For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.
we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.
increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.
there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.
I agree. a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence. And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.
mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.
so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.
It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore. But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive. That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.
Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security: If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered. That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard. Then your data dies with your machine.
I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.
Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
Well one does... But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad: I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.
But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.
Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups! in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system. When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.
That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced. It's the most valuable part: the data.
If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs. I don't understand why they have not done that.
FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;
"Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.
You consistently amaze me with your misinformation...
You get 5 GB free, but that isn't enough to backup much of your data.
2 TB will cost you $9.99 a month. You can buy an external drive from Amazon for less than the cost of a years iCloud service and better than that, it works as a Time Machine.
But of course, you don't want to use an external drive...because house fire. So you buy two drives, and store one either offsite or in a fireproof safe, rotating between the two.
Gaslighting us again...
So iCloud Backup runs on Mac's?
Or are you Gaslighting again?
On your Mac
Go to Apple menu > System Preferences, then click Apple ID. If you’re using macOS Mojave or earlier, you don’t need to click Apple ID.
Select iCloud.
Sign in with your Apple ID, if you need to.
Select iCloud Drive.
If you want to add the files from your Mac Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud Drive, update your Mac to macOS Sierra or later then turn on Desktop and Documents. On your Mac, you can find the files on your Desktop and in your Documents folder in Finder under iCloud. If you add a second Mac Desktop, the files from your second Mac won't automatically merge with the files on your first Mac. Go to your Desktop and Documents folders in iCloud Drive, then look for a folder with the same name as your second Mac.
Agree, the M1 changed everything. That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer. An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom. Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working. Nice, don't you think?
...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
Just to clarify, most of my devices in my household are from Apple. So the "Wintel corporate shill" don't apply to me, but neither I'm an "Apple shill", since I have zero emotional attachment to any of my Apple devices. And neither I have devices from Lenovo. But in my line of work I have to work with all kind of devices and brands, from notebooks to professional workstations.
If you read my posts you'll see why, IMO, ThinkPads are better designed compared to Apple notebooks. Does it means that Apple devices are bad? But neither are perfect, and if you want a recent example, just look at the butterfly keyboards. Based in my experience, some Apple notebooks are better than ThinkPad and viceversa. But in construction, and design, I give the advantage to ThinkPads. The iMac is the best All-In-One in the market, while the Mini have some competition from the HP Z1 and the ThinkStation Tiny. The iPad is the best tablet, until you add a keyboard + trackpad, where the Surface Pro does a better job. And the HP Z-workstations and Lenovo ThinkStations maybe betterthan the Mac Pro, depending in the usage.
Does this sound to you pathetic and from a Wintel corporate shill? Hope not. Again, most of my posts are based in what I experienced in the field. When you are outside the Apple bubble you can see what's good and bad with Apple and with other devices. And I have zero issues praising or criticizing any of them. But if you think that every Apple device is absolutely better than other vendors, then you may need to expand the list of devices you use, and it may surprise you what you may find.
There's a PC market, and then there's a Mac market, and just like the smartphone where it's iPhone vs everyone else, Apple is growing its customer base, and interestingly, its margins.
What does that tell you about Apple, and specifically Apple product design, and the customer? You seem to fail to see the big picture, hence why your postings come across as unconvincing.
Yes, Apple design are very good, but like I posted before, they are not perfect, neither the only one doing good designs. There are cases where other vendors are better than Apple. Look at the example I gave of the X1 Nano. An easy to service 2lb notebook, with spill resistant keyboard and test for military specifications. Are we going to ignore that because is not from Apple?
And yes, the M1 is big. But my comments were not related to M1 / Intel / AMD, so I don't understand why bring that up. And even though M1 is an excellent chip, it doesn't makes Apple devices perfect. Do you want to the best integration with the MS enterprise / business ecosystem, which is the most popular by far? You need a Windows PC. Do you need Nvidia GPU's for CUDA applications? You need a PC. Do you want the best gaming experience in the market? You need a PC. There are just three examples of many others. And, again, that doesn't means that Apple are bad devices, but neither are perfect, even with the M1 chip. Like I said before, when you see the big picture, you'll find other vendors are doing excellent devices too.
Yeah, if you need PC, then buy a PC, but don't pretend that the Mac buying public isn't aware of the disruptive benefits of Apple Silicon, so your goalposts that are limited to the build of very specific PC's, aren't very relevant.
I have a PC, a Lenovo D20 in fact, running Windows 7 for my MCAD software, so I understand about the needs of PC users. But I can also run Autodesk Fusion 360 on an M series Mac, in Rosetta, quite fine and get the job done, so I'm really at a place where I'm ready to leave the PC entirely.
Again, my original comments were not about the M1. So I still don't know why your bring them to the discussion. Even Gruber had to comment about the X1 Nano,
He even posted "It just can’t stand for long that Apple is so far behind the PC state-of-the-art in lightweight laptops." Again, Apple have good designs, but they are not perfect.
That's what he does when he loses the debate: He just moves on to the next subject to prove that he won it.
No, I stated explicitly that Gruber may like the lightweight of the X1 Nano, but I doubt he would buy it.
I also posted that Samsung has a similarly lightweight notebook, also powered by an 11th generation Intel processor, and I can't imagine that it compares well against the Mac Book Air in performance either.
Danvm has been attempting to make the case that the X1 is a good design, but wants us to ignore the comparative performance of the X1 vs the Mac Book Air.
Of course, I won't do that, because it is not a plausible tradeoff of most Mac users.
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.
I do appreciate the X1 Nano design, but I also see its downsides in performance compared to the Mac Book Air. Gruber likes the design, good for him, but do you think that he would buy the X1 Nano?
No.
What Gruber wants is for Apple to make a lighter Mac Book something in the same weight class as the X1 Nano. I see nothing wrong with that, just that it isn't as relevant to the existing marketplace as Apple sees it. Maybe that will change.
It isn't as if Apple can't do that, just that they haven't for marketing reasons.
To put it bluntly, X1 Nano is hobbled by Intel.
For the record, Apple's iPad Pro 12.9 is 1.51 lb, and that is essentially the same performance as the Mac Book Air, and includes the XDR screen. A Mac Book Air with XDR screen is what I expect for the next update, likely this fall. Will there be weight reductions? We'll have to wait and see, but unless Apple chooses to make a composite housing, they won't get close the the X1 nano in weight.
I don't think that the extra half pound over the X1 Nano is hurting Mac Book Air sales.
Apple have been the platform of preference for Gruber, so it's obvious that he won't go with the X1 Nano. But still, what he said, specifically "It just can’t stand for long that Apple is so far behind the PC state-of-the-art in lightweight laptops" it's something that can't be denied.
Agree, the M1 changed everything. That's the reason I said that a X1 Nano (or X1 Carbon) with a M1 would be my perfect computer. An excellent mobile processor with the best design and construction in a notebook.
Just for clarification, the X1 Nano (as well as the X1 Carbon and the P1) are carbon fiber in the top and magnesium alloy in the bottom. Maybe that's the reason a car can run over it, and still working. Nice, don't you think?
...It's getting really boring, and for my part, it stops here.
Unfortunately for the resident Wintel corporate shill, it never stops, he never stops and AI just loves the conflicts he produces in his ridiculous posts as people respond and that creates activity (which in turn results in more $$), as if *any* of us come to this forum to have someone sell us on another company's products. It's just pathetic and people like that ruin what *could* otherwise be a fun discussion forum. I just wish people would stop replying to him (and his brethren ilk) so I wouldn't have to suffer his insufferable lunacy in replies. Sigh.
Just to clarify, most of my devices in my household are from Apple. So the "Wintel corporate shill" don't apply to me, but neither I'm an "Apple shill", since I have zero emotional attachment to any of my Apple devices. And neither I have devices from Lenovo. But in my line of work I have to work with all kind of devices and brands, from notebooks to professional workstations.
