Not sure what all the fuss about the SSD card is. Unless people dislike slim laptops, because that's not going to happen with a bastardized 2.5" SSD.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass and I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I am starting to wonder if we're getting to the point of putting the Ive before the horse...
How slim does a laptop need to be? Sure, it's cool and everything, but if making it skinnier means sacrificing compatibility with universal standards, is it worth it? I mean, my Unibody is pretty slim already, and it allows me to choose from any of a kazillion storage vendors.
If skinny is the goal, there's an Air for that. Giving up compatibility to save 5 mm (about 1/8") seems weird to me when a much thinner option already exists.
If not basing business decisions on assumptions of continuity between Apple devices (even third-party support for them) is "silly," then call me goofy as a goober. Remember the commitment to Firewire right up until the machine that didn't have it?
The one and only time I ever made a purchasing decision based on vapourware I got burned -- at the time of purchase the supplier promised a specific feature should be available in the next release, then when the next release came they formally announced that they would not be implementing that particular feature after all, ever. So, no, I am NOT resting assured that suitable alternatives will exist when I need them. Sure, it seems likely, based on what you've told me about the Air (I didn't know that, thanks!), but the example above taught me to be suspiscious (it doesn't get any more "likely" than a supplier specifically telling you it's coming, yet it didn't). Obviously any capital decision involves risks, but at this point I wouldn't call concerns about storage "silly." I'm LESS concerned now that you've told me about the Air, but I still think it's prudent to be cautiously skeptical.
With due respect (which may not be much, considering the insulting and adversarial tone you've taken with me), Im not sure I'd consider HDMI a REASONABLE replacement for Toslink (nor is Toslink antiquated -- it's been around a long time, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon since new gear is still using it). Yes, HDMI can be MADE to substitute for Toslink but I don't see it being a particularly PRACTICAL alternative.
When I walk into the studio I plug a 3.5mm optical plug into my MBP which terminates at a Lucid converter that spits out up to +26 balanced analog (or just converts the Toslink input to S/PDIF or AES/EBU). The A/D also puts out all three formats, so I can record from a pro quality converter via the 3.5mm input on the MBP. I very rarely do, but I can on the odd occasion I want to. Which HDMI device do you recommend as an alternative? How much will it add to the cost of replacing my computer? Will it deliver +4dBu at -20dBFS? Can it handle the 20dB of headroom above 0VU without crapping out? Will it interface with all the other digital devices in the studio that use industry-standard interfaces (i.e. Toslink, S/PDIF and AES/EBU)? Will it mount nicely in 1RU like the Lucids? Will the bloody HDCP associated with HDMI interrupt our workflow? I can't think of such a device off the top of my head (and I work in TV production) but obviously there may be units I've overlooked. The Blackmagic Thunderbolt boxes spring to mind, but like most audio-for-video devices, there's no way they can reproduce a full scale signal (i.e. around +24dBu).
I admit that the loss of the optical I/O on the new Mac is not a deal-breaker and can certainly be overcome without too much inconvenience or expense, but I DO take issue with your response. It was unnecessarily insulting and not really an accurate assessment, but I'm just going to assume you were having a bad day.
I'll not deny my post was adversarial, but I would dispute it being insulting. I also appreciate how well measured your response was, given that you felt insulted. Would that we all behaved so!
Now, regarding the substance of the matter, I called Toslink antiquated because its bandwidth limits are pale in comparison to HDMI. For instance, S/PDIF passthrough has a maximum of two uncompressed channels whereas with HDMI you can have up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio.
In any event, if you really require Toslink and the like, you can buy an adapter and leave it on the cable at your work place. They have usb adapters already on the market. My point is simply that the capability you claim is lacking in the RMBP isn't lacking. It is still there; the device has even more capabilities than you seem to require. Adapters may not be practical, I'll grant you that. The new tech may not be employed in a widespread manner, I'll grant that too. But neither of those facts do anything to dispute the claim that the tech (Toslink) is antiquated and has been surpassed by much better alternatives, even if no one employs them yet, for practical or financial reasons. Apple warned us in the Keynote, the RMBP is cutting edge tech only, practical considerations and finances be damned. That may not appeal to you, but that has nothing to do with capabilities.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass and I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I am starting to wonder if we're getting to the point of putting the Ive before the horse...
