Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
Thoughts on the 2015 Gold MacBook?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="chas_m" data-source="post: 1690733"><p>Let me address my impressions first, then I'll get to the myths about the speed and port thing. Lots of misinformation/bias on the latter.</p><p></p><p>When I first heard and saw pictures of the gold MacBook, I thought HIDEOUS. I really did. BARF. I've never been much of a fan of gold coloured things anyway, but I could at least see the point of the real-gold Apple Watches. Fake gold -- BLEAH, says me.</p><p></p><p>But I have felt the same way about a few other Mac things, most notably the White G3 iMac which I loathed until I saw one in person, and later owned one. I was wrong, simply put, it was a great little machine for its day. So I thought to myself "best wait to see it in person before judging."</p><p></p><p>Eventually, of course, I did. I was really very surprised by how much I liked the look, and of course the weight is just ridiculous. I still prefer the Space Black model over the gold, but I no longer have any prejudice on the gold MacBook if someone were to buy me one. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>As for the speed/port thing about the MacBook, most of the "complaints" are from people who the machine isn't designed for/have never used it. I think the Retina MacBook is aimed at what I'll call "typical" or "non-power nerd" type consumers, some might refer to them as "light duty" because Facebook/Instagram/Messages/web stuff is the bulk of what they do with the machine, but you know you don't need a tank to pull any of that off.</p><p></p><p>For those people, this machine is fantastic. Yes, it has a slower processor than other models, but it also has a 2X faster SSD storage system and a strong video chipset, so I very VERY much doubt anyone not running "pro apps" would notice any speed difference. It can handle the things most consumers want: it does video fine, it can edit movies pulled off iPhones, and yes -- it can run Photoshop (not amazingly great, but surprisingly well for its specs). It loads websites extremely fast, and can handle all but the top-end gamers' "entertainment" needs. It's definitely *not* for power users, but it is actually more than enough machine for "typical" users in 2015.</p><p></p><p>As for the port, YES it would have been nice to have two of them, and for them to be real, full 3.1 spec rather than "faux-3.1 3.0" as it is. But most people REALLY miss the point about the number of ports -- this is a machine that is *very specifically* designed to last *more than all day* for "typical" users, so there's no need to drag around a charger all the time (which I would **love** to be free of on my MacBook Pro, and that battery lasts me 6-8 hours depending on brightness). Once you understand that, you realize that when this machine is "out and about" (which it is intended to be most of the time) that it essentially has the same number of ports the iPhone does, because its meant to work like that -- you charge it while you're sleeping, and it works fine the rest of the time. Suddenly the one port doesn't seem like too few most of the time (every single MacBook Air I **ever** see at coffeeshops and other social places has, AT MOST, a charger on it, and that's it).</p><p></p><p>Yes there's some awkwardness if you have a USB-A thing you want to bring with you that will need an adapter. Yes, it makes it difficult to "borrow" a charger if you should run out of battery. But that is perfectly normal when ports change -- this is where we were when the first iMac came out. Over time, as we now know, Intel plans to make USB 3.1 (full) and Thunderbolt 3 work through the same USB-C port: this means that over time, everything that plugs in will need to change or have an adapter to work. Hello, FireWire 400/800, hello USB 3.0 cables, hello Lightning cables vs 30-pin, hello miniDVI to MiniDisplayPort adapters -- been there, done that. It's not capricious: it's that the end goal is judged to be worth the frustration. We'll live.</p><p></p><p>So even I -- a power user -- can see some value in owning a MacBook. For me, it would be a the portable component of a new home workflow that revolved around a 27-inch iMac. For me, a Retina MacBook would be a preferable "out of the house/away from home for a while" machine to my current "home and away" single MacBook Pro, which performs both jobs (and before anyone asks, I'd use Chronosync to keep the two machines in sync). Either a Retina MacBook or an iPad Pro (another machine I wouldn't have even considered six months ago).</p><p></p><p>I will probably pick up a Retina MacBook for my wife at some point (not this season, but maybe next year) as a replacement for her 2010 MBA that she adores and uses constantly, with only 128GB of storage on it (she is a very social media person, and apart from photos stores almost nothing on her machine -- and she's on her iPhone more than she is the computer, so I see her as a very normal "typical" user who's not a senior). I'm giving it time, but I'm interested to see how the MacBook line and the iPad Pro develop, and maybe one day I'll have that iMac-at-home workflow and a lightweight machine of some sort for anything not done at home. We'll see.