If you read my posts you'll see why, IMO, ThinkPads are better designed compared to Apple notebooks. Does it means that Apple devices are bad? But neither are perfect, and if you want a recent example, just look at the butterfly keyboards. Based in my experience, some Apple notebooks are better than ThinkPad and viceversa. But in construction, and design, I give the advantage to ThinkPads. The iMac is the best All-In-One in the market, while the Mini have some competition from the HP Z1 and the ThinkStation Tiny. The iPad is the best tablet, until you add a keyboard + trackpad, where the Surface Pro does a better job. And the HP Z-workstations and Lenovo ThinkStations maybe betterthan the Mac Pro, depending in the usage.
Does this sound to you pathetic and from a Wintel corporate shill? Hope not. Again, most of my posts are based in what I experienced in the field. When you are outside the Apple bubble you can see what's good and bad with Apple and with other devices. And I have zero issues praising or criticizing any of them. But if you think that every Apple device is absolutely better than other vendors, then you may need to expand the list of devices you use, and it may surprise you what you may find.
There's a PC market, and then there's a Mac market, and just like the smartphone where it's iPhone vs everyone else, Apple is growing its customer base, and interestingly, its margins.
What does that tell you about Apple, and specifically Apple product design, and the customer? You seem to fail to see the big picture, hence why your postings come across as unconvincing.
Yes, Apple design are very good, but like I posted before, they are not perfect, neither the only one doing good designs. There are cases where other vendors are better than Apple. Look at the example I gave of the X1 Nano. An easy to service 2lb notebook, with spill resistant keyboard and test for military specifications. Are we going to ignore that because is not from Apple?
And yes, the M1 is big. But my comments were not related to M1 / Intel / AMD, so I don't understand why bring that up. And even though M1 is an excellent chip, it doesn't makes Apple devices perfect. Do you want to the best integration with the MS enterprise / business ecosystem, which is the most popular by far? You need a Windows PC. Do you need Nvidia GPU's for CUDA applications? You need a PC. Do you want the best gaming experience in the market? You need a PC. There are just three examples of many others. And, again, that doesn't means that Apple are bad devices, but neither are perfect, even with the M1 chip. Like I said before, when you see the big picture, you'll find other vendors are doing excellent devices too.
Yeah, if you need PC, then buy a PC, but don't pretend that the Mac buying public isn't aware of the disruptive benefits of Apple Silicon, so your goalposts that are limited to the build of very specific PC's, aren't very relevant.
I have a PC, a Lenovo D20 in fact, running Windows 7 for my MCAD software, so I understand about the needs of PC users. But I can also run Autodesk Fusion 360 on an M series Mac, in Rosetta, quite fine and get the job done, so I'm really at a place where I'm ready to leave the PC entirely.
Again, my original comments were not about the M1. So I still don't know why your bring them to the discussion. Even Gruber had to comment about the X1 Nano,
He even posted "It just can’t stand for long that Apple is so far behind the PC state-of-the-art in lightweight laptops." Again, Apple have good designs, but they are not perfect.
That's what he does when he loses the debate: He just moves on to the next subject to prove that he won it.
No, I stated explicitly that Gruber may like the lightweight of the X1 Nano, but I doubt he would buy it.
I also posted that Samsung has a similarly lightweight notebook, also powered by an 11th generation Intel processor, and I can't imagine that it compares well against the Mac Book Air in performance either.
Danvm has been attempting to make the case that the X1 is a good design, but wants us to ignore the comparative performance of the X1 vs the Mac Book Air.
Of course, I won't do that, because it is not a plausible tradeoff of most Mac users.
I have never ignored the performance of the M1 chip. Can you point specifically on which comment I did that? At the same time, my posts were not related to the M1 chip. From the beginning I made clear that my comments are related to the design of the device. For some reason, you were the one who begin to talk about it. So please, do not try to twist my comments.
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.
we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.
increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.
there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.
I agree. a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence. And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.
mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.
so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.
It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore. But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive. That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.
Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security: If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered. That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard. Then your data dies with your machine.
I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.
Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
Well one does... But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad: I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.
But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.
Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups! in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system. When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.
