elijahg

netrox said:

Just a note that Adobe beta for M1 is blazing fast with native Apple Silicon.

What took 235 seconds to export HEVC on Intel MacBook can be done with a mere 41 seconds with a native Apple Silicon code. 

https://barefeats.com/m1-max-adobe-beta.html

So its ridiculous that Intel's comparing emulated software to its new chips. I bet it cannot perform fast enough with enough power efficiency. 

That is completely wrong. That link is comparing x86 After Effects emulated on the M1 and native After Effects. An Intel CPU is not involved.

Intel has a habit of resting on their laurels when the competition is languishing, but when the chips are down (ahem) they pick up the pace. The same happened pre-Core, Intel was pushing the terrible Prescott and Pentium 4 architectures, then AMD came along and stomped all over them. Intel then introduced Core, which has been faster than anything AMD could produce almost until the current day. Now Apple has stepped up to the plate, and Intel has apparently battened down the hatches to try and exceed them. 

That said, I don't think they'll be able to continue making x86 faster forever, even if they match the M1 now. x86 needs to be put to bed. Intel will almost certainly never match the M1's efficiency, but they do have a big advantage of native Windows support and with it the backwards compatibility. So as AI says, competition is good.

MisterKit said:

The original HomePod was ahead of it’s time and unfortunately it was underappreciated.

And overpriced.

Xed said:

saarek said:

Xed said:

saarek said:

Xed said:

CheeseFreeze said:

saarek said:

Guess my iPhone XS Max will last until 2023 then.

I’m not replacing it until it either dies or they kill off the notch completely and have it all under the display.

Is that really so important for your decision to upgrade?

To me, the camera, battery life and better hardware in combination with new/better uses (software).
I am not controlled or obstructed by a tiny notch. What is your daily use of your phone that makes this important to you?

It’s odd that someone would ignore all the additional features and performance, as well as the fact that they get a lot more display from the forehead and chin going away, but instead focus on a small area of the extra display not going all the way across the top.

We all have our preferences, features that matter more to us than they do to others.

The iPhone line is mature now, boring if you will when it comes to yearly updates. My iPhone XS Max performs as well now as it did when I bought it and I am in no rush to replace it. The fact that the iPhone 13 is 50% (or whatever it is) faster than my iPhone is irrelevant to me whilst my iPhone launches the apps I use, like Safari, immediately anyway.

I’ll look to replace my current handset either when it dies or when the notch dies a death. 

As I said the notch was a compromise I was willing to accept when it was released. At the time I decided I’d not replace until they removed it and I’m sticking with that.

To you it might not be important, and yes I’m used to it. But I still know it there and I still want it gone.

So the giant forehead and chin is fine but adding a lot more display, making a much better phone (which includes Face ID tech) is worth hating what is effectively no chin and a very small forehead?

What's the other option? No Face ID tech in the iPhone until such unknown time when all the sensors can be behind the already much larger display than when they only had Touch ID? That doesn't seem like a good trade off to hinder technological progress and functionality for your minor aesthetic issue.

I think it’s you who doesn’t get this, not me. I own an iPhone XS Max, so obviously accepted the trade offs for the benefit.

At the same time I personally have no plan to replace the phone until either it dies and I’m forced too, or until the notch is gone.

Other companies have already worked out how to hide the sensors behind the display until they’re needed. But that option is not yet perfected.

I’m sure Apple will eventually perfect and then release it. All going well within the next two generations. They’ll certainly have me as a day one order when they do so.

You stated that it's not perfected—and we're not even talking about Face ID-level sensors—but you still don't get that you have a lot more display now than you did with Touch ID.

I'll never understand this mentality that wants a company to add a feature just because someone else has it without one iota of concern about its utility.

PS: Do you understand that Apple has been working on Touch ID behind the display for many, many years, right? This also has not been perfected and yet you can find devices that have this feature.

You're trying to make an argument out of nothing here. Saarek said he has a XS, which has no chin and a notch, then you try to bring in the irrelevant TouchID. Yes, pre-X phones weren't full screen, but that's not relevant. Saarek has not got a pre-X iPhone. He's comparing a XS with a 13. There is much less screen real estate improvement between the XS and 13 than the pre-X vs 13. It's his preference to wait until that notch disappears. How is that so hard to understand? Stop telling someone that their reasoning behind not upgrading is wrong, because some issue that doesn't bother you bothers them. It is entirely user preference as to whether someone wants to wait for some feature to arrive or not. I have an X, and the notch doesn't bother me much, but I'd rather it wasn't there.

You'll "never understand this mentality" meaning you can't understand the utility of TouchID over FaceID in a masked world? It's quite obvious to most, if you can't work it out that's on you, your use case isn't everyone's. I'd prefer that iPhones had TouchID and FaceID. If the 13 had TouchID I would have bought it in a heartbeat. Right now, the 13 is just not compelling enough vs the X for me. Faster, ok great, but what else is there? The camera is actually worse for my usage, the X's 2x zoom is much more useful than wide-angle. I have a DSLR anyway, so that will always trump the phone camera.

Many other companies have got under-screen fingerprint authentication working just fine, and have done since around 2015. Apple is miles behind on this. The have TouchID in the power button on the iPads, so why not use that on the phones? Especially considering the mask mandates everywhere. Apple needs to up its game.

libertymatters said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots, but Time Machine still uses the legacy pre-APFS approach and has been proven to be incredibly inefficient compared to third-party solutions.

I know Apple is focusing on services so they actually rather want us to back-up on their cloud VS locally, so why aren't they just EOL'ing this thing altogether, and instead support third-party developers in providing a back-up solution?

And who in their right mind is still "travelling back in time" by traversing through Finder or app time instances (the latter only working with a few 1st-part apps) in 2021? I mean, the Steve Jobs-era visualisation of using Z-depth for time is novel, but hardly practical.

Time Machine can use APFS disks for backup as of Big Sur.
https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/types-of-disks-you-can-use-with-time-machine-mh15139/mac

@CheeseFreeze isn't talking about APFS backup destinations, but using a filesystem feature of APFS rather than the ancient HFS+ hard links (and their equivalent in APFS) that Time Machine uses now. New Time Machine backups stored on networked disks do now use APFS disk images rather than HFS+.

athempel said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots

How would an APFS snapshot on the same physical disk save your data from the failure of said disk?

It wouldn't. However, snapshots don't technically have to be stored on the source drive. Whether APFS supports this right now, I'm not sure.

@CheeseFreeze is completely right with his comment. TM is archaic and inefficient. A snapshot stores only the block-level difference between files, whereas Time Machine copies the entire file across again even if there's one single bit changed. For a 1kb file that doesn't matter, but nowadays with file sizes ballooning, 1GB+ files are pretty common. Change the title of that file and the entire thing gets copied across again, without the other file being deleted on the backup. So wasting 2x space for one identical file.

Also TM is sluggish on networked disks and the UI is pretty awful. I'd much rather pick a file, see a list of previous versions of that file with previews, and maybe a diff, all integrated properly into the Finder. Not the outdated full-screen TM UI that we have now.