Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The next MacBook Pro redesign (merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
doitdada said:
Stop dreaming about a 16". Kill the 13" and put all the energy into a thin and sexy 14". I edit my photos on the go on a 12" MacBook. If you are serious about photography, get a $1500 100% AdobeRGB and hook it up to your Macbook. Remember it is a laptop, and not a dinosaur called 'desktop replacement'. The amount of size queens on this site urging the return of a 17" is too damn high.
Click to expand...

The 13" Air & Pro models are by far the most popular notebooks that Apple sell, so the 13" isn't going anywhere. The 2016 Pro models will remain the same screen sizes (a source last week incorrectly claimed Apple are working on slimmer new 13" & 15" MacBook Air's, they are in fact Pro's).

The amount of people urging for the return of the 17" is too damn high? What does that tell you? It means there's a market for this model! The only reason Apple scrapped the 17" Pro was because there wasn't a viable 'Retina' screen available. The cost of producing such a screen was and still is astronomical.
 
kiranmk2 said:
I've a feeling this 'new MacBook Air' that has been mentioned recently is actually the new update of the 13"MBP. If the 13 rMBP could be made thinner and lighter, what is the point of the MBA? They both use dual cores so if Apple can fit the 28 w CPUs into a thinner chassis, it's game over for the Air.
Click to expand...

Apple could use the 15w Skylake chips in the Pro models. If they are good enough for workhorse machines like the ThinkPad T series, then they are certainly good enough for Apple. 15w variations of the Skylake processors with Iris graphics are on the way...
 
Steve121178 said:
The 2016 Pro models will remain the same screen sizes (a source last week incorrectly claimed Apple are working on slimmer new 13" & 15" MacBook Air's, they are in fact Pro's).
Click to expand...
Given Apple's obsession with making products thinner, I'd not be so quick to dismiss this as incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doitdada
Steve121178 said:
The 13" Air & Pro models are by far the most popular notebooks that Apple sell, so the 13" isn't going anywhere. The 2016 Pro models will remain the same screen sizes (a source last week incorrectly claimed Apple are working on slimmer new 13" & 15" MacBook Air's, they are in fact Pro's).
Click to expand...

Really..... so where is your confirmed proof of this then, a post on this forum? Because that's the only place I have seen that stated, on this forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira
doitdada said:
I have my base model retina MacBook hooked up to a 1920x1200 screen, and I don't have any issues with it. Some waiting on 100MB RAW files, but honestly I can't really feel the difference between a 4790K, 760GTX & 32GB RAM Hackintosh and this computer except for opening of the RAW files. RAW editor sliders don't have the same smoothness, but I get the same result. Have about 10-15 tabs open in Safari, streaming Soundcloud in Soundcleod, two text editors, messages, mail, iTerm, Photoshop and Sequel Pro open at the same time. Nothing really lags in the UI. I've had a few issues with streaming Silverlight content (lag in video, but not sound) when I don't fullscreen or highlight it, but there have always been issues with that technology on macs from the beginning.

I'm only throwing cash on a new MacBook Pro if they make it in 14", as thin as the MacBook or Air, quad-core of course, 5K through one cable (SST). If it is Skylake og Cannonlake, I don't care. Just make it less bulky. Have tried dGPU a few times (2009 Nvidia, 2011 AMD and 2015 AMD), and the fan noise is not very appealing. Especially if you hook it up to an external monitor. The history with heat on the dGPU models is disappointing as well. Replacement programs etc. The Pro have been haunting with Staingate, overheated dGPU etc. Time to drop it completely?

4K, 5K or 8K. No standards are showing dominance at the moment. The cabling, support and pricing indicates this isn't an investment yet, but something you try out for your own curiosity. 4K in the monitor would be the icing on the cake for the Pro laptop line, still I care more about just updating the design. 2012 is soon four years ago.
Click to expand...

