I like the screen width of the 17 " MBP for when I split the screen under the terminal app in command line Unix work. Since I'm older and my eyes aren't what they used to be, I really like having the ability to use larger font sizes and still have enough screen space to avoid excessive scrolling. If Apple does discontinue the 17 MBP I guess that I'll have to find a 17 inch Windows mobile workstation and load some form of Linux or FreeBSD. I wasn't looking forward to having to deal with driver hell any more with these unix-based OSs, but I refuse to step backward and deal with a toy OS like Windows again.
The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro, to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.
They don't.
They leave the computer on a desk... attached to a 27" or larger monitor using a Wacom tablet.
I agree, Why the hell would anyone want to lug around a 17" you would use an external monitor or projector at that point. I would rather see a 14" come in to play.
Every try taking an external monitor with you to all corners of your home? How about the ballgame? Or to lunch with a client? Or at the client's home? I've done all four.
I've carried a 17" Apple 'Book (a 2003 G4 Powerbook, and still a 2008 MacBook Pro) for almost nine years. Heck, the PowerBook is still officially in my inventory, although on loan. I am looking to replace mine.
Oh, and to the folks who keep thinking that more can be squeezed onto a Retina Display, that's only by reducing the font which is much more difficult to read, especially by us avoiding bifocals folk.
The fad that disappeared was the 19 inch laptops which Apple didn't try. Plenty of Windows 17 inch laptops still available - why not from Apple, who have done so since Verne Troyer pull one out of his luggage over nine years ago.
My 2cents... outside of professionals who might need a 17" laptop - most us others think the 17" is too big and too heavy. We/I want more portability that the 13" and 15" gives, most don't want to carry around a big & heavy 17" laptop that is difficult to fit in many knapsacks or bags and is too cumbersome for hotel, train, airplane, coffee shop use. If you can pay for the high cost of a base model 15" MBP, might as well pay the extra cost and also get a 27" Apple monitor which is "only" $650 more than a base model 17" MBP. That way you have a smaller easier to carry laptop when on the road or moving from room to room, but still get a big fancy monitor when at your desk. To ME it makes more sense to buy a 13"/15" and pay for an Apple Display monitor separately.
Every try taking an external monitor with you to all corners of your home? How about the ballgame? Or to lunch with a client? Or at the client's home? I've done all four.
You take your laptop to a ball game??? Why?? If you really need to be connected at the game why not use your phone or maybe get a tablet? I can't imagine seeing someone sitting at a game with a giant 17" laptop on their lap, that's a laugh out loud - let me take a photo and send to my friends experience. And is it really that big of a deal if you need to carry your laptop away from the external monitor while at home for a while, will the loss of those 2" hurt you that much for a couple hours or so? If your client complains about you showing work on a 15" instead of a 17" then he/she/they are idiots anyway, if you lose a job over two less inches then do you really want to work with someone like that?
To each his own, but to me it makes more sense to get an external 27" for real work at home and enjoy the smaller laptop when on the move. But that's me.
I'm one a number of MBP 17in users that would be sorely disappointed to see the back of it. I'm looking at upgrading my 17in MBP at the moment.
I'm not a iOS or OSX Dev. Nor do I create webpages or other 'content'. To me the MBP is the one thing that keeps me sane when I'm trying to do my job. I develop software using a very expensive add-on to Eclipse. Screen real estate especially when debugging is vital. I run between 4 & 6 VM's (in Fusion) to simulate the systems I'm developing for. People say it is too heavy. Well it might be but a Samsonite wheeled case solves that. It is also cabin sized. Problem solved. I take it al over the world with me. I was in Mumbai last week. In a few days I'm off to San Diego and then Santiago. Sure the alloy case has a number of scratches and even a few dents. But a cheaper plastic caded device would have fallen apart long ago.
