Review: 2017 MacBook Pro fulfills the promise of the line's redesign

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 175
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?

    I could understand wanting to use third-party components that cost much less than Apple's BTO options, but it seems that particular argument should be about Apple's *pricing* and not whether or not the machine is user-upgradable. That doesn't seem to be what's driving the consternation, though. So if it's not the cost, what IS driving this perceived need to upgrade RAM down the road?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
    williamlondon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    magman1979 said:

    "And in many ways it's a downgrade", do you know how full of shit even just that one statement is?! It's superior to all previous MBP's before it in every measurable metric, PERIOD.
    It really depends on use-case. For example, I (as a pro) used to use my MBP a lot in a server room where there wasn't WiFi, so Ethernet was important. Or, maybe someone needing more GPU power would rather see a bigger case and cooling with more battery and GPU (at least now we can expand with eGPU).

    I'm more concerned about stuff like the keyboard and trackpad (IMO, downgrades from previous generations). But, I think saying every measurable metric is stretching it a bit, aside from the fact that every new model of most every tech device advances on some 'measurable metrics' simply based on faster components.
    Rayz2016 said:
    You could have stopped reading when he mentioned price as his main driver, above quality.
    Maybe, though I have to admit I wasn't real happy when prices went up (in comparison to previous generations, not other lesser laptops) for no apparent reason. I guess that's Apple's perogative, but they are already premium priced.
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    @JDW, pork and brisket are excellent, thanks. Quick lunches for the work-week.
    Excellent I am sure, but not healthy...    
    Why wouldn't that be healthy? :) So long as it was good quality meat, that sounds quite healthy. (The idea that fat is bad for you is based off bad-science from long ago.)
    appex said:
    You cannot install Samsung 960 PRO SSD for instance, which is better and cheaper from sites like Amazon.
    Would anyone want to install one? I thought those were to be avoided like the plague, but they are quite inferior to what's already included.
    StrangeDays said:
    Nonsense. I'm a software dev pro (per Craig they believe most pro customers are), and this new portable suits me perfectly -- thin, light, power efficient, powerful. Id link you to articles showing that 16gb is very adequate for running the apps I run (xcode VMware etc) but it gets tiresome to post the same stuff over and over. 
    Yes, that security expert who joined Apple a while back did some testing by running a ton of pro and creative apps at one time with it and couldn't note much of a performance degradation. It would be fairly niche things where you'd need 32GB, though they are certainly pro areas. I think they made the right decision on that one.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    nht said:
    "Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle."

    And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design:   Planned Obsolescence.
    If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.

    Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics.   I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly.  Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?  
    Because nobody cares about customers that replace computers once every decade.


    So you are telling us that Apple has embraced Planned Obsolescence?  A product life of 4-5 years and then its tossed into the trash can (or recycle bin)...

    Admittedly, that was a valid position to take back when Apple was in the middle of markets where technology was rapidly advancing and a 5 year old product was truly obsolete because its technology simply couldn't do the job.   But today, those markets have matured and today's innovations are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  And, a 5 year old product can still function well in all but the most demanding situations.  So, it only becomes obsolete due to LACK OF SUPPORT -- otherwise known as "Planned Obsolescence".

    That's so sad to learn!
    So, by embracing planned obsolescence, Apple has now joined the ranks of organizations that design and build their products based solely on marketing & sales projections?   It's so sad to learn that they have abandoned the Jobs philosophy of building insanely great products that make people's lives better.  Because: 
    THAT is the philosophy that made Apple great.  
    THAT is the philosophy that sets Apple apart from the "also ran's". 

    So sad to learn that Apple has abandoned the Steve Jobs philosophy and embraced the philosophy of losers...
    williamlondon
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 104 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?