How slim does a laptop need to be? Sure, it's cool and everything, but if making it skinnier means sacrificing compatibility with universal standards, is it worth it? I mean, my Unibody is pretty slim already, and it allows me to choose from any of a kazillion storage vendors.
If skinny is the goal, there's an Air for that. Giving up compatibility to save 5 mm (about 1/8") seems weird to me when a much thinner option already exists.
I'd say yes. Floppy disks were universal standards that needed to be dropped. The same now holds with much that was dropped in the RMBP. The rate of progress would be miserably slow if we were always beholden to being compatible with universal standards. Out with the old and in with the new, and if we get sleeker, thinner, lighter devices along the way, that's just an added bonus.
I don't know what's unclear. It's just that Apple engineers taking an entire device lifetime into account rather than just the original specifications. And I don't agree with your pro computer means fully serviceable. pro simply means the ability to get professional quality business done efficiently. One dimension of that is fast, another often ignore dimension is how much maintenance is required. Less downtime makes the machine more valuable to the professional user.
Well, as you realized yourself, I’m an old run-of-the-mill engineer: I almost expect Apple to give away the schematics of their Pro computers, so I can service them using my own oscilloscope/logic analyzer. But I dream. As for the speed, I find that with new versions of Clang the code is rather optimized and quick, even on my old Core 2 Duo machine. Now, does it matter if your task gets done in 1 or 10 ms? Running after speed gets nutty… Increase in speed has too often been a pretext for software engineers to crank out poor code. Take Atlas, a software I routinely port to MacOS: with some adjustments in cache parameters, you can double or even treble performance with respect to the default version…
Now, for image or movie processing, every software should rely on OpenCL.
With a couple years of SSD use I have not had a single drive failure, that used to be about once a year with heavy travel/daily movement -- that alone saves probably 2-3 days of downtime or slaving to where the external backup mirror system was. I don't even have a mirror for emergency boot anymore so that maintenance is gone too. And most of those changes in the software stack were enabled by hardware choices of one sort or another. With Apple it is to the point that you cannot separate the HW and SW functional design processes totally because now they feed off each other and the efficiencies they reinforce.
I have been working on the same regular HD for now four years and never had any glitch; I’m not a frequent traveler but my MacBook has spent a fair amount of time in my backpack during walks or train trips…
8 Gigs of RAM is plenty for the vast majority of buyers, even those who do a whole lot more than email and 'web. They can comfortably leave those apps open all the time, and can still have plenty of room left available for Photoshop and Word both.
People can use 2 gigs of ram with minimal hassle. 4 gigs is plenty for most people. 8 gigs is a lot for most people. 16 is crazy lots, except for a vanishingly small number of potential buyers.
640KB ought to be enough for anyone.
Don't EVER assume that a certain amount of RAM is enough. Give apple a few years,and I guarantee it won't be too hard for the machine to use all the RAM... And, what's the point of buying a $2500 machine unless you expect it to last a couple of years?
Apple's surge to the top of the stock market valuations has happened because they were able to correctly predict that customers could be lured into replacing their electronics much more frequently than in the past.
We are not in the post-PC era; we are in the disposable PC era.
Computer and electronics manufacturers have completely abandoned the idea of making quality, long lasting products with big price tags and moved to making gadgets with smaller price tags that have to be replaced frequently
Not that many years ago people bought tower computers that would last 6 years and then be re-sold to someone with lesser needs. They attached those towers to third party displays that were expected to last 10 years or more.
Then came the widespread adoption of the notebook computer and all-in-one desktop. Upgrades were crippled forcing users to upgrade more frequently. Displays were built-in so users couldn't buy them from third parties and re-use them with their next computer.