People say I don't need such a big screen. Believe me that when you get to the big Six Zero, your eyesight is not what it once was. I would not run my dev environment on anything smaller than 17in. 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 suits me fine. Clearel pixels would be nice but using a 15in (or smaller)1080p screen is just not on. Not are glossy screens. They are total shite as far as I'm concerned. If Apple do stop the 17in device then I'll have to go back to a Windows device. If you think that the 17in MBP is heavy then an awful lot of 17in Windows based alternatives are an awfu lot heavier.
I think there's still a market for a 17" laptop if Apple ditches the optical drive, cuts the fat (especially around the edges of the display), offers SSD only and removes the ultra glossy glass screen. That glass screen probably adds to the weight significantly.
The problem with the 17" MBP is not so much its size (in fact, as you note its screen size is an asset) but its weight! I found 3 kg to be impractical and far too cumbersome to carry around regularly. I used to take my 17" to work every day until I got tired of lugging it around, so I sold it. If they can get it down to around 2 kg it would be a far more attractive proposition.
Basically, Apple's laptop lineup should be as follows:
11" and 13" MacBook Airs with the current form factor (or perhaps a slimmer bezel), boosted specs and retina displays! (what I'm waiting for, cash in hand!)
13" MacBook with an optical drive and SD display, which I believe we've seen the specs of already. The drive is necessary for this model because the market for this, the cheapest of Apple's portables is by and large those that don't want the expense of an external drive and may not even have home wireless (mums and grandparents) or who find the concept of a wireless optical drive intimidating and confusing.
15" and 17" MacBook Pros sans optical drive but with powerful discreet graphics, retina displays, all the fastest connectivity and quad-core processors. In other words, the ultimate portable performer in a slim and much lighter form factor and without the much-derided glass screens. They could have new strong and light glossy and matte screen options with ultra-thin aluminium bezels around the screen.
This is Apple's ideal portable lineup because it's slim, has all the bases covered and none of the models are competing with or overlapping each other's niche.
Yes Apple, you can give me a highly payed executive position! :P
I like the screen width of the 17 " MBP for when I split the screen under the terminal app in command line Unix work. Since I'm older and my eyes aren't what they used to be, I really like having the ability to use larger font sizes and still have enough screen space to avoid excessive scrolling. If Apple does discontinue the 17 MBP I guess that I'll have to find a 17 inch Windows mobile workstation and load some form of Linux or FreeBSD. I wasn't looking forward to having to deal with driver hell any more with these unix-based OSs, but I refuse to step backward and deal with a toy OS like Windows again.
Linux is much better than it use to be. I went with a Mac in 2008 more for Apples services and apps. That is iTunes, and iPhone integration. If you don't need the things that come with Apples hardware, Linux is a perfectly good computing alternative.
My 2cents... outside of professionals who might need a 17" laptop - most us others think the 17" is too big and too heavy. We/I want more portability that the 13" and 15" gives, most don't want to carry around a big & heavy 17" laptop that is difficult to fit in many knapsacks or bags and is too cumbersome for hotel, train, airplane, coffee shop use. If you can pay for the high cost of a base model 15" MBP, might as well pay the extra cost and also get a 27" Apple monitor which is "only" $650 more than a base model 17" MBP. That way you have a smaller easier to carry laptop when on the road or moving from room to room, but still get a big fancy monitor when at your desk. To ME it makes more sense to buy a 13"/15" and pay for an Apple Display monitor separately.
That may work for you, but some of us prefer the larger screen. And the bolded doesn't make sense - that's exactly the target audience. By your logic, BMW shouldn't make convertibles because outside of people who prefer convertibles, nobody buys them.
People who say products should be retired only because of sales volume should be careful of what they wish for. The entire Mac line has lower sales volume than the iOS line. Apple could throw an A6 (or future A7) processor into a mini desktop, all in one desktop, and a couple of laptops running iOS. Apple could then make Macs history.
Apple most likely will drop the 17" if it truly is not selling, its sad as often I am not at home connected to my 23" ACD and am thankful for a 17" screen in which my eyes are more relaxed. I also like the extra keyboard/trackpad real-estate and battery life.