    I could understand wanting to use third-party components that cost much less than Apple's BTO options, but it seems that particular argument should be about Apple's *pricing* and not whether or not the machine is user-upgradable. That doesn't seem to be what's driving the consternation, though. So if it's not the cost, what IS driving this perceived need to upgrade RAM down the road?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
    Because newer applications and OS's demand more memory than what was needed several years ago...  Without additional memory the machine can no longer do the job.  Your choice (if available): 
    1)  Spend a few hundred for additional memory
    2)  Spend a few thousand for a complete new machine with more memory
    williamlondon
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 105 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member

    Mike Wuerthele said:
    @JDW, pork and brisket are excellent, thanks. Quick lunches for the work-week.
    Excellent I am sure, but not healthy...    
    Why wouldn't that be healthy? :) So long as it was good quality meat, that sounds quite healthy. (The idea that fat is bad for you is based off bad-science from long ago.)

    "bad science from long ago"?
    Only if you believe the propaganda put out by the meat and dairy industries...

    The reality is, that propaganda has become so wide spread that the American Heart Association just issued an advisory refuting that so called "modern science".   In reality, that so called 'modern science' is based on manipulated lab studies and cherry picked meta analysis meant to support the meat and dairy industries.

    Meat (particularly red meat of which pork is one) not only has been proven to cause heart disease but is listed by the WHO as a probably carcinogen.   
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    cgWerks said:
    spheric said:

    Apple has never in its history sold a 13" laptop with a quad-core processor, ever. (Intel has never made a quad-core which would fit within the thermal envelope of Apple's 13" models - traditionally <30W, IIRC. They probably will at some point next year for the first time ever, according to their roadmap.)

    All 15" models have been entirely quad-core for many years now. 

    The keyboard on the current MacBooks Pro is the best I've ever used - except *maybe* the old ADB Extended Keyboard (I - for some reason I could never share the excitement over the EK II; it always seemed a tad rubbery to me) that I used from '89 to '95
    My bad on lack of clarity. I didn't mean the 13" MBP specifically, though I didn't realize there was never a 4 core option (but, I guess the 13" is newer and I'm used to 15" MBPs from my past). I was thinking of the whole line-up though, iMacs, minis, etc.
    The 13" MacBook (2006) and MacBook Pro (2009) came out before there was a quad-core option for 15" MacBooks Pro (starting mid-2010). 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Saber said:
    I ordered a  fully configured 2016 MBP within days of its release, but I canceled the order in the nick of time. However, this time, I carried through with the 2017 order, because my 12-inch MacBook (Gen 1) is already on its last leg and I needed a replacement. The keyboard has failing keys, the hinge is loose, and the battery will only last an hour or so. Apple has agreed to fix it under warranty, but it will take 2-weeks, and without a backup machine, I had little choice. So, I purchased the June 2017 15-MBP at nearly 5k, including AppleCare and tax. 

    In the past, I would be excited with a new Mac purchase, but not this time. For the price and features, the  'user experience' is lacking, and I expected more the company I once loved. Sadly, Apple has produced another watered down product, that will be obsolete once the ports become relevant. If it were not for the superior Mac OS, I would have purchased the new 2017 Microsoft Surface Pro.

    Apple consumer since 1983 ~

    I have a surface book (the original).  Excellent laptop and windows isn't as terrible as folks make it out to be.

    So quit whining about how terrible Apple is and go get one instead since you think the "user experience" is so lacking Mr. 1 post.  Seriously, how stupid a consumer do you have to be to order $5K worth of product from a company that you think sucks and sold you a previous product that is claimed to be in such disrepair just two years later?  

    And how stupid do you think we are to believe that there was zero other options than to buy a $5K watered down, joy sucking computer that will be "obsolete" next year because you have to wait 2 weeks for your MB to be fixed?

    http://www.rentechsolutions.com/rental-pricing/apple/

    And how you go from "needing" a 12" macbook replacement to buying a fully spec'd out MBP 3.1 Ghz i7 with 2TB SSD is amazing.
    williamlondonsphericadaeon
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    nht said:
    "Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle."

    And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design:   Planned Obsolescence.
    If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.

    Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics.   I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly.  Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?  
    Because nobody cares about customers that replace computers once every decade.