Ok so I finally saw this and have 4 comments and I am calling you out.
1. you say what you care most about is updating the design, so external looks is your primary interest - why are you even posting here go over to the Macbook 12" area and input there.
2. you say in paragraph 1 that your little 12" Macbook does all this work with no problem and that you work with 100mb raw files, well buddy if that's the case then you are shooting medium format even a 50 megapixel medium format will "maybe?" get to 100mgb "raw" files. Nothing DSLR including the (Nikon D810) will get you to 100mb "raw" files except the Pentax K3ii only then if you are using the pixel shift mode. Medium format is definitely a Pro format and NO pro is going to use a 12 Macbook for photo editing because it has nowhere near the power needed, even if it is hooked up to a nice RGB monitor
3. I suggest your camera is an iPhone and you are using iPhoto to dress up pics to put on Facebook. You seem to know just enough buzz words to to make your posts believable until someone in the know reads them.
4. You say you are not going to spend the money on a rMBP unless they make a 14", that in itself runs counter to your claim of 100mb "raw "files since you'd have to spend at least $10k on the least expensive medium format camera "body only" out today the Pentax 645Z, jump to anything else that will generate those kinds of raw files and you will be starting at $20k and up ,body only if you can afford a medium format camera you'd make sure you could afford a powerful computer not a glorified net surfer.
So I am just not buying what your selling and neither will any other real "Photographer"
 
Last edited:
For me, personally, I'm giving up on the prospects of screen size and resolution adjustments and I'm fine with that, though. People have said a thin and sexy 14" and a MacBook Pro in an Air design. I'm not quiet in favor of those ideas. At this point, all I want is a MacBook-thin MacBook Pro with a thin P3 Retina Display, multiple Thunderbolt 3 ports given they're USB-C Rev. 2 backwards-compatible (definitely a 3.5mm analog/optical audio jack, maybe an SDXC card slot), an all-metal enclosure, a 16-lane PCIe 3.0 SSD (accomplishable by moving the pins to the long side from the short side, I'm aware that the SSD chips on the wafer need to be capable of that speed though), and of course a stronger GPU. One thing I'm undecided on is Intel's mobile Xeon CPUs for the purpose of DDR4 ECC memory allowing a MacBook Pro to reach up to 32 GB of memory. I also would like to maintain the removability of SSD and bring it back to RAM by using mid-mount connectors given the MacBook is only thick enough for a single double-sided board.
 
MDull said:
Ok so I finally saw this and have 4 comments and I am calling you out.
1. you say what you care most about is updating the design, so external looks is your primary interest - why are you even posting here go over to the Macbook 12" area and input there.
2. you say in paragraph 1 that your little 12" Macbook does all this work with no problem and that you work with 100mb raw files, well buddy if that's the case then you are shooting medium format even a 50 megapixel medium format will "maybe?" get to 100mgb "raw" files. Nothing DSLR including the (Nikon D810) will get you to 100mb "raw" files except the Pentax K3ii only then if you are using the pixel shift mode. Medium format is definitely a Pro format and NO pro is going to use a 12 Macbook for photo editing because it has nowhere near the power needed, even if it is hooked up to a nice RGB monitor
3. I suggest your camera is an iPhone and you are using iPhoto to dress up pics to put on Facebook. You seem to know just enough buzz words to to make your posts believable until someone in the know reads them.
4. You say you are not going to spend the money on a rMBP unless they make a 14", that in itself runs counter to your claim of 100mb "raw "files since you'd have to spend at least $10k on the least expensive medium format camera "body only" out today the Pentax 645Z, jump to anything else that will generate those kinds of raw files and you will be starting at $20k and up ,body only if you can afford a medium format camera you'd make sure you could afford a powerful computer not a glorified net surfer.
So I am just not buying what your selling and neither will any other real "Photographer"
Click to expand...

I'm not real, but my cameras are Leica M9, Leica X2 and Nikon D810. And yes, I would trade all three of them if a lighter weight of their qualities would embody themselves in a lighter version. I also use an iPhone if I can capture something interesting.

I actually rounded up the number from 76-79mb to 100mb. I apoligise for being inaccurate. The tiff number of megabytes is around 106mb.

