Rogue01

charlesn said:

We know that memory is handled differently on Apple Silicon vs Intel, so why is it assumed that the 192GB max is “a problem?” I’d like to see the test where this problem is actually shown. Also:  on what video tasks is Apple’s on-board video proving to be an issue vs a separate video card?

It has been well documented by plenty of reviewers that the insufficient memory expansion is a problem.  192GB v 1.5TB?  Huge difference and apps that are memory hungry will choke with 192GB.  Memory may be faster on chip, but it still has a limited cap and apps that want more memory cannot do it with 16, 24, 32, 64, 96 or now 192GB.  Please explain how you think memory is handled different with Apple Silicon where less memory is preferred?  The iMac went from supporting 128GB of RAM to 16GB of RAM.  I used an M1 iMac and iMovie bounced in the dock 10 times before it actually opened.  How is the limited RAM an improvement?  People doing heavy video editing on a 32GB Mac Studio say their Pro apps choke because of the limited memory.  The apps want more, but none is available.

Did you miss the article last year when Apple got busted for intentionally cropping the GPU graph of the Mac Studio with M1 Ultra?  Apple tried to claim the GPU in the M1 Ultra was faster than the fastest dedicated GPU card at the time; however, Apple's graph was intentionally cut off at 200w of power consumption for the GPU.  It did not take long for others to post the real GPU results of the dedicated card operating at its full power potential over 300w, and smoking the M1 Ultra GPU, limited to 200w.  In a desktop Mac, power efficiency is not an issue.  That's why Apple took so long to do an Apple Silicon Mac Pro.  The Intel Mac Pro with the high performance GPU cards outperform the fastest on-chip GPU in Apple Silicon.  Now that it is 3 years later, Apple figured they had to do something, so they stuck a Mac Studio inside the Mac Pro case, and restricted the PCI-E card expansion to exclude GPU cards.  They know a dedicated GPU card will outperform the onboard GPU of the M2 Ultra.

"This is all a shame if you love games and have an Intel Mac, but it's inevitable — and a reason why Apple made the switch to Apple silicon. The Mac is now capable of much more than it was with Intel processors, and Apple is rightly making the most of it."

The most misguided comment ever.  If you love games and have an Intel Mac, you can use Boot Camp and boot Windows 10 and run far more games than ever offered on the Mac.  Far better than Apple Silicon would offer when it comes to games on the Mac.  Then switch back to the Mac when done playing games.  

Apple's road map with Apple Silicon is a mess.  With Intel, Apple updated all the Macs across the line.  With Apple Silicon, you now have Macs using outdated chips and new Macs using one year old chips.  Apple has the M2 and M2 Pro and M2 Max, but they offer the iMac with the M1, and still charge the same price from two years ago.  There is no reason why the iMac should not offer the M2, M2 Pro, and M2 Max, and return to the 27" display offering.

As far as macOS Sonoma, the few features only offered to Apple Silicon are features that most people would never use anyway.  I remember widgets when they were offered in Mac OS X Tiger, with Dashboard.  No one used them and they were deprecated.  I would imagine the same will be true with widgets again.  I never use widgets on my iPad, so I certainly don't want them on my Mac.  And that Lock Screen?  Get the user accounts back in the center of the display.  In a corporate environment, you have Macs with multiple user accounts, like the admin, so bring them all back to the center of the screen.

When you upgrade the memory and storage in the 15" MacBook Air, you are only a few hundred dollars away from the 14" MacBook Pro with more memory and the same storage configuration.  The 14" MacBook Pro is a faster Mac, with more features, and offers a much better cooling system than the MacBook Air.  The article mentioned the benefits, but forgot to mention that the 14" has a better cooling system, which is important because the Air will throttle sooner and more often than the 14" model.  I think most would prefer the 14" model for a few hundred dollars more.

The Air is supposed to be small and light weight.  That was the entire purpose of the Air.  A 15" MacBook would be a MacBook, not a MacBook Air.  It would also have an M2 and not have any Pro features because they don't want it to impact any MacBook Pro sales.  And as all know with the Mac mini, the new MacBook (Air) 15" will have upgrade pricing that puts it at the same price or more for the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros, pushing people to buy those models anyway.  Same role as the iPhone 14.  

mknelson said:

"For example, a Tesla was seen in a video from 2021 driving at high speed in a residential area and hiding a child riding a bike."

Hiding? Like, in the Frunk?

Seriously, thought - that's pretty messed up. They've probably watched footage from the interior camera (or perhaps that isn't streamed/saved).

Here is the correct information from another news source: