Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

1910121415

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.
    edited April 30
  • Reply 222 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

    I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

    Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  

    I still fail to see how eliminating a socket makes a machine thinner (at least in any meaningful way).  Nor do I see how soldering an SSD makes it any stronger.  If the frame of the machine is that weak, it will work the opposite and break the solder joint -- at which time you lose your data when you throw away your machine.


    OK, we're beyond just a difference in philosophy or even consumer preference at this point.  Given the way you're going at it with others, I get the feeling that you are rigidly stuck in your position or perhaps just looking to debate.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.  

    The point is not just removing a socket, though removing anything could conceivably allow less mass and therefore a potential thinner design.  We don't even have to speculate though, because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.  My 2009 MBP weighs 5.5 lbs and is .95 inches thick.  My 2015 is obviously a much higher performing machine, and is 4.49 lbs and .71 inches thick.  So it's about 20% lighter and thinner.  I won't get into the performance benchmarks, but you can imagine that my current quad core machine pretty much slays the dual core 2009 machine.  

    So we've established that whatever changes Apple is making, they result in (or correlate with) faster, more powerful machines that are thinner and lighter.  So, let's now talk reliability.  As I stated, I've replaced my 2009's battery once, and it now needs it again.  I've replaced the charger.  I upgraded to an SSD (a Samsung that ended up being a problem) and then replaced the SSD again (an OWC I think).  I can't recall if I upgraded the RAM...but I think I may have.  Conversely, I'm in my 6th year of use with my 2015 MBP 2.2GHZ quad core (Retina).  I've repaired and upgraded precisely nothing.  The battery is still at least 80%.  It doesn't even have any loose screws.  The keyboard is better and quieter.  I've spilled liquids near it....no issues.  It's higher performance, thinner, lighter, more solid machine.  It's a better machine, period.  Nothing on the machine is user serviceable as far as I know.  But why does it matter to me anymore?  

    Again, if you like having user upgradable laptops, that's fine.  I'm not arguing you shouldn't.  But you are being extremely critical of Apple and anyone who has a different take.  Your comment about "throwing away your machine" is frankly ridiculous.  A broken solder joint is not going to result in permanent data loss, for a variety of reason I suspect you already know, but won't acknowledge.  People back up their data quite a bit now, thanks to the cloud.  The system IS serviceable by authorized centers, including Apple.  People aren't just going to "throw their machine away."  That's absurd.  

    You may prefer to swap out a failed SSD yourself, but at what cost does that come? Apple evaluated who actually works on their own machines, what the costs and benefits of each approach were, and decided to go with a more hardwired method.  Think what you like, but that's obviously what happened.  Again, you're entitled to your own opinion.  But you're not even considering the other side of the debate.  

     

    As others have pointed out:  Thinkpads are lighter, thinner and upgradeable.   So, you need to give up on that argument.

    And, it was Andrew who said his MacBook Air could not meet his needs because, unlike his MacPro, it cannot be upgraded.  I agree with him.   Obviously you think he just "critical of Apple".   He isn't and neither I am I.   But, we both recognize a poor design choice when we see it.

    How many cheap debate tactics can you fit into one post?  I count three.  No, four.

    1) Appeal to majority ("others have pointed out").  
    2) False comparision/dilemma (comparing MBP to Thinkpads directly).  
    3) Strawman ("you need to give up on that argument"....one I wasn't making).  
    4) Strawman #2 ("Obviously you think").  
    Maybe even 5) Appeal to authority (Andrew who said....). 


    I was not comparing MBP's to Thinkpads.  If a Thinkpad is a better option for you because it's upgradable, thin and light, good for you.  What I was doing was illustrating that Apple's products have indisputably gotten lighter and thinner.  This was in direct response to your claim that there was no benefit to the consumer.  Clearly, that's incorrect, especially for portables.  I also illustrated (somewhat anecdotally) that at the same time, their build quality, feel and reliability have improved.  Here again, this is an obvious benefit to the consumer.  

    Please put away the "you obviously think" straw man.  I didn't say Andrew was just being critical of Apple.  I'm not even sure I'd say that about you.  You do seem completely entrenched, myopic and needlessly argumentative on this point, though.  A perfect example is your last sentence.  A poor design choice? No, it's design choice you don't like. And that's fine.   But running around claiming it has no benefit to consumers, you'll have to throw out your laptop, etc?  Please.  Oh, and I'll point out.... I find it hilarious and bizarre that someone would accuse Apple of making a "poor design choice" because their $1500 portable doesn't meet the same needs as their $5000 desktop.   

    I don't know who you're trying to convince here.  You're certainly not going to change Apple's mind.  I doubt you're changing too many minds here.  



    LOL....
    You obviously WERE claiming that Macs were thinner, lighter, etc...
    Sorry if your claim was refuted and made you feel bad.  So, instead of apologizing you attack the messenger.  Sad.
    I'm puzzled at why you seem to be responding so defensively, but I'll just put that aside and reiterate my point.  