I don't do studio work, so I would not know about medium format the way you know. I was thrilled about the idea about using an iPhone for photographing, writing and publishing on the same device. I recognise the hardship of attaining absolute quality, and would love to cater to the few who adores the quality, still the masses are the market and the few are just too few.
 
Last edited:
it is easy to spot we gonna see a macbook pro soon because the waiting time is almost the longest from 2012.
good news for the 13/14" and for me :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: doitdada
I think with a Macbook of any provenience it is going to be extremely hard to get proof though, because even if we get a case, display, motherboard, SSD and battery we will still not know what Apple will call that thing at the end, whether the parts are all from one or more types of machines, etc. With iPhone this problem doesn't exist, because Apple doesn't simultaneously release iPhone, iPhone Air and iPhone Pro with the same screen sizes and completely different internals.

So I guess proof is coming... whenever Apple decides to unleash them beasties upon our pockets :)
 
navaira said:
I think with a Macbook of any provenience it is going to be extremely hard to get proof though, because even if we get a case, display, motherboard, SSD and battery we will still not know what Apple will call that thing at the end, whether the parts are all from one or more types of machines, etc. With iPhone this problem doesn't exist, because Apple doesn't simultaneously release iPhone, iPhone Air and iPhone Pro with the same screen sizes and completely different internals.

So I guess proof is coming... whenever Apple decides to unleash them beasties upon our pockets :)
Click to expand...

You didn't read the comment did you? It relates to the article posted on this sites front page a few days ago about new thinner MacBook AIRS:

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/30/thinner-macbook-air-13-15-wwdc-2016/

As you can see the article was based on an economic news website report, it states very clearly the story is about the MacBook Air, yet we seem to have people on this forum in various threads claiming the story is in fact about the MacBook PRO with no proof what so ever to back that claim up and prove the news report was wrong.
So it's BS until we see proof that the article MacRumors linked to was wrong.

No offence but I'll take the word of a economic news website trusted by the MacRumors team, over what posters claim otherwise with no proof.
 
This is what I want...

1. 15 inch
2. 3 USB ports
3. FingerPrint Reader
4. Good Integrated video chip
5. Thin border (Bezel)
6. Nice screen
7. Better facing camera 5 or 8 MP

Don't care about thinness in a Pro.
 
Up to 32GB option
Upgraded from or equivalent to current spec latest discrete GPU from either Nvidia or AMD, whichever performs best.

Skylake with decent integrated GPU
Touch ID in the power button
1080P iSight camera.
Only reduce the border if the speaker quality remains.
Up to 1 Terabyte SSD option
Improved Wireless Access and Bluetooth. no point in AD just yet
MagSafe 2 with the thin design of 1
Same thickness as current machine
Weight saving techniques used like carbon fibre
2 USB C
2 Thunderbolt 3 so long as it does HDMI out via an adapter
1 USB 3
MIC and Optical in and out port.
Keep the glowing Apple on the back
Keep the bottom removable with screws
Keep the Sleep Wake light
Keep screen resolution and sizes the same. Or if it's really needed a max res of 4K on the 15" model.
 
apolloa said:
Because in the world we live in, the large majority of devices use USB.
What if you have a great Logitech wireless mouse that uses a USB dongle, how are you going to connect it?
Click to expand...
I only quoted the USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 part because Thunderbolt 3 uses and is backwards compatible with the USB-C port. So why not have 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports which are all backwards compatible with USB-C? I'm not addressing the USB 3 port listed right after Thunderbolt, that's still there.
 
jamescharley22 said:
I only quoted the USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 part because Thunderbolt 3 uses and is backwards compatible with the USB-C port. So why not have 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports which are all backwards compatible with USB-C? I'm not addressing the USB 3 port listed right after Thunderbolt, that's still there.
Click to expand...

Because then you have to buy an adapter, have yet another thing to carry around and lose, on my Mac laptop I have a display port, 2 USB ports, a thundebolt port and an ethernet port.
5 ports, so maybe I would have 1 USB C, 2 USB 3 and 2 Thunderbolt, sounds better. And that's with a DVD drive in it.
 
