You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
I am a pro user since 2000 and i believe Apple's story became unbelievably self centered, egostistical, no longer "havin a dream" to create greatest products but continuing the milking process of people who wants to show off. Well, i can not believe that i say this (even to my self) but with this non-professional attitude, i am out of Apple's citizenship. What is this? Compare Dell or HP to a Mac Pro? I mean is this a joke? Compare Alienware to Mac Book Pro?
I am missing the days we had Final Cut and FC Library, Shake.. even QT Pro, even Pages 9. Now we have bunch of non sense crApple. They are supposedly updated but for any pro user they were seriously downgraded. And the sad part is Adobe CS not great either for Professional updates. What, microsoft? God no. Google? Nope, definitely not. God help us.
And we pros loved Apple, we made Apple what it is. Now, Apple lost us!
Misdirected anger much? First, del and Hp are not any faster then the mac pro at all. The race for speed ended in 2012, when cpuS could no longer get any faster, and only chipset upgrades were remaining.
And why are you compering a gaming laptop to a desktop replacement?
Misinformed much
I just don't get why some people feel so compelled to tell other people what they need. Because you don't need CPU power doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't need it. I've been on Mac since 84, I have built a fairly large business doing 3D renderings on Macs and in 30 years I have never seen the Mac line up in such despair. The term bleeding Pro mac users is an excellent description as I see it happening all around me.
First off, No, the speed race did not end in 2012. For Macs, it ended in 2010. the 12 core macs we purchased then are what we still use today. The 2013 MacPros were stripped of a whole processor so all they accomplished for people that needed CPU is to double the price and keep the performance the same at 12 cores. We bought one machine just to test it out and we were disappointed so we have waited for years with cash in hand. Now here we are 6 years later with the same performance level. So I can completely understand the frustration levels of pro users because I myself am beyond frustrated.
Where you are wrong is the race only stopped for Macs. The Xeon was upgraded twice over the past 3 years. Apple is stuck on providing generation 2 cpus that maxed out at 12 cores while HP and Dell are selling fourth generation dual 22 cores (44 cores total). Apple is not competing on price, they are not competing on performance, they are not competing on upgradability. Who in the world would buy a Mac Pro. I think Tim Cook is putting all his eggs in the phone basket and has no understanding of the Apple culture. Once he bleeds away all his loyal users all that will be left is another phone company. Just like the infallible Motorola and Nokia.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
Lol,there is no pointing arguing with a guy who has made up his miding spending more. Display for Dell is IPS FHD and not just HD. Have you seen $799 link I gave you? Tell me similarly configured Mac and then come back to me.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
Lol,there is no pointing arguing with a guy who has made up his miding spending more. Display for Dell is IPS FHD and not just HD. Have you seen $799 link I gave you? Tell me similarly configured Mac and then come back to me.
Display is FHD.... do you know what FHD is? it is "Full HD" i.e. 1080p not 720p (I had that back in my last Dell laptop more than a decade ago). The display you are screaming about is old old old technology....
It's really upsetting that Apple is not being ahead of its game in processor speed. I love Macs and I will NOT go Windows for personal use. I love Apple designs - minimal, clean, and consistent. I have looked at competition and find them poorly designed and "tacky" despite having better performance. It's still Windows - a horrible operating system (I use it everyday).
If Apple doesn't want to up its game on laptops and desktops then it should start licensing its software to PC companies.
CPU speed doesn't matter nowadays.
Sure... CPU speed doesn't matter for the average user doing standard office tasks. I think we're reached the point where any CPU made in the last 5 years will be fast enough for normal stuff.
But don't tell me it doesn't matter for rendering/exporting video if one CPU takes 30 minutes and another can do the same job in 15 minutes.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
Lol,there is no pointing arguing with a guy who has made up his miding spending more. Display for Dell is IPS FHD and not just HD. Have you seen $799 link I gave you? Tell me similarly configured Mac and then come back to me.
Display is FHD.... do you know what FHD is? it is "Full HD" i.e. 1080p not 720p (I had that back in my last Dell laptop more than a decade ago). The display you are screaming about is old old old technology....
