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.
Yes, we agree here too. Apple's recent approach involves tradeoffs, as most things do. What I'm seeing though is there's a contingent led by a certain individual who is claiming that there are no benefits, ergo there are no trade-offs at all. I suppose the real point I'm making is that there are two sides of the equation here. I totally understand that lack of upgradeability and user serviceability is a disadvantage for some people. But the current approach also clearly has several benefits. I really don't see why those arguing the other side won't acknowledge that.
To be honest, I do not believe that gluing (or actually "using adhesives") makes it that difficult to repair. One just have to follow the relevant procedures properly when dismantling the beauties. The chassis doesn't flex much, thus heating/solvent and "pulling" and so on should be fairly predictable.
What makes it troublesome is that a certain number of individuals are attempting this without proper knowledge and qualifications. E.G: Overheat and get a mess, heating too low, break the removable unit. A technician with the knowledge and tools will have no difficulties.
M1 is IMHO the first significant proof of the pudding on the laptop side of things that heftier integration really is the right way ahead, and I'm convinced that it leads to even more reliable Macs.
Try asking Apple to unglue or unsolder their RAM or SSD's.... They will though, offer you a trade-in.
Heck, Apple wouldn't replace an SSD even back when it was a 5 minute job! So, from their perspective, there was nothing lost but the cost of a connector when they switched to solder.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There appears to be four categories of products that are exactly as described; iPad's, iPhones, Mac Book/Mac Book Pro, and the new iMac, and while there are people that complain about the manufacturing of those, it is also true that almost the entire industry follows these practices. It is arguable that smartphones couldn't be built any other way.
So what's the difference between an iPad and a Mac Book Air or Pro? Well according to you, an advocate of running Mac OS on an iPad, not much, other than the obvious configuration of screen and keyboard. So, what's the difference between and iPad, iPhone, and an iMac, I mean, they have many of the same external design features, to the point that one might argue that they are the same design language.
More to the point, why the concern, all of the sudden, about Apple's manufacturing processes, especially of the Mac? Seems like Apple is building highly reliable, very compact, and dense products to me.
Looks like gaslighting to me.
I agree that there is reason to glue and solder together things like iPhones. But nobody but you is talking about them here.
That's the reason I mentioned the X1 Nano, which show that you don't need to seal / glue a device to have a good design. From a design and quality of construction POV, I think that Apple is very good, but ThinkPads are better.
I will easily pay premium for that X1 Nano with an M1 chip.
You draw the full conclusion by a single advantage. Thats flawed. I got a Thinkpad right next to me right now. I only start it to keep it up to date. I don't want a X1 Nano or any other Lenovo device. If I wanted to buy a Thinkpad (a gift to someone who actually want one) it would be a T14. The only X even in the picture would be X1 Carbon extreme gen 3 15. The Thinkpad brand is totally diluted, and MacBook became the better alternative to Thinkpads in 2010.
If you are concerned with military specs, it's probably duly tested and inspected inside out by the People's Army. I consider Lenovo a risk for sensitive governmental and military use in any country.
He's using the Nano as an example to refute those claiming that gluing and soldering is the only way to a "modern" ultrabook. Obviously it is not. The Nano is both lighter and thinner.
Many may prefer a MacBook (especially here) , but that doesn't detract from his point.
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.
That's the reason I mentioned the X1 Nano, which show that you don't need to seal / glue a device to have a good design. From a design and quality of construction POV, I think that Apple is very good, but ThinkPads are better.
I will easily pay premium for that X1 Nano with an M1 chip.
You draw the full conclusion by a single advantage. Thats flawed. I got a Thinkpad right next to me right now. I only start it to keep it up to date. I don't want a X1 Nano or any other Lenovo device. If I wanted to buy a Thinkpad (a gift to someone who actually want one) it would be a T14. The only X even in the picture would be X1 Carbon extreme gen 3 15. The Thinkpad brand is totally diluted, and MacBook became the better alternative to Thinkpads in 2010.
If you are concerned with military specs, it's probably duly tested and inspected inside out by the People's Army. I consider Lenovo a risk for sensitive governmental and military use in any country.
I draw a conclusion based in your comment. At the end, the only answer I'm seeing on why a glued / sealed device is a good design choice is because Apple do it. Maybe there are good reasons for that, but no one has explain them. IMO, what Lenovo did with the X1 Nano regarding size, weight and quality of construction is admirable.
And I'm not sure ThinkPad brand being diluted. Maybe in the consumer market, because in the business / enterprise still very strong.
