Slashdot Mirror


Apple Should Stop Selling Four-Year-Old Computers (theverge.com)

It's been a while since Apple upgraded its MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro models. Four years, one month, and twenty-four days, to be exact, in case of the MacBook Pro. Apple is inexplicably still selling the exact same models for its Mac line that it introduced in 2012. Pretty much every Windows OEM has had an Intel Skylake-powered processor in its laptops for more than a year now, but Apple's computing lineup is still shipping with the three-to-four years old processor, and graphics card. Things have gotten so bad, that MacRumors' Buying Guide, which is considered to be an "online institution" among Apple nerds, has flagged all of Apple laptops as "Don't Buy" In a column, The Verge's Sam Byford says that Apple should stop selling the old laptops. He writes: Apple iterates quickly and consistently in mobile because the rate of technological progress is so much more dramatic in that arena. The company does amazing work to keep its iPhones and iPads ahead of competitors, performance-wise. Simple Intel processor upgrades are less important to laptops these days, however, and I'm finding this 2012 MacBook Pro fine to work from right now -- faster than my 2015 MacBook, at least, which is enough for my needs. But that doesn't mean it isn't unconscionable for Apple to continue to sell outdated products to people who may not know any better. Is the company really saving that much money by using 2012 processors and 4GB of RAM as standard? Even an update to Intel's Haswell chips from 2013 would have brought huge battery life improvements. Apple is bound by the whims of its suppliers to a certain extent, and it may not always make sense for the company to upgrade its products with every single new chip or GPU that comes out. But there's a certain point at which it just starts to look like absent-mindedness, and many Mac computers are well past that point now. [...] If Apple doesn't want to keep its products reasonably current, that's its prerogative. But if that truly is the case, maybe it shouldn't sell them at all.It's also ironic, coming from a company whose executive not long ago made fun of people who had five years old computer. Folks at Accidental Tech Podcast also discussed the same recently.

299 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by DatbeDank · · Score: 5, Funny

    You should be buying a Mac as a fashion accessory. Gotta let everyone at the coffee shop know how hip and cool you are.

    1. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by kelarius · · Score: 3, Informative

      This summary is incredibly stupid, the 4 year old model referenced is the base model, that indeed does use the same parts, however there HAVE been plenty of updates to the MacBook Pro line since then, introducing SSDs, Retina displays, slimmer builds, and current generation MBPs have Broadwell CPUs. Now for sure they are due for an update but I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen this calendar year.

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    2. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by penguinstorm7261 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't buy any machine for specs--buy it because it does what you need. Buy it because the one you have now doesn't. The notion that I should buy a new computer every two years is ridiculous. My last PowerBook lasted five. It was getting a *little* long in the tooth for digital photo editing but I could have waited another ueR. It was definitely slow for video editing. The machines are likely labeled as "do not buy" as much because people are expecting new models as anything else.Apple's currently running a promo for education users which is the normal strategy for clearing inventory before replacements are sold. There's a solid argument that Apple should stop selling *computers* but the suggestion in tbe article is just inane.

    3. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Tx · · Score: 1

      Yes, but any fashionista will tell you that nothing stays in fashion for four years.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    4. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Vorl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, the 8 year old system doesn't do what I need, so I should upgrade to the 4 year old version because it will be "good enough" for now as the same price I should be paying for current hardware? Computers are much like transportation. Can you get there by walking? Sure, it might take a few days, but you can. Does that mean you shouldn't upgrade to a car that can get you there many times as fast? Them selling old outdated systems even as an option is shameful in the extreme and they are just suckering people in with brand loyalty.

    5. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You smell like a XORed PC fan

    6. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of cars, Apple is the exact opposite of Tesla. They sell outdated tech and make a huge profit. Tesla sells near-science-fiction tech and loses $15,000 per car.

      Maybe that's what happens when you get big and greedy and realize that people still wait in line for hours to buy a "new" device that is for the most part identical to the last 3 or 4 models. Let's hope Tesla never transitions to that business strategy.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That was true back in 2006 not so much in 2016.
      For most people specs do not matter. However 4 year old specs at brand new prices isn't going to be too helpful. As Windows PC makers are using that gap to fill the void. Much like how Apple did so back in 2006 Where Windows XP was an again OS without a new one to take its place, designed for a way of computing that was common back in the 1990's. OS X and Macs at the time were the modern solution to most people. Thus its popularity.
      However with older Macs designed for older computing needs are showing its age. Granted I am doing this on a 4 year old ThinkPad Laptop running Windows 7, However the computing expected me to do on this, isn't the stuff I may want to do at home, or for an other business.

