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.
What to expect in the second Gen Retina MacBook (Merged)
- Thread starter Fuzzball84
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I can't fathom the attraction to rose gold. Someone man or woman high up in Apple must have a complete boner for that ridiculously ugly color.
I am a fan of colors many don't care for - I love the apple mint cases and covers and such I just don't get rose gold// UG _ LY
[doublepost=1461189702][/doublepost]
The entry for this should be a grand, no more, and for the high end should be 1200. The 2000 pro should have 512, 16 and discreet graphics, where a lower end 15 a should be 1799 and have 256 /8 -and a lower end discreet graphics chip
It's clear part of the reason I they removed the discreet graphics was battery life, as their autoswitching never much worked - at least reliably... But the bottom line is pro machines can't rely on integrated graphics and consumer machines need to start at a grand at the most, and that's very expensive. There are a pile of pic laptops, admittedly they suck, for 400 so get one at 800 and people may buy it., but 1300 for an entry level./ I guess they will remove the air line, but not before their profit margins can be the same on the MacBook production.
End of the day there's a lot of arrogance, while Windows 10 isn't perfect it's not bad - and by the next one it will be on I par or better than OS X - couple that with low hardware prices and if Apple aren't careful their laptop sales are going to plummet imo
I am a fan of colors many don't care for - I love the apple mint cases and covers and such I just don't get rose gold// UG _ LY
[doublepost=1461189702][/doublepost]
Apples ideas of notebooks lately is just awful, they are pushing pro laptop users to Windows... Where you can get almost this form factor with a bunch more power cheaper. Even accepting the extra 50% pricing as a tax to use OS X and for most people not to have to deal with getting Best Buy to fix their laptops overrun with spyware and such, they're coming late to the party, removing most features pros care about and massively overpricing their consumer line.
The entry for this should be a grand, no more, and for the high end should be 1200. The 2000 pro should have 512, 16 and discreet graphics, where a lower end 15 a should be 1799 and have 256 /8 -and a lower end discreet graphics chip
It's clear part of the reason I they removed the discreet graphics was battery life, as their autoswitching never much worked - at least reliably... But the bottom line is pro machines can't rely on integrated graphics and consumer machines need to start at a grand at the most, and that's very expensive. There are a pile of pic laptops, admittedly they suck, for 400 so get one at 800 and people may buy it., but 1300 for an entry level./ I guess they will remove the air line, but not before their profit margins can be the same on the MacBook production.
End of the day there's a lot of arrogance, while Windows 10 isn't perfect it's not bad - and by the next one it will be on I par or better than OS X - couple that with low hardware prices and if Apple aren't careful their laptop sales are going to plummet imo
I agree. I love Apple and their Ecosystem. My family has 3 Mac's of different types.
They definitely IMO are not a "Pro" company anymore. We have options. Go to windows, which I still hate, but like you said Windows 10 isn't too bad.
I am not a Tim Cook fan at all. I miss Steve's product vision.
Apple is just coasting in the monster lead Steve gave them.
Would not be too surprised to see the house come crumbling down
Remember in the 80's IBM was once though invincible...not any more.
Wow my post you quoted was pretty old. I actually sold my Surface 3, MBA and MBP and have owned a rMB and Surface Pro 4 for well over 9 and 6 months respectively ever since. Combination of the Surface Pro and the rMB working perfect for me. I actually find my surface Pro 4 perfect for netflix - the variable stand is cool.
If this was €999 I'd be very tempted to buy a rose gold one just to confuse the "women need colours too" brigade. I'm a big, burly, tattooed, bearded part-time blacksmith. I love confusing people.
I'm waiting for rMB to match color of this car:
http://www.njuskalo.hr/auti/mercedes-c-klasa-250-td-sport-oglas-18824998
Then I'm buying rMB and that car. There can be no confusion, just style.
Don't give Ive ideas! 
Last time I REALLY liked the iPhone colours – other than black – was 5c. And the fact that every single manufacturer just accidentally decided to make their gear exactly the same colours as Apple isn't helpful (but very telling).
Last time I REALLY liked the iPhone colours – other than black – was 5c. And the fact that every single manufacturer just accidentally decided to make their gear exactly the same colours as Apple isn't helpful (but very telling).
I agree with the Macbook. Rose gold looks very nice on the iPhone SE, because there it is relatively minor. So much of the phone is not rose gold, that the rose gold is almost an accent to the white bezel. It's not for me, but I can see the appeal there. On the Macbook however, holly cow it's just all entirely rose gold. It's just way too much. It's an accent color, not a base color. My favorite color is orange, but I don't think I would ever own an orange car - that's just too much. And the contrast with the black bezel and keyboard looks awful.
