|
Dan Hollis posted:So are any of you buying this new loving MacBook or not? Yes, when it gets at least two more USB 3.0 ports, which I'm sure will coincide nicely with my plans to upgrade from my 2014 rMBP a few years from now.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
coldplay chiptunes posted:The 13" rMBP has essentially the same real estate as the new MacBook. (2560x1600 vs 2304x1440). 4,096,000 vs 3,317,760 pixels? That's 700,000 pixels worth. Like 20%
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:4,096,000 vs 3,317,760 pixels? That's 700,000 pixels worth. Like 20% 20% in 2D space is visually not much. In 1D, its like a +4.5% increase in both dimensions. You almost have to look at resolution perception in log scale. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Does anyone know how popular the 2013 rMPB with 4GB memory was? It seems like it would be the model to lose the most value over time as the memory isn't upgradeable. Not sure how much they upsold this model in retail or tried to upsell the upgrade to 8GB+
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:20% in 2D space is visually not much. In 1D, its like a +4.5% increase in both dimensions. You almost have to look at resolution perception in log scale. 1440x900 = 1296000 1366x768 = 1049088 Also about 20%, and using one versus another is insanely annoying. I am assuming I would used the MacBook at a scaled 1200x800-ish, 1440x900 would likely be too many PPI for me to enjoy. That's the resolution I run on my 13.3, 1680x1050 is too small for me there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:20% in 2D space is visually not much. In 1D, its like a +4.5% increase in both dimensions. You almost have to look at resolution perception in log scale. The relationship is the opposite way round - It's actually exactly 19% fewer total pixels, and exactly 10% smaller in each dimension (an effective resolution of 1152x720 vs 1280x800). It's 36% fewer pixels and 20% smaller in each dimension than the 13" Air. I don't get why the 13" MBP still has a lower effective resolution than the 13" Air, nearly five years after the new model Air was released. I know the retina screens allow you to turn on scaling, but I've seen far too many reports of that bogging down performance that it's not a reasonable solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Froist posted:The relationship is the opposite way round - It's actually exactly 19% fewer total pixels, and exactly 10% smaller in each dimension (an effective resolution of 1152x720 vs 1280x800). It's 36% fewer pixels and 20% smaller in each dimension than the 13" Air. I'm running my 13" rMBP at 1440x900 and I can't say that I've noticed much of a performance difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Dan Hollis posted:So are any of you buying this new loving MacBook or not? Yes, when it goes on sale at B&H photo for $100 off and no taxes and free shipping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Froist posted:The relationship is the opposite way round - It's actually exactly 19% fewer total pixels, and exactly 10% smaller in each dimension (an effective resolution of 1152x720 vs 1280x800). It's 36% fewer pixels and 20% smaller in each dimension than the 13" Air. I've run my late 2013 rMBP generally at 1680x1050 since I got it at release and I've never noticed an issue. I also bump it up to 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 when I need to have a lot of windows open.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Froist posted:The relationship is the opposite way round - It's actually exactly 19% fewer total pixels, and exactly 10% smaller in each dimension (an effective resolution of 1152x720 vs 1280x800). It's 36% fewer pixels and 20% smaller in each dimension than the 13" Air. I run my rmbp at 1680 x 1050 and haven't had any issues with performance because of it. It's one big reasons why I got it instead of the Air.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Dan Hollis posted:So are any of you buying this new loving MacBook or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Froist posted:The relationship is the opposite way round - It's actually exactly 19% fewer total pixels, and exactly 10% smaller in each dimension (an effective resolution of 1152x720 vs 1280x800). It's 36% fewer pixels and 20% smaller in each dimension than the 13" Air. Whoops I think I did some maths wrong. I'm embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
kuskus posted:If it was $1K and had Thunderbolt. I wonder what the lack of an MDP shaped port means for their future standalone displays. Or if they'll just start recommending other displays period. Thunderbolt/MDP 3 is apparently set to come with a size reduction so if they wanted they could put it on a future generation. I doubt it though - it's more likely they'd add a USB-C port to a theoretical future Thunderbolt Display for charging and cursory (since the port doesn't have enough bandwidth to do whatever hypothetical 5K+ resolution it might have) external display purposes. Or more likely they deign ultra hd external displays a pro product and gear the consumer MacBook more for occasionally plugging into TVs, airplaying and the like. Or even more likely they don't come out with another standalone display which is a shame but something I could see them doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