Now we have the iPad. After two years Apple stops supporting it with OS upgrades. Within three years developers stop making compatible apps and the device has to be replaced.
I don't know where you're coming from with this, but PCs were almost always disposable... I don't know many machines that EVER sat around for 6+ years unless they were a server, and even those are often replaced. Computer technology has moved forward at a tremendous rate, and throughout the 90s, a 2 year old computer seemed like a dinosaur, and after three years you needed to upgrade it to use the latest CONSUMER software. This hasn't been the case for the last 8 years or so..
For a while now, a Pentium 4 had enough power to meet most people's needs (web browsing, email, music, etc). Only now is something faster really becoming necessary. By the P4 era however, consumer purchases had moved away from desktops. Desktops became dinosaurs... Who wants to be tethered to a single desk? Laptops really took off, and by their nature, they wore out faster.
Even your argument about displays doesn't hold much merit. A really awesome display purchased in the mid 90s might last two computers, but bythat point you wanted to upgrade. In 1995 a 14 inch CRT monitor was about standard, in 1997 a 17" one was, and a few years later 19" and 21" became reasonably priced. Sure the old ones worked fine, but in 2005 NO ONE wanted to be using a 14 inch CRT! By that point LCDs were begining to take off, but 19 and 21" monitors were pretty standard.
Apple didn't really change any of these trends, and if anything, many apple computers have a longer lifetime than windows ones (often because the apple machines have higher specs than windows ones).With consumer electronics, apple does push for a regular replacement cycle, and it is quite annoying, but it seems like every phone vendor doesn't expect a phone to be used more than two years.
Don't EVER assume that a certain amount of RAM is enough. Give apple a few years,and I guarantee it won't be too hard for the machine to use all the RAM... And, what's the point of buying a $2500 machine unless you expect it to last a couple of years?
Phil
What makes you think 16 GB won't last a couple of years?
More importantly, you have to look at what most people consider when deciding if something is useful after a couple of years. If only a tiny percentage of people add more RAM to their computers after purchase, then the ability to add RAM is not important to most people.
Furthermore, I think we've reached the time when computer upgrades (both hardware and software) have slowed significantly. For example, I'm now using a 6 year old laptop - before this, I never let a computer go past 3 years. Most people I know are keeping their computers longer. I believe the reason is that for most people, current machines are more than fast enough for their needs now and for the foreseeable future. Similarly, the software is good enough to not need an upgrade every couple of years. 15-20 years ago people were anxiously awaiting the next OS upgrade because the current ones were never good enough. Each upgrade had significant changes which required more computer power. Today, the changes are incremental (in most cases). Windows 8 is basically Windows 7 with a new face. Lion and Mountain lion are relatively minor upgrades compared to, say, Leopard.
The fact is that for most people, today's computer is going to last a lot longer than any time in the past.
Now, there are a tiny number of high end pro users who might need 32 GB of RAM at some time in the future. But almost all of them would probably be buying a new computer to take advantage of CPU and GPU improvements by then, anyway. So you're asking Apple to put up with the unreliability, bulk, and cost of DIMMs because of the number of people who:
1. Need 16 GB now and will need more in the near future
and
2. Would not be buying a new computer during that time frame because the changes in CPU and GPU aren't important enough to justify the cost
and
3. The possible need for 32 GB at some time in the future would be a big enough concern to stop them from buying a new MBP - in spite of its other advantages (especially the display).
Sorry, but the number of people who meet all three criteria is probably tiny.
I'd say yes. Floppy disks were universal standards that needed to be dropped. The same now holds with much that was dropped in the RMBP. The rate of progress would be miserably slow if we were always beholden to being compatible with universal standards. Out with the old and in with the new, and if we get sleeker, thinner, lighter devices along the way, that's just an added bonus.
I understand the premise and don't disagree, but that's not really what's happened with the MBPR. This isn't a case of skinny being a spin-off benefit of advancing better technologies. It's exactly the opposite: skinny was the objective and the tech changes were made to accommodate that. The changes do not advance the state of the art in this case (display notwithstanding, obviously), they just mean I have fewer storage options and the storage will cost more because it won't benefit from the economies of scale associated with widely deployed standards.
That's a hit in the wallet but at least it can be fixed by throwing money at it. Unfortunately that's not the case with screen size. The relentless march towards smaller/lighter/shiny/kewler means that I can no longer get a 17" screen. THAT bugs me, and I can't fix it by selling a kidney. I work to picture so I have to have a video window and a couple of plug-ins open on top of my work. It's already crowded on a 17". On a 15" it's either gotta be so small I can't tell what I'm looking at or more cramped than five fat folks in a Fiat.
Apple already makes a machine that's way small. Why does the Pro have to be tiny too, other than so that it's "kewl?" I just don't see this as being anything other than fashion over function.
I understand the premise and don't disagree, but that's not really what's happened with the MBPR. This isn't a case of skinny being a spin-off benefit of advancing better technologies. It's exactly the opposite: skinny was the objective and the tech changes were made to accommodate that. The changes do not advance the state of the art in this case (display notwithstanding, obviously), they just mean I have fewer storage options and the storage will cost more because it won't benefit from the economies of scale associated with widely deployed standards.
That's a hit in the wallet but at least it can be fixed by throwing money at it. Unfortunately that's not the case with screen size. The relentless march towards smaller/lighter/shiny/kewler means that I can no longer get a 17" screen. THAT bugs me, and I can't fix it by selling a kidney. I work to picture so I have to have a video window and a couple of plug-ins open on top of my work. It's already crowded on a 17". On a 15" it's either gotta be so small I can't tell what I'm looking at or more cramped than five fat folks in a Fiat.
Apple already makes a machine that's way small. Why does the Pro have to be tiny too, other than so that it's "kewl?" I just don't see this as being anything other than fashion over function.
Apple's not in the business of satisfying the geek crowd. They're in the business of selling computers - and in today's climate, 'thin' sells computers. This computer will sell like hotcakes.
Seriously, I got the 8GB model and am seriously regretting that I cannot now upgrade the RAM as it tops out on me *all* the time - which means that the SSD swap file goes into overdrive and consequently so does the fan, which is pretty annoying
I recently purchased 2, 8GB 1600 Mhz Kingston HyperX SO-DIMM's for 110.00 vs. the 200 Apple charges to add an additional 8GB. Not sure what Apple uses but these seem to be of high quality. I can't say I'm a big fan of having everything soldered to the motherboard, sure thinner and lighter is always welcomed but I would prefer to have the option of upgrading in the future. The same goes with a removeable battery option, at the least they could add a battery slice option. I get almost 19 hours of battery life with my Lenovo X230T because of that battery, I would absolutely love to have one for my Macbook Air 11". I know Hyper makes a battery brick but they cost 300 and are in no way as convenient as having a battery attached.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
Not sure what all the fuss about the SSD card is. Unless people dislike slim laptops, because that's not going to happen with a bastardized 2.5" SSD.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass and I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I am starting to wonder if we're getting to the point of putting the Ive before the horse...
How slim does a laptop need to be? Sure, it's cool and everything, but if making it skinnier means sacrificing compatibility with universal standards, is it worth it? I mean, my Unibody is pretty slim already, and it allows me to choose from any of a kazillion storage vendors.
If skinny is the goal, there's an Air for that. Giving up compatibility to save 5 mm (about 1/8") seems weird to me when a much thinner option already exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
If not basing business decisions on assumptions of continuity between Apple devices (even third-party support for them) is "silly," then call me goofy as a goober. Remember the commitment to Firewire right up until the machine that didn't have it?