That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced. It's the most valuable part: the data.
If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs. I don't understand why they have not done that.
FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;
"Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.
You consistently amaze me with your misinformation...
You get 5 GB free, but that isn't enough to backup much of your data.
2 TB will cost you $9.99 a month. You can buy an external drive from Amazon for less than the cost of a years iCloud service and better than that, it works as a Time Machine.
But of course, you don't want to use an external drive...because house fire. So you buy two drives, and store one either offsite or in a fireproof safe, rotating between the two.
Gaslighting us again...
So iCloud Backup runs on Mac's?
Or are you Gaslighting again?
On your Mac
Go to Apple menu > System Preferences, then click Apple ID. If you’re using macOS Mojave or earlier, you don’t need to click Apple ID.
Select iCloud.
Sign in with your Apple ID, if you need to.
Select iCloud Drive.
If you want to add the files from your Mac Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud Drive, update your Mac to macOS Sierra or later then turn on Desktop and Documents. On your Mac, you can find the files on your Desktop and in your Documents folder in Finder under iCloud. If you add a second Mac Desktop, the files from your second Mac won't automatically merge with the files on your first Mac. Go to your Desktop and Documents folders in iCloud Drive, then look for a folder with the same name as your second Mac.
iCloud Drive is not iCloud Backup.
It's maybe the best you can do without an iCloud Backup though. And that's a nice tip you gave. But it's not a backup
For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!
His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.
Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups. Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap
Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses.
Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this.
I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.
For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.
we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.
increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.
there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.
I agree. a completely sealed, integrated, non-upgradeable device makes sense in something so small and portable like an iPhone or maybe even an iPad.
But in a larger machine that serves no functional purpose -- except for planned obsolescence. And, the larger the machine the more sense it makes to make it upgradeable -- such as Andrew's MacPro in this instance.
I do wish that people would stop talking about planned obsolescence. That’s very rarely a thing. Things become obsolete because technology passes them by. What was a top line machine when bought becomes a low end machine in a few years. That’s the way technology works. New software often doesn’t work on old machines, often it’s not because of a lack of RAM, or drive space, though, yes, sometimes it is.
mostly advances in technology on processors and related technology means that an OS has new features, ir is even redesigned. Sometimes new security protocols cuts software out of the loop. There are many reasons. But again, don’t be cheap, and figure you can get away with less, when what you do, or will be doing at some point, requires more. That’s a sure way to obsolete a machine. But, more RAM and bigger drives likely won’t save you, because the processor and bus are too slow. So you get a machine with a PCIe 2 bus (years ago, of course) and you found, two years later that all new upgrades are now PCIe 3, and that PCIe 2 upgrades are discontinued, and you have to scramble to fine one on eBay or some such place. And you can’t play the new games properly on it anyway, or do much else.
so being an upgradablecmachine doesn’t always help. Who has a separate modem in their computer these days? No one. So you can’t upgrade that either. We could go on.
It is true that, eventually, a machine reaches a point where its core components (mother board, etc.) just can't hack it anymore. But I don't see the logic in hurrying that by gluing and soldering the typically upgradeable components like RAM and Harddrive. That does not benefit the customer in any meaningful way.
Another aspect of making the SSD upgradeable is data security: If a machine dies (say by drowning in a Starbucks) a socketed SSD can be pulled and the data on it recovered. That is not the case if it is soldered & glued to the motherboard. Then your data dies with your machine.
I take it that you’ve heard of backups? No responsible person with valuable data doesn’t backup. We (my company) stored data for some customers. We had three backups. One was in the area where we had our computer systems. One was in a room three floors above ours in the building the lab was in. And another was off site altogether, in another building several blocks away. We also carried millions in insurance just in the extremely unlikely situation that all three backups failed.
Not a single person I know backs up their computer.
Well one does... But only because I installed a second harddrive in his desktop and started up "file history" for him.
It's also one of the reasons why I like my 9 year old but upgraded Thinkpad: I installed a second drive in it so that the data is automatically backed up.
