Originally Posted by hmm
I get you on this. No matter how big Apple gets, they seem to be very much about keeping the product line quite lean in nature. I get that it works for them.
Well they think it works for them. In their desktop line the attitude is killing them. As for the iPhone that desire for a larger display is directly related to being an old fart. That certainly isn't a technical need unless you consider seeing text a technical need. I do so much like pinch to zoom though.
Since they don't manufacture many designs, it keeps the manufacturing cost low. In theory this make for some real design winners as they can focus on bringing a few great things to market. In all the time I've used them they've been really hit and miss over quite a few years.
My first Mac was a Mac Plus which I dearly loved even with it's short comings. However Apple drove me away for years due to high prices and crappy OS. I got back into the fold with a early 2098 MBP, but followed the company withou fail before that. So I've seen everything, especially the boondoggles.
Here's an example. Remember some of the earlier macbooks? Not the pros but just the normal macbooks had some absolutely abysmal displays. Now this is their budget model, but it was still a $1000+ computer at the time. I'm not sure how they figured this was acceptable. I have no idea why they went to glossy overall for their line.
Interestingly I went matte on my MBP and have regretted it ever since. Frankly I can't fathom why people would desire such a screen. The difference in usability is astounding and not in favor of atte screens.
I don't know why they were completely unable to build a reliable machine through the entire G5 generation or why they tried to put it all off on IBM (the internal design was terrible, big box with uneven airflow). So yeah they make me mad sometimes.
Actually I had considered Macs at around the time of the G4/G5 transition but it was an obvious joke of a machine. The only thing it had going for it was Alt-Vec and that like GPU computing is only of limited use. G5's integer performance was so bad it was enough to bring tears to ones eyes. Integer performance relates directly to a systems responsiveness and general performance.
The G5 is a perfect example of why one should not do business with IBM. As to air flow the G5 burnt up a lot of watts to get the performance levels it did. I don't think Apple had a chance in hell of making a quiet and reliable machine.
On the other stuff from the previous post, I just wanted to mention the recent and upcoming mid generation releases from intel. They announced bumps pretty much across the board, but most of them aren't that big of a deal. They're pretty much the same thing with the clock speed bumped up a notch. My figures were correct though rather than the ones in the article. It was just a matter of what was a dropin kind of replacement.
Drop in is what we want, it means Apple can bump the machines anytime they want.
I don't think we'll see any weird variants or special designs here as it would just be a mid generation thing to keep the macbook(s) (pros) feeling fresh until the next generation. Other oems have already begun to use some of these. I think we'll see them from Apple if they calculate Ivy Bridge machines as unfeasible in the first quarter.
I suspect we will see them. There is little in the rumor mills about a near term Ivy Bridge release. I wish there was an Ivy Bridge release around the corner as it might get me to fork over more money to Apple. Knowing what Ivy Bridge is I have to hold off.