spliff monkey


spliff monkey
Last Active
  • Apple's comments on future Mac Pro hint at possible virtual reality support in macOS

    I've been confused about this topic for some time. So you mean to tell me that a $3K+ spec. out MacBook Pro as wells as a Mac Pro is too weak to run Oculus VR? Makes upper-end Apple computers seem like toys, no? What makes Windows compatible machines so robust and special?
    It's not that the machine or the video card aren't up for the task. The macpro is quite robust. The problem is that it was designed for professionals who need a specific video card.

    VR does not need a card optimized for EXACT rendering, (as you might need for engineering, architecture and scientific applications). What VR really needs is a card that will push as many frames as possible, with reasonable render accuracy. 

    They're two different setups and for a slew of reasons the cards that push frames always favor PCs. Apple has always designed the OS to take advantage of specific cards and not a range of cards and it's always been slim pickings. The problem was exacerbated when they went with the cylinder form factor putting even more restrictions on your options.

    its kind of the Achilles heal of Apple. I say that knowing 97% +  of the time it goes unnoticed and that's why Apple makes those decisions and continues to be successful. Most of their customers don't care because they don't have a need. 

    In some ways it's kind of a nice gesture to reach out to pros who have such needs. They're an important part of the market, both in mindshare and developement. For some "hobbyist features" are important to development.   

    Let's hope they don't blow like they did with the last major update. They really thought and tried very hard to convince everyone the cylinder was amazing and it was far from it. If they're going to bother to reach out to the 3% of their users who need such a machine, I hope they realize that we need expansion, we need options, we need flexibility. We are not the 97% who "just want our devices to work". That's the crowd the cylinder was designed for and that is not us. I would think they were fully capable of designing a nice possibly modular system (-s). 

    The "pro iMac" might be nice especially if Apple were to developed an TB3 expansion chassis that didn't suck. It would be a really nice match for the MBP and the macpro cylinder. They really just need to fill the gap. Put less strain on the "tower" if you call it that and have a nice quiet little box for insane people like myself who need that sort of expansion. It would really open up the possibilities of the whole lineup. 

    You could theoretically expand whatever computer you want.  You could even use it to share resources between devices. 

    And in the end, the thing that sits in your desk can still be the elegant, small, lightweight appliance that we all honestly prefer and the power can reside under the desk or in a closet. 

    Whatever way they go we need access to standard industry interfaces. It would be nice to drop an nvidia 1080 in the whole line for example, but Apple is nowhere near that. 

  • Apple says hidden Safari setting led to flawed Consumer Reports MacBook Pro battery tests

    blastdoor said:
    I think CR's rationale for turing of cacheing is perfectly reasonable: 


    I don't think anybody did anything wrong here -- neither Apple nor CR -- and both are handling it appropriately. 
    Um. Honestly. CR should have investigated their methodology before publishing if the results seemed skewed, unusual or off in any way. The fact that the problem was only evidenced in some of their test machines really should have been a red flag. As if Apple's stellar performance over many years of testing wasn't reason enough. To go ahead and publish the article before looking into errors in the test itself is a failure to do proper testing and frankly just BS to F'n the max. CR handled it very poorly. As a matter of fact the original article is still up on their website with no modification. To publish something after the fact on another page, not in print and at best will be tucked away in the magazine under some OPED after you just shat all over the product the month prior is pathetic. The cover for next month's CR should read "we don't know how to test products and even if the results are obviously out of whack with expectations we will do no further investigation into the errors in our testing before we publish because... well Click Bait. 

    Sorry CR did everything wrong here.