I'm not concerned with military specs. I just pointed out how good is ThinkPads are designed. If you don't like them or not for government use is a different story, and not related to the quality and design of the device.
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.
At no time did I intend to compare MacBooks to Thinkpads directly. I thought I did a pretty decent job of comparing my 2009 and 2015 MBP models with specs and my personal/anecdotal experience. I did write this line, which I now see you've put in bold:
...because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.
Realizing that you may have taken that to mean "compared to Thinkpads," I added clarification that this wasn't my intent. Is there some reason you don't believe me? My point there was just that MacBook Pros have gotten thinner and lighter over time. I then went on to illustrate that at the same time, I've noticed more subjective and anecdotal improvements to feel, reliability, etc.
If I'm not mistaken, I think your position is that the hardwired and glued approach has no benefit to the consumer. Is that correct? If so, that is my only point of contention. In fact, I think I've illustrated that it's demonstrably false. There are clear benefits to the approach, but also tradeoffs. Regardless of whether any of us agree with Apple's direction here, can we at least agree there are both benefits and costs on this design approach?
Finally, I assure you I don't feel bad, nor was it my intent to attack anyone. I do find it interesting you refer to yourself as "the messenger," as if you are delivering some undebatable truth. Your (apparent) position that there are no benefits to Apple's approach is not just debatable but actually unreasonable, at least in my view. That being said, I'll again state that I fully understand your preference for upgradeability and user accessibility. It's obvious to me that I should make clear what I'm not saying: I'm not taking issue with that preference. I'm not saying Thinkpads aren't thin, light and upgradable. I'm not saying there aren't costs to Apple's approach. I am simply saying there are benefits to this design choice.
Kudos to you for a matured, polite response. Even though i may not fully agree with your position, the way you have presented your viewpoint is very polite and gentle. And George's response (Post #206) to this post is pathetic to say the least. You have to just ignore and move on, i guess.
That's the reason I mentioned the X1 Nano, which show that you don't need to seal / glue a device to have a good design. From a design and quality of construction POV, I think that Apple is very good, but ThinkPads are better.
I will easily pay premium for that X1 Nano with an M1 chip.
You draw the full conclusion by a single advantage. Thats flawed. I got a Thinkpad right next to me right now. I only start it to keep it up to date. I don't want a X1 Nano or any other Lenovo device. If I wanted to buy a Thinkpad (a gift to someone who actually want one) it would be a T14. The only X even in the picture would be X1 Carbon extreme gen 3 15. The Thinkpad brand is totally diluted, and MacBook became the better alternative to Thinkpads in 2010.
If you are concerned with military specs, it's probably duly tested and inspected inside out by the People's Army. I consider Lenovo a risk for sensitive governmental and military use in any country.
I draw a conclusion based in your comment. At the end, the only answer I'm seeing on why a glued / sealed device is a good design choice is because Apple do it. Maybe there are good reasons for that, but no one has explain them. IMO, what Lenovo did with the X1 Nano regarding size, weight and quality of construction is admirable.
And I'm not sure ThinkPad brand being diluted. Maybe in the consumer market, because in the business / enterprise still very strong.
I'm not concerned with military specs. I just pointed out how good is ThinkPads are designed. If you don't like them or not for government use is a different story, and not related to the quality and design of the device.
The M1s have shaken the entire Wintelsphere, and they and their followers are concerned that the teeth are rattling out of their mouth. That's how shaken they are, and I couldn't care less. If you want black plastic, buy black plastic.
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!!!!)
There was absolutely NOTHING in sdw2001's post (Post #200 in this thread) that can be considered as "personal attack".
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.
The upgradeability of older MacBooks has made it possible for artists and others who don't have much money to keep their older Macs going for a longer time than they could have otherwise, and has increased the resale value of those older MacBooks. It is an unfortunate loss, but it was a niche and its loss should not be considered a surprise. Apple does better than many companies in making sure their products run well for six years or longer, but 2020s technology and serviceability don't get along well and Apple was just a bit ahead of the game.
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.
Very few people need a smaller, sealed desktop computer.
