very nice!

Overall I would say that the Surface is betttrt then Windows machines of old times (like I used before getting my 2011 all those years ago) but not as good as owning a Mac.

The Mac has spoilt me over the years and the Surface just isn’t as good looking or as refined as the Mac, things just work with the Mac, Windows still has a way to go I think.

I will wait it out with the Surface Pro 6 at this point and see what Apple do with the Mac’s later this year.

 

[rutrack]

Exactly. Incredibly, people used to use computers with CGA and were able to be productive. The hyperbole on here is a bit out of control sometimes.

And before that people just used printouts of their commands execution results and used their time share to do computations. Maybe we should just get back to using that, laptops will have an incredible batter life ))
[doublepost=1548426661][/doublepost]

That illustrates what he's saying - the 16:10 in that image will have a larger diagonal.

I'm pretty sure he meant pixels and the volume of information available on the screen to work with.
It's 1920x1200 vs 1920vs1080. While the shrink in physical size of the screen is not noticeable, the vertical increase of 10% is a major advantage, unless you use to to watch movies of course, then it just goes black.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I don’t think the A-Series is or will be that powerful enough run x86 software like Intel chips were able to with PowerPC. Besides, they are already doing this in some ways with the T2 chips on current Macs. Apple likely wants use a transparent, seamless dual strategy until they can go solo with the A Series for desktop needs. Take into Apple disabled Rosetta after two releases (10.4, 10.5). So, Apple would likely do the same for a dual A-Series/Intel for about 2 generations.

If you recall, PPC was still had more powerful processing power than the then Xeon and P4 chips vs 970fx G5's when It's Tru3 was presented on WWDC stage for OSX ... Jobs stated OSX was 'singing' on Intel chipset. but the performance was less at that initial time of demo and initial roleout.