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

191011121315»

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 291
    omasouomasou Posts: 153member
    omasou said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification (the part that you snipped from my reply):  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for.    And also, it ignores the emotional attraction to something new and glittery or that you may already be over extended -- which makes money even more valuable than its intrinsic value.

    Take the case of a worker laid off during the pandemic:   They need a computer for their kid but every penny is going to feed, clothe and house that kid.   For that person, his time is worth nothing and every penny is like a piece of gold.

    Triangle still works and doesn't require additional dimensions. In your example, the worker needs to value money over time and quality, i.e. they need to purchase the cheapest  Chromebook they can afford, even if they want something better.

    Similar to living w/in your means. One can live w/in their means by delaying a purchase today that they cannot afford in order to save for something of better quality that hopefully will last longer and perform better.

    What started this conversation was the lack of the ability to upgrade and having to purchase new. Again, that's a choice, do I want the immediate gratification or can I delay it. My original point was that for me the value of upgrades are not worth the money spent and the lost of productivity (time). Instead, I feel based on my experience (and no one has to agree) that the money is better directed to saving for a future purchase. My past experience has shown me that squeezing the useful life out of  product until is worthless and then having to pay full price for a new item is more costly than selling the item sooner and thereby getting more money from that item that no longer meets my needs and using it to offset the cost of a new item is better. Basically, buying a new top of the line MacBook Pro is expensive but once you have one it is less expensive to flip it to buy a new one vs. exhausting it useful live, getting nothing for it and then having to buy a replacement. But that scenario only works for those that can afford the to cover the difference.

    It's fine that you feel that you're not willing to spend your time fixing or upgrading a piece of equipment to extend its life.  That's your choice.  (And earlier I gave an example where it was, at one time, my choice as well)

    But, when you justify that on monetary grounds, you step into pretty shaky grounds:   Right now I'm using a 9 year old machine that runs great.  It runs as well my grandson's newer MacBook or his dad's brand new Lenovo.  But, to replace it would cost me around $1,200 -- and it would not gain me a thing.  Nothing.   So that would be $1,400 thrown away.  The upgrades cost me $35 (not counting an SSD that I pulled from a machine that I drowned with my coffee).  

    So, let me think about this:   $35 and 10 minutes of relaxed labor vs $1,200.  For me that's a no brainer.

    If you feel that the older machine is running as well as the newer one then I agree and I too would by a new SSD over a new machine.
  • Reply 282 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,491member
    omasou said:
    omasou said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification (the part that you snipped from my reply):  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for.    And also, it ignores the emotional attraction to something new and glittery or that you may already be over extended -- which makes money even more valuable than its intrinsic value.

    Take the case of a worker laid off during the pandemic:   They need a computer for their kid but every penny is going to feed, clothe and house that kid.   For that person, his time is worth nothing and every penny is like a piece of gold.

    Triangle still works and doesn't require additional dimensions. In your example, the worker needs to value money over time and quality, i.e. they need to purchase the cheapest  Chromebook they can afford, even if they want something better.

    Similar to living w/in your means. One can live w/in their means by delaying a purchase today that they cannot afford in order to save for something of better quality that hopefully will last longer and perform better.

    What started this conversation was the lack of the ability to upgrade and having to purchase new. Again, that's a choice, do I want the immediate gratification or can I delay it. My original point was that for me the value of upgrades are not worth the money spent and the lost of productivity (time). Instead, I feel based on my experience (and no one has to agree) that the money is better directed to saving for a future purchase. My past experience has shown me that squeezing the useful life out of  product until is worthless and then having to pay full price for a new item is more costly than selling the item sooner and thereby getting more money from that item that no longer meets my needs and using it to offset the cost of a new item is better. Basically, buying a new top of the line MacBook Pro is expensive but once you have one it is less expensive to flip it to buy a new one vs. exhausting it useful live, getting nothing for it and then having to buy a replacement. But that scenario only works for those that can afford the to cover the difference.

    It's fine that you feel that you're not willing to spend your time fixing or upgrading a piece of equipment to extend its life.  That's your choice.  (And earlier I gave an example where it was, at one time, my choice as well)

    But, when you justify that on monetary grounds, you step into pretty shaky grounds:   Right now I'm using a 9 year old machine that runs great.  It runs as well my grandson's newer MacBook or his dad's brand new Lenovo.  But, to replace it would cost me around $1,200 -- and it would not gain me a thing.  Nothing.   So that would be $1,400 thrown away.  The upgrades cost me $35 (not counting an SSD that I pulled from a machine that I drowned with my coffee).  