I remember when I bought my 17" in 2009, it was roughly the same size as my old 15" due to the re-design. If they redesign the 17" into an air-like weight (no optical drive, ssd etc) I wonder if sales would improve.
Because no one would buy them, as they wouldn't be powerful enough to do anything and iOS doesn't work on a desktop.
The idea that all Apple products could run on ARM based processors has been around for awhile but it wasn't my idea. Hopefully Apple appreciates the computational abilities of Intel (or Intel like) processors for the foreseeable future despite the fact that they use more electricity than the ARM based processors.
Ok, lets examine the situation if Apple were to drop Intel and go with ARM.
That would mightily pee off a number of companies that sell an awful lot of software that runs on OSX. Could Adobe even port Photoshop to ARM? AFIAK, the codebase is a morass of crap. Would Microsoft release a version of Office that runs on ARM? etc etc etc Add any really good app that currently runs on OSX.
Look at what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. They are forcing Metro onto every user. A post a few days ago indicated that even MS didn't think that anyone (or many people) would buy Windows 8. Do you really think that apple would risk an equivalent FoPah by switching to ARM only? Just when Mac's are getting acceptance in the Business arena do ou want to cut that off just to spite yourself.
Do you want the likes of Adobe/Microsoft etc to tell Apple to 'get stuffed' as far as porting their apps to ARM goes.
I'm not saying that it won't happen. It probably will but honestly do you think that Apple won't see the Windows 8 train wreck in full progress and learn a lesson?
I'm not spending any money on Windows 8 or Server 2012 because that are 'just wrong' Apple forcing ARM on us at this point in time is also 'just wrong'.
I don't think Apple would be so crazy as to force ARM upon us. At least not while there is such a gap in performance and capability. However I could see them offering ARM based hardware where i86 doesn't offer a viable solution.
In this regards I'd love to see Apple TV and a similar platform opened up to apps. At $99 bucks a crack you can't really beat the obvious price and size advantage. Given access to a USB port and drivers it would be a great little embedded platform. There are even numerous apps that don't need the USB port if ones imagination is freed up.
There is no argument that i86 is far more powerful and likely will be for some time. But there is the concept of good enough and in that regards the devices like Apple TV are indeed good enough for many uses.
Ok, lets examine the situation if Apple were to drop Intel and go with ARM. That would mightily pee off a number of companies that sell an awful lot of software that runs on OSX. Could Adobe even port Photoshop to ARM? AFIAK, the codebase is a morass of crap. Would Microsoft release a version of Office that runs on ARM? etc etc etc Add any really good app that currently runs on OSX. Look at what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. They are forcing Metro onto every user. A post a few days ago indicated that even MS didn't think that anyone (or many people) would buy Windows 8. Do you really think that apple would risk an equivalent FoPah by switching to ARM only? Just when Mac's are getting acceptance in the Business arena do ou want to cut that off just to spite yourself. Do you want the likes of Adobe/Microsoft etc to tell Apple to 'get stuffed' as far as porting their apps to ARM goes. I'm not saying that it won't happen. It probably will but honestly do you think that Apple won't see the Windows 8 train wreck in full progress and learn a lesson? I'm not spending any money on Windows 8 or Server 2012 because that are 'just wrong' Apple forcing ARM on us at this point in time is also 'just wrong'.
My 2cents... outside of professionals who might need a 17" laptop - most us others think the 17" is too big and too heavy. ... To ME it makes more sense to buy a 13"/15" and pay for an Apple Display monitor separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That may work for you, but some of us prefer the larger screen. And the bolded doesn't make sense - that's exactly the target audience. By your logic, BMW shouldn't make convertibles because outside of people who prefer convertibles, nobody buys them.
All right, I'll edit it -- "outside of graphic or web professionals...," is that a little better? And yes, it does work for ME hence me bolding the word ME, it is MY opinion, so regardless of what you might think it is my view and no need to debate as I will not change my view. Also, how do you know what their target audience is? The MacBook Air is targeted to professionals also but those on the go (and college students), that's what Steve Jobs pretty much said when he introduced it. So, to me the Air and MBP are targeted towards professionals with different needs. Making your snarky comment invalid and weak like your thinking - there, see I can be snarky too. I'm ghost on this.