The one and only time I ever made a purchasing decision based on vapourware I got burned -- at the time of purchase the supplier promised a specific feature should be available in the next release, then when the next release came they formally announced that they would not be implementing that particular feature after all, ever. So, no, I am NOT resting assured that suitable alternatives will exist when I need them. Sure, it seems likely, based on what you've told me about the Air (I didn't know that, thanks!), but the example above taught me to be suspiscious (it doesn't get any more "likely" than a supplier specifically telling you it's coming, yet it didn't). Obviously any capital decision involves risks, but at this point I wouldn't call concerns about storage "silly." I'm LESS concerned now that you've told me about the Air, but I still think it's prudent to be cautiously skeptical.
With due respect (which may not be much, considering the insulting and adversarial tone you've taken with me), Im not sure I'd consider HDMI a REASONABLE replacement for Toslink (nor is Toslink antiquated -- it's been around a long time, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon since new gear is still using it). Yes, HDMI can be MADE to substitute for Toslink but I don't see it being a particularly PRACTICAL alternative.
When I walk into the studio I plug a 3.5mm optical plug into my MBP which terminates at a Lucid converter that spits out up to +26 balanced analog (or just converts the Toslink input to S/PDIF or AES/EBU). The A/D also puts out all three formats, so I can record from a pro quality converter via the 3.5mm input on the MBP. I very rarely do, but I can on the odd occasion I want to. Which HDMI device do you recommend as an alternative? How much will it add to the cost of replacing my computer? Will it deliver +4dBu at -20dBFS? Can it handle the 20dB of headroom above 0VU without crapping out? Will it interface with all the other digital devices in the studio that use industry-standard interfaces (i.e. Toslink, S/PDIF and AES/EBU)? Will it mount nicely in 1RU like the Lucids? Will the bloody HDCP associated with HDMI interrupt our workflow? I can't think of such a device off the top of my head (and I work in TV production) but obviously there may be units I've overlooked. The Blackmagic Thunderbolt boxes spring to mind, but like most audio-for-video devices, there's no way they can reproduce a full scale signal (i.e. around +24dBu).
I admit that the loss of the optical I/O on the new Mac is not a deal-breaker and can certainly be overcome without too much inconvenience or expense, but I DO take issue with your response. It was unnecessarily insulting and not really an accurate assessment, but I'm just going to assume you were having a bad day.
I'll not deny my post was adversarial, but I would dispute it being insulting. I also appreciate how well measured your response was, given that you felt insulted. Would that we all behaved so!
Now, regarding the substance of the matter, I called Toslink antiquated because its bandwidth limits are pale in comparison to HDMI. For instance, S/PDIF passthrough has a maximum of two uncompressed channels whereas with HDMI you can have up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio.
In any event, if you really require Toslink and the like, you can buy an adapter and leave it on the cable at your work place. They have usb adapters already on the market. My point is simply that the capability you claim is lacking in the RMBP isn't lacking. It is still there; the device has even more capabilities than you seem to require. Adapters may not be practical, I'll grant you that. The new tech may not be employed in a widespread manner, I'll grant that too. But neither of those facts do anything to dispute the claim that the tech (Toslink) is antiquated and has been surpassed by much better alternatives, even if no one employs them yet, for practical or financial reasons. Apple warned us in the Keynote, the RMBP is cutting edge tech only, practical considerations and finances be damned. That may not appeal to you, but that has nothing to do with capabilities.
I'd say yes. Floppy disks were universal standards that needed to be dropped. The same now holds with much that was dropped in the RMBP. The rate of progress would be miserably slow if we were always beholden to being compatible with universal standards. Out with the old and in with the new, and if we get sleeker, thinner, lighter devices along the way, that's just an added bonus.
Well, as you realized yourself, I’m an old run-of-the-mill engineer: I almost expect Apple to give away the schematics of their Pro computers, so I can service them using my own oscilloscope/logic analyzer. But I dream. As for the speed, I find that with new versions of Clang the code is rather optimized and quick, even on my old Core 2 Duo machine. Now, does it matter if your task gets done in 1 or 10 ms? Running after speed gets nutty… Increase in speed has too often been a pretext for software engineers to crank out poor code. Take Atlas, a software I routinely port to MacOS: with some adjustments in cache parameters, you can double or even treble performance with respect to the default version…
Now, for image or movie processing, every software should rely on OpenCL.