Google the difference between IPS FHD and FHD and then argue more. Here from Dell site saying it is IPS FHD. 13.3-inch FHD (1920 x 1080) Truelife LED-Backlit Touch Display with Wide Viewing Angle (IPS)
All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel. Intel's schedule and long-term goals are independent of Apple's. No more exclusivity deals. In the long term, Apple could follow several radically different processor strategies:
1. Stay with Intel and suffer
No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim any performance advantage over Wintel PCs. Lower volumes than most other computer makers means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.
Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will. Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple. The result? A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006). Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components, or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example). Not going to happen with Intel, except for a possible Ax chip deal.
Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.
2. Transition Macs to Ax RISC architecture
I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X. And that all Apple devices would run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture. Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago. Seamlessly.
But no. Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea. Sure, it could be done. Apple has made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades. 68K -> RISC. RISC -> x86. All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.
Still a terrible idea. Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone. Worst of both worlds. Do I mouse-click or tap? What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)? iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement. OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are, plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake. Try to mash up iOS and macOS and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.
Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to the iOS / macOS hybrid. A lot of work for such a small market. It took a decade for Adobe to migrate their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X. They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS. (And yeah. Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)
Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base. Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows. Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.
3. Buy AMD and make custom x86-based CPUs
Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect. Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year. So could they do the same with the AMD x86 CPUs? Yes and no.
First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion. Not cheap, but not a stretch at all. Apple could easily buy AMD. Second, Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS. Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices. (And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)
But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.) Cut out too many of the bizarre, legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more. Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based, but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not. We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that Intel's compilers provide. So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture. The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.
Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost. Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users). Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.
So yeah. Maybe the current Intel relationship is the least terrible option. Let the legacy Mac market taper off naturally instead of trying to inject ARM technology into it. Don't bother trying to lower component costs by buying ARM and making custom chips for Mac.
You're kidding right? Browsing on Dell's site I see a Lattitude with 8Gb of RAM and 128 Gb of SSD for $1,619.00.
Three weeks ago I purchased Dell New Open Box 2 in 1 with skylake processor, i5 8GB RAM(Upgradable to 16 GB), and 255GB SSD(Upgradable) with full touch screen,13" and( 15" IPS display), with 360 table mode and Aluminium Chassis like Macbook Pro for $435 with full one year warranty. Brand new was $500. Same deal with same configuration was there for HP Spectre and Lenovo 710 on alternate weeks for $500. Guess who is savvy shopper and who is blind trust in one brand shopper.
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
I am hoping you are smart enough to search a deal for it and not always give out max price what it shows, unless you are in habit of paying asking price. As said just small search will give you results for all three models in last 4 weeks only and it keeps coming every other week. My model was Dell I7368. Here is one one example for $799 http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
OK, so you wanted to cheap out.... rather low resolution screen (HD not retina), old low level Intel HD Graphics 520 rather than Intel Iris level. If they are hitting those low points, but the deal breaker for me is the extremely slow SSD that they put in it (and even then a very small one to start with).
Lol,there is no pointing arguing with a guy who has made up his miding spending more. Display for Dell is IPS FHD and not just HD. Have you seen $799 link I gave you? Tell me similarly configured Mac and then come back to me.
Display is FHD.... do you know what FHD is? it is "Full HD" i.e. 1080p not 720p (I had that back in my last Dell laptop more than a decade ago). The display you are screaming about is old old old technology....
Google the difference between IPS FHD and FHD and then argue more. Here from Dell site saying it is IPS FHD. 13.3-inch FHD (1920 x 1080) Truelife LED-Backlit Touch Display with Wide Viewing Angle (IPS)
They are two different acronyms for two different factors within the monitor.
IPS is the display technology and it is the more common display technology in "affordable" displays. Most laptop displays are going to use IPS (unless they are OLED). Typically better colour than the older technology TN but slower.
The other acronym is the resolution. FHD is "Full HD" which is the resolution that you have mentioned (1080p), which is HALF the resolution of the retina screens.
My Dell laptop from more than a decade ago was FHD resolution....
So -- yay! you have a laptop with half the resolution.... big advancement
All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel. Intel's schedule and long-term goals are independent of Apple's. No more exclusivity deals. In the long term, Apple could follow several radically different processor strategies:
1. Stay with Intel and suffer
No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim any performance advantage over Wintel PCs. Lower volumes than most other computer makers means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.
Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will. Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple. The result? A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006). Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components, or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example). Not going to happen with Intel, except for a possible Ax chip deal.
Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.
2. Transition Macs to Ax RISC architecture
I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X. And that all Apple devices would run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture. Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago. Seamlessly.