All right, I'll edit it -- "<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">outside of graphic or web professionals...," is that a little better? And yes, it does work for ME hence me bolding the word ME, it is MY opinion, so regardless of what you might think it is my view and no need to debate as I will not change my view. Also, how do you know what their target audience is? The MacBook Air is targeted to professionals also but those on the go (and college students), that's what Steve Jobs pretty much said when he introduced it. So, to me the Air and MBP are targeted towards professionals with different needs. Making your snarky comment invalid and weak like your thinking - there, see I can be snarky too. I'm ghost on this.</span>
The difference, of course, is that you are acting as if your opinion is what matters and Apple should drop the 17" MBP simply because you don't use its power.
I have nothing against someone saying "I don't need xxxx". I do, however, object to people saying "Apple should do yyyy because no one needs xxxx".
OK, so there are a few cases where someone else had a new chip shortly before Apple did. How in the world do you get from that to "Apple doesn't make fast small computers?"
Apple's computers are very competitive overall. The fact that someone else might occasionally have an extra 0.1 GHz is not particularly relevant. Apple's computers are fast - and well within the range of comparable systems. And for some (MacBook Air, for example), everyone else is playing catch up.
Comparable isn't leading.
If Apple isn't putting in the top of the line chips into their computers then they are not leading. They are behind. If they aren't using the latest chips first then they aren't leading. They are behind.
Apple is leading Microsoft in software. I'm not sure I can compare the OS X software directly with Linux because there are so many contributors to Linux. I can say that I find Linux faster and more friendly than OS X once everything is installed with the proper drivers. That is my opinion not something that can always be quantified. Each software program operating within Linux is different.
I like Apple even though I've had customer service problems with two defective Mac Book batteries in the same computer. I like HP too with the exception of Microsoft's OS on their computers. If it weren't for the problems with Microsoft's Vista, HP tech support would rate higher than Apple's tech support in my book. They were willing to replace defective hardware much easier.
Apple is integrating Facebook with everything. That isn't a good idea. I want to choose how my computer integrates with the internet or not. Facebook could be out of the picture in a year or so if another more popular network comes along. This integration is in a way like Microsoft's bloatware. It is being incorporated into the platform without the users choosing it.
As time goes on I'm looking at alternatives to Apple instead of just accepting that Apple builds the best products. Times change. Companies rise and fall. Apple might have peaked.
I'm following Apple's old call to Think Different. These days that means looking away from Apple.
If Apple isn't putting in the top of the line chips into their computers then they are not leading. They are behind. If they aren't using the latest chips first then they aren't leading. They are behind.
I find this and the last part to be kind of silly. You should never assume that any company is the best. With Apple if they fit your needs well enough, you tend to end up entrenched in their products due to software choices, storage formatting, and familiarity. It's really not worth splitting hairs once you've made that kind of choice regarding who is in the theoretical lead from one month to the next. The chip thing is just beyond silly. Apple has never led here. They've addressed a certain portion of the available hardware. They usually offer up to the second or third best in a lineup with cpus or gpus. They don't address things like tesla cards or build workstations that take the most ram of any out there, but they've never done any of this.
I haven't spent much time with HP. A couple friends have owned HP machines with problems, but that's anecdotal, and I've had problems with Apple hardware too. They're both built from cheaply manufactured parts, as that's basically the norm here. I am wondering why you rank HP's support higher. What do yo feel they do better? Vista is old news unless you're talking about a large company that didn't bother updating everything. Even then it improved to a degree late in its cycle.
I am wondering why you rank HP's support higher. What do yo feel they do better?
My new 2009 HP tower had a bad video card. After two times trying to get tech support to diagnose the problem they recognized it was a bad component. They offered to replace the computer and they did. I got the same thing with a slightly different case. It was at the end of the product cycle and I got the newer version of the same thing.