    So you are telling us that Apple has embraced Planned Obsolescence?  A product life of 4-5 years and then its tossed into the trash can (or recycle bin)...

    Admittedly, that was a valid position to take back when Apple was in the middle of markets where technology was rapidly advancing and a 5 year old product was truly obsolete because its technology simply couldn't do the job.   But today, those markets have matured and today's innovations are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  And, a 5 year old product can still function well in all but the most demanding situations.  So, it only becomes obsolete due to LACK OF SUPPORT -- otherwise known as "Planned Obsolescence".

    That's so sad to learn!
    So, by embracing planned obsolescence, Apple has now joined the ranks of organizations that design and build their products based solely on marketing & sales projections?   It's so sad to learn that they have abandoned the Jobs philosophy of building insanely great products that make people's lives better.  Because: 
    THAT is the philosophy that made Apple great.  
    THAT is the philosophy that sets Apple apart from the "also ran's". 

    So sad to learn that Apple has abandoned the Steve Jobs philosophy and embraced the philosophy of losers...
    Not even car companies would survive if the majority of consumers purchased once a decade.  The average american moves once every 5 years so a 10 year cycle would cripple the real estate industry.

    So no, no computer company cares about consumers that purchase computers every 10 years.  It's not about "planned obsolescence" but a viable business model.  Apple policy has not changed and Steve Jobs' philosophy of making insanely great products had zero to do with product longevity.

    The original Mac was as closed as Jobs could make it to the point of using screws few people had a driver for, soldered in memory and no slots.  The iPhone was far more locked down than other phones of its time (built in battery, no slot for extra flash storage, etc).  As I've said before, upgrading 128K macs to 512K fat macs is partially how I funded my first car.

    So don't try to peddle that BS around here.  There are plenty of old timers that remember Apple products and how they were designed through the years.  Allowing folks to fiddle with their macs by installing 3rd party components is expressly NOT part of Jobs' computing vision.  Buying the NEXT insanely great product was.
    sphericadaeon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?

    I could understand wanting to use third-party components that cost much less than Apple's BTO options, but it seems that particular argument should be about Apple's *pricing* and not whether or not the machine is user-upgradable. That doesn't seem to be what's driving the consternation, though. So if it's not the cost, what IS driving this perceived need to upgrade RAM down the road?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
    Because newer applications and OS's demand more memory than what was needed several years ago...  Without additional memory the machine can no longer do the job.  Your choice (if available): 
    1)  Spend a few hundred for additional memory
    2)  Spend a few thousand for a complete new machine with more memory 
    3) buy a new $1200 13" MBP every 3 years instead of a $4200 15" MBP every 12.  

    You will have a better computing platform for the last 6 years and end up saving money by selling your old 13".
    williamlondon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 175
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,917member

    Anyway, gang. I'm off to smoke some pork and brisket. Have a nice weekend. 
    Pork AND brisket. Where u at?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 111 of 175
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,917member
    nubus said:
    You're not comparing like with like. Sure, the i7-6700HQ shipped five quarters earlier, but that's a red herring. 
    Kaby Lake still wasn't available to put in the 2016 MBP when it launched. The i7 for Kaby Lake that Apple is using now shipped in January 2017.

    Nothing changed at Apple. It can't ship what doesn't exist.
    I fully agree that the move to Intel was much needed. It shut down the megahertz gap. It made it easier to let PCI boards to work with the Mac, improved battery life, etc. etc.

    However... in the past Apple didn't stop upgrading their computers years before they launched an update. The switch from Pismo/G3 to TiBook/G4 was swift, and iMac G5 got an update just 3 months before the iMac with Intel. Keeping the product range fresh used to be the norm.