But no. Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea. Sure, it could be done. Apple has made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades. 68K -> RISC. RISC -> x86. All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.
Still a terrible idea. Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone. Worst of both worlds. Do I mouse-click or tap? What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)? iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement. OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are, plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake. Try to mash up iOS and macOS and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.
Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to the iOS / macOS hybrid. A lot of work for such a small market. It took a decade for Adobe to migrate their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X. They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS. (And yeah. Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)
Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base. Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows. Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.
3. Buy AMD and make custom x86-based CPUs
Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect. Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year. So could they do the same with the AMD x86 CPUs? Yes and no.
First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion. Not cheap, but not a stretch at all. Apple could easily buy AMD. Second, Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS. Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices. (And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)
But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.) Cut out too many of the bizarre, legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more. Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based, but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not. We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that Intel's compilers provide. So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture. The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.
Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost. Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users). Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.
So yeah. Maybe the current Intel relationship is the least terrible option. Let the legacy Mac market taper off naturally instead of trying to inject ARM technology into it. Don't bother trying to lower component costs by buying ARM and making custom chips for Mac.
Apple acquiring AMD would terminate the cross-license agreement with Intel.... meaning the x86 license would cease to exist.
It is the reason why no-one has really made a run at acquiring AMD since you would be left with the GPUs only.
All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel.
I disagree.
Apple is choosing to neglect the Mac. period.
Intel has upgraded the Xeon E5 chip found in the MacPro twice. With Kaby lake released, the current MacBook Pro is again 2 generations back. If we want to blame intel, All of Apples machine should be at least running the latest processors that intel provide.
I don't have a problem with a lack of upgrades if the whole industry has the same issue. I blame Apple because their competition is selling systems today with cpu's that are 2 generations ahead and graphic cards that are 3 generations ahead.
So I don't buy this "intel is the problem, they need to switch to Arm". No... Apple is the problem. Match what the competition is selling, add your 10% apple tax and everyone will be a happy camper. To pay the 10% apple tax on 3 year old tech makes even the die hards look at PC's.
All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel.
I disagree.
Apple is choosing to neglect the Mac. period.
Intel has upgraded the Xeon E5 chip found in the MacPro twice. With Kaby lake released, the current MacBook Pro is again 2 generations back. If we want to blame intel, All of Apples machine should be at least running the latest processors that intel provide.
I don't have a problem with a lack of upgrades if the whole industry has the same issue. I blame Apple because their competition is selling systems today with cpu's that are 2 generations ahead and graphic cards that are 3 generations ahead.
So I don't buy this "intel is the problem, they need to switch to Arm". No... Apple is the problem. Match what the competition is selling, add your 10% apple tax and everyone will be a happy camper. To pay the 10% apple tax on 3 year old tech makes even the die hards look at PC's.
The processors that Apple (Macbook Pro) prefers to use are the ones with Iris graphics.....
As far as I can tell the Skylake processor with Iris graphics is still TBD.
Kaby Lake processors with Iris graphics are scheduled for some time next year.
It is the reason that if Apple stays with Intel.... they need to incorporate their own PowerVR add-on for graphics and use a stock Intel processor with the graphics disabled or non-existent.
How Apple considers a Mac that can only have 16GB of RAM a "pro" computer is beyond me.
If Apple will release a new MacBook Pro in 2016, the 15" models will surely use CPUs with Iris Pro 580 graphics. All those CPUs can support up to 64GB of RAM and I would expect 16GB to be the standard configuration (same as now) with an option for 32GB (which would be new). The 13" models would use CPUs with Iris 550 supporting up to 32GB. Apple would probably offer the 13" models with 16GB standard (up from 8GB now) and might also offer a 32GB option (up from 16GB now).
While no update is expected at the Sept. 7 Apple event, a long-awaited refresh of the MacBook Pro has two obvious main processor choices -- but what it has selected to use will dictate if the computer releases sooner, or later.
Relatively speaking, it has been a long time since the MacBook Pro was last updated. Even then, some of the choices made in the 2015 revisions lead to some collective head-scratching, with Apple choosing to continue to use the Haswell processor, long after its replacement.
It's going to be sky lake and then Kaby lake two years later. Don't get too worked up expecting different.
