Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new MacBook

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: The new MacBook

#791

Post by andersonvieira »

akshatpradhan wrote: post #731
xlayn wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right in so many points: "Now, it's all about the style": that's right, it's an accessory, it's the long awaited iPad pro + keyboard, a glorified browser for your social network, check photos and look chick and trending. Why are we here? People have decided with their pockets, Apple is now the biggest company in the history of humanity. Don't get me wrong, Apple has done a lot of stuff right, the amount of design and…

>upgrade the machine in a pursuit of a more thinner machine Why is hardware upgradeability so important? What's the harm in just upgrading to the next device?

Doubling the RAM, replacing the disk, or buying new batteries are all much cheaper than acquiring a new laptop. Not everybody can treat a US$1299 device as disposable.

Besides, when I pay a premium price for a product I expect it to be useful for more than a couple of years.

Re: The new MacBook

#792

Post by mrinterweb »

serve_yay wrote: post #777
mrinterweb wrote: post #611

Macbook $1299 "Up to 1.3GHz dual-core Intel Core M processor" Macbook Air $899 "Up to 2.2GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor" Seems like a big step down in processing power at a higher price.

If all else were equal, sure. But it's not, starting with RAM and display and continuing on from there.

The retina screen is definitely better, but the Air can be upgraded to 8GB of RAM. The overall design of the new MacBook is revolutionary, but I can't believe they chose a CPU that is considerably less powerful and charge a premium price. If you can stand 1.5 lbs more, you can have a MacBook Pro for the same price which is considerably more powerful (also with a retina display).

Re: The new MacBook

#793

Post by kalleboo »

jjoonathan wrote: post #745
guelo wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two features that Windows has that Finder doesn't, and annoy me all the time in my workflow are: 1)Finder search refuses to show the path for the files except in the status bar. So you can't sort by path. 2) Finder won't tell you the resolution of images. In general, Explorer has way more columns in the Details view than Finder.

Agreed, those things suck. But as someone moving in the other direction (Finder -> Explorer), let me share a few of my Explorer grievances. Hopefully I'm missing a hidden option, but more cynically I expect that I'm in basically the same situation you are: stuck putting up with the persistent mediocrity in big-name graphical file navigators. 0) Good trackpad gestures. 1) Explorer can't sort alphabetically by name. WT…

I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe these are fixed but the two biggest annoyances for me were the lack of spring-loaded folders and the lack of Details view being able to show the size of directories. #1 on your list was also really annoying. I'm also a big fan of disclosure triangles which Windows doesn't do.

Re: The new MacBook

#794

Post by IkmoIkmo »

joesmo wrote: post #255

The specs list 8gb as the only option which is a bit of a disappointment. I was hoping they would offer 16gb and up the rMPBs to 32gb. Otherwise it looks fantastic. I can't wait to try it.

It has the worst CPU in the entire Mac lineup as far as I know, worse than the 11 inch MBA (which is such a confusing brand message. The MB Air is heavier and more noisy than the regular MB, but the MB isn't as powerful as the Air, bit strange right?)

In any case, it doesn't really scream '32gb' to me. i.e. what could you possibly need 32gb of ram for where you won't get bottle-necked to hell and back by a processor more often used in tablets and small 2-in-1s than laptops.

Let me know what you were planning to use the memory for, genuinely curious!

Re: The new MacBook

#795

Post by seanmcdirmid »

vile wrote: post #790
nkoren wrote: post #261

This is a beautiful machine. Once again, Apple excels at hardware. But what the living hell is going wrong with Apple's desktop software? OS X and Apple's applications suite have been getting steadily worse with every release. Look at the App store: the latest releases of OS X, iPhoto, iMovie, Pages, and Numbers are (in stark contrast to earlier versins) all rated at 2.5/5 stars, with the plurality being 1-star revie…

Form Over Function has been Apple's M.O. for a long, long time.

The "form over function" focus fallacy has been the Apple hater's M.O. for a long, long time.

Re: The new MacBook

#796

Post by kalleboo »

hrabago wrote: post #576
nsxwolf wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? I do most of my file management at the command line so I don't experience the pain of Finder very often, and I've generally been able to get Finder to do what I want without much fuss. Windows Explorer is, to me, a painful experience (but its 1980s DOS command line is so much worse) I've found the various…

I'm also curious - what about Windows Explorer makes it a painful experience? I learned how to use computers using DOS/Windows and it's what my idea of "correct" is. I'm curious about the other perspective.