But, even for those who do run backups, unless they're done automatically, the backup is seldom fully current -- so the most valuable data (the most recent) tends to be lost.
Strange though that you mention three backups -- that was my introduction to backups! in 1977, while working as an accountant, we accumulated a year's worth of production data from a newly implemented cost accounting system. When I asked for a report so I could do some analysis we discovered that all three backups of it had were gone -- lost, damaged or accidentally written over.
That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to non-removeable drives -- I know there is only a single part of any computer that cannot in some way be replaced. It's the most valuable part: the data.
If however, Apple would implement iCloud backups for Macs, that would take away one of my reasons for wanting removable SSDs. I don't understand why they have not done that.
FFS George, Apple has iCloud backups;
"Tap Settings > [your name] > iCloud > Manage Storage, which will list how much iCloudstorage you're using and which apps are eating up the most storage. To automatically back up your device each day, turn on iCloud Backup via Settings > [your name] > iCloud > iCloud Backup and toggle iCloud Backup to on.
You consistently amaze me with your misinformation...
You get 5 GB free, but that isn't enough to backup much of your data.
2 TB will cost you $9.99 a month. You can buy an external drive from Amazon for less than the cost of a years iCloud service and better than that, it works as a Time Machine.
But of course, you don't want to use an external drive...because house fire. So you buy two drives, and store one either offsite or in a fireproof safe, rotating between the two.
Gaslighting us again...
So iCloud Backup runs on Mac's?
Or are you Gaslighting again?
On your Mac
Go to Apple menu > System Preferences, then click Apple ID. If you’re using macOS Mojave or earlier, you don’t need to click Apple ID.
Select iCloud.
Sign in with your Apple ID, if you need to.
Select iCloud Drive.
If you want to add the files from your Mac Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud Drive, update your Mac to macOS Sierra or later then turn on Desktop and Documents. On your Mac, you can find the files on your Desktop and in your Documents folder in Finder under iCloud. If you add a second Mac Desktop, the files from your second Mac won't automatically merge with the files on your first Mac. Go to your Desktop and Documents folders in iCloud Drive, then look for a folder with the same name as your second Mac.
iCloud Drive is not iCloud Backup.
It's maybe the best you can do without an iCloud Backup though. And that's a nice tip you gave. But it's not a backup
I already stated that, hence why I linked to Amazon and some external drives.
It's super easy to setup up and use one, or multiple, Time Machine external backup drives.
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
I tried the old keep it running strategy. Bought new RAM for my Mac, upgraded the HD, etc. Then I bought a new Mac and realized that the limitations were the processor and I was wasting something much more valuable than money. My TIME! Same w/my work ThinkPad. The 4 year old one worked fine but the new one runs so much better.
You don't know what you're missing b/c you don't know what you're missing.
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
I tried the old keep it running strategy. Bought new RAM for my Mac, upgraded the HD, etc. Then I bought a new Mac and realized that the limitations were the processor and I was wasting something much more valuable than money. My TIME! Same w/my work ThinkPad. The 4 year old one worked fine but the new one runs so much better.
You don't know what you're missing b/c you don't know what you're missing.
My experience has been very much the opposite. And I like the idea of keeping the money in my bank account rather than Apple's or Lenovo's.
But a decade as an accountant and financial analyst then a couple decades as a programmer and systems analyst taught me to think strictly in terms of function (will it do the job?) with cost/benefit always in mind.
Looks like this thread is going nowhere. Too bad that someone saw fit to delete multiple posts (not that they were productive in nature). In any case, I'm excited for the M2 and may upgrade when it finally arrives in the MBP. I'm sure it will be soldered and glued, and that's fine with me.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Thank you! You saved me from having to give this example.
I already mentioned time in a previous comment. That leave Quality and I think this sums it up well and was said way, way before computers were ever thought of and still applies today...
