Some people get enjoyment from putting things together themselves. If you enjoy it, it's hardly slave labour.
Don't know why you're all getting huffy about having different priorities. Takes all sorts.
I didn't start the complaining process, he did. His claim was that his hackintosh cost less. That is only true if the cost of the labour going into it is negligible and not taken into account.
Hobbyists can do what they like — they can put model ships into iMacs for all I care. I just don't like the disingenuous nonsense that they spout about how they have something insanely great that costs nothing at all. That is just dumb. Dumb accounting.
Not really, it's just another perspective. If you have more time than money then the solution that uses more time than money will appeal. Especially so if you can use your time doing something (tinkering) that you enjoy.
Moreover, there's been a lot of disingenuous assumptions and accusations from the other side in this little exchange. A computer is not automatically low quality just because it isn't built by Apple.
I'm too happy to argue. My MacBook Pro with 1 TB SSD just arrived ten minutes ago. I will report on this "low specced graphics" machine. But since I'm not a gamer don't expect me to bitch and moan about it. I'm sure this machine will last me for five years if I need it to.
My favorite design remains the classic MacBook Pro with the exception of the DVD drive and that is what made me an Apple fan. Since then, the advent of the retina has made for a thinner notebook. I don't want it to be crazy thin similar to a MacBook Air. I want a laptop that I buy to have a bit of weight to it. I also would like to change my own memory and hard drive but perhaps with the PCIe SSD, asking for the latter is kind of pointless. I guess the future with Apple is soldered memory. I kind of feel it was pointless though to introduce a 4 GB model though if they were going to drop the price. Iris takes 1 GB of RAM for graphics so that's 25% off the bat.
I am looking ahead to the future for integrated graphics and discrete graphics but I will only be paying attention to the 27" iMac and Mac Pro. The 15" rMBP will not use the top of the line.
Sorry to ramble. I hope some people can pick some points out of my post.
To make it feel like it’s there. Would you enjoy carrying around a sheet of 11x17 and trying to protect it?
Yeah pretty much this. Also, I want there to be adequate graphics inside without it getting too hot. Unlike some really slim notebooks, the Intel HD 4400 in a lot of ultrabooks isn't good by my standards to want to upgrade my Mac mini. The HD 5000 in the Intel NUC and the MacBook Air is better but still got not good enough. The Iris and Iris Pro are the only ones left by that standard.
If we're talking discrete, Apple doesn't cut it with the iMac since they give 1 GB out of a possible 2 GB of video memory in the upper 21.5" iMac and the base 27" iMac.
To make it feel like it’s there. Would you enjoy carrying around a sheet of 11x17 and trying to protect it?
Enjoy? Protect? What a bizarre question. I'd be perfectly comfortable with being able to keep the "sheet of 11x17" secure if it was rigid and sturdy, and I had a decent bag to put it in. I'd "enjoy" it all the more if the sheet is as light as it can possibly be (with no other significant trade-offs).
But, of course, that little caveat is the reality check, isn't it? One doesn't get thin and light without sacrificing something else. So far the list of something else's has included affordable storage, convenient access to parts requiring periodic replacement (which these days is probably just the storage device if RAM is soldered in), and sufficient heat dissipation to allow the use of superhero GPUs and CPUs.
To some people those are things they're willing to accept to enjoy reduced size and weight. To others it's ridiculous to sacrifice performance just to make the device a little smaller. Some, like me, wonder why Apple can't swing both ways? Why try to shrink the MBPro when they already make the Air? Why not make the Air the choice of those who want tiny, slim and light, while making the MBPro a bigger, heavier, hotter powerhouse with the brute grunt to render Avatar in sixteen seconds? Then they'd satisfy BOTH camps.
I think the MacBook was slimmed down to show that they were not going to have the DVD drive anymore. Could they have done this without slimming it down? Yes of course. I certainly hope this is the last time though that they slim it down for several years. Thinner is not necessarily better.