Apple tech support asked questions about my defective battery and said nothing could be done. Then I went up the ladder and got the same type of response. I did online research because I knew that Apple had recalled defective batteries in the past. I proved to them that my battery was made by Sony and that it was the same type of battery. They refused to replace it even though it was exhibiting the same problems such as extreme expansion within the metal battery case.
Apple's refusal required me to take further action. I reported the battery to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I described the problem just as I did to the Apple technicians. Months later an Apple representative contacted me because of that report. I was asked to bring the computer to a local tech support place because there are no Apple stores in my state. The technician photographed the battery and sent it to Apple.
A day or so later Apple agreed to exchange that battery. The one they sent to me worked for just a month then died. They wouldn't replace that one. Apparently these Sony batteries all came from the same batch and there really aren't any newer ones.
I feel HP recognized hardware problems faster and will exchange items with less hassle. HP also exchanged a defective printer for me. They didn't even require me to send the old one back. I suppose they felt it would be cheaper for them to let me keep it than for them to pay for shipping to get a broken printer they would have to repair, or throw away. When I exchanged my computer, HP sent a shipping label AND a box for it.
I've read horror stories about PC companies not honoring their warranties but so far I haven't experienced that.
Comments
I like the screen width of the 17 " MBP for when I split the screen under the terminal app in command line Unix work. Since I'm older and my eyes aren't what they used to be, I really like having the ability to use larger font sizes and still have enough screen space to avoid excessive scrolling. If Apple does discontinue the 17 MBP I guess that I'll have to find a 17 inch Windows mobile workstation and load some form of Linux or FreeBSD. I wasn't looking forward to having to deal with driver hell any more with these unix-based OSs, but I refuse to step backward and deal with a toy OS like Windows again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by messiah40
The 17" MacBookPro was design to replace the desktop. However, u can carry it around if you have to. I still love my 17" MacBookPro 2.16, which I use to develop website and run Adobe CS 5.5 on it. In the fall I was eagerly contemplating updating it, to a new model for Adobe CS 6. I ascertain I'll just get one of the recent MacBookPro, to replace my antiquated computer. I don't how "new school" can work on 10"- 15" screen to work in Photoshop, to 3D Animation type Apps out there. Never carry your portable computer with one hand.
They don't.
They leave the computer on a desk... attached to a 27" or larger monitor using a Wacom tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmallon
I agree, Why the hell would anyone want to lug around a 17" you would use an external monitor or projector at that point. I would rather see a 14" come in to play.
Every try taking an external monitor with you to all corners of your home? How about the ballgame? Or to lunch with a client? Or at the client's home? I've done all four.
I've carried a 17" Apple 'Book (a 2003 G4 Powerbook, and still a 2008 MacBook Pro) for almost nine years. Heck, the PowerBook is still officially in my inventory, although on loan. I am looking to replace mine.
Oh, and to the folks who keep thinking that more can be squeezed onto a Retina Display, that's only by reducing the font which is much more difficult to read, especially by us avoiding bifocals folk.
The fad that disappeared was the 19 inch laptops which Apple didn't try. Plenty of Windows 17 inch laptops still available - why not from Apple, who have done so since Verne Troyer pull one out of his luggage over nine years ago.
My 2cents... outside of professionals who might need a 17" laptop - most us others think the 17" is too big and too heavy. We/I want more portability that the 13" and 15" gives, most don't want to carry around a big & heavy 17" laptop that is difficult to fit in many knapsacks or bags and is too cumbersome for hotel, train, airplane, coffee shop use. If you can pay for the high cost of a base model 15" MBP, might as well pay the extra cost and also get a 27" Apple monitor which is "only" $650 more than a base model 17" MBP. That way you have a smaller easier to carry laptop when on the road or moving from room to room, but still get a big fancy monitor when at your desk. To ME it makes more sense to buy a 13"/15" and pay for an Apple Display monitor separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukevaxhacker
Every try taking an external monitor with you to all corners of your home? How about the ballgame? Or to lunch with a client? Or at the client's home? I've done all four.