    ....

    LOL....
    You obviously WERE claiming that Macs were thinner, lighter, etc...
    Sorry if your claim was refuted and made you feel bad.  So, instead of apologizing you attack the messenger.  Sad.

    (And you're still attacking the messenger!!!!)

    I honestly am baffled by your hostility on this.  I'll try one more time to find some common ground here.  If you continue to respond as you have, I guess I'll just move on, as I'm really not interested in ad hominem arguments.  I do have a few questions....completely up to you whether not you want to answer.  

    1) Would you agree that Apple's MacBooks have progressively gotten thinner and lighter over the past decade (as compared to themselves)? 

    2) Putting aside upgradeability and serviceability for a moment, would you say the MBP line has longer or shorter lasting components (lifespan) as compared to a decade ago? This includes all machine components such as batteries, drives, keyboard, display, etc.  

    3) Thinking about the current or recent MacBook Pro for a moment, would you say the models are more or less "solid" feeling than models from a decade ago? 


    I'd be interested in your opinions on those questions.  





    I'm puzzled at why you seem to be responding so defensively


  • Reply 223 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,885member
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

    I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

    Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  

    I still fail to see how eliminating a socket makes a machine thinner (at least in any meaningful way).  Nor do I see how soldering an SSD makes it any stronger.  If the frame of the machine is that weak, it will work the opposite and break the solder joint -- at which time you lose your data when you throw away your machine.


    OK, we're beyond just a difference in philosophy or even consumer preference at this point.  Given the way you're going at it with others, I get the feeling that you are rigidly stuck in your position or perhaps just looking to debate.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.  

    The point is not just removing a socket, though removing anything could conceivably allow less mass and therefore a potential thinner design.  We don't even have to speculate though, because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.  My 2009 MBP weighs 5.5 lbs and is .95 inches thick.  My 2015 is obviously a much higher performing machine, and is 4.49 lbs and .71 inches thick.  So it's about 20% lighter and thinner.  I won't get into the performance benchmarks, but you can imagine that my current quad core machine pretty much slays the dual core 2009 machine.  

    So we've established that whatever changes Apple is making, they result in (or correlate with) faster, more powerful machines that are thinner and lighter.  So, let's now talk reliability.  As I stated, I've replaced my 2009's battery once, and it now needs it again.  I've replaced the charger.  I upgraded to an SSD (a Samsung that ended up being a problem) and then replaced the SSD again (an OWC I think).  I can't recall if I upgraded the RAM...but I think I may have.  Conversely, I'm in my 6th year of use with my 2015 MBP 2.2GHZ quad core (Retina).  I've repaired and upgraded precisely nothing.  The battery is still at least 80%.  It doesn't even have any loose screws.  The keyboard is better and quieter.  I've spilled liquids near it....no issues.  It's higher performance, thinner, lighter, more solid machine.  It's a better machine, period.  Nothing on the machine is user serviceable as far as I know.  But why does it matter to me anymore?  

    Again, if you like having user upgradable laptops, that's fine.  I'm not arguing you shouldn't.  But you are being extremely critical of Apple and anyone who has a different take.  Your comment about "throwing away your machine" is frankly ridiculous.  A broken solder joint is not going to result in permanent data loss, for a variety of reason I suspect you already know, but won't acknowledge.  People back up their data quite a bit now, thanks to the cloud.  The system IS serviceable by authorized centers, including Apple.  People aren't just going to "throw their machine away."  That's absurd.  

    You may prefer to swap out a failed SSD yourself, but at what cost does that come? Apple evaluated who actually works on their own machines, what the costs and benefits of each approach were, and decided to go with a more hardwired method.  Think what you like, but that's obviously what happened.  Again, you're entitled to your own opinion.  But you're not even considering the other side of the debate.  

     

    As others have pointed out:  Thinkpads are lighter, thinner and upgradeable.   So, you need to give up on that argument.

    And, it was Andrew who said his MacBook Air could not meet his needs because, unlike his MacPro, it cannot be upgraded.  I agree with him.   Obviously you think he just "critical of Apple".   He isn't and neither I am I.   But, we both recognize a poor design choice when we see it.

    How many cheap debate tactics can you fit into one post?  I count three.  No, four.

    1) Appeal to majority ("others have pointed out").  
    2) False comparision/dilemma (comparing MBP to Thinkpads directly).  
    3) Strawman ("you need to give up on that argument"....one I wasn't making).  
    4) Strawman #2 ("Obviously you think").  
    Maybe even 5) Appeal to authority (Andrew who said....). 