I have been working on the same regular HD for now four years and never had any glitch; I’m not a frequent traveler but my MacBook has spent a fair amount of time in my backpack during walks or train trips…
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
8 Gigs of RAM is plenty for the vast majority of buyers, even those who do a whole lot more than email and 'web. They can comfortably leave those apps open all the time, and can still have plenty of room left available for Photoshop and Word both.
People can use 2 gigs of ram with minimal hassle. 4 gigs is plenty for most people. 8 gigs is a lot for most people. 16 is crazy lots, except for a vanishingly small number of potential buyers.
640KB ought to be enough for anyone.
Don't EVER assume that a certain amount of RAM is enough. Give apple a few years,and I guarantee it won't be too hard for the machine to use all the RAM... And, what's the point of buying a $2500 machine unless you expect it to last a couple of years?
Phil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Apple's surge to the top of the stock market valuations has happened because they were able to correctly predict that customers could be lured into replacing their electronics much more frequently than in the past.
We are not in the post-PC era; we are in the disposable PC era.
Computer and electronics manufacturers have completely abandoned the idea of making quality, long lasting products with big price tags and moved to making gadgets with smaller price tags that have to be replaced frequently
Not that many years ago people bought tower computers that would last 6 years and then be re-sold to someone with lesser needs. They attached those towers to third party displays that were expected to last 10 years or more.
Then came the widespread adoption of the notebook computer and all-in-one desktop. Upgrades were crippled forcing users to upgrade more frequently. Displays were built-in so users couldn't buy them from third parties and re-use them with their next computer.
Now we have the iPad. After two years Apple stops supporting it with OS upgrades. Within three years developers stop making compatible apps and the device has to be replaced.
I don't know where you're coming from with this, but PCs were almost always disposable... I don't know many machines that EVER sat around for 6+ years unless they were a server, and even those are often replaced. Computer technology has moved forward at a tremendous rate, and throughout the 90s, a 2 year old computer seemed like a dinosaur, and after three years you needed to upgrade it to use the latest CONSUMER software. This hasn't been the case for the last 8 years or so..
For a while now, a Pentium 4 had enough power to meet most people's needs (web browsing, email, music, etc). Only now is something faster really becoming necessary. By the P4 era however, consumer purchases had moved away from desktops. Desktops became dinosaurs... Who wants to be tethered to a single desk? Laptops really took off, and by their nature, they wore out faster.
Even your argument about displays doesn't hold much merit. A really awesome display purchased in the mid 90s might last two computers, but bythat point you wanted to upgrade. In 1995 a 14 inch CRT monitor was about standard, in 1997 a 17" one was, and a few years later 19" and 21" became reasonably priced. Sure the old ones worked fine, but in 2005 NO ONE wanted to be using a 14 inch CRT! By that point LCDs were begining to take off, but 19 and 21" monitors were pretty standard.
Apple didn't really change any of these trends, and if anything, many apple computers have a longer lifetime than windows ones (often because the apple machines have higher specs than windows ones).With consumer electronics, apple does push for a regular replacement cycle, and it is quite annoying, but it seems like every phone vendor doesn't expect a phone to be used more than two years.
Phil
What makes you think 16 GB won't last a couple of years?
More importantly, you have to look at what most people consider when deciding if something is useful after a couple of years. If only a tiny percentage of people add more RAM to their computers after purchase, then the ability to add RAM is not important to most people.