      In Short Macs really need a touch screen.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You mean like forcing people to pay $1000 AND wait in line for a Model 3?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: How do you know if someone has a mac?

      A: Just wait, they'll tell you.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Them selling old outdated systems even as an option is shameful in the extreme and they are just suckering people in with brand loyalty.

      Especially when you pay a premium for it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    11. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the 4 year old model referenced is the base model, that indeed does use the same parts

      Yeah, and it's still the SAME PRICE! There's no excuse for that.

    12. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by penguinstorm · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be that four years ago the (then) four year old system wasn't doing what you needed and you put it off griping about not liking your options.

      Most people don't put that much forethought into being a grumpy old man, but you be you.

      --
      Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
    13. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by saider · · Score: 4, Funny

      Volume!

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    14. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Retina Display merely a cosmetic difference.

      I'm not defending the use of old CPU, but the display is a far bigger deal for me.

      SSD could arguably be said to be more important too.

      I'm not a fanboy either, I have an early 13" MBP retina I got simply for the display, it runs Windows 7. If I were to purchase today, I'd likely get a PC, but screens past 1080P weren't available at any price on non barely portable PCs at the time.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Aereus · · Score: 1

      You could have stopped upgrading every year with the PC as well and saved even more money, so whats your point? IMHO, charging the same amount for hardware worth half as much today is dishonest.

    16. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Over the past 4 years, Intel's CPUs have had minor, iterative performance improvements and iterative, moderate efficiency improvements.
      These add up to a moderate performance improvement and a significant efficiency improvement.
      Taken together, those two things add up to a huge battery life increase. Since we're talking about laptops, that may be important to some people.

    17. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's still selling it doesn't need an excuse.

      The morons that buy it on the other hand...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd hardly call Retina Display merely a cosmetic difference.

      I think that's actually the definition of a cosmetic difference. Same thing, but looks better.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      If the machines have been updated more recently than four years ago then they're not selling four year old machines are they? That's what the headline and article claims. For the record 2016 - 2014 = 2.

    20. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahh, now we are getting somewhere, that's atleast a CPU right? But you still failed because Broadwell is from 2014. It's 2016 and everyone else is shipping skylake.

      So... it's a two year-old computer, not a four year-old computer. An every-other-year update cycle seems pretty reasonable, given the pace at which processor performance is changing these days (slower than it used to). As for GPUs, meh, these aren't gaming rigs.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Good one.

      Reminds me of a guy I went to school with many years ago.

      He was a rabid Apple fanboi. This was before iPhones and iPods.

      He would often say "We may be only 1% of the market, but we're the top 1%"

      He would also claim that he could hack anyone in under a minute... of course, he never would agree to prove it.

      I ran in to him years later when he was working the sales floor of a local computer retailer.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    22. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Don't buy any machine for specs--buy it because it does what you need.

      Huh?? I bought a MacBook Pro, Mid 2014, back in February (this year) because I need an nVidia GPU for CUDA work. The latest MBP have switched to AMD -- and there is no information on what GPU the new MBP's will use. (Thankfully eGPU's are a solution for _that_ contingency but I digress)

      If I had waited buying the (new) MacBook Pro, guess what, I'd STILL be waiting!

      > The notion that I should buy a new computer every two years is ridiculous.

      Indeed.

      It is not that your computer stops magically working the instant Apple releases a new model -- it just doesn't have all the latest bugs and features. /cynical But it's not *shiny* ! /Oblg. What it is like to own an Apple product

      It is more of a case of buyer's remorse. Guess what, ALL electronics are eventually obsolete. It is not if, but when.

    23. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by barc0001 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'd say that a Retina Display addition to existing hardware makes it prettier but also downgrades the performance and battery life. Adding Retina is asking the same hardware to work harder to push the extra pixels. Which is another reason TFA is right to call them out on using outdated processors and GPUs. They're negatively impacting the user experience to make things look shinier, all while upping the price tag. It's like buying a bigger truck with the same engine. Looks impressive until you need it to actually do hauling.