    The switch to Intel did solve a lot of issues. Hardware upgrades were not one of them.
    Apple constantly works to improve all aspects of their business, not just the hardware and software. I believe that at some point Apple (probably Tim Cook in his previous position) looked at this frequent upgrade practice and saw that it was not necessary.  They would have found that it wasted money due to staff needed to manage the constant changes, managing the supply chain and even tooling costs.  They also would have realized that continuous upgrading of parts didn't matter to the majority of customers.  I worked for Apple for a very brief six weeks, and even in that time I learned that they are methodical and obsessed about every single aspect of their business.  Everything gets examined on a regular basis and they are not afraid to change things.
    williamlondon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 112 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?
    Partly it's about price. Things like RAM and storage generally get bigger and cheaper at a fairly rapid rate. So, even not taking Apple's sometimes outrageous pricing into account, a RAM chip that costs $400 today might cost $50 in a year or two. So, if you BTO with top-spec parts, you'll spend a lot of extra money that will quickly become not worth as much.

    Or, for something like storage, it might not even be available. Say the top storage option is 512GB, but next year, there are 1TB or stuff like that. And, in general, file sizes have gotten bigger and bigger. So, maybe when you buy the machine, you're working with 1080p video and after a couple of years, you're working with 4k video, etc. Suddenly, the storage that was ample when you bought it is tiny for current needs.

    I think GPUs (for some professions) have been the biggest sore point, so I'm happy to see that going away with eGPUs. That technology changes so quickly that for people who do 3D rendering or something like that, each year being able to upgrade might halve their working time/waiting time if they are able to upgrade.
    GeorgeBMac said:
    "bad science from long ago"?
    Only if you believe the propaganda put out by the meat and dairy industries...

    The reality is, that propaganda has become so wide spread that the American Heart Association just issued an advisory refuting that so called "modern science".   In reality, that so called 'modern science' is based on manipulated lab studies and cherry picked meta analysis meant to support the meat and dairy industries.

    Meat (particularly red meat of which pork is one) not only has been proven to cause heart disease but is listed by the WHO as a probably carcinogen.   
    Nope, I just follow the latest science around diet and nutrition. The ideas that eating fat and/or cholesterol increased cholesterol, made you fat, or caused heart-disease, is based on some faulty studies that doctors and even the government just swallowed hook, line, & sinker. And, low-fat diets are already starting to be found to be linked to all sorts of health issues, including obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.

    Almost all of this stuff comes down to hormones, immune system, environment (toxins or deficiencies), micro biome in our digestive tract, and epigenetic impact. And, the SAD (standard American diet, now quite common around the world) is a huge contributor to our poor state of health. Then we slap tons of medications on top to cover symptoms and attempt to cut away problems. The good news? We're on the brink of a health revolution if industry, regulations, and Science™ don't put up too huge of a fight.
    nht said:
    It's not about "planned obsolescence" but a viable business model.  Apple policy has not changed and Steve Jobs' philosophy of making insanely great products had zero to do with product longevity.
    I think it's been primarily about how rapid the technology changes. The reason the mobile devices refresh so often was due to the insane level of advance, while some of the desktop components are simply 'good enough' for the majority now, or haven't advanced as quickly.

    What has pushed things is on the software side. It could just be faulty memory of the past, but I think I used to hang onto my Macs longer years ago. It seems like now I'm needing to keep a newer model to maintain compatibility with OS or various apps. Also, I think many app devs have tied compatibility more to the OS, so you have to keep buying them each year or subscribe (whereas, I used to use an app for years, sometimes, between updates).
    welshdog said:
    Apple constantly works to improve all aspects of their business, not just the hardware and software. ... Everything gets examined on a regular basis and they are not afraid to change things.
    Well, then they need some work on that process. Maybe they should go back and examine some of their UI standards they've abandoned, and stop chasing after silly design fads.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 113 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member
    Does anyone actually upgrade RAM years after purchase? If so, why? If you're able to get by with less than the maximum for some period of time, why would you require more later? What's the advantage of starting with less and adding more over time? Why not just max it out off the bat and forget about it?