I really hope they clarify wtf they plan to do with displays some at WWDC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Dan Hollis posted:So are any of you buying this new loving MacBook or not? I bought the base model MacBook in space gray. It is my favorite computer ever. The 11" Air had been my favorite since it came out in late 2010. Over the years, I've had three of them. (Typically upgrade every 2 years, but one was stolen.) My biggest complaint with the Air was the screen. The MacBook fixes that, while shedding some weight and looking cooler. The default resolution is 1280x800 effective (not 1152x720 with 2x pixels), giving it as much screen real estate as the 13" rMBP. Apple's display settings let you go to 1400x900, and things work fine at that resolution. Overall, performance is similar to my 2013 Air, which has a 1.3GHz Core i5 (Haswell). The MacBook is a little slower at sustained tasks such as compiling things, but the retina display more than makes up for it. The MacBook took 6:40 to compile io.js v1.7.1, compared to 5:30 on my Air. I notice some slight stuttering if I switch desktops while building projects in IntelliJ, similar to my Air's behavior when plugged into a cinema display. I really like the keyboard, and so does everyone who's tried it. It's sort of like the keys are made of mouse buttons: short travel, but sharp. After two days using the MacBook exclusively, other keyboards feel like mashing ground beef. Bottom line: It's beautiful, light, and fast enough for my needs. If you have the cash, I say go for it.  Modern Vagina fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Goddamn that looks sexy. Please, Apple, bring space grey to the retina line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Yeah if they made a 15" rMBP like that...all over it, even though I absolutely don't need one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Modern Vagina posted:The default resolution is 1280x800 effective (not 1152x720 with 2x pixels), giving it as much screen real estate as the 13" rMBP. Apple's display settings let you go to 1400x900, and things work fine at that resolution. Holy crap, thanks for posting this, it's far more meaningful than Geekbench scores. You've made me realise just how out of touch my 2010 Air is - I tried compiling io.js and it took 24 minutes dead. I'm sorely tempted now. I far prefer the Air form factor over the rMBP personally, my only worry would be that 6-12 months down the line they'll concede and release an updated version with a regular USB port or an SD slot. Edit: I know it's not really what the machine's made for, but it sounds like you might try it anyway. I'd be interested to know how well VMs run on it  Also thanks (non-sarcastically) to the people earlier telling me I'm wrong about the performance issues on the 13" rMBP. I guess you only hear the complaints in the internet echo chamber. Froist fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
what imac 5k configuration would you buy for audio production? i use both os x and windows. i run ableton in both, and logic in os x. each session runs 15-20 tracks, and each track requires 1-5 plugins. i'd like to spend < $2500, but i could splurge for a worthwhile upgrade. i have both a NAS and a external sound card. i am willing to buy a refurb.
abelwingnut fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:what imac 5k configuration would you buy for audio production? i use both os x and windows. i run ableton in both, and logic in os x. each session runs 15-20 tracks, and each track requires 1-5 plugins. i'd like to spend < $2500, but i could splurge for a worthwhile upgrade. i have both a NAS and a external sound card. i am willing to buy a refurb. In order of importance: Memory CPU Memory Memory Disk write speeds Memory I'd recommend the NAS as an archive for rendered projects. For projects you're actively working on: SSD. If you need external storage, I'd say Thunderbolt SSD. If you aren't doing this professionally, get the best Memory/CPU/SSD combo you can afford and use the NAS for archival. I definitely don't recommend working off of the NAS. USB3 is fine for platter drives (the drive is the bottleneck), but if you're going to use external SSD, Thunderbolt can offer up to a 20-30% increase in write performance. If you *are* doing this professionally, get a Mac Pro. I'd recommend (in this order): 32 GB of RAM (buy after-market RAM) 512GB or 1TB SSD 4.0 i7 (not as vital as memory or SSD)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
thanks. one thing, though: why do you rank CPU as the second most important factor, then rank the i7 as the third most important upgrade? is the jump from i5 to i7 negligible? and yea, i'm using the NAS as an archive. abelwingnut fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Froist posted:Holy crap, thanks for posting this, it's far more meaningful than Geekbench scores. You've made me realise just how out of touch my 2010 Air is - I tried compiling io.js and it took 24 minutes dead. Yeah, the performance jump between the 2010 and 2011 Airs was enormous- way bigger than any within the Air line since, unless you're thinking about battery life and GPU improvements (and even then, the leap from the 2010s to the 2011s in GPU strength was also by far the biggest). They switched from the old C2D/NVIDIA setup they'd used for years to i5/i7 after Intel got their poo poo together with integrated graphics. Switching to a new MacBook would be a huge upgrade for you, and the performance deficit compared to the rest of Apple's dual-core lineup really isn't anywhere near as aggressive as the original Air's was. Saying "the base model is at minimum on par with the high-end 2011 MBA" doesn't really do justice to what that actually means from a relative performance standpoint. The biggest advances in the last four years have been retina displays, battery life increases, and lightness and the new MacBook checks all of those boxes. It's a fine computer right now, though it'll only get better in the future. trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Froist