    24. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that the 4 year old model is a legacy model - the only Mac laptop with FireWire, a CD/DVD drive, and an Ethernet port. (As well as a non-Retina screen.) It fills a very specific niche in the Mac market.

      Most of the rest of the Mac lineup is closer to a year old. Intel's bobble of the last processor refresh definitely affected Macs - the chips that would likely to be used for most Mac models were delayed (some long enough that Apple has obviously decided to wait for the next generation) or not released at all - and if you're tracking Mac refreshes thinking when's a good time to buy now isn't it, but the only 'seriously old' models are the one Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the Mac Pro. The MacBook is a legacy model kept for specific uses because it doesn't cost them much to keep it in the lineup, and the Mini and Pro are niche models that were scheduled for longer-cycle refresh when Intel bobbled their processors.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    25. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      The four year old model is the only one with a CD/DVD drive, FireWire, or Ethernet. If you need those archaic technologies, you get the archaic model, kept around just for you.

      The rest of the line has had updates to CPU, storage, wireless, screen, etc. since then. Some several times.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    26. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by dlenmn · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and it's still the SAME PRICE!

      To quote the linked buyer's guide:

      The model received a $100 price cut in July 2014.

      So it's not the same price, but yes, it should be a lot cheaper.

    27. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by I4ko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would touch skylake only with a 2 meter pole. That skylake that takes pictures all the time and sends them to Microsoft. I stop at Broadwell, in 8 years I'll switch to AMD or whoever is playing on the market. Or go back to pen and paper. Skylake is a pest, and since I'll stick with Windows 8.1 until it is supported and Windows server 2012 R2, and never go to 10, no skylake.. As for the Mac OS.. they fucked up the memory management in 10.7 and later, though at least on UI side 10.9 is the last usable one. Yosemite is leaking memory like crazy, El Capitan can't work with 24h time... Who the hell removes the zero hour and replaces it with 24th.. According to the new apple, the day starts at 1 after midnight and continues till 1 after midnight on the next day.. Not to mention the UI is completely fucked up. It almost seems like Apple and MS held meeting together on how to fuck up their OSes to a level of something Chrome OS like, so they can also push everything else to the cloud. The current versions of those GUIs are so fucked up, that I feel better on TTYs on the console or terminals running in Window Maker, and that also helps me keep away for the shite browsers have all become with HTML5 and javascript.
      There is almost no meaningful improvement in performance between Ivy Bridge and Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake parts. You may be getting slightly better performance for a somewhat lower TDP, but it is not like you are getting even 30% increase especially on the mobile processors. Real world performance on stuff like x264 tends to greatly disagree with synthetic benchmarks that show 2x, 3x performance increase. In reality if you get 10%-15% you are lucky. And for 10%-15% it is hardly worth it to throw out good systems and buy new ones.

    28. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Anecdotes are fun.

      Here's one. The only people in my highschool who used Macs seemed to be Jehova's Witnesses. There was about 5 of them. Very weird coincidence.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Golden_Rider · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Retina Display merely a cosmetic difference.

      I'm not defending the use of old CPU, but the display is a far bigger deal for me.

      Well, it's not as if a Retina display is at the forefront of technology these days, either. In the Mac notebook price range, most other manufacturers ship higher resolution displays. Many people just think that "Retina" = "best display on the market", when every standard 3200x1800 notebook display actually beats it in resolution (15" retina=2880x1800, 13" retina=2560x1600).

    30. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Exactly, Tesla's business model is that marginal losses magically turn into profits when you have enough of them....

    31. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, plenty of changes. Every macbook I see feels like it's had some more pointless changes to it, removal of ports, adding other ports, and so on. I'd like to see them remain the same except for updated internal parts...

    32. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I got one used, and you couldn't tell, for $700. Worked out well for me. Plus, it's as good as the one they're selling new today in 2016!

    33. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by serbanp · · Score: 1

      You're just a dumb AC. My MBP did the very same thing, the only saving grace was that mine was in a metal drawer and did not overheat so badly to get damaged.

    34. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ahh, now we are getting somewhere, that's atleast a CPU right? But you still failed because Broadwell is from 2014. It's 2016 and everyone else is shipping skylake.