    I could understand wanting to use third-party components that cost much less than Apple's BTO options, but it seems that particular argument should be about Apple's *pricing* and not whether or not the machine is user-upgradable. That doesn't seem to be what's driving the consternation, though. So if it's not the cost, what IS driving this perceived need to upgrade RAM down the road?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious. What am I missing?
    Because newer applications and OS's demand more memory than what was needed several years ago...  Without additional memory the machine can no longer do the job.  Your choice (if available): 
    1)  Spend a few hundred for additional memory
    2)  Spend a few thousand for a complete new machine with more memory
    If you buy your machine with RAM maxed-out to start with (a $200 upgrade to the 13" MBP), what are you going to upgrade to a few years down the line? 

    And the 15" MacBook Pro comes with exactly one choice for RAM: Maxed out. What possible purpose and "flexibility" would be served by making the RAM removable? 
    edited June 2017
    adaeon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 114 of 175
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,712member

    cgWerks said:

    Well, then they need some work on that process. Maybe they should go back and examine some of their UI standards they've abandoned, and stop chasing after silly design fads.
    This confuses me. Hasn't Apple consistently created design fads, rather than following any? 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 115 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    nht said:
    nht said:
    "Battery technology has improved to a point where the battery will continue to operate in the machines foreseeable useful lifecycle."

    And that's part of the trouble with the "Glued and soldered together" design:   Planned Obsolescence.
    If the product's expected life is short enough (use it 3-5 years then discard and buy new), then yes, a battery can perform for the life of the unit.

    Some of us expect and demand a longer life out of our electronics.   I am currently using a 10-12 year old IBM Thinkpad that, after a number of upgrades (including a battery), functions perfectly.  Why should I not expect the same performance out of a Mac?  
    Because nobody cares about customers that replace computers once every decade.


    So you are telling us that Apple has embraced Planned Obsolescence?  A product life of 4-5 years and then its tossed into the trash can (or recycle bin)...

    Admittedly, that was a valid position to take back when Apple was in the middle of markets where technology was rapidly advancing and a 5 year old product was truly obsolete because its technology simply couldn't do the job.   But today, those markets have matured and today's innovations are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  And, a 5 year old product can still function well in all but the most demanding situations.  So, it only becomes obsolete due to LACK OF SUPPORT -- otherwise known as "Planned Obsolescence".

    That's so sad to learn!
    So, by embracing planned obsolescence, Apple has now joined the ranks of organizations that design and build their products based solely on marketing & sales projections?   It's so sad to learn that they have abandoned the Jobs philosophy of building insanely great products that make people's lives better.  Because: 
    THAT is the philosophy that made Apple great.  
    THAT is the philosophy that sets Apple apart from the "also ran's". 

    So sad to learn that Apple has abandoned the Steve Jobs philosophy and embraced the philosophy of losers...
    Not even car companies would survive if the majority of consumers purchased once a decade.  The average american moves once every 5 years so a 10 year cycle would cripple the real estate industry.

    So no, no computer company cares about consumers that purchase computers every 10 years.  It's not about "planned obsolescence" but a viable business model.  Apple policy has not changed and Steve Jobs' philosophy of making insanely great products had zero to do with product longevity.

    The original Mac was as closed as Jobs could make it to the point of using screws few people had a driver for, soldered in memory and no slots.  The iPhone was far more locked down than other phones of its time (built in battery, no slot for extra flash storage, etc).  As I've said before, upgrading 128K macs to 512K fat macs is partially how I funded my first car.

    So don't try to peddle that BS around here.  There are plenty of old timers that remember Apple products and how they were designed through the years.  Allowing folks to fiddle with their macs by installing 3rd party components is expressly NOT part of Jobs' computing vision.  Buying the NEXT insanely great product was.
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 116 of 175
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    cgWerks said:

    I just follow the latest science around diet and nutrition. The ideas that eating fat and/or cholesterol increased cholesterol, made you fat, or caused heart-disease, is based on some faulty studies that doctors and even the government just swallowed hook, line, & sinker. And, low-fat diets are already starting to be found to be linked to all sorts of health issues, including obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.