    So, let me think about this:   $35 and 10 minutes of relaxed labor vs $1,200.  For me that's a no brainer.

    If you feel that the older machine is running as well as the newer one then I agree and I too would by a new SSD over a new machine.

    Since the stuff that I do on it is pretty mundane (web browsing, a little spreadsheet stuff, occasional word processing, etc.) a faster machine wouldn't buy me much.
    Doing that kind of low-end work with 16Gb memory, an SSD and an i7 with a 1Gb low-end GPU, it never gets bogged down, boots quickly and is very responsive.

    Largely, it is simply matching the machine to the work.  If I were editing videos and such I would probably want a newer, faster machine.
    omasou
  • Reply 283 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,893member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.
    edited May 6 tht
  • Reply 284 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,491member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
  • Reply 285 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,893member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
  • Reply 286 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,491member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
    As an accountant and later as a systems analyst I have been involved in more "make vs buy" decision than I care to count.
    I already pointed out some of the deficiencies in that model.  But they went right over your head.


  • Reply 287 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,893member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
    As an accountant and later as a systems analyst I have been involved in more "make vs buy" decision than I care to count.
    I already pointed out some of the deficiencies in that model.  But they went right over your head.
    Sure you did.
  • Reply 288 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,491member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
    As an accountant and later as a systems analyst I have been involved in more "make vs buy" decision than I care to count.
    I already pointed out some of the deficiencies in that model.  But they went right over your head.
    Sure you did.

    Yep!  I did.  And, as usual, they sailed right over your head.
  • Reply 289 of 291
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,893member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
    As an accountant and later as a systems analyst I have been involved in more "make vs buy" decision than I care to count.
    I already pointed out some of the deficiencies in that model.  But they went right over your head.
    Sure you did.
    Yep!  I did.  And, as usual, they sailed right over your head.
    "Childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means" are not deficiencies of the project management triangle.  They're not even related.  If you think they are then you haven't understood it at all.  And your continued insistence suggests that you're not even trying, in which case this is my final word on the matter.
  • Reply 290 of 291
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,491member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.



    Add a 4th corner:   Childish attraction for the shiny new object.   Or, maybe a 5th:   Living within your means.
    No.  You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.

    I understand it.   I just think it's an oversimplification.  Like I said:  it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. 
    Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.

    If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
    Money is already on the triangle.

    Like I said, you've misunderstood it.  If you want to get something done then you are constrained by time, money and quality.  If you don't want to spend money, i.e. by buying better equipment, then you'll likely have to make compromises on quality, or spend more of your time.

    If your time has a monetary value in that you're being paid for it, then you'll certainly want to balance how much you're being paid with any potential gains from spending money on equipment, but that's exactly what the triangle is meant to illustrate, the need for balancing these things according to your priorities. 

    So yes, I think you've profoundly misunderstood it if that wasn't obvious, and if you're bringing things like childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means into the equation.  They aren't relevant to the balance.

    And time will always have a value to the person being asked to spend it.  Direct monetary value is not the only measurement of value.  Again, you've misunderstood if you thought that was a stipulation.  Quality also is not only measured in $.

    So, because I don't agree with it you think I don't understand it.    You never change.
    Your responses to me communicate clearly that you haven't understood the point of the project management triangle, so I've tried to help you out by restating it.  If you're going to take umbrage at that then I won't bother any more.  Have a nice evening.
    As an accountant and later as a systems analyst I have been involved in more "make vs buy" decision than I care to count.
    I already pointed out some of the deficiencies in that model.  But they went right over your head.
    Sure you did.
    Yep!  I did.  And, as usual, they sailed right over your head.
    "Childish attraction for the shiny new object and living within your means" are not deficiencies of the project management triangle.  They're not even related.  If you think they are then you haven't understood it at all.  And your continued insistence suggests that you're not even trying, in which case this is my final word on the matter.

    Bull
  • Reply 291 of 291
    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.
    Those Thinkpads are perfectly capable of running W10 very well. Hell, till two months ago my daughter had a T440s with 12gb RAM and an SSD, never gave her a lick of trouble. These days I use it to run FreeBSD. I love Macs and I have a 2016 MBP 16" but I wish it was upgradeable. I'll just buy the next M2 when it comes out with the most RAM and storage space available since I know it can't be upgraded for a lot less $ which is a shame. 
Sign In or Register to comment.