The new MacBook • Hacker News Board

Re: The new MacBook

#801

Post by IkmoIkmo » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #739

nixgeek wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy as much as you can afford. If you expect to be using this laptop in 4-5 years time, the OSX and applications of that era will probably only perform well on >8GB RAM.

That used to be the theory - but four years now, and I've been fine with 8 GB, more than fine. I wouldn't recommend purchasing more right now - Unless you have special requirements (Running Oracle, or some intense image management/CAD system/Development platform) - Wait for the next round of upgrades in 5 years to see if more than 8 GB is needed - I'm guessing it probably won't be even then.

Thanks for the comment. Looking to buy 8gb soon, but it's disheartening to hear people call it sluggish or saying they're pushing 16gb let alone 8.

Hell I don't know how the people with 4 do it! In any case it's always useful to hear what people are actually doing. Can't imagine pushing 16gb when doing some basic front end work for example.

Re: The new MacBook

#802

Post by quadratini » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 3:59 AM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #331

james-skemp wrote: post #271

A search against the comments returns no results: 2304×1440 resolution and 16:10 aspect ratio? Showing a few co-workers and a quick suggests what I thought: a bit of amazement at 16:10. Does anyone have any insight into why they didn't go with a 16:9 ratio?

This site has a fairly good explanation of the benefits of 16:10 http://sixteenbyten.com/ 16:10 is better than 16:9 for anything but watching movies because the screen would be as wide anyway, so the 16:9 turns into a reduced height display. Furthermore watching movies with a little black stripes above and below the video is not so bad.

Achieving 16:10 by taking a standard 16:9 resolution and making it less wide rather than making it taller is not better.

Re: The new MacBook

#803

Post by Xoxox » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:00 AM UTC

ciupicri wrote: post #772

X-combinator wrote: post #348

More insight from FastCompany: http://www.fastcompany.com/3043324/tech-forecast/apple-intro...

What insight? I don't see anything new on that page.

Maybe he/she met is a promoter of FastCompany.

Re: The new MacBook

#804

Post by kalleboo » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

mslot wrote: post #452

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…

I just had one of my first exposures to OS X, helping a friend get rid of particularly nasty adware called Downlite. It was nastier than anything I've ever seen since Windows 98, and obviously I've never seen anything like it on Linux. Stunning, really. I'm still considering getting my first Macbook though after this announcement, so I do hope they'll build a better security model.

The only security model that can stop that kind of malware is to only allow software from the App Store (i.e., the iOS model).

Re: The new MacBook

#805

Post by IkmoIkmo » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:06 AM UTC

CHY872 wrote: post #678

trishume wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually looks to me like a huge win for Intel. A full fast Intel CPU, with no fan! The ability to be passively cooled was previously one of ARMs serious advantages.

No one actually cared that a laptop needed a fan, though. Apple could have put a fan in this and no one would have seen it as a huge deficiency.

Still it's massively useful. It means more space for the battery and it also indirectly means that if you need no fan, you probably generate very little heat, which means you have a crazy efficient CPU meaning even more battery.

Which is how they can do the same amount of battery life as the 11', despite having a bigger screen and a retina display.

And a big part of that equation is probably the fanless chip. But it's true it's not like users were complaining about e.g. the MBA lineup being so noisy.

Re: The new MacBook

#806

Post by mturmon » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:10 AM UTC

etrautmann wrote: post #572

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…

features from pathfinder come to mind: 1) somewhere to copy the file path without opening a "get info" dialog 2) tree-based view instead of the HORRIBLE thin columns that never auto-size to display filenames in a way you can view 3) ability to open command line from whatever folder you're in I could go on and on - these are all trivial to implement and they never ever happen. number 2 is one of the most irritating of…

Regarding (1):

When I ctrl-click (two-finger tap on a trackpad) on a file in Finder, I get a popup menu with several options, one of which is "copy". If I do this and paste in to a terminal window, I get the full pathname.