    I was not comparing MBP's to Thinkpads.  If a Thinkpad is a better option for you because it's upgradable, thin and light, good for you.  What I was doing was illustrating that Apple's products have indisputably gotten lighter and thinner.  This was in direct response to your claim that there was no benefit to the consumer.  Clearly, that's incorrect, especially for portables.  I also illustrated (somewhat anecdotally) that at the same time, their build quality, feel and reliability have improved.  Here again, this is an obvious benefit to the consumer.  

    Please put away the "you obviously think" straw man.  I didn't say Andrew was just being critical of Apple.  I'm not even sure I'd say that about you.  You do seem completely entrenched, myopic and needlessly argumentative on this point, though.  A perfect example is your last sentence.  A poor design choice? No, it's design choice you don't like. And that's fine.   But running around claiming it has no benefit to consumers, you'll have to throw out your laptop, etc?  Please.  Oh, and I'll point out.... I find it hilarious and bizarre that someone would accuse Apple of making a "poor design choice" because their $1500 portable doesn't meet the same needs as their $5000 desktop.   

    I don't know who you're trying to convince here.  You're certainly not going to change Apple's mind.  I doubt you're changing too many minds here.  
    LOL....
    You obviously WERE claiming that Macs were thinner, lighter, etc...
    Sorry if your claim was refuted and made you feel bad.  So, instead of apologizing you attack the messenger.  Sad.
    I'm puzzled at why you seem to be responding so defensively, but I'll just put that aside and reiterate my point.  
    It's the only way George knows how to communicate.  He rants and screams and calls people Trumpers or Apple Fan boys if they express any disagreement with anything he says.  Everything is black and white and angry in GBM world.

    I wouldn't take the defensiveness or the hostility personally, it's very much him, not you.  I'm convinced he needs professional help.
    muthuk_vanalingamsdw2001watto_cobra
  • Reply 224 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,885member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

    I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

    Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  

    I still fail to see how eliminating a socket makes a machine thinner (at least in any meaningful way).  Nor do I see how soldering an SSD makes it any stronger.  If the frame of the machine is that weak, it will work the opposite and break the solder joint -- at which time you lose your data when you throw away your machine.


    OK, we're beyond just a difference in philosophy or even consumer preference at this point.  Given the way you're going at it with others, I get the feeling that you are rigidly stuck in your position or perhaps just looking to debate.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.  

    The point is not just removing a socket, though removing anything could conceivably allow less mass and therefore a potential thinner design.  We don't even have to speculate though, because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.  My 2009 MBP weighs 5.5 lbs and is .95 inches thick.  My 2015 is obviously a much higher performing machine, and is 4.49 lbs and .71 inches thick.  So it's about 20% lighter and thinner.  I won't get into the performance benchmarks, but you can imagine that my current quad core machine pretty much slays the dual core 2009 machine.  

    So we've established that whatever changes Apple is making, they result in (or correlate with) faster, more powerful machines that are thinner and lighter.  So, let's now talk reliability.  As I stated, I've replaced my 2009's battery once, and it now needs it again.  I've replaced the charger.  I upgraded to an SSD (a Samsung that ended up being a problem) and then replaced the SSD again (an OWC I think).  I can't recall if I upgraded the RAM...but I think I may have.  Conversely, I'm in my 6th year of use with my 2015 MBP 2.2GHZ quad core (Retina).  I've repaired and upgraded precisely nothing.  The battery is still at least 80%.  It doesn't even have any loose screws.  The keyboard is better and quieter.  I've spilled liquids near it....no issues.  It's higher performance, thinner, lighter, more solid machine.  It's a better machine, period.  Nothing on the machine is user serviceable as far as I know.  But why does it matter to me anymore?  

    Again, if you like having user upgradable laptops, that's fine.  I'm not arguing you shouldn't.  But you are being extremely critical of Apple and anyone who has a different take.  Your comment about "throwing away your machine" is frankly ridiculous.  A broken solder joint is not going to result in permanent data loss, for a variety of reason I suspect you already know, but won't acknowledge.  People back up their data quite a bit now, thanks to the cloud.  The system IS serviceable by authorized centers, including Apple.  People aren't just going to "throw their machine away."  That's absurd.  

    You may prefer to swap out a failed SSD yourself, but at what cost does that come? Apple evaluated who actually works on their own machines, what the costs and benefits of each approach were, and decided to go with a more hardwired method.  Think what you like, but that's obviously what happened.  Again, you're entitled to your own opinion.  But you're not even considering the other side of the debate.   
    As others have pointed out:  Thinkpads are lighter, thinner and upgradeable.   So, you need to give up on that argument.

    And, it was Andrew who said his MacBook Air could not meet his needs because, unlike his MacPro, it cannot be upgraded.  I agree with him.   Obviously you think he just "critical of Apple".   He isn't and neither I am I.   But, we both recognize a poor design choice when we see it.
    I think most people would hear that and think it was gobsmackingly amazing that a MacBook Air even came close to be considered for replacing a Mac Pro in a professional workflow.  That's the real take, not griping about upgradeability of a machine that is never going to be as upgradeable as the Mac Pro in any world.

    You can't replace the screen on a Lenovo Nano.  You can't replace the motherboard.  You can't put wheels on it.  What a failure.

    Now you're getting silly.
    Right back at ya.  You're complaining that a $1000 notebook isn't as upgradeable as a $6000 desktop, ...
    Go complain to Andrew.  that was his comparison
    ... But, nice try!   (well actually, it wasn't.   It was yet another flop)
    I'm pretty sure I've been having a conversation with you and not Andrew.  Andrew said it made the MacBook Air not the machine he would choose for his workflow, it's you who has made broad sweeping statements about some fictional group of people who said "nobody ever upgraded a computer".
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 225 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,885member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    danvm said:
    crowley said:
    danvm said:
    crowley said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    danvm said:
    tmay said:
    danvm said:
    danvm said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.
    "For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit"

    It offers a laptop that is lighter due it being thinner.  That may not be a benefit to you but it is benefit to many consumers.  So much so that Windows makers have started copying the MBA design in spades.  It isn't a surprise that ultrabooks like the MBA are the hottest selling segment of the laptop market.  And now with the M1 MBA, you get a laptop that's light, fast and runs cool & quiet.

    The average consumer does not care about the same things that you or other IT folk care about.  What they care about are devices that are convenient, easy to use, fast, quiet, cool and have access to web and their favorite apps. Sure, there are some consumers who care about upgradeability but they're far from the majority.  This is the mass market.  And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against computers that are upgradeable but if that's what YOU are after then you should buy a device that allows you to do that.
    Maybe you don't need to copy Apple to make devices thinner and lighter.  For example, the ThinkPad X1 Nano is a 2 pound notebook, smaller and lighter than any current Apple notebook, and it has a replaceable SSD and battery, among other parts.  


    X1 Nano Gen 1 Hardware Maintenance Manual (lenovo.com)

    And this not only benefits someone who later needs a larger SSD drive, but also makes possible to service the device onsite without special tools.  That could be a better design compared to Apple notebooks, where you have to send it via mail or take it to an Apple Store for service.  
    Like I said in my previous post, if that's a design that works for you then more power to you.  The vast majority of average consumers using their device for home use is not goint to go through the trouble of opening up their laptop, upgrade the SSD & reinstall the OS.  They want to buy it and forget it.
    Did you read my post?  It wasn't about upgradeability at all.  I pointed out the the X1 Nano showed that you don't need to glue or sold everything for a think / light device.  Second, I think that consumers could benefit from a device that's easy to service.  For example, if the logic board needs to be replaced, the user won't lose data since the SSD can be swapped to the new logic board.  Or after 3-4 years, the battery can be replaced extending the life of the notebook.  Is that really bad for consumers?
    I am of the belief that consumers want the most reliable devices, vs ease of service, so consumers have a purchase choice, same as it ever was. For the record, the X1 Nano traded battery life for lightweight and serviceability, and given that Apple has better battery life, plus better performance based on its M1 silicon, I'm not in agreement with your argument.

    One would think that the market will actually decide this, not any of our arguments, but here we are, arguing to little effect, one way or another.
    Do you have proof that the X1 Nano is a less reliable device?  Most ThinkPads, including the X1 Nano, pass many durability tests.  And based on what I have seen from my customer ThinkPad, they have many advantages over my MBP, from a design and construction POV.  

    Lenovo ThinkPad | Military-tested Rugged Laptops | Lenovo US

    Second, I agree that the M1 is a better compared to the Intel processor the X1 Nano have.  But that wasn't my point.  What I'm saying is that Lenovo showed that it's possible to create a thin and light device, while keeping the device easy to service.  
    Lenovo created a thin and light device by compromising battery life. The marketing value of ease of serviceability to the consumer is minimal if their device has a high level of reliability to begin with. It may be an advantage for Lenovo, but Apple has retail stores that do a modest level of service and are within a short drive  by the bulk of the U.S. population.

    Which service paradigm is more valuable to the consumer?

    That's the question.
    The X1 Nano battery size is similar to the one in the MBA.  So any battery benefit the MBA has is because of the M1 chip.  BTW, what does battery life has to do with this?  