    Almost all of this stuff comes down to hormones, immune system, environment (toxins or deficiencies), micro biome in our digestive tract, and epigenetic impact. And, the SAD (standard American diet, now quite common around the world) is a huge contributor to our poor state of health. Then we slap tons of medications on top to cover symptoms and attempt to cut away problems. The good news? We're on the brink of a health revolution if industry, regulations, and Science™ don't put up too huge of a fight.
    ...
    ...and stop chasing after silly design fads.
    It sounds like you are following propaganda from the meat and dairy industries rather than the latest science.   The latest science is examined by the AHA, USDA and the WHO and they all agree to avoid saturated fats, dietary cholesterol and red and processed meats in favor of whole plant based foods.

    40 years ago the tobacco industry did the same thing:  muddy the scientific waters with misinformation.  The meat, dairy and processed food industries are following the same model of "Alternative Facts"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 117 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    "don't try to peddle that BS around here."

    Steve Jobs created Apple in order to create great products that changed people's lives.  They were closed systems not to make them obsolete in a few years (back then the rapidly evolving technology cycle took care of that).  They were closed in order to make them integrated products free from user tampering.  That is a very different thing than blocking ongoing upgrades.
    Meanwhile:  OTHER companies created products that simply generated revenue streams.  Junk companies creating junk products.  Apple is not a junk company not does it make junk products.

    "So don't try to peddle that BS around here."
    There was ZERO upgrade path from the Mac 128K to Fat Mac 512K except with a soldering iron or taking it to an Apple retailer for a logic board replacement.  That we could even do that wasn't because of Steve Jobs but despite him.

    Here's what Andy Hertzfeld said on the topic:

    Diagnostic Port
    Author:Andy Hertzfeld
    Date:July 1981
    Characters:Steve Jobs, Jef Raskin, Burrell Smith, Brian Howard, Steve Wozniak, Rod Holt
    Topics:Hardware Design, Management
    Summary:Burrell tried to sneak in some hardware expandability

    Expandability, or the lack thereof, was far and away the most controversial aspect of the original Macintosh hardware design. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was a strong believer in hardware expandability, and he endowed the Apple II with luxurious expandability in the form of seven built-in slots for peripheral cards, configured in a clever architecture that allowed each card to incorporate built-in software on its own ROM chip. This flexibility allowed the Apple II to be adapted to a wider range of applications, and quickly spawned a thriving third-party hardware industry.

    But Jef Raskin had a very different point of view. He thought that slots were inherently complex, and were one of the obstacles holding back personal computers from reaching a wider audience. He thought that hardware expandability made it more difficult for third party software writers since they couldn't rely on the consistency of the underlying hardware. His Macintosh vision had Apple cranking out millions of identical, easy to use, low cost appliance computers and since hardware expandability would add significant cost and complexity it was therefore avoided.

    Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports.

    Mac hardware designer Burrell Smith and his assistant Brian Howard understood Steve's rationale, but they felt differently about the proper course of action. Burrell had already watched the Macintosh's hopelessly optimistic schedule start to slip indefinitely, and he was unable to predict when the Mac's pioneering software would be finished, if ever. He was afraid that Moore's Law would make his delayed hardware obsolete before it ever came to market. He thought it was prudent to build in as much flexibility as possible, as long as it didn't cost too much.

    Burrell decided to add a single, simple slot to his Macintosh design, which made the processor's bus accessible to peripherals, that wouldn't cost very much, especially if it wasn't used. He worked out the details and proposed it at the weekly staff meeting, but Steve immediately nixed his proposal, stating that there was no way that the Mac would even have a single slot.

    But Burrell was not that easily thwarted. He realized that the Mac was never going to have something called a slot, but perhaps the same functionality could be called something else. After talking it over with Brian, they decided to start calling it the "diagnostic port" instead of a slot, arguing that it would save money during manufacturing if testing devices could access the processor bus to diagnose manufacturing errors. They didn't mention that the same port would also provide the functionality of a slot.