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, bottom line/tldr version is: I think there's a lot of unfair butthurt from Mac veterans about the Retina MacBook because it doesn't cater to them, it caters to iPhone users who want something with a full-size keyboard and OS X on it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="chas_m, post: 1690733"] Let me address my impressions first, then I'll get to the myths about the speed and port thing. Lots of misinformation/bias on the latter. When I first heard and saw pictures of the gold MacBook, I thought HIDEOUS. I really did. BARF. I've never been much of a fan of gold coloured things anyway, but I could at least see the point of the real-gold Apple Watches. Fake gold -- BLEAH, says me. But I have felt the same way about a few other Mac things, most notably the White G3 iMac which I loathed until I saw one in person, and later owned one. I was wrong, simply put, it was a great little machine for its day. So I thought to myself "best wait to see it in person before judging." Eventually, of course, I did. I was really very surprised by how much I liked the look, and of course the weight is just ridiculous. I still prefer the Space Black model over the gold, but I no longer have any prejudice on the gold MacBook if someone were to buy me one. :) As for the speed/port thing about the MacBook, most of the "complaints" are from people who the machine isn't designed for/have never used it. I think the Retina MacBook is aimed at what I'll call "typical" or "non-power nerd" type consumers, some might refer to them as "light duty" because Facebook/Instagram/Messages/web stuff is the bulk of what they do with the machine, but you know you don't need a tank to pull any of that off. For those people, this machine is fantastic. Yes, it has a slower processor than other models, but it also has a 2X faster SSD storage system and a strong video chipset, so I very VERY much doubt anyone not running "pro apps" would notice any speed difference. It can handle the things most consumers want: it does video fine, it can edit movies pulled off iPhones, and yes -- it can run Photoshop (not amazingly great, but surprisingly well for its specs). It loads websites extremely fast, and can handle all but the top-end gamers' "entertainment" needs. It's definitely *not* for power users, but it is actually more than enough machine for "typical" users in 2015. As for the port, YES it would have been nice to have two of them, and for them to be real, full 3.1 spec rather than "faux-3.1 3.0" as it is. But most people REALLY miss the point about the number of ports -- this is a machine that is *very specifically* designed to last *more than all day* for "typical" users, so there's no need to drag around a charger all the time (which I would **love** to be free of on my MacBook Pro, and that battery lasts me 6-8 hours depending on brightness). Once you understand that, you realize that when this machine is "out and about" (which it is intended to be most of the time) that it essentially has the same number of ports the iPhone does, because its meant to work like that -- you charge it while you're sleeping, and it works fine the rest of the time. Suddenly the one port doesn't seem like too few most of the time (every single MacBook Air I **ever** see at coffeeshops and other social places has, AT MOST, a charger on it, and that's it). Yes there's some awkwardness if you have a USB-A thing you want to bring with you that will need an adapter. Yes, it makes it difficult to "borrow" a charger if you should run out of battery. But that is perfectly normal when ports change -- this is where we were when the first iMac came out. Over time, as we now know, Intel plans to make USB 3.1 (full) and Thunderbolt 3 work through the same USB-C port: this means that over time, everything that plugs in will need to change or have an adapter to work. Hello, FireWire 400/800, hello USB 3.0 cables, hello Lightning cables vs 30-pin, hello miniDVI to MiniDisplayPort adapters -- been there, done that. It's not capricious: it's that the end goal is judged to be worth the frustration. We'll live. So even I -- a power user -- can see some value in owning a MacBook. For me, it would be a the portable component of a new home workflow that revolved around a 27-inch iMac. For me, a Retina MacBook would be a preferable "out of the house/away from home for a while" machine to my current "home and away" single MacBook Pro, which performs both jobs (and before anyone asks, I'd use Chronosync to keep the two machines in sync). Either a Retina MacBook or an iPad Pro (another machine I wouldn't have even considered six months ago). I will probably pick up a Retina MacBook for my wife at some point (not this season, but maybe next year) as a replacement for her 2010 MBA that she adores and uses constantly, with only 128GB of storage on it (she is a very social media person, and apart from photos stores almost nothing on her machine -- and she's on her iPhone more than she is the computer, so I see her as a very normal "typical" user who's not a senior). I'm giving it time, but I'm interested to see how the MacBook line and the iPad Pro develop, and maybe one day I'll have that iMac-at-home workflow and a lightweight machine of some sort for anything not done at home. We'll see. Anyway, bottom line/tldr version is: I think there's a lot of unfair butthurt from Mac veterans about the Retina MacBook because it doesn't cater to them, it caters to iPhone users who want something with a full-size keyboard and OS X on it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
Thoughts on the 2015 Gold MacBook?
Top