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.- Benjamin Franklin
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
Your time is only as valuable monetarily as you can charge for it. If it's a trade off between upgrading a piece of equipment to save a hundreds of dollars versus playing video games or drinking beer with friends then the choice is between laziness or industry. At one time I was working 70 hour weeks and charging $300/hr for my time and if something broke I would buy the first thing that met my needs. I knew I was wasting money and that griped me, but I had little choice. These days I can make better choices.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
Your time is only as valuable monetarily as you can charge for it. If it's a trade off between upgrading a piece of equipment to save a hundreds of dollars versus playing video games or drinking beer with friends then the choice is between laziness or industry. At one time I was working 70 hour weeks and charging $300/hr for my time and if something broke I would buy the first thing that met my needs. I knew I was wasting money and that griped me, but I had little choice. These days I can make better choices.
You had a choice, and you made it. You valued Time, weren't concerned about Quality, evidently, so you chose to purchase a "something" with your Money.
See how that works?
In my case, I would probably choose Quality, then Time (productivity), over Money, but my mileage varied.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
No. You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.
I understand it. I just think it's an oversimplification (the part that you snipped from my reply): it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. And also, it ignores the emotional attraction to something new and glittery or that you may already be over extended -- which makes money even more valuable than its intrinsic value.
Take the case of a worker laid off during the pandemic: They need a computer for their kid but every penny is going to feed, clothe and house that kid. For that person, his time is worth nothing and every penny is like a piece of gold.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
No. You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.
I understand it. I just think it's an oversimplification. Like I said: it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
No. You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.
I understand it. I just think it's an oversimplification (the part that you snipped from my reply): it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. And also, it ignores the emotional attraction to something new and glittery or that you may already be over extended -- which makes money even more valuable than its intrinsic value.
Take the case of a worker laid off during the pandemic: They need a computer for their kid but every penny is going to feed, clothe and house that kid. For that person, his time is worth nothing and every penny is like a piece of gold.
Triangle still works and doesn't require additional dimensions. In your example, the worker needs to value money over time and quality, i.e. they need to purchase the cheapest Chromebook they can afford, even if they want something better.
Similar to living w/in your means. One can live w/in their means by delaying a purchase today that they cannot afford in order to save for something of better quality that hopefully will last longer and perform better.
What started this conversation was the lack of the ability to upgrade and having to purchase new. Again, that's a choice, do I want the immediate gratification or can I delay it. My original point was that for me the value of upgrades are not worth the money spent and the lost of productivity (time). Instead, I feel based on my experience (and no one has to agree) that the money is better directed to saving for a future purchase. My past experience has shown me that squeezing the useful life out of product until is worthless and then having to pay full price for a new item is more costly than selling the item sooner and thereby getting more money from that item that no longer meets my needs and using it to offset the cost of a new item is better. Basically, buying a new top of the line MacBook Pro is expensive but once you have one it is less expensive to flip it to buy a new one vs. exhausting it useful live, getting nothing for it and then having to buy a replacement. But that scenario only works for those that can afford the to cover the difference.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
No. You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.
I understand it. I just think it's an oversimplification. Like I said: it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for.
Some might almost call that an intrinsic value.
If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
If cost is your only consideration when it comes to getting the job down then you're sacrificing something else.
Add a 4th corner: Childish attraction for the shiny new object. Or, maybe a 5th: Living within your means.
No. You've misunderstood what the triangle represents.
I understand it. I just think it's an oversimplification (the part that you snipped from my reply): it assumes that your time has intrinsic value. But, in reality, it's only worth what you are willing and able to sell it for. And also, it ignores the emotional attraction to something new and glittery or that you may already be over extended -- which makes money even more valuable than its intrinsic value.
Take the case of a worker laid off during the pandemic: They need a computer for their kid but every penny is going to feed, clothe and house that kid. For that person, his time is worth nothing and every penny is like a piece of gold.
Triangle still works and doesn't require additional dimensions. In your example, the worker needs to value money over time and quality, i.e. they need to purchase the cheapest Chromebook they can afford, even if they want something better.
Similar to living w/in your means. One can live w/in their means by delaying a purchase today that they cannot afford in order to save for something of better quality that hopefully will last longer and perform better.
