fastasleep

About

Username
fastasleep
Joined
Visits
260
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
10,057
Badges
1
Posts
6,487

Reactions

7.7KLike12Dislike466Informative

  • Intel has a faster processor than M2 Max, but at what cost?

    fastasleepfastasleep
    avon b7 said:

    A MBP will give you more battery time but an Intel laptop of this kind will do the job well enough if you aren't pushing it to the limit (which you would only do with it plugged in anyway). 
    As someone who works in animation and video, I can tell you firsthand that the difference between battery life on my 16" M1 Max and my previous 2018 i9 MBP is *HUGE*, and I work away from my desks all the time. Being able to work for hours in After Effects/FCP without having to look for an outlet is a game changer for me, and for a lot of people (see the M2 Pro/Max unplugged challenge video Apple showed at that event). My 140W charger rarely comes out of my bag.

    You're completely missing the point when you say "which you would only do with it plugged in anyway" — the point is, you no longer have to do that with Apple Silicon. That's game changing.
    spherictmaychasmVermelhomacike

  • Intel has a faster processor than M2 Max, but at what cost?

    fastasleepfastasleep
    Rogue01 said:

    Considering 95% of people use a laptop while it is plugged in, what is the big deal?
    [ citation needed ]
    sphericchasm

  • Intel has a faster processor than M2 Max, but at what cost?

    fastasleepfastasleep
    6.83lbs, and the power supply is apparently 2.78lbs, so 9.61 lbs together. Eek! 

    The 16” M1 Max is 4.8lbs and the 140W charger is .61lbs, so ~5.41 lbs together. 

    Worth noting you can get essentially the same power in the 14” MBP, which is 3.5lbs, and that’s got a very slightly heavier 96W charger at .66lb, so 4.16lbs. 

    Your back will thank you for buying a MBP. 
    thtwilliamlondonchasmmacike

  • Apple Music launches Rihanna's Road to Halftime show in Spatial Audio

    fastasleepfastasleep
    sdw2001 said:
    The halftime show has been a complete joke for 20 years.  Katy Perry and Lady Gaga were watchable/listenable, but each show was so over-the-top ridiculous that it's hard to even make them exceptions.  The shows feature: 

    1. Insanely overproduced, seizure-inducing effects and choreography 
    2. Washed-up, aged talent (e.g. Tom Petty, Rolling Stones)
    3. Inappropriate genre (Bruno Mars, Black Eyed Peas) 
    4. Awful lip syncing (for literally every performer) 
    5. Acts no-one over the age of 30 has heard of (e.g. The Weeknd) 

    Until the mid eighties, they had marching bands.  The peak of it was probably Michael Jackson, and even then I remember thinking "no one calls him The King of Pop."  

    I usually watch to take pleasure in how epically awful the show is.  If Rihanna's hair is any guide (from the commercials), I shouldn't be disappointed.  

    Mediocre male upset about talented black woman — specifically mentioning her hair — in a tech forum, again. Story at 11.
    muthuk_vanalingamSpitbath

  • Apple Music launches Rihanna's Road to Halftime show in Spatial Audio

    fastasleepfastasleep
    danox said:
    From 1920 to 2010 I was able to keep up with popular music not anymore I gotten old and the current lineup of divas just seem to have no singing talent, I’ve tried listening to the top three songs of some of them on iTunes and I’m surprised at how bad most of the songs are, in the past, even though I wasn’t a fan of certain genres I could always listen to, or find common ground with one, two or three songs that were some of the best of a particular artist that’s disappeared for me in recent times.
    HAHAHAHAHA yeah, Rihanna can't sing. That's why she's a billionaire with 235 awards and 635 nominations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Rihanna


    Spitbath