Your business is one data point, the business I worked at had about 200 Macs and we would buy the base config. I personally upgraded the RAM in each machine, saving around $150 on Apple's prices. It took about 5 minutes per Mac, and about $400 of my time to do so for all 200 Macs. That is absolutely worth it. And you are right - they were below our needs until I upgraded them. Why should we give Apple $150 extra per machine for RAM they should have had in the first place? Of course with the 21.5" iMac it was almost impossible because Apple made the idiotic decision to put the RAM on the back of the logic board and remove the upgrade door, so it goes from 5 minutes to 2 hours, making it not worth it. Also getting more SSD space from Apple is extortionate too, so with all the things you claim people should get ends up with each machine costing $3000 rather than the $1500 starting price. That is unjustifiable for a lot of people, businesses included. People may be able to afford the base machine at $1500 and then upgrades later, but not $3k in one go. They'll just get a PC instead that has the $1500 of Apple config options for $400.
Also you make way too many generalisations about NAND; 512GB is only twice as fast as 256GB if the manufacturer used a single 256GB chip rather than two 128GB ones. Some 1TB NAND uses 4 256GB chips, and is faster than 512GB. Also "you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health" is rubbish. The controllers shuffle data around to keep the charge in cells fresh, and to exercise old cells. SSDs have spare flash to facilitate this.
The generalizations I make tend to be pretty accurate. The 256GB M1 macs have been knocked because the storage isn’t as speedy as some who “review” the machines have found. But the 512 versions are indeed, twice as fast. That true for almost all NAND drives or storage. There are a few outliers, but the smaller capacities are being sold on price, and it’s cheaper for a number of reasons, including a cheaper controller chip, to use one larger package than two smaller ones.
when we bought about ten machines at a time we received a pretty good discount. Like most companies, we didn’t buy them from Apple. It wasn’t worth the time do do upgrades and then the testing required which included memory testing, which took some time.
I’m hoping for better cores, both CPU and GPU. That’s really much more important than huge numbers of cores for most people. Even after all this time, most software will work better with, as an example, two high power cores than with three cores, that together have the same performance as the more powerful two. And yes, this holds true for multitasking as well. Obviously I was thinking about the iPhone there.
but for desktops, the same is true, as we see from the M1, which has four high performance cores, and four low power cores, which together are around the power of one of the others, so we effectively have a five core chip. But that beats x86 six core chips, and equals, or slightly beats x86 8 core chips often. And 8 cores is about the maximum that most people can use. So I’d like to see an eight core chip where the cores are about 30% more powerful than current M1 chips. I’d much rather see that, than a 12 core chip with about equal performance per core as the M1. Most of those cores won’t be used most of the time.
if people turn activity monitor on, and just keep the core performance strip on when they use their computer, you’ll notice that all cores are rarely used, and when they are, usually they peak at a fraction of their ability. Fewer cores simply means that the peaks reached are higher.
what we’ve been seeing the last few years as x86 core performance dramatically slowed down for both AMD and Intel, is the core race. The same thing as the old MHz race. Apple getting caught up in that would not be a good thing. Do we really need 16 cores? Or the 32 cores some are predicting? No! The only place that comes in useful is in heavy Pro video editing, servers with virtual OS’s per core, large databases and spreadsheets. Nobody else can use that, including image editing, CAD and music production. Word processors basically require two cores for best performance, assuming fast cores.
a Mac Pro can always have two chips for more cores, the way my older Mac Pro’s have two Xeons. That way you can have faster clock speeds and more cores, if needed. Just remember, the more cores on a chip, the lower the clock speed and per core performance. Apple isn’t immune to that.
How about being able to connect two of those new 24” iMac’s together and using as one machine (workstation)? Apple can make it happen but they won’t.
Apple has had software to allow two, or more Macs to link together for rendering large projects. I’m not sure if that’s still current. But I knew several editing houses that linked up to 100 Macs in this fashion. But no one would do that with a Mac with monitor. Maybe today, Mac Minis, or Mac Pros.
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.
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.
That's the reason I mentioned the X1 Nano, which show that you don't need to seal / glue a device to have a good design. From a design and quality of construction POV, I think that Apple is very good, but ThinkPads are better.
I will easily pay premium for that X1 Nano with an M1 chip.
You draw the full conclusion by a single advantage. Thats flawed. I got a Thinkpad right next to me right now. I only start it to keep it up to date. I don't want a X1 Nano or any other Lenovo device. If I wanted to buy a Thinkpad (a gift to someone who actually want one) it would be a T14. The only X even in the picture would be X1 Carbon extreme gen 3 15. The Thinkpad brand is totally diluted, and MacBook became the better alternative to Thinkpads in 2010.
If you are concerned with military specs, it's probably duly tested and inspected inside out by the People's Army. I consider Lenovo a risk for sensitive governmental and military use in any country.