Furthermore, I think we've reached the time when computer upgrades (both hardware and software) have slowed significantly. For example, I'm now using a 6 year old laptop - before this, I never let a computer go past 3 years. Most people I know are keeping their computers longer. I believe the reason is that for most people, current machines are more than fast enough for their needs now and for the foreseeable future. Similarly, the software is good enough to not need an upgrade every couple of years. 15-20 years ago people were anxiously awaiting the next OS upgrade because the current ones were never good enough. Each upgrade had significant changes which required more computer power. Today, the changes are incremental (in most cases). Windows 8 is basically Windows 7 with a new face. Lion and Mountain lion are relatively minor upgrades compared to, say, Leopard.
The fact is that for most people, today's computer is going to last a lot longer than any time in the past.
Now, there are a tiny number of high end pro users who might need 32 GB of RAM at some time in the future. But almost all of them would probably be buying a new computer to take advantage of CPU and GPU improvements by then, anyway. So you're asking Apple to put up with the unreliability, bulk, and cost of DIMMs because of the number of people who:
1. Need 16 GB now and will need more in the near future
and
2. Would not be buying a new computer during that time frame because the changes in CPU and GPU aren't important enough to justify the cost
and
3. The possible need for 32 GB at some time in the future would be a big enough concern to stop them from buying a new MBP - in spite of its other advantages (especially the display).
Sorry, but the number of people who meet all three criteria is probably tiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
I'd say yes. Floppy disks were universal standards that needed to be dropped. The same now holds with much that was dropped in the RMBP. The rate of progress would be miserably slow if we were always beholden to being compatible with universal standards. Out with the old and in with the new, and if we get sleeker, thinner, lighter devices along the way, that's just an added bonus.
I understand the premise and don't disagree, but that's not really what's happened with the MBPR. This isn't a case of skinny being a spin-off benefit of advancing better technologies. It's exactly the opposite: skinny was the objective and the tech changes were made to accommodate that. The changes do not advance the state of the art in this case (display notwithstanding, obviously), they just mean I have fewer storage options and the storage will cost more because it won't benefit from the economies of scale associated with widely deployed standards.
That's a hit in the wallet but at least it can be fixed by throwing money at it. Unfortunately that's not the case with screen size. The relentless march towards smaller/lighter/shiny/kewler means that I can no longer get a 17" screen. THAT bugs me, and I can't fix it by selling a kidney. I work to picture so I have to have a video window and a couple of plug-ins open on top of my work. It's already crowded on a 17". On a 15" it's either gotta be so small I can't tell what I'm looking at or more cramped than five fat folks in a Fiat.
Apple already makes a machine that's way small. Why does the Pro have to be tiny too, other than so that it's "kewl?" I just don't see this as being anything other than fashion over function.
Apple's not in the business of satisfying the geek crowd. They're in the business of selling computers - and in today's climate, 'thin' sells computers. This computer will sell like hotcakes.
v5v, you'll be happy to know the headphone jack still has digital in/out. Your Toslink is still there
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
v5v, you'll be happy to know the headphone jack still has digital in/out. Your Toslink is still there
Are you sure? Yay!
I know it's a minor issue, but it's one less little headache I have to deal with.
Thanks for letting me know!
Yep TUAW has confirmed it. See:
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/06/14/attention-world-the-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-does-have-o/
Seriously, I got the 8GB model and am seriously regretting that I cannot now upgrade the RAM as it tops out on me *all* the time - which means that the SSD swap file goes into overdrive and consequently so does the fan, which is pretty annoying
I recently purchased 2, 8GB 1600 Mhz Kingston HyperX SO-DIMM's for 110.00 vs. the 200 Apple charges to add an additional 8GB. Not sure what Apple uses but these seem to be of high quality. I can't say I'm a big fan of having everything soldered to the motherboard, sure thinner and lighter is always welcomed but I would prefer to have the option of upgrading in the future. The same goes with a removeable battery option, at the least they could add a battery slice option. I get almost 19 hours of battery life with my Lenovo X230T because of that battery, I would absolutely love to have one for my Macbook Air 11". I know Hyper makes a battery brick but they cost 300 and are in no way as convenient as having a battery attached.