elijahg

About

Username
elijahg
Joined
Visits
398
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
6,585
Badges
2
Posts
2,909
  • Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

    melgross said:
    thedba said:
    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. 
    GeorgeBMacbaconstang
  • Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

    seanj said:
    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.
    Of course a huge advantage for Apple with soldered in components is actually what they don't point out, because it doesn't align with their environmentally friendly spiel nor go down to well with customers if they admitted it: the only way to upgrade is to throw away the computer and buy a new one. Yes, there is resale value and someone would almost certainly buy the computer, but then when it gets too slow for the secondhand buyer, it goes in the bin instead because they can't upgrade, just shifting the throw-away along by one person. Claiming people can just buy a new one just shifts the non-upgradable issue to the second hand buyer. And for the initial owner that's another new computer for $2000 when they could have just added another 8GB RAM for $50 or bigger SSD for $100.

    Furthermore it's actually worse than that with iMacs, because you throw away a chassis, display and power supply that's perfectly good, because of arbitrary dropping of software support for hardware that is not upgradable. Great they're recyclable, but not every component is - and the majority of energy use in the iMac is its production, not actual usage, which is proportionally worse the less lifetime it has. I can see non-upgradable AIOs eventually being made illegal in somewhere like the EU, as they're extremely environmentally unfriendly.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Apple's 'M2' processor enters mass production for MacBook Pro

    seanj said:
    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.
    Outside of the Mac world, computers don't have arbitrary limits on what version of the OS they use. If a newer version of Windows won't run on a particular computer there is an actual, technical reason with perceivable disadvantages in continuing to support the old tech. Linux supports computers that're 15+ years old. Apple enforces a cutoff to make people buy newer Macs.  Therefore, it's perfectly possible that Windows 10 will run on a 9 year old Thinkpad. Windows 10 runs on my 9 year old 2012 iMac just fine, but Apple doesn't support it past Catalina, for no technical reason. It's possible to hack the installer to make Big Sur run perfectly well. Hell, Big Sur (and Windows) will run on the 2008 Mac Pro, only the lack of updated drivers from Apple makes it more difficult. 
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • PowerBen 40,200mAh 200W USB-C PD review: wants to charge the world

    The beauty of SI units is you can convert between micro, milli, kilo, mega etc with ease. Which means it's actually 40.2Ah, no need for all those zeros. But marketing, of course.

    Also interesting that it displays "MPPT", which implies a solar panel could connect to it directly with no controller. The "DC 5-25.5V" sort of corroborates this - though they confusingly use a tilde (~) which usually signifies AC, as the delimiter between 5 and 25v.  The peak power tracking is usually done in the solar panel's controller, so mentioning MPPT is spurious if it hasn't MPPT itself - the output from a solar panel controller doesn't need further power tracking applied. Looks like a pretty good piece of kit though.
    kayess
  • Apple pays homage to first Mac with new 'Hello' screensaver in macOS Big Sur

    It doesn't show on Intel Macs, M1 only. But (credit to 9 to 5 Mac) you can copy it out of the /System/Library/Screen Savers folder to your desktop, rename it and double click it to get it on any Mac. 
    pulseimagesllama