I'm a little confused, and as far as I know, the MacBook Pro in question has the following ports (not including features and MagSafe):
  • 1 USB-C Port (HDMI out via adapter capable)
  • 2 Thunderbolt 3 Ports (HDMI out via adapter capable by switching to USB-C interfacing)
  • 2 USB 3 Ports (which was originally 1, but has changed to 2)
  • Mic and Analog/Optical In and Out Jacks (I took the liberty of modifying this item because wired ear/headphones are not phasing out as quickly as I'm assuming the wireless headphone market would like them to, plus current headphone jacks are able to provide an optical feed)
All I was saying was since USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 share the same port, why not use Thunderbolt 3 rather than USB-C and Thunderbolt 3? Thunderbolt 3 is able to operate as a USB-C port natively because Thunderbolt 3 was built over the USB-C port, so a USB-C to HDMI adapter would work there.

At this point, my proposed list would be
  • 3 Thunderbolt 3 Ports (HDMI out via adapter, because building in USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 ports is like mixing USB 2 and USB 3 ports)
  • 2 USB 3 ports
  • Mic and Analog/Optical In and Out Jacks
However, if the MacBook Pro is thick enough to house 2 USB 3 ports, why wouldn't we retain the HDMI port?
 
Last edited:
Glad to see I'm not the only one that wants to keep an HDMI. USB-C is great but keeping a few "legacy" ports (even though HDMI is far from being outdated) would make things a lot more convenient. I'm sure Apple could keep 1 of the standard sized USB 3.0 ports and put in an HDMI 2.0 port and still have room to make the casing little thinner (most likely a slight taper sense the current casing is already pretty thin considering the power it packs).

As I've said before, I really hope Apple doesn't make super thinness its main priority for these new Pro models. In my opinion adding new colors, a couple USB-C ports, thinner bezels, P3 color, 256gb entry level SSD and of course more power would be a fantastic upgrade over the current model. I'd gladly live with the current models thickness if Apple can make the insides more cutting edge.
 
Okay, here goes

15"
no discrete GPU option
4 USB-C ports
16gb ram, soldered on
256/512/1g SSDs as usual
new higher resolution movie quality screen

More dongles.
 
apolloa said:
You didn't read the comment did you? It relates to the article posted on this sites front page a few days ago about new thinner MacBook AIRS:

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/30/thinner-macbook-air-13-15-wwdc-2016/

As you can see the article was based on an economic news website report, it states very clearly the story is about the MacBook Air, yet we seem to have people on this forum in various threads claiming the story is in fact about the MacBook PRO with no proof what so ever to back that claim up and prove the news report was wrong.
So it's BS until we see proof that the article MacRumors linked to was wrong.

No offence but I'll take the word of a economic news website trusted by the MacRumors team, over what posters claim otherwise with no proof.
Click to expand...
I know. I called bull (in a slightly less aggressive way) on those rumours as well because yes, we might know Apple is making a 15" retina screen but we do not know what they are making it for. It might end up being Air. Or Pro. Or rMB Pro Plus Large. Saying "this rumour is incorrect, it's not Air but Pro" without backing up with anything more tangible than "somebody Very Reliable told me" is not exactly useful and believable. No need to get angry with me. I hold the same opinion as you do, just phrased it differently.

My source, which is the tip of my finger I just sucked on intently for five seconds (not literally), agrees that 13" and 15" sizes point at a Pro. But my source had no idea rMB was coming, it had no idea the new iMacs were coming and it had no idea Force Touch was coming, so let's treat my very reliable finger source with an enormous pinch of salt and wait for proof.

As for the economic websites I've been tracking all the Air related rumours because I was afraid I'd buy one and 15 days, one day after the return window here in the NL, Apple would put out a new one. Those websites all regurgitate the same rumour. "Christian Today wrote..." says Yibada. "Yibada said..." writes Latinos Post. Etc. Etc. Same analyst names repeated endlessly. I don't believe any of those reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolloa
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back