      So... it's a two year-old computer, not a four year-old computer. An every-other-year update cycle seems pretty reasonable, given the pace at which processor performance is changing these days (slower than it used to). As for GPUs, meh, these aren't gaming rigs.

      I got my 2 year old retina 13" MBP about 2 years ago. It's still a better laptop than the two 'high end' Lenovos my employer foisted on me in the interim.

      A) It's unixy under the hood. I can bring up a bash shell and work on the command line.
      B) It's case is good. It doesn't fall apart over time.
      C) The retina screen makes working on text better than on a lower resolution screen
      D) It's neither too big nor too heavy
      E) It isn't running Windows
      F) The battery lasts long enough for my needs.
      G) The RAM and SSD are maxed out.

      I'm happy to have missed the haptic touchpad.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    35. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      "That skylake that takes pictures all the time and sends them to Microsoft."
      It's a CPU. It doesn't have a camera built in.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    36. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by citylivin · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you talking about? Skylake is a perfectly fine architecture. When it came out, i too did a comparison with skylake and haswell judging skylake to be the better chip. Using DDR4 and also the ability to do m2 SSDs @ x4 speeds were the two deal breakers for me.

      Sure you can get a 2600k that runs circles around lots of later gen chips, but a 6700k will own it and with the extra features and better power consumption (and less heat) skylake is the one to buy. Especially since the 4790k and the 6700k are like a 50 dollar difference in price. Might as well go for all the new chipset features and the satisfaction of not paying premium prices for last years architecture!

      On the mac side of things, yes the last few releases were really unstable. However i think they fixed all the stability problems in the latest el capitan release. I dont use osx personally, but my users stopped complaining about stability problems when we went to el cap.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    37. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Ahh, now we are getting somewhere, that's atleast a CPU right? But you still failed because Broadwell is from 2014. It's 2016 and everyone else is shipping skylake.

      So... it's a two year-old computer, not a four year-old computer. An every-other-year update cycle seems pretty reasonable, given the pace at which processor performance is changing these days (slower than it used to). As for GPUs, meh, these aren't gaming rigs.

      I got my 2 year old retina 13" MBP about 2 years ago. It's still a better laptop than the two 'high end' Lenovos my employer foisted on me in the interim.

      A) It's unixy under the hood. I can bring up a bash shell and work on the command line.

      So is my Thinkpad, infact it is a lot unixier by being Linux

      B) It's case is good. It doesn't fall apart over time.

      Neither does any laptop costing more than $100

      C) The retina screen makes working on text better than on a lower resolution screen

      And is lower res and overall worse screen than a high end ThinkPad

      D) It's neither too big nor too heavy

      It is the same size as any other ultrabook pro.

      E) It isn't running Windows

      As much as ThinkPad is, it CAN, it doesn't mean you have to.

      F) The battery lasts long enough for my needs.

      Shorter than everybody elses-

      G) The RAM and SSD are maxed out.

      Maxed out because the max specs are ridiculously low, and you had to pay 10x overprice at purchase for the upgrades, because it is unopgradable later.

    38. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by I4ko · · Score: 1

      All you say is right for desktop chips, an you are giving the multiplier unlocked version as examples, but for laptops you don't get those. There just isn't such a clear cut benefit in the mobile processors, which is what I was comparing. Apple has other strategies than TDP reduction to increase battery life - sadly doing those non-removable plate batteries, but still results are ok.
      They don't care any more if they are the best performing machines, haven't cares since they entered the Chinese market as a fashion/status symbol. And for that they work ok, and are way overpriced compared to an LV or MK bag.

    39. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Meaning way less, compared to other fashion/status symbol brands.

    40. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

    41. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by hhas · · Score: 2

      the 4 year old model referenced is the base model, that indeed does use the same parts

      Yeah, and it's still the SAME PRICE! There's no excuse for that.

      Hurrr. Rule #1 of Retail: Your product is worth precisely whatever your customers are prepared to pay for it.

      What is truly unbelievable here is that Apple now would deliberately continue to sell such embarrassingly senescent products (non-Retina MPBs) at all. The previous Jobs-2.0 Apple knew that that the way to build new markets and new products was to aggressively kill all its old, stale ones with absolutely zero remorse; and the distraught wails of newly betrayed fanboys was as music to their ears while tens of millions of newly inthralled customers fell over themselves crying as one Take My Money Now!