    Also, from your post I could understand that consumers benefit outside the U.S. would be better with a non Apple device, since they have no easy access to an Apple Store for service, is that right?  So we could say that there is value for consumers outside of the U.S. for a device that's easy to service, right?
    Apple Stores are not so uncommon outside of the USA, the main cities of the majority of developed counties have them, and most major cities in Australia, Canada and Western Europe.  If you're unlucky enough to be a way from one of them then you'll have to rely on third party or mail in repair I guess, which will vary by location.  Authorised third party repair shops should have access to most of the same parts as Apple, though will probably need to order in so may take longer.

     https://www.thebalancesmb.com/apple-retail-stores-global-locations-2892925
    I know that there are Apple stores around the world, but that doesn't means everyone has easy access to them.  For example, Brazil only have two stores, Mexico only one, same as South Korea.  My point is that a device that's easy to service benefits business, but also consumers.  For example, if by accident I spill liquid in my MBP keyboard and live in country without an Apple Store, it will be an issue, since they are difficult to service.  Compare that to a ThinkPad, and you can see the difference.  Lenovo even has the service manual in the website so the user / technician can service the device.  Personally I don't see how this can be bad or negative for consumers.  
    The majority of Apple's customers will be fairly local to an Apple Store though.  I'm not saying they don't care at all about customers in other places, but let's just say there's an element of proportionality at play.

    And try not to spill liquid on your keyboard.  Even if you have a Lenovo you very much will not enjoy the experience.
    I agree the most Apple customer are in the U.S. and make sense for them to have their stores here.  Still, my point is that there are cases were a device that's easy to service, as ThinkPad can be positive for consumers (even though ThinkPad is not a consumer brand).  For example the MBP 2017 have the keyboard glued to the keyboard.

    Apple Engineers Its Own Downfall With the Macbook Pro Keyboard - iFixit

    Do you really think it's a good idea?  Clearly not, specially with the issues we saw in the past years with keyboards and how expensive it's to replace.  Compare that to what the X1 Nano service manual show, where you can replace the keyboard and battery separately.  

    And maybe you don't know, but ThinkPads have spill resistant keyboards, including the X1 Nano.  




    Even if the keyboard or trackpad fails because of the spill, you can easily replace them. 
    I don't think many people defend the butterfly keyboard design any more, but we were talking about RAM, storage and the M1 SOC.

    Gluing is a bit more divisive.  You're right in that it's less repairable, but there's also a strong argument that gluing improves overall integrity meaning that you may not need to repair it nearly as quickly.  It's a trade off either way, and some people will likely get burned by misfortune.

    I know that claim (gluing things together) is often made by Apple Fan Boys to defend Apple's practice of it.   Is there any (real) evidence for it?    Besides, when a soldered connection breaks, it stays broke and the machine is, at best, sold for parts.  If a component comes loose from a socket (unusual as it may be) it can be reset.
    Do you know what solder is?  Things can be resoldered.

    LOL... Yeh, take your MacBook into an Apple Store and tell them to resolder the SSD....   (Just take your wallet with you so you can walk out with the new machine they'll sell you instead)
    I wasn't responding to a claim that Apple wouldn't solder it, I was responding to a claim that "when a soldered connection breaks, it stays broke and the machine is, at best, sold for parts."  You didn't mention Apple at all.

    Other repair shops are available.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 226 of 291
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.


    FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;


    "Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.

    You consistently amaze me with your misinformation...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 227 of 291
    XedXed Posts: 890member
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.


    FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;


    "Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.

    You consistently amaze me with your misinformation…
    It's baffling. I mean, it's quite misinformed for the average person, but you consider someone that claims the both use and have been using Apple products for many years, and then add in someone that actually frequents and participates on an Apple focused message board it's bonkers. This guy claimed that AppleCare and AppleCare+ are the same exact thing and that it's Apple's responsibly to create a license of Windows for ARM-based machines… to many use two other wacky things he's argued until he was blue in the face. At this point I have to wonder if this is some Andy Kauffman-esque performance.
    baconstangmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobratht
  • Reply 228 of 291
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:
    Agree, the M1 changed everything.  That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer.  An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
    Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom.  Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working.  Nice, don't you think?
    ...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
    Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 229 of 291
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    Xed said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.


    FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;


    "Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.

    You consistently amaze me with your misinformation…
    It's baffling. I mean, it's quite misinformed for the average person, but you consider someone that claims the both use and have been using Apple products for many years, and then add in someone that actually frequents and participates on an Apple focused message board it's bonkers. This guy claimed that AppleCare and AppleCare+ are the same exact thing and that it's Apple's responsibly to create a license of Windows for ARM-based machines… to many use two other wacky things he's argued until he was blue in the face. At this point I have to wonder if this is some Andy Kauffman-esque performance.
    This isn't the same as Time Machine, which backs up locally any changes, but it covers a number of apps. Given that George won't use an external Time Machine drive, this is the best that he can get from iCloud, and it syncs with his other Apple devices. Time Machine in iCloud would be very impractical if you ever had to do a restore, which is why Apple doesn't have that.