posted:I'm sorely tempted now. I far prefer the Air form factor over the rMBP personally, my only worry would be that 6-12 months down the line they'll concede and release an updated version with a regular USB port or an SD slot. There's no way to fit a full-size USB port or SD slot on this thing. The only area available for ports is just behind the keyboard, and that's really small. They could only add a second USB-C port by ditching the headphone jack. I don't run VMs, but I can guess at performance: Mediocre while ruining battery life. Running VMs on this is like bringing a motorcycle to a demolition derby. The biggest reason I'd wait is Intel's next microarchitecture: Skylake. Broadwell isn't much more than a die-shrink of Haswell. Skylake should come out late this year. If it's as much as an improvement as Haswell was to Ivy Bridge, the next gen MacBook will have much better battery life and performance. Though I doubt we'll see any macs with those chips until 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Hot drat that space grey MacBook is sexy. If these things each $999 in a couple years, it may be a serious contender for my next laptop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Modern Vagina posted:I bought the base model MacBook in space gray. It is my favorite computer ever. That's it...I'm buying this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Modern Vagina posted:I bought the base model MacBook in space gray. It is my favorite computer ever. Hello internet brother. I have purchased one (space grey, base model) as well and concur with your brilliant assessment. This computer is simply stunning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I got a retina Macbook (1.1GHz/256GB) and it's really loving nice. But I'm probably going to return it. It's just not powerful enough, and I don't think the 1.3GHz upgrade would help significantly. For the price, it's absolutely not worth the performance. It struggles to handle Twitch streams, often has UI lag at scaled 1440x900 resolution when switching spaces with nothing but messaging apps and Sublime Text open, and.. I just can't do it.  In a year, when Core M processers are more powerful or when the rMBP line gets smaller/Space Greyer, maybe I'll look into it again. But I guess I'm sticking with my 2012 Air for another year. edit: maybe it's just non-Safari browsers running like poo poo. Is that a 'thing' with rMBPs too? Karsh fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:thanks. That i5 is pretty drat beastly already. The jump in processor on *that* particular computer is not going to make as huge an impact as making sure that your render pipline is as fast as it can be. Don't get me wrong, you'll still see an improvement, but the big jumps in performance are going to come from maxing out your memory and going with an SSD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Karsh posted:UI lag at scaled 1440x900 resolution when switching spaces People say that and I've always wondered if that's just because of how the CPU and GPU go idle and clock down to like 100 mhz when not being used. Then suddenly you go to switch spaces or show all windows and there's actual work to do and it takes a few milliseconds for the CPU/GPU to get back up to speed. I don't think it's representative of the maximum performance of a system or effects of workload, it's a result of the computer trying to save power when not in use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Dan Hollis posted:That's it...I'm buying this poo poo. I keep coming back to stare at it. Makes me wanna do some executive-type poo poo. Modern Vagina, how many important top management meetings have you suddenly found yourself in since purchasing this MacBook? Do you think you made the right decisions for the companies who mistook you for an executive?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:People say that and I've always wondered if that's just because of how the CPU and GPU go idle and clock down to like 100 mhz when not being used. Then suddenly you go to switch spaces or show all windows and there's actual work to do and it takes a few milliseconds for the CPU/GPU to get back up to speed. I don't think it's representative of the maximum performance of a system or effects of workload, it's a result of the computer trying to save power when not in use. The power management hardware can generally clock up the CPU and GPU in less than a millisecond. The issue that most likely causes this is the effects of saving memory and VRAM when it's not in use - the OS doesn't keep all the graphics for all those windows hot in the GPU when you're not actually looking at them, and it sometimes takes a bit of time to clean out cached data from the RAM and GPU, fill it with rendered app window, and move that onto the screen. Abel Wingnut posted:what imac 5k configuration would you buy for audio production? i use both os x and windows. i run ableton in both, and logic in os x. each session runs 15-20 tracks, and each track requires 1-5 plugins. i'd like to spend < $2500, but i could splurge for a worthwhile upgrade. i have both a NAS and a external sound card. i am willing to buy a refurb. CPU is pretty valuable here if you need lots of tracks - the better of a CPU you have, the more tracks you can fit more comfortably. The i7's support for hyperthreading helps a ton here. You can see the difference between the i5 and the i7 here - it can run almost 2X the number of tracks in Logic: http://barefeats.com/imac5k6.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