    This was received positively at first, but after a couple weeks, engineering manager Rod Holt caught on to what was happening, probably aided by occasional giggles when the diagnostic port was mentioned. "That things really a slot, right? You're trying to sneak in a slot!", Rod finally accused us at the next engineering meeting. "Well, that's not going to happen!"

    Even though the diagnostic port was scuttled, it wasn't the last attempt at surreptitious hardware expandability. When the Mac digital board was redesigned for the last time in August 1982, the next generation of RAM chips was already on the horizon. The Mac used 16 64Kbit RAM chips, giving it 128K of memory. The next generation chip was 256Kbits, giving us 512K bytes instead, which made a huge difference.

    Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate soon after launch, and there were no slots for the user to add RAM. He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, allowing adventurous people who knew how to wield a soldering gun to replace their RAM chips with the newer generation. The extra lines would only cost pennies to add.

    But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. But this time Burrell prevailed, because the change was so minimal. He just left it in there and no one bothered to mention it to Steve, much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory.

    http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Diagnostic_Port.txt

    TL;DR;  You're full of it.  Jobs was never a proponent of letting you extend the life of your mac with 3rd party components over buying the next model.  Letting folks do that at all was with grudging acceptance at best.
    adaeon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 118 of 175
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    spheric said:

    cgWerks said:

    Well, then they need some work on that process. Maybe they should go back and examine some of their UI standards they've abandoned, and stop chasing after silly design fads.
    This confuses me. Hasn't Apple consistently created design fads, rather than following any? 
    For Apple haters Apple is following a fad even if it was the one that created it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 119 of 175
    Mike Wuerthelemike wuerthele Posts: 6,955administrator
    welshdog said:

    Anyway, gang. I'm off to smoke some pork and brisket. Have a nice weekend. 
    Pork AND brisket. Where u at?
    Northern Virginia, near Washington DC. 

    Pork ribs for last weekend, brisket was brined for 11 days for pastrami for the week's sandwiches.
    cgWerks
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 120 of 175
    cgWerkscgwerks Posts: 2,952member
    spheric said:
    This confuses me. Hasn't Apple consistently created design fads, rather than following any? 
    Fads and fashion ≠ design and style! (Though some people get confused, they are somewhat antithetical.)

    The sad thing for me, is that I endured so many years of being accused of buying Apple and being an Apple evangelist because I was into fashion products. Then Apple goes and starts fulfilling that horror.

    re: following - Just consider 'flat design' that has so heavily influenced iOS and even somewhat macOS. Much of it is awful in terms of UI. They have been even back-tracking on some of it (for example, adding color back into black and white).
    GeorgeBMac said:
    It sounds like you are following propaganda from the meat and dairy industries rather than the latest science.   The latest science is examined by the AHA, USDA and the WHO and they all agree to avoid saturated fats, dietary cholesterol and red and processed meats in favor of whole plant based foods.

    40 years ago the tobacco industry did the same thing:  muddy the scientific waters with misinformation.  The meat, dairy and processed food industries are following the same model of "Alternative Facts"
    You're barking up the right tree, a bit... you've just got the wrong players. Maybe you should consider the links between AHA, USDA, WHO, etc. and names like Merck, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. Along with plain outdated science.

    Yes, if you eat damaged fats and oxidized cholesterol (what's in lots of packaged foods), you're in trouble. But, that's not because fat and cholesterol are bad for you. The devil is in the details! Your body needs fat and cholesterol. Your cholesterol is regulated by your hormones and liver, not what you stick in your pie-hole. And, sugar (and carbs that quickly convert to sugar) are the primary influence on the body packing on fat.

    Please, take some time to educate yourself on this. Your life, quite literally, depends on it.

    BTW, here's some good info on the recent headlines around coconut oil: http://theshawnstevensonmodel.com/20-ways-to-use-coconut-oil/
    nht said:
    For Apple haters Apple is following a fad even if it was the one that created it.
    Apple haters? Clearly you've not known me long. :smiley: 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.