You take your laptop to a ball game??? Why?? If you really need to be connected at the game why not use your phone or maybe get a tablet? I can't imagine seeing someone sitting at a game with a giant 17" laptop on their lap, that's a laugh out loud - let me take a photo and send to my friends experience. And is it really that big of a deal if you need to carry your laptop away from the external monitor while at home for a while, will the loss of those 2" hurt you that much for a couple hours or so? If your client complains about you showing work on a 15" instead of a 17" then he/she/they are idiots anyway, if you lose a job over two less inches then do you really want to work with someone like that?
To each his own, but to me it makes more sense to get an external 27" for real work at home and enjoy the smaller laptop when on the move. But that's me.
I'm looking at upgrading my 17in MBP at the moment.
I'm not a iOS or OSX Dev. Nor do I create webpages or other 'content'.
To me the MBP is the one thing that keeps me sane when I'm trying to do my job.
I develop software using a very expensive add-on to Eclipse. Screen real estate especially when debugging is vital. I run between 4 & 6 VM's (in Fusion) to simulate the systems I'm developing for.
People say it is too heavy. Well it might be but a Samsonite wheeled case solves that. It is also cabin sized. Problem solved.
I take it al over the world with me. I was in Mumbai last week. In a few days I'm off to San Diego and then Santiago.
Sure the alloy case has a number of scratches and even a few dents. But a cheaper plastic caded device would have fallen apart long ago.
People say I don't need such a big screen.
Believe me that when you get to the big Six Zero, your eyesight is not what it once was. I would not run my dev environment on anything smaller than 17in. 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 suits me fine. Clearel pixels would be nice but using a 15in (or smaller)1080p screen is just not on. Not are glossy screens. They are total shite as far as I'm concerned.
If Apple do stop the 17in device then I'll have to go back to a Windows device. If you think that the 17in MBP is heavy then an awful lot of 17in Windows based alternatives are an awfu lot heavier.
Great post rotateleftbyte!
I think there's still a market for a 17" laptop if Apple ditches the optical drive, cuts the fat (especially around the edges of the display), offers SSD only and removes the ultra glossy glass screen. That glass screen probably adds to the weight significantly.
The problem with the 17" MBP is not so much its size (in fact, as you note its screen size is an asset) but its weight! I found 3 kg to be impractical and far too cumbersome to carry around regularly. I used to take my 17" to work every day until I got tired of lugging it around, so I sold it. If they can get it down to around 2 kg it would be a far more attractive proposition.
Basically, Apple's laptop lineup should be as follows:
11" and 13" MacBook Airs with the current form factor (or perhaps a slimmer bezel), boosted specs and retina displays! (what I'm waiting for, cash in hand!)
13" MacBook with an optical drive and SD display, which I believe we've seen the specs of already. The drive is necessary for this model because the market for this, the cheapest of Apple's portables is by and large those that don't want the expense of an external drive and may not even have home wireless (mums and grandparents) or who find the concept of a wireless optical drive intimidating and confusing.
15" and 17" MacBook Pros sans optical drive but with powerful discreet graphics, retina displays, all the fastest connectivity and quad-core processors. In other words, the ultimate portable performer in a slim and much lighter form factor and without the much-derided glass screens. They could have new strong and light glossy and matte screen options with ultra-thin aluminium bezels around the screen.
This is Apple's ideal portable lineup because it's slim, has all the bases covered and none of the models are competing with or overlapping each other's niche.
Yes Apple, you can give me a highly payed executive position! :P
Linux is much better than it use to be. I went with a Mac in 2008 more for Apples services and apps. That is iTunes, and iPhone integration. If you don't need the things that come with Apples hardware, Linux is a perfectly good computing alternative.
That may work for you, but some of us prefer the larger screen. And the bolded doesn't make sense - that's exactly the target audience. By your logic, BMW shouldn't make convertibles because outside of people who prefer convertibles, nobody buys them.