Alternatively, if I hilite the file in Finder, and press standard command-C (copy), then again the full pathname is pasted into the terminal window.

I thought this was widely known.

Re: The new MacBook

#807

Post by jfeser » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

babuskov wrote: post #655

mark_l_watson wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dual boot my old MacBook Air between OS X and Ubuntu - really nice because some software development tasks are just easier on Linux. (Off topic, but a good tip: buy a 64gig memory card and always keep it in the memory slot with a file system friendly to both Linux and OS X - there are cards designed to fit in flush on MacBook Airs. This lets my old 128gig MBA comfortably support dual boot, and the shared file syste…

I'm curious which tasks you find easier? I was a hardcode Linux user before I got Mac, so I had to try it. Four months later, and I never boot into Ubuntu anymore because everything works equal or better on OSX. Am I missing something?

OS X doesn't support Valgrind or GProf. That's enough for me to keep a Linux VM around. Additionally, I've found that software is often easier to build under Linux.

Re: The new MacBook

#808

Post by zer0defex » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

darcyparker wrote: post #559

SiVal wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can't really tell how well software is working when looking at the device edge-on, and that's apparently the way Apple looks at them most of the time. I mean this more metaphorically than literally, but I'm so tired of complaints about the ridiculously primitive Finder being met with, "the edge of the iMac now appears even thinner, now that we've repositioned formerly convenient connectors and such into a…

I agree - I'd love to see them re-think Finder. I just don't grok Finder... I do most of my work in the terminal and occasionally midnight commander or nerdtree inside vim. I tried free ones like muCommander but don't like the overhead of starting a java app... Similarly I don't want the overhead of running an X server so I can use an X based file manager. And I don't want to buy some 3rd party File Manager. We shoul…

Give Xtrafinder a look: https://www.trankynam.com/xtrafinder/

In my experience, trying to replace core OS apps with 3rd-party replacements just never quite works 100% in all situations. My preference is more toward apps that augment/improve the core OS apps. Xtrafinder is of this type, adding additional functionality to Finder, rather than being a wholly separate app like TotalFinder.

Re: The new MacBook

#809

Post by svachalek » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:16 AM UTC

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #798

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the naming points to the future. In a couple of years, the changes that seem daring and unforgivable in this version will seem bland and expected and there will be no reason to hold on to the current MBA line with its fans and obsolete connectors. Then it quietly disappears and we are back to two lines, the MB and MBP.

Re: The new MacBook

#810

Post by IkmoIkmo » Tue, Mar 10, 2015, 4:17 AM UTC

muyuu wrote: post #554

I think no magsafe and just 1 port is a bit excessive. Also, what's the niche for MBA now?

The MB is far from cheap, especially for such an underpowered device.

Comparing it to the 11' MBA, I see the MB as being better in virtually every way. But the MBA 11 is the cheapest in the macbook lineup, the price difference with the 12' is so big that its niche is essentially catering to a lower-end price segment.

For the 13' the price difference is still there, but not as big. But the 13' has 3 hours more battery, better ports and an extra 1 inch, while again being cheaper.

Add to that the fact that the MB is actually quite underpowered (1.1ghz, HD 5300), the MBA 1.6 Ghz, HD 6000 is a significant step up. Meaning for any dev work for which you don't need a MBP (probably the majority of web stuff both front/back end, and a fair bit of development outside of that), you're going to want to more powerful MBA.

The MB to me feels like a replacement for the 11' for rich peeps who want a slick device for school, entertainment, office work (e.g. PR, marketing, management), while the MBA 11' is in the cheap macbook niche and the MBA 13' is in the 'all-day aspiring workhorse that's not quite as powerful as a MBP, but very affordable' niche. The new MB is certainly not in the cheap niche, and it's not quite all-day or an aspiring workhorse.

Longer-term though, I have no clue. It's a confusing lineup for sure. MB is less powerful than the air. What? Air is thicker, bigger, noisier than the MB, what? The Air/Pro was a great lineup, the new MB is a weird one in the story.