nht

elijahg said:

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. 

GeorgeBMac said:

Fidonet127 said:

GeorgeBMac 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

For every point, there is a vast majority of people who never upgrade the internals of their computers. You can rally and complain about that all you want, however there are millions of computers including Apple that haven’t been upgrade for years. Our 2014 Air and Mini are some of those. Apple is selling more ASi Macs than Intel Macs and every one of them are all soldered together. Apple knows their market. Rather than scrapping them, Macs do have a high resale value. 

Did you watch the video?   Andrew called bull.... 

swineone said:

rob53 said:

melgross said:

swineone said:

"This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).

I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.

I went back through the Keynote and at the 1:40:11 mark, Docker (docker.com) was shown running Linux. At the 1:41:58 mark Parallels was shown running Debian. Craig said all macOS Big Sur demoes were run on an AS Mac so I assume it's either the AS Mac mini or another development AS Mac. Parallels has made some big changes in ver 15 but I run VMWare Fusion so haven't looked at Parallels for a long time. Anyway, at this point in the keynote they were talking about Rosetta 2 so I assume they simply installed Parallels ver 15 and it converted it to run on Apple Silicon. They didn't show Windows running but that's really Parallels and Dockers responsibility to provide the hardware interface between Windows and the host platform. It appears this is working but as everyone (else) wants to know, will it run Windows. We'll have to wait for the first developer to try it on the developer kit.

One other thing. I checked the serial number of the AS Mac mini in the keynote and it says "We’re sorry, but this serial number isn’t valid. Please check your information and try again." I don't remember if this was simply a faked screen shot or if Craig did an About this Mac and it showed up. Apple could also be blocking certain serial numbers.

While I hope you’re right, they were quite explicit to mention the game as an Intel binary. They never did the same for Parallels. So it’s possible that it’s a Parallels ARM port. Evidently Linux runs on ARM as well, and I assume Docker also does, so either wouldn’t be a roadblock.

Overall they were quite vague with the wording during the keynote, so it’s a coin toss as to whether it was running Linux on ARM or Linux on Intel.

neilm said:

docno42 said:

The titanium is intriguing, but I still prefer the lightest weight option - aluminum.  Which, as a Cheap Bastard™, also rewards me from that perspective too

You get what you pay for. The aluminum finish is easier to damage, plus those models come with glass rather than a sapphire crystal. To get the scratch resistant sapphire you have to upgrade to the stainless steel or titanium case versions (or ceramic).

CloudTalkin said:

foregoneconclusion said:

I've never understood why the differences in the A series chips is always downplayed with "you won't notice unless they're side by side" etc. when differences in Intel chips in laptops is rarely treated that way. Laptop chips always have the how-many-months-since-the-last-refresh attached to them like it's vitally important to get a next generation chip to run the exact same legacy software people have been running for years and years.

It's incumbent upon the reader to separate the wheat info from the chaff marketing.    AI's axiom about not noticing without a direct comparison is true and can be applied to almost anything.  What you're describing with laptop chips happens with pretty much every product that has a yearly release cycle... including iPhones with A series chips.  Apple was just touting the %-age improvements of the A13 over the A12.  There's no mystery surrounding why the companies do it.  They want to sell their newest products.  Nothing wrong with that.

A review or comparison is typically where you'll see the "you won't notice unless..." and it's entirely appropriate for it to be included there.  By and large, it's mostly true.  If I tell you my new app opens 15% faster than my old app it's not going to mean anything without proper context.  My old app opens in 0.5 sec.  So that would mean my new app opens in 0.425 sec.  Without a side by side comparison there'd be no way for you to gauge 15% faster.  More importantly, laptop reviews typically include benchmarks that show the side by side comparions so the argument really doesn't hold up.