There will be riots when Mac Pro comes in rose gold in June (without any spec bump or price drop).
Users: "Upgrade hardware plz, we want specs"
Ive: "Rose gold it is then"
Only spec mac pro can ever get. Only spec bump mac pro really needs.
I am still using a late 2009 Macbook, looking forward to updating but trying to hold out for the new Macbook Pros. I was wondering if the screen of the new Macbook is smaller than my very old Macbook's screen? My MB is 13", the new MB is 12", but mine has a thick border around the screen which the new MB doesn't have. Does that mean the screen is the same size?
Kidding? Nope it's always the size of the viewable screen. Same for all other apple products. So ur mb is plus one inch . Actualy 1.3". See spec sheets
What were you expecting? They never redesign Mac hardware after one year. They are limited to what Intel has to offer. Skylake M without TB3 support- that's what Intel shipped.
This whole thread has always been wishful thinking. First, people thought Apple would update the rMB with Skylake and another USB-C port in Fall 2015. The Original MacBook Air (also derided by many) lasted for almost 3 years before the Late 2010 update that made people fall in love.
I'm not saying don't expect more from Apple - I agree we all should, but Apple considers their designs and releases very carefully, and wouldn't put out this MacBook only to redesign it completely in a year.
So I've been thinking of upgrading my 2011 Macbook Pro to either this 2016 m7 rMB or the MBA. Based of the CPU stats:
rMB [m7 1.3GHz] = 3714 *note this is for the 1.2GHz, Im hoping Apples 1.3GHz version is better!*
MBA [i5 1.6GHz] = 3628
MBA [i7 2.2GHz] = 4203
So, basically if Im going MBA, I'm going to shell out for the i7 version cause the m7 rMB is better than the base MBA. Ugh, I hope the extra 0.1GHz corresponds to a jump to close that gap a tad lol.
Source: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2641&cmp[]=2503&cmp[]=2478
rMB [m7 1.3GHz] = 3714 *note this is for the 1.2GHz, Im hoping Apples 1.3GHz version is better!*
MBA [i5 1.6GHz] = 3628
MBA [i7 2.2GHz] = 4203
So, basically if Im going MBA, I'm going to shell out for the i7 version cause the m7 rMB is better than the base MBA. Ugh, I hope the extra 0.1GHz corresponds to a jump to close that gap a tad lol.
Source: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2641&cmp[]=2503&cmp[]=2478
It's not realistic to be comparing the MacBook CPU's to the MacBook Air ones, and depending on the usage pattern/workload, it's even more unrealistic to expect to get better performance from the MacBook.
People should be comparing MacBook 2015 to MacBook 2016.
I saw benchmarks a few days ago that suggested that the Core m CPU had better performance than an E3 Xeon v2. Absolutely ludicrous.
Things like that have caused a veritable crapstorm of misinformation. Poopiestorm. Cacastorm.
Long story short:
Core M is able to boost pretty high for a short amount of time, which is the reason for getting those good benchmark scores.
While an Air or Pro will sustain it's power quite good during longer workloads, the Core M is going to throttle.
Core M is able to boost pretty high for a short amount of time, which is the reason for getting those good benchmark scores.
While an Air or Pro will sustain it's power quite good during longer workloads, the Core M is going to throttle.
don't worry, it's already full of people going on and on about how apple should ditch intel because their A9x is faster than i5 and so forth...
btw, that tiny new cpu in the 2016mb is quite a beast...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"MacBook9,1"+platform:"Mac+OS+X"+architecture:x86_32+bits:32+
the jump from m3 to m5 is quite noticeable, as was with last year's.
Interesting - Basically the 2016 rMacBook is roughly on a Benchmark score par with a Core 7 2012 MacBook Pro. Seeing as some might be still on 2008-2009 MBPs that ain't too shoddy a performance by the rMacBook. (rMacbook 2016 being 75% faster single, 95% faster multi than a mid 2009 MBP).
Well, I'd say out of all of the posts in this thread, yours back in late March pretty much nailed it with respect to what was coming in 2016 for the RMB. You must work for Apple;--) I'm glad I took advantage of the $999 deal from B&H on the base 2015 model back in January.
For real though... we need a Kaby Lake thread
. I want 14", a second usb port and TB3- Status