chimz posted:The power management hardware can generally clock up the CPU and GPU in less than a millisecond. The issue that most likely causes this is the effects of saving memory and VRAM when it's not in use - the OS doesn't keep all the graphics for all those windows hot in the GPU when you're not actually looking at them, and it sometimes takes a bit of time to clean out cached data from the RAM and GPU, fill it with rendered app window, and move that onto the screen. True, but doesn't it take the OS a few timeslices to realize that running scheduling entries are starting to get backed up? If it scaled the frequency back up as soon as it had a runable entry it would be scaling up and down constantly. So some amount of timeslices have to pass before the OS decides it's time to ramp up the clock frequency, and then how much? Immediately to max? Half way? That's why I figured a few milliseconds, enough time for the OS to realize there's a real workload and it's not going away any time soon (in scheduler entry type time scale) more than the time it takes the actual hardware to change frequencies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:Modern Vagina, how many important top management meetings have you suddenly found yourself in since purchasing this MacBook? Do you think you made the right decisions for the companies who mistook you for an executive? So far, zero. But I was running to cross a crosswalk in time and someone yelled, "Yo! You look like you stole that iPad!" I'll take what I can get. I wonder if the disparity in people's evaluation of performance depends on whether they migrated their settings from another mac. I set up everything from scratch each time I get a new computer. It helps me get rid of software I don't need. Modern Vagina fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
So I am sort of considering upgrading my Wifi in my '11 27" iMac to support BT4/AC. might as well chuck in an SSD at the same time, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Any time you have an opportunity to install a SSD, install a SSD
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Karsh posted:has UI lag at scaled 1440x900 resolution when switching spaces with nothing but messaging apps and Sublime Text open My 2013 13" rmbp also has UI lag also when using the HiDPI resolutions. Even though it was just a visual thing it still bugged me. The fix for me was to download SwitchResX and run the non-HiDPI resolutions. Currently I'm running at regular 1680x1050 and my eyes can't really see the difference between this and the HiDPI version. Plus, no lag!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Kingnothing posted:Possibly power nap? Turns on to check for updates, time machine backups, etc. The setting for this is in energy saver preferences. Time machine's disabled, energy saver "put harddisk to sleep when possible"... wake for network access is on, but pretty sure I've disabled that before and it's stayed the same problem, plus everything is disabled in my sharing control panel and it's not a media server or anything. Just unchecked it again in case. Is powernap a thing that affects iMacs? I'm getting sick of this thing waking up and spinning the drive up in the middle of the night. I even disabeled spotlight indexing in the hopes that maybe that was the problem (nope). I'd upgrade it to an SSD if I wasn't going to get rid of it in 4 months anyway. The computer waking up is kind of annoying, but the real issue is the read/write sounds that the harddrive makes which are inconsistent. I can sleep fine with a steady fan noise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Modern Vagina posted:I bought the base model MacBook in space gray. It is my favorite computer ever. drat, that looks sweet. I bought one in the same color, but still waiting 2-3 weeks for it to ship out. Guess that's what I get for going out to breakfast instead of waiting with my credit card at the ready at 9am (my time) when it went on sale. I didn't think 9:45 would be so bad, but it's been a few years since I've been impatient enough to not just wait until they're available in stores (I've always bought my iPhones a couple months after release by just walking into the store).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
So apparently those WD Black2 drives with what's essentially a SSD and HDD stuck together now has Mac support: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/UM/ENG/2779-800001.pdf What I don't get is how they are doing it. Does it still require SATA port multiplication? Because I don't think any Intel sata controllers support that. Can't tell from their doc is they are using some OS X driver to get it to work or if its a 'driverless' setup. If it's not port multiplication and driverless, how do they get OS X to see 2 drives over a single sata connection? Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:People say that and I've always wondered if that's just because of how the CPU and GPU go idle and clock down to like 100 mhz when not being used. Then suddenly you go to switch spaces or show all windows and there's actual work to do and it takes a few milliseconds for the CPU/GPU to get back up to speed. I don't think it's representative of the maximum performance of a system or effects of workload, it's a result of the computer trying to save power when not in use. Whatever it is, seems like it's specific to the Intel GPU drivers. I've noticed that on my dual graphics rMBP hitting the mission control key after the machine has been mostly idle for a while results in some animation lag if the Intel GPU is active, but with Nvidia graphics there's never any lag. (And with the Intel GPU the lag is one-time; if you go into mission control a few more times it's smooth. Definitely some kind of warmup issue.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:22
|
|