    I have an 8TB USB 3 WD My Book external drive for Time Machine, very much overkill, but I don't have to worry about overwriting any of the data for years. Mostly, I keep iPad, and iPhone data in iCloud.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 230 of 291
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:
    Agree, the M1 changed everything.  That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer.  An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
    Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom.  Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working.  Nice, don't you think?
    ...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
    Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
    Somehow one get dragged into and adapting a tone one do not like to use, then ends up using it in other discussions thus becoming a part of the problem, and that's a drag. The humor evaporates. I'll probably "ignore" a tad more strict to redeem the fun. Or pull out.
    edited April 30
  • Reply 231 of 291
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:

    A passenger jet or a supertanker will break up if they were rigid. It has happened.
    Environs that are frequented by hurricanes are usually adorned with flexible palm trees.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 232 of 291
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 782member
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value. 
    I doubt whether knowing the market is the key issue. I think the limiting factor is robotics (and by implication practical limits on headcount). Another is the resulting reliability. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 233 of 291
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,144member
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:
    Agree, the M1 changed everything.  That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer.  An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
    Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom.  Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working.  Nice, don't you think?
    ...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
    Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
    Just to clarify, most of my devices in my household are from Apple.  So the "Wintel corporate shill" don't apply to me, but neither I'm an "Apple shill", since I have zero emotional attachment to any of my Apple devices.  And neither I have devices from Lenovo.  But in my line of work I have to work with all kind of devices and brands, from notebooks to professional workstations.

    If you read my posts you'll see why, IMO, ThinkPads are better designed compared to Apple notebooks.  Does it means that Apple devices are bad?  But neither are perfect, and if you want a recent example, just look at the butterfly keyboards.  Based in my experience, some Apple notebooks are better than ThinkPad and viceversa.  But in construction, and design, I give the advantage to ThinkPads.  The iMac is the best All-In-One in the market, while the Mini have some competition from the HP Z1 and the ThinkStation Tiny.  The iPad is the best tablet, until you add a keyboard + trackpad, where the Surface Pro does a better job.  And the HP Z-workstations and Lenovo ThinkStations maybe betterthan the Mac Pro, depending in the usage.

    Does this sound to you pathetic and from a Wintel corporate shill?  Hope not.  Again, most of my posts are based in what I experienced in the field.  When you are outside the Apple bubble you can see what's good and bad with Apple and with other devices.  And I have zero issues praising or criticizing any of them.  But if you think that every Apple device is absolutely better than other vendors, then you may need to expand the list of devices you use, and it may surprise you what you may find.  

    edited April 30 GeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 234 of 291
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    danvm said:
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:
    Agree, the M1 changed everything.  That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer.  An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
    Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom.  Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working.  Nice, don't you think?
    ...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
    Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
    Just to clarify, most of my devices in my household are from Apple.  So the "Wintel corporate shill" don't apply to me, but neither I'm an "Apple shill", since I have zero emotional attachment to any of my Apple devices.  And neither I have devices from Lenovo.  But in my line of work I have to work with all kind of devices and brands, from notebooks to professional workstations.

    If you read my posts you'll see why, IMO, ThinkPads are better designed compared to Apple notebooks.  Does it means that Apple devices are bad?  But neither are perfect, and if you want a recent example, just look at the butterfly keyboards.  Based in my experience, some Apple notebooks are better than ThinkPad and viceversa.  But in construction, and design, I give the advantage to ThinkPads.  The iMac is the best All-In-One in the market, while the Mini have some competition from the HP Z1 and the ThinkStation Tiny.  The iPad is the best tablet, until you add a keyboard + trackpad, where the Surface Pro does a better job.  And the HP Z-workstations and Lenovo ThinkStations maybe betterthan the Mac Pro, depending in the usage.

    Does this sound to you pathetic and from a Wintel corporate shill?  Hope not.  Again, most of my posts are based in what I experienced in the field.  When you are outside the Apple bubble you can see what's good and bad with Apple and with other devices.  And I have zero issues praising or criticizing any of them.  But if you think that every Apple device is absolutely better than other vendors, then you may need to expand the list of devices you use, and it may surprise you what you may find.  

    There's a PC market, and then there's a Mac market, and just like the smartphone where it's iPhone vs everyone else, Apple is growing its customer base, and interestingly, its margins.

    What does that tell you about Apple, and specifically Apple product design, and the customer? You seem to fail to see the big picture, hence why your postings come across as unconvincing.

    What's the big picture?

    That Apple is disrupting the PC business.

    https://mondaynote.com/apple-silicon-m1-disruption-af11f639103a
    edited May 1 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 235 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,885member
    tmay said:

    Time Machine in iCloud would be very impractical if you ever had to do a restore, which is why Apple doesn't have that.
    Backblaze, and other similar backup services, while not exactly the same as Time Machine accomplish much the same thing in backing up to cloud storage.  And they have solutions for a full restore too.  Apple probably could do something, they just haven't shown much interest.
  • Reply 236 of 291
    Hubro said:
    A passenger jet or a supertanker will break up if they were rigid. It has happened.
    Environs that are frequented by hurricanes are usually adorned with flexible palm trees.
    That's true, and it works just fine provided the ground is firm enough for the roots to sustain the forces at hand. The more I think of it, the better I like your analogy. Actually, it's brilliantly better than using planes and ships. :)  
  • Reply 237 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    crowley said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Wgkrueger said:
    seanj said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
    Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

    If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

    I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 
    But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.
    If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 
    ...

    The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

     
    Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

    I think I explained my thinking on the benefits to the customer.  A thinner, lighter, more solid and perhaps longer-lasting design benefits the customer.  Speaking from a real-world and personal perspective, the benefits to me have been more than marginal.  As I said, I was a person who used to upgrade things myself.  I did RAM, HDD, SSD, battery (modular or internal), etc.  I don't care about that anymore.  Know why?  Because I don't need to do it.  The components on my 2015 (model year, actually started using in fall of 2016) MBP haven't needed to be replaced or upgraded.  I'm at the point now where I still don't need more capabilities, but I'll probably upgrade in a year or two anyway.  After all, my product is now vintage and nearly obsolete.  

    Again, all things being equal, I prefer upgradeability.  But things are not equal.  The design is better.  The feel is better.  Components last longer and are higher performance.  It's like complaining that you can't swap out your fuel injectors, when you could change your carburetor in your classic car.  

    I still fail to see how eliminating a socket makes a machine thinner (at least in any meaningful way).  Nor do I see how soldering an SSD makes it any stronger.  If the frame of the machine is that weak, it will work the opposite and break the solder joint -- at which time you lose your data when you throw away your machine.


    OK, we're beyond just a difference in philosophy or even consumer preference at this point.  Given the way you're going at it with others, I get the feeling that you are rigidly stuck in your position or perhaps just looking to debate.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.  

    The point is not just removing a socket, though removing anything could conceivably allow less mass and therefore a potential thinner design.  We don't even have to speculate though, because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.  My 2009 MBP weighs 5.5 lbs and is .95 inches thick.  My 2015 is obviously a much higher performing machine, and is 4.49 lbs and .71 inches thick.  So it's about 20% lighter and thinner.  I won't get into the performance benchmarks, but you can imagine that my current quad core machine pretty much slays the dual core 2009 machine.  

    So we've established that whatever changes Apple is making, they result in (or correlate with) faster, more powerful machines that are thinner and lighter.  So, let's now talk reliability.  As I stated, I've replaced my 2009's battery once, and it now needs it again.  I've replaced the charger.  I upgraded to an SSD (a Samsung that ended up being a problem) and then replaced the SSD again (an OWC I think).  I can't recall if I upgraded the RAM...but I think I may have.  Conversely, I'm in my 6th year of use with my 2015 MBP 2.2GHZ quad core (Retina).  I've repaired and upgraded precisely nothing.  The battery is still at least 80%.  It doesn't even have any loose screws.  The keyboard is better and quieter.  I've spilled liquids near it....no issues.  It's higher performance, thinner, lighter, more solid machine.  It's a better machine, period.  Nothing on the machine is user serviceable as far as I know.  But why does it matter to me anymore?  

    Again, if you like having user upgradable laptops, that's fine.  I'm not arguing you shouldn't.  But you are being extremely critical of Apple and anyone who has a different take.  Your comment about "throwing away your machine" is frankly ridiculous.  A broken solder joint is not going to result in permanent data loss, for a variety of reason I suspect you already know, but won't acknowledge.  People back up their data quite a bit now, thanks to the cloud.  The system IS serviceable by authorized centers, including Apple.  People aren't just going to "throw their machine away."  That's absurd.  

    You may prefer to swap out a failed SSD yourself, but at what cost does that come? Apple evaluated who actually works on their own machines, what the costs and benefits of each approach were, and decided to go with a more hardwired method.  Think what you like, but that's obviously what happened.  Again, you're entitled to your own opinion.  But you're not even considering the other side of the debate.  

     

    As others have pointed out:  Thinkpads are lighter, thinner and upgradeable.   So, you need to give up on that argument.

    And, it was Andrew who said his MacBook Air could not meet his needs because, unlike his MacPro, it cannot be upgraded.  I agree with him.   Obviously you think he just "critical of Apple".   He isn't and neither I am I.   But, we both recognize a poor design choice when we see it.

    How many cheap debate tactics can you fit into one post?  I count three.  No, four.

    1) Appeal to majority ("others have pointed out").  
    2) False comparision/dilemma (comparing MBP to Thinkpads directly).  
    3) Strawman ("you need to give up on that argument"....one I wasn't making).  
    4) Strawman #2 ("Obviously you think").  
    Maybe even 5) Appeal to authority (Andrew who said....). 


    I was not comparing MBP's to Thinkpads.  If a Thinkpad is a better option for you because it's upgradable, thin and light, good for you.  What I was doing was illustrating that Apple's products have indisputably gotten lighter and thinner.  This was in direct response to your claim that there was no benefit to the consumer.  Clearly, that's incorrect, especially for portables.  I also illustrated (somewhat anecdotally) that at the same time, their build quality, feel and reliability have improved.  Here again, this is an obvious benefit to the consumer.  

    Please put away the "you obviously think" straw man.  I didn't say Andrew was just being critical of Apple.  I'm not even sure I'd say that about you.  You do seem completely entrenched, myopic and needlessly argumentative on this point, though.  A perfect example is your last sentence.  A poor design choice? No, it's design choice you don't like. And that's fine.   But running around claiming it has no benefit to consumers, you'll have to throw out your laptop, etc?  Please.  Oh, and I'll point out.... I find it hilarious and bizarre that someone would accuse Apple of making a "poor design choice" because their $1500 portable doesn't meet the same needs as their $5000 desktop.   

    I don't know who you're trying to convince here.  You're certainly not going to change Apple's mind.  I doubt you're changing too many minds here.  
    LOL....
    You obviously WERE claiming that Macs were thinner, lighter, etc...
    Sorry if your claim was refuted and made you feel bad.  So, instead of apologizing you attack the messenger.  Sad.
    I'm puzzled at why you seem to be responding so defensively, but I'll just put that aside and reiterate my point.  
    It's the only way George knows how to communicate.  He rants and screams and calls people Trumpers or Apple Fan boys if they express any disagreement with anything he says.  Everything is black and white and angry in GBM world.

    I wouldn't take the defensiveness or the hostility personally, it's very much him, not you.  I'm convinced he needs professional help.
    Typical!  -- when you lose a debate you resort to attacking the messenger. 
    But, if you have nothing to contribute, go kick your dog or something instead of cluttering up the forum with your hate and anger.

  • Reply 238 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.


    FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;


    "Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.

    You consistently amaze me with your misinformation...

    We're talking about Macs, not iPhones
    edited May 1
  • Reply 239 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    Hubro said:
    danvm said:
    Agree, the M1 changed everything.  That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer.  An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
    Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom.  Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working.  Nice, don't you think?
    ...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
    Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.

    I didn't realize the site was reserved for Apple Apologists....
    But Wintel shill? 
    No, just disproving false claims claiming that using glue and solder are necessary to make a laptop thin, light or reliable.




    edited May 1
  • Reply 240 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,470member
    tmay said:
    Xed said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

    His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

    Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
    Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
    I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

    Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

    I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
    For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

    we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

    increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

    there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

    I agree.   a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
    But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence.  And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
    I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.

    mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.

    so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.

    It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore.  But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive.  That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.

    Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security:  If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered.  That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard.  Then your data dies with your machine.
    I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.

    Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
    Well one does...  But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
    It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad:   I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.

    But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.

    Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups!
    in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system.   When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.

    That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced.  It's the most valuable part:  the data.

    If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs.  I don't understand why they have not done that.


    FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;


    "Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.

    You consistently amaze me with your misinformation…
    It's baffling. I mean, it's quite misinformed for the average person, but you consider someone that claims the both use and have been using Apple products for many years, and then add in someone that actually frequents and participates on an Apple focused message board it's bonkers. This guy claimed that AppleCare and AppleCare+ are the same exact thing and that it's Apple's responsibly to create a license of Windows for ARM-based machines… to many use two other wacky things he's argued until he was blue in the face. At this point I have to wonder if this is some Andy Kauffman-esque performance.
    This isn't the same as Time Machine, which backs up locally any changes, but it covers a number of apps. Given that George won't use an external Time Machine drive, this is the best that he can get from iCloud, and it syncs with his other Apple devices. Time Machine in iCloud would be very impractical if you ever had to do a restore, which is why Apple doesn't have that.

    I have an 8TB USB 3 WD My Book external drive for Time Machine, very much overkill, but I don't have to worry about overwriting any of the data for years. Mostly, I keep iPad, and iPhone data in iCloud.
    Why would it be impractical for Time Machine to backup to iCloud?

    But personally, I think most Apple users would be happy (and safer) if Apple transferred its iCloud backup system from the iPhone to the Mac.   Initially, it was designed to only backup small amounts of data.  But now it goes up to (I think) 2Gb -- which would be far more than enough for most Mac users.  And, in addition to solving the problem of data recovery if you drown your Mac with a Starbuck's,  it would solve the problem that an external drive has:  a house fire that destroys both Mac and external drive.

    And, while I haven't used it for awhile (except for new devices) I'm pretty sure that, at least for Numbers, you can choose which version of multiple backups you want to recover from -- and it is pretty quick too.

    I'm puzzled why Apple has not already implemented iCloud backup on their Macs.  But, with their increased integration with the iOS I would bet that it's coming.  And, when it does, it will probably just be a blip on an enhancement list.   But still, I think, a major upgrade

Sign In or Register to comment.