I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe these are fixed now.

* Directories are sorted separately as if they're some mystical entity that can't be mixed with files. Makes navigating by typing a PITA.

* List views can't show or sort by the size of directories.

* No spring-loaded folders makes drag and drop a huge PITA.

* I find the disclosure triangles to view multiple subdirectories in a single window extremely useful http://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fi...

Just lots of little stuff like this.

Re: The new MacBook

#797

Post by IkmoIkmo »

sergiotapia wrote: post #60

I'm disappointed that this has only one port. I shouldn't have to choose between charging my laptop and using my USB port for something. Having said that, battery power is my number 1 priority when buying a laptop. My 2013 Macbook Air is great in this regard, it charges to full in 40 minutes and lasts for a long ass time. If this new model has even better battery tech, I'm all for it.

Battery is about 3h worse than the MBA 13'.

The port sucks but usually anything you want to plug in for longer periods of time are not a problem.

i.e., a USB stick? Take out charger, plug in, transfer files, put charger back in. No problem.

A mouse or keyboard or monitor? Well you're probably at home or work, so you buy a usb hub and stick it on your desk. Problem solved.

It sucks as the new MB is supposed to be the lightest most portable Mac in the lineup, dedicated hubs don't fit that story. And it's another $50-150 depending on if you need 1 or 2, or a fancy slick one.

Me I'm just gonna go with the refreshed 2015 MBA 13'. Better battery, 1 inch bigger screen, a lot cheaper with all the ports I need and hey, a better processor, too (1.6gh instead of 1.4 and HD 6000 instead of HD 5000 on the new 2015 version versus the older 2014 one).

Re: The new MacBook

#798

Post by IkmoIkmo »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #247
aikah wrote: post #215

Specs are interesting - 8gb ram,256 gb flash drive,1.1/2.4 turbo ghz, but 1300$ ? way too expensive,as it cost as much as the mb pro.A price under 1000$ would have made way more sense for a macbook. But I guess they have the data that show people are ready to pay that price for that item. Still , the pricing strategy between mb,mb air and mb pro is a bit confusing. -----

Recall that the MacBook Air originally cost way, way more than the MacBook Pro and was way, way less powerful. The price'll fall in two years or so.

True, but you had a radically improved form factor that was actually light and had a nice battery, while the performance was fine for the type of users it marketed to.

Meanwhile this thing takes away ports from your 13 inch MBA, takes away 1 inch of screen, takes away 3 hours of battery, takes away CPU performance, and it gives back? It's not like the MBA is heavy, thick or noisy. The retina screen is really nice but to me it doesn't really look like a good deal.

Not saying it won't be popular, I think it'll be very. Just don't see it being so interesting right now myself even if I had $100m to spend, there's some big tradeoffs with this new MB.

Strangest thing to me wasn't really the pricing fit, I think I would've done the same. But that we ended up with an 'Air' line that's heavier, bigger, thicker and noisier, and hell better performing, than the regular MB line. At least it's still got better battery life, well the 13' that is!

Looking forward to 2016's edition!

Re: The new MacBook

#799

Post by ayuvar »

dan1234 wrote: post #600
geophile wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about showing the actual filesystem? Instead of some restricted fictional view? For example, how the hell do you get to /tmp from the Finder? What's with the stupid column per directory level? This is an extremely bad use of display space. Haven't used Windows in a long time, and the equivalent in Linux is useless. (Or, more precisely, I don't use it.) But there are a number of irritations that have been there fo…

Cmd+Shift+G then type /tmp

In Open and Save dialogue boxes, you can also start typing with a / to open up a "go to path" dialogue box that lets you enter the unix path (with tab completion).

Re: The new MacBook

#800

Post by ImprovedSilence »

brianpgordon wrote: post #589
nsxwolf wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? I do most of my file management at the command line so I don't experience the pain of Finder very often, and I've generally been able to get Finder to do what I want without much fuss. Windows Explorer is, to me, a painful experience (but its 1980s DOS command line is so much worse) I've found the various…

I'm sure it's not the gold standard, but the best file manager I've ever used is Windows Explorer from the XP era, with the blue left pane replaced with the hierarchical filesystem view.

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more. I haven't used anything since that come close to working half as well as Explorer in XP...
Post reply on HN