But, of course, that little caveat is the reality check, isn't it?
Not really. Winter said he wanted his laptop to have some heft to it, for its own sake. I'm with you, I wouldn't want weight taken away if it had major impact on performance, or battery or other, but all other things being the same, I'd prefer my MacBook as light as possible.
Why try to shrink the MBPro when they already make the Air? Why not make the Air the choice of those who want tiny, slim and light, while making the MBPro a bigger, heavier, hotter powerhouse with the brute grunt to render Avatar is sixteen seconds? Then they'd satisfy BOTH camps.
I don't get it.
They wouldn't satisfy both that way. They'd have people who want a portable device with a maximum 13" screen and people who want power with a much less portable device. The 15" uses very fast quad-core i7 processors (80% the speed of Intel's fastest desktop quad-cores) while still being very thin and light. There is a compromise on the GPU but it's silly to even consider a 100W GPU as it would drain the battery far too quickly when not plugged in so you aren't talking about the difference between unusable and rendering everything faster than you can hope for, the difference is between Iris Pro and a 765M. A 765M would be up to 2x faster for real-time graphics and in many cases would be the same for OpenCL compute. Not that big of a deal, unlike imposing a heavier, noisier machine that lasts half the time on battery onto every buyer.
One important difference though Marvin and this is probably a factor. Looking at the Razer Blade/Blade Pro (which has the 765M), it is equipped with the Intel HD 4600 as opposed to the Iris Pro 5200. Specifically the 14" Razer Blade uses the i7-4700HQ which is a 37W processor.
A 765M would be up to 2x faster for real-time graphics and in many cases would be the same for OpenCL compute. Not that big of a deal, unlike imposing a heavier, noisier machine that lasts half the time on battery onto every buyer.
OpenGL is often just as important if not more. Until recently the only things that mattered when gpu power was a significant factor were OpenGL performance and lack of weird bugs in areas like color management and drawing. Discrete still tends to be ahead there, but as I mention below, the chargers aren't well equipped for it. The tops sometimes feel like they're boiling with everything running hard, although that might be a bit better with the rmbp models. I hope intel doesn't let up on gpu improvements over the next couple generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
One important difference though Marvin and this is probably a factor. Looking at the Razer Blade/Blade Pro (which has the 765M), it is equipped with the Intel HD 4600 as opposed to the Iris Pro 5200. Specifically the 14" Razer Blade uses the i7-4700HQ which is a 37W processor.
The cooling system in the macbook pros as well as the power delivered by their chargers is not enough for some of the hotter gpus they've used when they're run as hard as possible. In my opinion they're really designed with integrated graphics in mind. I would argue the improvements in integrated graphics are the best possible path for the rmbps the way they're designed. It would offer further improvement if they could work out better memory management in that regard.
[...] I would argue the improvements in integrated graphics are the best possible path for the rmbps the way they're designed. It would offer further improvement if they could work out better memory management in that regard.
And yet I'm the only one who thinks that Apple is putting form over function? Seems to me that if the design makes using slower, less effective components desirable, there's a problem with the design.
Who thought it was a good idea to add a screen with 4x as many pixels while also making it more difficult to use a powerful GPU? It's like doubling the weight of a vehicle while reducing the engine horsepower, lowering transmission capacity and shrinking the gas tank. It doesn't make sense.
And yet I'm the only one who thinks that Apple is putting form over function? Seems to me that if the design makes using slower, less effective components desirable, there's a problem with the design.
Who thought it was a good idea to add a screen with 4x as many pixels while also making it more difficult to use a powerful GPU? It's like doubling the weight of a vehicle while reducing the engine horsepower, lowering transmission capacity and shrinking the gas tank. It doesn't make sense.
