Macbook refresh rumours....?

..and as for the point about the Air I again call rubbish. A 1.86C2D chip + normal hard disk = slow. 1.86C2D + SSD type speeds = excellent performance making the unit far more viable.

I have both by the way, an SSD/1Tb i7 MBP and the 4Gb/128Gb 11.6" Air.
 
Nexus said:
Isn't that redundant?
Yes SSDs are quick for access, but the MAIN reason for an SSD in a laptop is that it ensures your computer is safe from getting bumped or dropped and thereby the data doesn't get corrupted.

Having a half and half means you don't actually take away that safety, so it seems totally pointless, especially when this is the main thing that people are looking for in SSDs and being safe with their laptops.
Click to expand...

Probably the last reason on my mind if I thought about getting an SSD was so that my data was safe incase I dropped my laptop :p

SSD is for speed and performance in my opinion. But yes, you have the additional security in not losing your data if dropped. However, I believe Macbooks have a safety device which stops the HDD when it senses high velocity (I.e. being dropped) - I'm fairly sure that's real and not a myth :p
 
Marky said:
However, I believe Macbooks have a safety device which stops the HDD when it senses high velocity (I.e. being dropped) - I'm fairly sure that's real and not a myth :p
Click to expand...

That is there on standard HDDs, if you upgrade it needs to have that in it or it won't work since it's on the HDD rather than Mac related.
 
Nexus: Yes, I do think speed was a major factor. Sure, in the case of the MBA weight and size and battery life would have been large factors. But "data corruption" is not the major reason. Most recent mechanical drives, or recent laptops, have sudden motion sensors that help prevent mechanical hard drive failures due to shock. Do you have anything related to "data protection" to actually prove what you are stating? Apple's website barely mentions reliability, putting the emphasis on speed, weight, battery life etc.
 
Getting away from moving parts is the reason I personally don't even consider that OptiBay thing. When the new Intel SDD comes out, I'll be glad to be able to move and bump my MBP without worrying about the presence or non-presence of the thunk parking sound.
 
Phrozenpenguin said:
Nexus: Yes, I do think speed was a major factor. Sure, in the case of the MBA weight and size and battery life would have been large factors. But "data corruption" is not the major reason. Most recent mechanical drives, or recent laptops, have sudden motion sensors that help prevent mechanical hard drive failures due to shock. Do you have anything related to "data protection" to actually prove what you are stating? Apple's website barely mentions reliability, putting the emphasis on speed, weight, battery life etc.
Click to expand...

Prove sources? What is this? GCSE History?

If you really must though... from the Apple website as to the explanation of what an SSD is:

MacBook Pro also offers an optional 128-GB, 256-GB or 512-GB solid-state drive, which has no moving parts for enhanced durability.
Click to expand...

Nothing about weight... nothing about speed.... all about the fact that it's more rugged.

As I stated in my last post (which seems to have gone over the heads of everyone who replied) is that you are power users, people who are looking to an SSD because it offers a speed advantage. To Joe Public and in the case of most Mac users in particular, the SSD in a laptop offers much better protection against loosing data, as well as saving weight, the fact that they are quick is another bonus.

As for fall sensors... yes they have them.
However a friend of mine dropped a 15'inch latest model MacBook Pro at work recently from about hand height and the drive still died and the machine had to go away to Apple for a few weeks.
 
It does make sense that is something isnt moving, its more robust... remember how much more robust an MP3 player was to a CD player? But I would agree that your average person would be wanting the SSD for the speed increase. I dont know many people who would even consider the fact that there is better protection against data corruption with them.
 
But I cant wait for thursday and to find out exactly what upgrades have been done... Its even distracting me quite nicely from the wait to find out about the job interviews :-)
 
Your average person probably doesn't have a firm grasp of what a disk drive even physically is, so I doubt they're thinking about either speed or reliability of the part when buying a computer.
 
Spyhop said:
Your average person probably doesn't have a firm grasp of what a disk drive even physically is, so I doubt they're thinking about either speed or reliability of the part when buying a computer.
Click to expand...

True, should have said you average tech aware person lol most average people would look at the price and ignore it :D
 
Answer from our IT director below on the SSDs we've deployed so far:

=========
People see how fast they are and want them, I don't think anyone has mentioned reliability. In fact looking at the calls we seem to have a slightly higher failure rate on them right now - backed up by the number of RMA events we have.

We only provision them for people who have a performance related justification or who are willing to pay for them out of their own budgets.
=========

Still, interesting idea. The thing is, who would pay 500 quid for 250Gb of RELIABLE storage (I.e. performance isn't a factor) as opposed to less than a ton for nearly four times that. I wouldn't.
 
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1101001

6a00d83451c7b569e2014e8642d5f9970d-pi


6a00d83451c7b569e2014e8642e589970d-pi


These are more realistic type specs, it's great to dream but in reality I didn't expect much else, a dedicated GPU would have been nice for the 13" though.
 
Nice to get a screen resolution bump on the 13" model, if true. Must resist the urge to replace my 2010 model. :(
 
Well it seems the photos are confirmed. I'm pretty disappointed they dropped dedicated gfx in place of an Intel 3000. I was literally ready to go out and get one (13") too.

My mate says that the Sandy Bridge Intel 3000 gfx can't even play proper 1080p and would die at blu-ray bitrates (eg MKV rips). Any input to that gents?
 
I guess the previous gen 13" is gonna keep some value then since IMO it has the better trade off when it comes to CPU/GFX than what the new gen brings.

Though if the matte screen and higher resoultion had been out on the previous 13" I might have got that instead of having to move to the 15" for those options...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Rainmaker said:
Well it seems the photos are confirmed. I'm pretty disappointed they dropped dedicated gfx in place of an Intel 3000. I was literally ready to go out and get one (13") too.

My mate says that the Sandy Bridge Intel 3000 gfx can't even play proper 1080p and would die at blu-ray bitrates (eg MKV rips). Any input to that gents?
Click to expand...

It does struggle, yes.
 
So is it just the specs that are changing rather than the design as well?

If that's so I'm definitely going for an Air

EDIT: Ignore read the through the rest of the thread and that has already been answered :o
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom