Seriously? Couldn't they have put _two_ ports in it so you can plug something in while it's being charged without lugging around a usb hub?
I guess their idea is that you charge it overnight and don't have to charge it during the day.
The new MacBook
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: The new MacBook
#992This 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…
Ratings can't really be trusted there.
I don't know, I've been running Yosemite just fine since beta. Some issues here and there that have been slowly improving.
It's still UNIX, it still has a great UI. I don't think we always remember how good we have it.
Re: The new MacBook
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only experience I have with OSX is toying around with a little Mac Mini. What is special about Apple's touchpad? I'm honestly curious.
Near perfect gestures integration, and the touchpad behaves very consistently and reliably system wide (osx has system wide smooth/responsive scrolling for example), and the touchpad hardware itself is just very nice and pleasant to use. Windows touchpads are usually all over the place in my experience, mostly due to drivers/windows' poor touchpad support. super basic stuff like 2 finger scrolling is often very janky…
If one has never used computers like my Lenovo Ideapad y510p ore previously my Asus laptop and had to wrestle with the Synaptic/eLan drivers but rather only ever used a Macbook their entire lives, they would not realize how terribly bad touchpads can be.
Re: The new MacBook
#994Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before I got a Mac my first child knocked my old laptop over and the power cord ripped the power socket apart. I will not buy anything other than a child proof power connector. Sadly, nobody makes a serviceable laptop with one with easily replaceable/upgradeable battery, RAM and HDD anymore so I am using my old MBP until it dies. I understand there is a market for these paper thin, disposable machines but Apple has l…
Seems that an aftermarket adapter incorporating a MagSafe-like feature should work: === ==E |magsafe| =E laptop You're moving the disconnect point outside the laptop, but (in theory) could provide the capability to _any_ device.
That's a good idea but I think MagSafe is patent protected so it'd have to be 1st party.
Re: The new MacBook
#995Looks like apple has finally introduced a netbook or iPad with a keyboard. Frankly, I'm disappointed with this macbook as I was expecting a full scale retina macbook air. After seeing the Dell XPS 13, I was hoping apple will take the retinafy the regular air. Ah well, the wait continues. Let's see -- 1. Resolution of 2304x1440 which means at Retina this is 1152x720!. This is worse than the 11 inch air, much less the…
this is perhaps obvious if you own a retina screen, but why do you need to scale it? why not just use the native at 2304×1440?
Re: The new MacBook
#996Earlier 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'm also looking forward to 2016's. I wonder if they might be able to make the trackpad thinner, so they have space to fit batteries under it (and thus improve the battery life).
Re: The new MacBook
#997Wow, so a $1300 laptop with no USB ports? Why does Apple keep making their new products worse -- less features but subjectively more "beautiful" -- than the ones before? Somewhere in the attic at One Infinite Loop, is there a painting of Steve Jobs that slowly gets younger as time passes?
I like the Dorian Gray reference.
Re: The new MacBook
#998Re: The new MacBook
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's slowly becoming a fashion company. I'm being only slightly facetious. I'm not an Apple hater despite saying that. If anything, I usually prefer Apple products over the competitors, and I've used iMacs or Macbooks for years now. But, between the $17k gold Apple Watch and the recent updates to the Macbook Air and iPad lines, it seems clear to me where Tim Cook is taking the company. And I don't think Apple as a…
Ditto, pretty much. Though I think it's not so much "fashion," with all of it's pure aesthetic implications, as I think it is an emphasis on visual polish, visceral satisfaction, vertical integration, and novelty - all at the expense of many things "power user" oriented. It's a path to expansion, buy-in, and pundit-fodder, and apparently a tremendous market cap. I've known for about 5 years that I have some variety o…
Careful, there is a big undercurrent in the Linux ecosystem towards creating a OSX carbon copy...
Re: The new MacBook
#1000Earlier quoted context omitted.
16:10 is a much better ratio for working compared to 16:9.
Going from 1920x1080 (16:9) to 1920x1200 (16:10) is better because you get more vertical estate. But you seem to suggest that 1728x1080 (16:10) is also better. Aspect ratio does not automatically make a resolution better lol.
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution. 16:10 is much closer to the golden ratio, which allows to split the screen vertically in half and give two vertical screens with roughly the same ratio again.
16:10 has proportionally more vertical screen space, which is much more important given that most our documents/sources are oriented vertically. Not to mention wasted vertical space that cannot be removed (toolbars/menus/etc). Having more horizontal space is useless if you're mostly working/viewing with a single document at a time. If you physically rotate the screen, the 10:16 ratio is again better at fitting a piece of a A4 paper.
The 16:9 ratio was driven by consumer demand, but no professional user I ever met liked it for working. There's a lot of unused horizontal space in just about every scenario. I personally stuck on 4:3 as long as I could, then switched to 16:10. Admittedly, 16:10 is "good enough" for me that I wouldn't necessarily go back to 4:3 now.