I think some of that was a software issue, as people complained about lag in trivial applications even with discrete graphics active, and graphics switching was not disabled as a whole for that line. It is form over function, but so was the old one. If you put enough stress on the macine, even the keyboard would get pretty warm, and the battery would wear down faster than you might expect. If you planned to take the notebook with you later, you might be low on power due to the extra consumed during periods of intense use. What if you're low and plug it in, then need to push it? Same problem. I would rather look at something that works 100% as it should, then make the determination based on that whether raw performance, features, and price are suitable.
The cooling system in the macbook pros as well as the power delivered by their chargers is not enough for some of the hotter gpus they've used when they're run as hard as possible. In my opinion they're really designed with integrated graphics in mind. I would argue the improvements in integrated graphics are the best possible path for the rmbps the way they're designed. It would offer further improvement if they could work out better memory management in that regard.
How does the cooling system in the Razer Blade/Pro compare to the retina MacBook Pro, mainly the 15"?
How does the cooling system in the Razer Blade/Pro compare to the retina MacBook Pro, mainly the 15"?
I have no idea. It wouldn't change anything for me. The machine that ships today is what it is. Buying decisions have little to do with what might have been.
Comments
Don't know why you're all getting huffy about having different priorities. Takes all sorts.
Some people get enjoyment from putting things together themselves. If you enjoy it, it's hardly slave labour.
Don't know why you're all getting huffy about having different priorities. Takes all sorts.
I didn't start the complaining process, he did. His claim was that his hackintosh cost less. That is only true if the cost of the labour going into it is negligible and not taken into account.
Hobbyists can do what they like — they can put model ships into iMacs for all I care. I just don't like the disingenuous nonsense that they spout about how they have something insanely great that costs nothing at all. That is just dumb. Dumb accounting.
Moreover, there's been a lot of disingenuous assumptions and accusations from the other side in this little exchange. A computer is not automatically low quality just because it isn't built by Apple.
I'm too happy to argue. My MacBook Pro with 1 TB SSD just arrived ten minutes ago. I will report on this "low specced graphics" machine. But since I'm not a gamer don't expect me to bitch and moan about it. I'm sure this machine will last me for five years if I need it to.
Off to migrate some data.
I am looking ahead to the future for integrated graphics and discrete graphics but I will only be paying attention to the 27" iMac and Mac Pro. The 15" rMBP will not use the top of the line.
Sorry to ramble. I hope some people can pick some points out of my post.
I want a laptop that I buy to have a bit of weight to it.
Why?
Why?
To make it feel like it’s there. Would you enjoy carrying around a sheet of 11x17 and trying to protect it?
Yeah pretty much this. Also, I want there to be adequate graphics inside without it getting too hot. Unlike some really slim notebooks, the Intel HD 4400 in a lot of ultrabooks isn't good by my standards to want to upgrade my Mac mini. The HD 5000 in the Intel NUC and the MacBook Air is better but still got not good enough. The Iris and Iris Pro are the only ones left by that standard.
If we're talking discrete, Apple doesn't cut it with the iMac since they give 1 GB out of a possible 2 GB of video memory in the upper 21.5" iMac and the base 27" iMac.
To make it feel like it’s there. Would you enjoy carrying around a sheet of 11x17 and trying to protect it?
Enjoy? Protect? What a bizarre question. I'd be perfectly comfortable with being able to keep the "sheet of 11x17" secure if it was rigid and sturdy, and I had a decent bag to put it in. I'd "enjoy" it all the more if the sheet is as light as it can possibly be (with no other significant trade-offs).
[...] (with no other significant trade-offs).
But, of course, that little caveat is the reality check, isn't it? One doesn't get thin and light without sacrificing something else. So far the list of something else's has included affordable storage, convenient access to parts requiring periodic replacement (which these days is probably just the storage device if RAM is soldered in), and sufficient heat dissipation to allow the use of superhero GPUs and CPUs.
To some people those are things they're willing to accept to enjoy reduced size and weight. To others it's ridiculous to sacrifice performance just to make the device a little smaller. Some, like me, wonder why Apple can't swing both ways? Why try to shrink the MBPro when they already make the Air? Why not make the Air the choice of those who want tiny, slim and light, while making the MBPro a bigger, heavier, hotter powerhouse with the brute grunt to render Avatar in sixteen seconds? Then they'd satisfy BOTH camps.
I don't get it.
They wouldn't satisfy both that way. They'd have people who want a portable device with a maximum 13" screen and people who want power with a much less portable device. The 15" uses very fast quad-core i7 processors (80% the speed of Intel's fastest desktop quad-cores) while still being very thin and light. There is a compromise on the GPU but it's silly to even consider a 100W GPU as it would drain the battery far too quickly when not plugged in so you aren't talking about the difference between unusable and rendering everything faster than you can hope for, the difference is between Iris Pro and a 765M. A 765M would be up to 2x faster for real-time graphics and in many cases would be the same for OpenCL compute. Not that big of a deal, unlike imposing a heavier, noisier machine that lasts half the time on battery onto every buyer.
A 765M would be up to 2x faster for real-time graphics and in many cases would be the same for OpenCL compute. Not that big of a deal, unlike imposing a heavier, noisier machine that lasts half the time on battery onto every buyer.
OpenGL is often just as important if not more. Until recently the only things that mattered when gpu power was a significant factor were OpenGL performance and lack of weird bugs in areas like color management and drawing. Discrete still tends to be ahead there, but as I mention below, the chargers aren't well equipped for it. The tops sometimes feel like they're boiling with everything running hard, although that might be a bit better with the rmbp models. I hope intel doesn't let up on gpu improvements over the next couple generations.
One important difference though Marvin and this is probably a factor. Looking at the Razer Blade/Blade Pro (which has the 765M), it is equipped with the Intel HD 4600 as opposed to the Iris Pro 5200. Specifically the 14" Razer Blade uses the i7-4700HQ which is a 37W processor.
The cooling system in the macbook pros as well as the power delivered by their chargers is not enough for some of the hotter gpus they've used when they're run as hard as possible. In my opinion they're really designed with integrated graphics in mind. I would argue the improvements in integrated graphics are the best possible path for the rmbps the way they're designed. It would offer further improvement if they could work out better memory management in that regard.
[...] I would argue the improvements in integrated graphics are the best possible path for the rmbps the way they're designed. It would offer further improvement if they could work out better memory management in that regard.
And yet I'm the only one who thinks that Apple is putting form over function? Seems to me that if the design makes using slower, less effective components desirable, there's a problem with the design.
Who thought it was a good idea to add a screen with 4x as many pixels while also making it more difficult to use a powerful GPU? It's like doubling the weight of a vehicle while reducing the engine horsepower, lowering transmission capacity and shrinking the gas tank. It doesn't make sense.
And yet I'm the only one who thinks that Apple is putting form over function? Seems to me that if the design makes using slower, less effective components desirable, there's a problem with the design.
Who thought it was a good idea to add a screen with 4x as many pixels while also making it more difficult to use a powerful GPU? It's like doubling the weight of a vehicle while reducing the engine horsepower, lowering transmission capacity and shrinking the gas tank. It doesn't make sense.
I think some of that was a software issue, as people complained about lag in trivial applications even with discrete graphics active, and graphics switching was not disabled as a whole for that line. It is form over function, but so was the old one. If you put enough stress on the macine, even the keyboard would get pretty warm, and the battery would wear down faster than you might expect. If you planned to take the notebook with you later, you might be low on power due to the extra consumed during periods of intense use. What if you're low and plug it in, then need to push it? Same problem. I would rather look at something that works 100% as it should, then make the determination based on that whether raw performance, features, and price are suitable.
How does the cooling system in the Razer Blade/Pro compare to the retina MacBook Pro, mainly the 15"?
How does the cooling system in the Razer Blade/Pro compare to the retina MacBook Pro, mainly the 15"?
I have no idea. It wouldn't change anything for me. The machine that ships today is what it is. Buying decisions have little to do with what might have been.