People who say products should be retired only because of sales volume should be careful of what they wish for. The entire Mac line has lower sales volume than the iOS line. Apple could throw an A6 (or future A7) processor into a mini desktop, all in one desktop, and a couple of laptops running iOS. Apple could then make Macs history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddan
Apple could then make Macs history.
Because no one would buy them, as they wouldn't be powerful enough to do anything and iOS doesn't work on a desktop.
Apple most likely will drop the 17" if it truly is not selling, its sad as often I am not at home connected to my 23" ACD and am thankful for a 17" screen in which my eyes are more relaxed. I also like the extra keyboard/trackpad real-estate and battery life.
I remember when I bought my 17" in 2009, it was roughly the same size as my old 15" due to the re-design. If they redesign the 17" into an air-like weight (no optical drive, ssd etc) I wonder if sales would improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because no one would buy them, as they wouldn't be powerful enough to do anything and iOS doesn't work on a desktop.
The idea that all Apple products could run on ARM based processors has been around for awhile but it wasn't my idea. Hopefully Apple appreciates the computational abilities of Intel (or Intel like) processors for the foreseeable future despite the fact that they use more electricity than the ARM based processors.
That would mightily pee off a number of companies that sell an awful lot of software that runs on OSX.
Could Adobe even port Photoshop to ARM? AFIAK, the codebase is a morass of crap.
Would Microsoft release a version of Office that runs on ARM?
etc
etc
etc
Add any really good app that currently runs on OSX.
Look at what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. They are forcing Metro onto every user. A post a few days ago indicated that even MS didn't think that anyone (or many people) would buy Windows 8.
Do you really think that apple would risk an equivalent FoPah by switching to ARM only?
Just when Mac's are getting acceptance in the Business arena do ou want to cut that off just to spite yourself.
Do you want the likes of Adobe/Microsoft etc to tell Apple to 'get stuffed' as far as porting their apps to ARM goes.
I'm not saying that it won't happen. It probably will but honestly do you think that Apple won't see the Windows 8 train wreck in full progress and learn a lesson?
I'm not spending any money on Windows 8 or Server 2012 because that are 'just wrong'
Apple forcing ARM on us at this point in time is also 'just wrong'.
In this regards I'd love to see Apple TV and a similar platform opened up to apps. At $99 bucks a crack you can't really beat the obvious price and size advantage. Given access to a USB port and drivers it would be a great little embedded platform. There are even numerous apps that don't need the USB port if ones imagination is freed up.
There is no argument that i86 is far more powerful and likely will be for some time. But there is the concept of good enough and in that regards the devices like Apple TV are indeed good enough for many uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
My 2cents... outside of professionals who might need a 17" laptop - most us others think the 17" is too big and too heavy. ... To ME it makes more sense to buy a 13"/15" and pay for an Apple Display monitor separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That may work for you, but some of us prefer the larger screen. And the bolded doesn't make sense - that's exactly the target audience. By your logic, BMW shouldn't make convertibles because outside of people who prefer convertibles, nobody buys them.
All right, I'll edit it -- "outside of graphic or web professionals...," is that a little better? And yes, it does work for ME hence me bolding the word ME, it is MY opinion, so regardless of what you might think it is my view and no need to debate as I will not change my view. Also, how do you know what their target audience is? The MacBook Air is targeted to professionals also but those on the go (and college students), that's what Steve Jobs pretty much said when he introduced it. So, to me the Air and MBP are targeted towards professionals with different needs. Making your snarky comment invalid and weak like your thinking - there, see I can be snarky too. I'm ghost on this.
The difference, of course, is that you are acting as if your opinion is what matters and Apple should drop the 17" MBP simply because you don't use its power.
I have nothing against someone saying "I don't need xxxx". I do, however, object to people saying "Apple should do yyyy because no one needs xxxx".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, so there are a few cases where someone else had a new chip shortly before Apple did. How in the world do you get from that to "Apple doesn't make fast small computers?"