If Apple moves to A-series chips in laptops or desktops, would anyone really be surprised? Most likely not, given the historic parallel in the chip world related to their dependence on manufacturers not coming up with the goods in a timely manner to suit Apple's needs, or irregular at best upgrades. They've been here before, I don't think it would surprise anyone to see a huge change in the future in their choice of chips in various devices.
What baffles me, though, in this assumption (sure, it's an assumption, but if borne out would not surprise anyone to see A-series laptops and desktops) is why people assume that the OS running on them would be macOS and not an iteration of iOS instead.
Apple has a HUGE install base of iOS users, this is the most likely direction they'd go. Yes it would mean that Intel Macs (laptops and desktops) would remain for niche users who have higher performance requirements, but their new iOS (non-touch) laptops and desktops would be for the masses, you know, the 100s of millions of iOS users out there who have bought into the iOS app ecosystem.
It's obvious to no one that iOS and iOS devices are the company's future and preference, they sell more of them, they make more per device, they are in more control of the components, such as the chips.
An A-series laptop or desktop running a version of iOS would sell for cheaper than their current laptops, with higher profit margins and they would target the masses, since as has been discussed in this thread alone, chips for the past 5 years have not progressed much (no need really) and 5-year old chips still run perfectly fine for the vast majority of use cases out there.
They have a non-touch version of iOS in market in devices they sell today for nearly 1 year now: tvOS in the Apple TV. Why is this not the more obvious path they'll take, instead of A-series running macOS, and yet another migration hassle for users, developers and themselves?
I suppose that Oracle has made inroads getting the JVM onto ARM but in the meantime the transition would suck for JVM devs on macOS.
The transition would be non-existent. Java running on ARM/macOS is no more difficult than running on Intel/macOS. Java is already available for Linux ARM -- macOS ARM would likely have a larger marketshare...
I'm not that optimistic that GUI apps in Swing/SWT including the popular Java IDEs would work seamlessly right away.
Comments
Since you avoided giving exact model for comparison I searched for HP Spectre - the new one and it came in at $1000ish from their web site. Then of course there was the upgrade for the operating system to "pro" (I never used Home) -- and it used the HD level graphics (I believe Macbook Pros from Apple tend to use the one for Iris level graphics which come out much later in the cycle). But then you would have to pay me to use windows again
When doing comparisons on price, people often pick the farthest model away based on build/component quality. There is some good hardware out for Windows/Linux machines - but rarely do they come in at that great of savings.
Here is one one example for $799
http://www.adorama.com/le80ru00fsus.html?sdtid=8977427&emailprice=t&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_source=rflaid62905
I just don't get why some people feel so compelled to tell other people what they need. Because you don't need CPU power doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't need it. I've been on Mac since 84, I have built a fairly large business doing 3D renderings on Macs and in 30 years I have never seen the Mac line up in such despair. The term bleeding Pro mac users is an excellent description as I see it happening all around me.
First off, No, the speed race did not end in 2012. For Macs, it ended in 2010. the 12 core macs we purchased then are what we still use today. The 2013 MacPros were stripped of a whole processor so all they accomplished for people that needed CPU is to double the price and keep the performance the same at 12 cores. We bought one machine just to test it out and we were disappointed so we have waited for years with cash in hand. Now here we are 6 years later with the same performance level. So I can completely understand the frustration levels of pro users because I myself am beyond frustrated.
Where you are wrong is the race only stopped for Macs. The Xeon was upgraded twice over the past 3 years. Apple is stuck on providing generation 2 cpus that maxed out at 12 cores while HP and Dell are selling fourth generation dual 22 cores (44 cores total). Apple is not competing on price, they are not competing on performance, they are not competing on upgradability. Who in the world would buy a Mac Pro. I think Tim Cook is putting all his eggs in the phone basket and has no understanding of the Apple culture. Once he bleeds away all his loyal users all that will be left is another phone company. Just like the infallible Motorola and Nokia.
But don't tell me it doesn't matter for rendering/exporting video if one CPU takes 30 minutes and another can do the same job in 15 minutes.
Here from Dell site saying it is IPS FHD.
13.3-inch FHD (1920 x 1080) Truelife LED-Backlit Touch Display with Wide Viewing Angle (IPS)
Intel's schedule and long-term goals are independent of Apple's. No more exclusivity deals.
In the long term, Apple could follow several radically different processor strategies:
1. Stay with Intel and suffer
No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim
any performance advantage over Wintel PCs. Lower volumes than most other computer makers
means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.
Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will. Apple needs Intel more than Intel
needs Apple. The result? A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006).
Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components,
or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example). Not going to happen with Intel, except
for a possible Ax chip deal.
Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips.
Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips.
Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.
2. Transition Macs to Ax RISC architecture
I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X. And that all Apple devices would
run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture. Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly
every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago. Seamlessly.
But no. Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea. Sure, it could be done. Apple has
made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades. 68K -> RISC.
RISC -> x86. All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.
Still a terrible idea. Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone.
Worst of both worlds. Do I mouse-click or tap? What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)?
iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement. OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are,
plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake. Try to mash up iOS and macOS
and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.
Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to
the iOS / macOS hybrid. A lot of work for such a small market. It took a decade for Adobe to migrate
their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X. They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS.
(And yeah. Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)
Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base.
Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows.
Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.
3. Buy AMD and make custom x86-based CPUs
Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect. Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of
the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year. So could they do the same with the
AMD x86 CPUs? Yes and no.
First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion. Not cheap, but not a stretch at all. Apple could easily buy AMD.
Second, Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS.
Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices.
(And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)
But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.) Cut out too many of the bizarre,
legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more. Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based,
but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not. We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that
Intel's compilers provide. So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture.
The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.
Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost.
Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users).
Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.
So yeah. Maybe the current Intel relationship is the least terrible option.
Let the legacy Mac market taper off naturally instead of trying to inject ARM technology into it.
Don't bother trying to lower component costs by buying ARM and making custom chips for Mac.
They are two different acronyms for two different factors within the monitor.
IPS is the display technology and it is the more common display technology in "affordable" displays. Most laptop displays are going to use IPS (unless they are OLED). Typically better colour than the older technology TN but slower.
The other acronym is the resolution. FHD is "Full HD" which is the resolution that you have mentioned (1080p), which is HALF the resolution of the retina screens.
My Dell laptop from more than a decade ago was FHD resolution....
So -- yay! you have a laptop with half the resolution.... big advancement
It is the reason why no-one has really made a run at acquiring AMD since you would be left with the GPUs only.
Apple is choosing to neglect the Mac. period.
Intel has upgraded the Xeon E5 chip found in the MacPro twice. With Kaby lake released, the current MacBook Pro is again 2 generations back. If we want to blame intel, All of Apples machine should be at least running the latest processors that intel provide.
I don't have a problem with a lack of upgrades if the whole industry has the same issue. I blame Apple because their competition is selling systems today with cpu's that are 2 generations ahead and graphic cards that are 3 generations ahead.
So I don't buy this "intel is the problem, they need to switch to Arm". No... Apple is the problem. Match what the competition is selling, add your 10% apple tax and everyone will be a happy camper. To pay the 10% apple tax on 3 year old tech makes even the die hards look at PC's.
As far as I can tell the Skylake processor with Iris graphics is still TBD.
Kaby Lake processors with Iris graphics are scheduled for some time next year.
It is the reason that if Apple stays with Intel.... they need to incorporate their own PowerVR add-on for graphics and use a stock Intel processor with the graphics disabled or non-existent.
What baffles me, though, in this assumption (sure, it's an assumption, but if borne out would not surprise anyone to see A-series laptops and desktops) is why people assume that the OS running on them would be macOS and not an iteration of iOS instead.
Apple has a HUGE install base of iOS users, this is the most likely direction they'd go. Yes it would mean that Intel Macs (laptops and desktops) would remain for niche users who have higher performance requirements, but their new iOS (non-touch) laptops and desktops would be for the masses, you know, the 100s of millions of iOS users out there who have bought into the iOS app ecosystem.
It's obvious to no one that iOS and iOS devices are the company's future and preference, they sell more of them, they make more per device, they are in more control of the components, such as the chips.
An A-series laptop or desktop running a version of iOS would sell for cheaper than their current laptops, with higher profit margins and they would target the masses, since as has been discussed in this thread alone, chips for the past 5 years have not progressed much (no need really) and 5-year old chips still run perfectly fine for the vast majority of use cases out there.
They have a non-touch version of iOS in market in devices they sell today for nearly 1 year now: tvOS in the Apple TV. Why is this not the more obvious path they'll take, instead of A-series running macOS, and yet another migration hassle for users, developers and themselves?