What started this conversation was the lack of the ability to upgrade and having to purchase new. Again, that's a choice, do I want the immediate gratification or can I delay it. My original point was that for me the value of upgrades are not worth the money spent and the lost of productivity (time). Instead, I feel based on my experience (and no one has to agree) that the money is better directed to saving for a future purchase. My past experience has shown me that squeezing the useful life out of product until is worthless and then having to pay full price for a new item is more costly than selling the item sooner and thereby getting more money from that item that no longer meets my needs and using it to offset the cost of a new item is better. Basically, buying a new top of the line MacBook Pro is expensive but once you have one it is less expensive to flip it to buy a new one vs. exhausting it useful live, getting nothing for it and then having to buy a replacement. But that scenario only works for those that can afford the to cover the difference.
It's fine that you feel that you're not willing to spend your time fixing or upgrading a piece of equipment to extend its life. That's your choice. (And earlier I gave an example where it was, at one time, my choice as well)
But, when you justify that on monetary grounds, you step into pretty shaky grounds: Right now I'm using a 9 year old machine that runs great. It runs as well my grandson's newer MacBook or his dad's brand new Lenovo. But, to replace it would cost me around $1,200 -- and it would not gain me a thing. Nothing. So that would be $1,400 thrown away. The upgrades cost me $35 (not counting an SSD that I pulled from a machine that I drowned with my coffee).
So, let me think about this: $35 and 10 minutes of relaxed labor vs $1,200. For me that's a no brainer.
Comments
On your Mac
If you want to add the files from your Mac Desktop and Documents folder to iCloud Drive, update your Mac to macOS Sierra or later then turn on Desktop and Documents. On your Mac, you can find the files on your Desktop and in your Documents folder in Finder under iCloud. If you add a second Mac Desktop, the files from your second Mac won't automatically merge with the files on your first Mac. Go to your Desktop and Documents folders in iCloud Drive, then look for a folder with the same name as your second Mac.
No, I stated explicitly that Gruber may like the lightweight of the X1 Nano, but I doubt he would buy it.
I also posted that Samsung has a similarly lightweight notebook, also powered by an 11th generation Intel processor, and I can't imagine that it compares well against the Mac Book Air in performance either.
Danvm has been attempting to make the case that the X1 is a good design, but wants us to ignore the comparative performance of the X1 vs the Mac Book Air.
Of course, I won't do that, because it is not a plausible tradeoff of most Mac users.
It's super easy to setup up and use one, or multiple, Time Machine external backup drives.
You don't know what you're missing b/c you don't know what you're missing.
Thank you! You saved me from having to give this example.
I already mentioned time in a previous comment. That leave Quality and I think this sums it up well and was said way, way before computers were ever thought of and still applies today...
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.- Benjamin Franklin
See how that works?
In my case, I would probably choose Quality, then Time (productivity), over Money, but my mileage varied.
Triangle still works and doesn't require additional dimensions. In your example, the worker needs to value money over time and quality, i.e. they need to purchase the cheapest Chromebook they can afford, even if they want something better.
Similar to living w/in your means. One can live w/in their means by delaying a purchase today that they cannot afford in order to save for something of better quality that hopefully will last longer and perform better.
What started this conversation was the lack of the ability to upgrade and having to purchase new. Again, that's a choice, do I want the immediate gratification or can I delay it. My original point was that for me the value of upgrades are not worth the money spent and the lost of productivity (time). Instead, I feel based on my experience (and no one has to agree) that the money is better directed to saving for a future purchase. My past experience has shown me that squeezing the useful life out of product until is worthless and then having to pay full price for a new item is more costly than selling the item sooner and thereby getting more money from that item that no longer meets my needs and using it to offset the cost of a new item is better. Basically, buying a new top of the line MacBook Pro is expensive but once you have one it is less expensive to flip it to buy a new one vs. exhausting it useful live, getting nothing for it and then having to buy a replacement. But that scenario only works for those that can afford the to cover the difference.
If nobody is willing to buy it, it is of no monetary value.
So, let me think about this: $35 and 10 minutes of relaxed labor vs $1,200. For me that's a no brainer.