      Sure Cook's Apple is picking up nice easy chump change by continuing to flog such thoroughly matured merchandise. As in gaming consoles, the profit margins on Apple hardware products will improve over their lifetimes as their parts and production costs fall. However, the 2K-era Apple built itself into the world's greatest consumer technology business by selling its own image as THE creator of revolutionary must-have cutting-edge products as much as it did by selling the products themselves. Yet here is that same once-revolutionary knife-sharp Apple, gone fat and soggy, now flogging five-year-old frump off its remaindered rail like some cheap market hawker?

      Honestly, when Zombie Jobs-3.0 arises from the grave, I guarantee the only thing round Cupertino still worth selling will be canned goods and shotguns, because the moment he breaks through the barricades he will utterly shred the whole useless lot of them for so casually pissing that incredibly hard-built, inconceivably priceless, and uniquely irreplaceable global reputation up against the washroom wall as these muppets have.

    42. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That's odd, I'm sure I set out comparing it with the work laptops I had been issued. Not your personal choice of laptop.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    43. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Your product is worth precisely whatever your customers are prepared to pay for it

      And they're leaving money on the table. I know of people who aren't buying precisely because there's nothing new.

    44. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I guess you never heard of iPhone pre-orders.

    45. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by segin · · Score: 1

      The entire US mainstream political spectrum, including the entire mainstream Democratic party, is right of Hitler. Dude was dead center and absolute authoritarian.

    46. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you get a delete key, and lint screen, probably page up and down too.

      I'd be unlikely to make the same choice today, but it's still a pretty serious improvement.

      I haven't shopped for a while, and reading reviews is annoying (I've purchased "nice" product lines and got burned on screen quality resolution aside), but I suspect I could get a similar quality screen on a cheaper 13" or 14" thin laptop now. And even cheap screens are getting good of they're IPS.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    47. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by skywire · · Score: 1

      I understand this being modded up, but not as Funny. It's perfectly serious.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    48. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      But if what you need is space to put things, the bigger truck is far more valuable.

      I suspect most people don't benifit from either though (people always ask how I use the screen with everything so small, I tell them I let my face closer when I can't read it), but the faster processor has limited use to me (I do low end video encoding at times, and wouldn't mind playing newer games), but screen real-estate was a big deal, and an ssd isn't bad.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    49. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      "Retina" is not just about the screen, you need all new software to support it. So, the latest Mac OS X with the Apple suite and the death march of deprecation for 3rd party software might be interesting. Linux has "HiDPI" support but the migration of software from GTK2 to GTK3 and Qt5 etc. is taking years.

    50. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Laptops mostly use 15-watt CPUs now, even the ones thick enough for wired Ethernet and serviceable parts. I guess laptop vendors like the cheap savings on cooling and electronics it might allow, although if possible I'd like cooling sized for 35 watts with use of a 15 watt CPU.
      But my point is, Skylake is likely more useful the lower the wattage is. i5-6200U looks crazy fast for what it is.
      The Windows driver concerns (for graphics?) are maybe a bit overblown, it might be not a big deal with Windows 8.1. After that, who knows. Maybe Windows Server 2016 will have purposefully weak copy protection and we'll use that when Windows is needed or wanted.

    51. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by lucm · · Score: 1

      Tesla makes money by selling stock to people who like the business model of losing money and making promises of future profits.

      I don't think you understand how the stock market works. After the IPO, the company no longer makes money from the stock it sold to investors. Investors make money if they resell their stock to other investors if the stock price went up.

      Usually the company *loses* money with their stock after the IPO because investors expect either regular dividends or a buy-back program at a premium over what they initially paid.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    52. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by lucm · · Score: 1

      That's the Amazon business model. Growth and market ownership before profit.

      I used to distrust this model but it did work for Amazon. They recently started to turn a profit and it'd be fair to say that they own the market. Let's hope it works for Tesla too. A cool product that looks good and that is actually less damaging for the environment than the competition, that's pretty impressive.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    53. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by hhas · · Score: 1

      A retina-MBP update is overdue just to keep customers engaged, though with the new design already in the pipeline Apple won't be bumping the current design's specs again, so everyone just has to tought it out till it ships. The 12" MacBook did actually get a refresh earlier this year, though suffers more from its too-high price point than anything else; hopefully the new MBPs will force that down, making it more appealing to the mass-market who just want a nice simple portable laptop for everyday use, but aren't going to break the bank to do so.

