Not usually, though they still do it on occasion. Wasn’t the most recent Mac Pro announced at WWDC?
I think most were even the trashcan Mac Pro and the one before but is is usually just Pro products.
So colorful M2 Macbook Air or Mini would be unusual.
I see AR/VR and realityOS being announced, because they want developers to start writing apps for the glasses, and that will take a lot of lead time.
2 Likes
True and that headset if it is the price range some think it will be it is a “Pro” product.
Here’s another interesting tidbit fresh off the presses. The implications seem to be that the next gen M CPU’s are still at least a year away, and whatever we can expect until then is going to be utilizing the same existing generation of 5nm fabrication.
So a new Mac Book Air would mostly contain cosmetic upgrades coupled with maybe some very minor performance upgrades such as going to a 10-core GPU instead of 8.
That would leave the Mac Pro firmly planted in the M1 world as well, which would also imply only more cramming of CPU and GPU cores until the platform rather than an actual architecture upgrade.
As someone has already guessed, we’ll probably see some even more beefed up version of the M1 Ultra, although I have to wonder if there are architectural limits as to how many CPU/GPU compute units can be thrown about. Even if the new Mac Pro doubles the cores all around to 40/128, will the OS and apps actually take full advantage of the hardware, and are there limits to the scalability of such a system (it would appear so considering that many have reported that the performance between the Studio Max and Studio Ultra doesn’t scale 1:1).
2 Likes
What they should do and not sure if they will is upgrade the M1 cores to A15 ones, keep 5nm
put that as a Max and Ultra in the Pro, give it PCI express 5 and let people use Amd GPUs.
It does not have to be called M something could be W or D something for all I care 
The upgrade to the cores would give them a decent single, multi core, and integrated GPU improvement.
Whatever they do if they keep their “word” the Pro can not have an M1 as they said the Ultra was the last one.
I doubt they will however.
That’s what I’ve been expecting since the last big Apple event, as one of the speakers mentioned that there was one more M1 evolution to come: the Mac Pro. It will probably have a dual M1 Ultra or so, and they’ll probably name it “M1 Amazing”.
1 Like
4.266666 times the resolution actually.
1080p = 2 073 600 pixels
4K = 9 437 184 pixels
In Mac Os actually the same if it is 1080p HiDPI.
They render 4k then and scale it down 2x.
1 Like
No idea what you’re on about.
What I mean is in Mac Os it does not matter unless you tell it to show low resolution modes to run “real” 1080p.
“Looks like 1080p” (also known as high dpi mode) does make no difference in terms of the pixels the GPU need to render as it is downscales 4k to 1080p.
That is why there is no performance difference between the 2 resolutions as they are essentially the same just bigger UI.
That is if you buy / use a 4k screen like so many do these days.
1 Like
Understood.
Wasn’t talking about the OS or the UI even. 
However 4k is only 8 294 400 pixels which is exactly 4x 1080p.
Most PC screens that are 4k are 3840 x 2160.
No. 2160p is not 4K.
It’s 4k rounded up for marketing purposes.
1 Like
yeah 4k is good got marketing but 2160p would have been more accurate. In the movie industry it is actually accurate as it is 4x1024
3 Likes
Quad HD would’ve been the more accurate term, but that’s already been taken by 1440p, which is 1280 x 720 doubled on X and Y.
And damn them for doing it, because now we’re all gonna spend the rest of our lives arguing about what’s REAL 4k.
2 Likes
It’s selling a Ford Pinto and calling it a “Lamborghini”.
Well, if the Pinto has racing stripes on it…
1 Like
There is no argument. K resolutions are measured horizontally, p/progressive vertically. 4K is exactly 4096. Very simple really.