Apple's computers are very competitive overall. The fact that someone else might occasionally have an extra 0.1 GHz is not particularly relevant. Apple's computers are fast - and well within the range of comparable systems. And for some (MacBook Air, for example), everyone else is playing catch up.
Comparable isn't leading.
If Apple isn't putting in the top of the line chips into their computers then they are not leading. They are behind. If they aren't using the latest chips first then they aren't leading. They are behind.
Apple is leading Microsoft in software. I'm not sure I can compare the OS X software directly with Linux because there are so many contributors to Linux. I can say that I find Linux faster and more friendly than OS X once everything is installed with the proper drivers. That is my opinion not something that can always be quantified. Each software program operating within Linux is different.
I like Apple even though I've had customer service problems with two defective Mac Book batteries in the same computer. I like HP too with the exception of Microsoft's OS on their computers. If it weren't for the problems with Microsoft's Vista, HP tech support would rate higher than Apple's tech support in my book. They were willing to replace defective hardware much easier.
Apple is integrating Facebook with everything. That isn't a good idea. I want to choose how my computer integrates with the internet or not. Facebook could be out of the picture in a year or so if another more popular network comes along. This integration is in a way like Microsoft's bloatware. It is being incorporated into the platform without the users choosing it.
As time goes on I'm looking at alternatives to Apple instead of just accepting that Apple builds the best products. Times change. Companies rise and fall. Apple might have peaked.
I'm following Apple's old call to Think Different. These days that means looking away from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Comparable isn't leading.
If Apple isn't putting in the top of the line chips into their computers then they are not leading. They are behind. If they aren't using the latest chips first then they aren't leading. They are behind.
I find this and the last part to be kind of silly. You should never assume that any company is the best. With Apple if they fit your needs well enough, you tend to end up entrenched in their products due to software choices, storage formatting, and familiarity. It's really not worth splitting hairs once you've made that kind of choice regarding who is in the theoretical lead from one month to the next. The chip thing is just beyond silly. Apple has never led here. They've addressed a certain portion of the available hardware. They usually offer up to the second or third best in a lineup with cpus or gpus. They don't address things like tesla cards or build workstations that take the most ram of any out there, but they've never done any of this.
I haven't spent much time with HP. A couple friends have owned HP machines with problems, but that's anecdotal, and I've had problems with Apple hardware too. They're both built from cheaply manufactured parts, as that's basically the norm here. I am wondering why you rank HP's support higher. What do yo feel they do better? Vista is old news unless you're talking about a large company that didn't bother updating everything. Even then it improved to a degree late in its cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I am wondering why you rank HP's support higher. What do yo feel they do better?
My new 2009 HP tower had a bad video card. After two times trying to get tech support to diagnose the problem they recognized it was a bad component. They offered to replace the computer and they did. I got the same thing with a slightly different case. It was at the end of the product cycle and I got the newer version of the same thing.
Apple tech support asked questions about my defective battery and said nothing could be done. Then I went up the ladder and got the same type of response. I did online research because I knew that Apple had recalled defective batteries in the past. I proved to them that my battery was made by Sony and that it was the same type of battery. They refused to replace it even though it was exhibiting the same problems such as extreme expansion within the metal battery case.
Apple's refusal required me to take further action. I reported the battery to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I described the problem just as I did to the Apple technicians. Months later an Apple representative contacted me because of that report. I was asked to bring the computer to a local tech support place because there are no Apple stores in my state. The technician photographed the battery and sent it to Apple.
A day or so later Apple agreed to exchange that battery. The one they sent to me worked for just a month then died. They wouldn't replace that one. Apparently these Sony batteries all came from the same batch and there really aren't any newer ones.
I feel HP recognized hardware problems faster and will exchange items with less hassle. HP also exchanged a defective printer for me. They didn't even require me to send the old one back. I suppose they felt it would be cheaper for them to let me keep it than for them to pay for shipping to get a broken printer they would have to repair, or throw away. When I exchanged my computer, HP sent a shipping label AND a box for it.
I've read horror stories about PC companies not honoring their warranties but so far I haven't experienced that.