I draw a conclusion based in your comment. At the end, the only answer I'm seeing on why a glued / sealed device is a good design choice is because Apple do it. Maybe there are good reasons for that, but no one has explain them. IMO, what Lenovo did with the X1 Nano regarding size, weight and quality of construction is admirable.
And I'm not sure ThinkPad brand being diluted. Maybe in the consumer market, because in the business / enterprise still very strong.
I'm not concerned with military specs. I just pointed out how good is ThinkPads are designed. If you don't like them or not for government use is a different story, and not related to the quality and design of the device.
The M1s have shaken the entire Wintelsphere, and they and their followers are concerned that the teeth are rattling out of their mouth. That's how shaken they are, and I couldn't care less. If you want black plastic, buy black plastic.
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?
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?
My first (and privately owned) portable computer model's entire body was of magnesium. It cost around 12-14.000 USD for the base model, mine was maxed out. It was designed for NASA, brought into orbit (STS-53) and used in US tanks. It was the only portable computer able to run professional CAD, with rendering. A hefty leak submerged the laptop for 2 hours, I dismantled it completely without ever having opened a computer before, and rescued everything, both hardware, software and files.
And the computer was total crap from day one until I sold it. You are not arguing a case, you are serving propaganda to someone who has heard it all before. It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
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.
At no time did I intend to compare MacBooks to Thinkpads directly. I thought I did a pretty decent job of comparing my 2009 and 2015 MBP models with specs and my personal/anecdotal experience. I did write this line, which I now see you've put in bold:
...because it is an established fact that Apple products are thinner and lighter.
Realizing that you may have taken that to mean "compared to Thinkpads," I added clarification that this wasn't my intent. Is there some reason you don't believe me? My point there was just that MacBook Pros have gotten thinner and lighter over time. I then went on to illustrate that at the same time, I've noticed more subjective and anecdotal improvements to feel, reliability, etc.
If I'm not mistaken, I think your position is that the hardwired and glued approach has no benefit to the consumer. Is that correct? If so, that is my only point of contention. In fact, I think I've illustrated that it's demonstrably false. There are clear benefits to the approach, but also tradeoffs. Regardless of whether any of us agree with Apple's direction here, can we at least agree there are both benefits and costs on this design approach?
Finally, I assure you I don't feel bad, nor was it my intent to attack anyone. I do find it interesting you refer to yourself as "the messenger," as if you are delivering some undebatable truth. Your (apparent) position that there are no benefits to Apple's approach is not just debatable but actually unreasonable, at least in my view. That being said, I'll again state that I fully understand your preference for upgradeability and user accessibility. It's obvious to me that I should make clear what I'm not saying: I'm not taking issue with that preference. I'm not saying Thinkpads aren't thin, light and upgradable. I'm not saying there aren't costs to Apple's approach. I am simply saying there are benefits to this design choice.
Kudos to you for a matured, polite response. Even though i may not fully agree with your position, the way you have presented your viewpoint is very polite and gentle. And George's response (Post #206) to this post is pathetic to say the least. You have to just ignore and move on, i guess.
I always thought that personal attacks rather than honest debate was childish. But I see you think it is "mature". I guess that explains some of the responses here.
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!!!!)
There was absolutely NOTHING in sdw2001's post (Post #200 in this thread) that can be considered as "personal attack".
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.
The upgradeability of older MacBooks has made it possible for artists and others who don't have much money to keep their older Macs going for a longer time than they could have otherwise, and has increased the resale value of those older MacBooks. It is an unfortunate loss, but it was a niche and its loss should not be considered a surprise. Apple does better than many companies in making sure their products run well for six years or longer, but 2020s technology and serviceability don't get along well and Apple was just a bit ahead of the game.
Comments
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 agree that there is reason to glue and solder together things like iPhones. But nobody but you is talking about them here.
And I'm not sure ThinkPad brand being diluted. Maybe in the consumer market, because in the business / enterprise still very strong.
I'm not concerned with military specs. I just pointed out how good is ThinkPads are designed. If you don't like them or not for government use is a different story, and not related to the quality and design of the device.
when we bought about ten machines at a time we received a pretty good discount. Like most companies, we didn’t buy them from Apple. It wasn’t worth the time do do upgrades and then the testing required which included memory testing, which took some time.
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.
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?
And the computer was total crap from day one until I sold it. You are not arguing a case, you are serving propaganda to someone who has heard it all before. It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
I always thought that personal attacks rather than honest debate was childish. But I see you think it is "mature". I guess that explains some of the responses here.
Why are you so defensive?
You sure about that?