      That said, sluggishness in refreshing current lines is a secondary problem to failing to cull old lines - non-retina MBP, MacBook Airs - in far more timely fashion. For a company that traded its way to the top on its stunning razor-lean Adonis looks, that middle-age paunch now hanging about it is going to do way more harm to its fearless lead-from-the-front image than any laziness in combing its hair.

    54. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Differentiate between profit and cashflow.

      You can run at a permanent loss if you have a positive cashflow.

    55. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly call Retina Display merely a cosmetic difference.

      I think that's actually the definition of a cosmetic difference. Same thing, but looks better.

      Yeah, a Retina Display is pure vanity. And humble people like you still use VGA resolution, because everything "better" is just looks.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    56. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you talking about? Skylake is a perfectly fine architecture. When it came out, i too did a comparison with skylake and haswell judging skylake to be the better chip.

      Wait, did you not find the bug that froze the Skylake CPUs when they came out, or did you think that was perfectly fine? Any way, why should I care about your expert opinion?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    57. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you have to sit back and appreciate the bizarre world of GAAP.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    58. Re: Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      So, the 8 year old system doesn't do what I need, so I should upgrade to the 4 year old version because it will be "good enough" for now as the same price I should be paying for current hardware?

      Who said you should? Yup, exactly, nobody. That "4 year old" brand new build model is the legacy model that Apple keeps around because their actual customers (IOW not trolls like you) demand they keep it, and would loudly complain if they did remove it - as would you, because you are a fucking troll, and everything Apple does is baaaad.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    59. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Good one.

      Reminds me of a guy I went to school with many years ago.

      He was a rabid Apple fanboi. This was before iPhones and iPods.

      He would often say "We may be only 1% of the market, but we're the top 1%"

      You went to school with Douglas Adams? And misremembered his quote: he said 10%.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    60. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      They need to bring back the quad mini. I'd buy at least another couple the second they go on sale. As it stands today, I'm running a bunch of late 2013 minis (yes, there was an "update", memory chip speed was increased), with no plans to replace them any time in the near future. Those boxes are awesome for certain tasks. If Apple doesn't release a significant upgrade soon, the generic small form factor intel boxes will wind up being replacements, running some form of *nix (Linux or BSD)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    61. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      So is my Thinkpad, infact it is a lot unixier by being Linux

      Technically, your Thinkpad is less "unixier" because it's Linux. BSD, the core of OS X, IS UNIX.

      B) It's case is good. It doesn't fall apart over time.

      Neither does any laptop costing more than $100

      Come back after 2 years of daily use. Then again, it's the one thing Thinkpads were known for. Whatever else, they were rugged compared to the competition in the windows world. But, this is Lenovo designs that are competing with Apple we're talking about now.

      F) The battery lasts long enough for my needs.

      Shorter than everybody elses-

      This would be a new development. In real world tests, Apple's numbers hold up. No one else's has, at least the last time I was in the market.

      Maxed out because the max specs are ridiculously low, and you had to pay 10x overprice at purchase for the upgrades, because it is unopgradable later.

      You can upgrade the SSD. The memory actually doesn't need to be upgraded for 95+% of users if they buy adequate to begin with. I know you'll argue "but but but...". For a laptop, when's the last time you ran a process that consumed 16GB of RAM? Or any combination that required that much RAM? Unless you're into heavy video editing, but then a laptop is probably not what you should be using. I develop enterprise and mobile software. Running everything, including multiple DBs and IDEs rarely gets me into the 12GB range for processes. I actually passed on upgrading my desktop to 48GB because I just never filled up RAM unless I did something silly, like run 100 tabs on Chrome, Firefox or Safari, or all of them combined. More RAM for normal people is a myth, at this point.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    62. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by etm1109 · · Score: 1

      Usually I find people that make snarky anti-mac people comments are assholes, but hey to each his own lament.

    63. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      OP completely ignores the third generation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    64. Re:Don't buy a Mac for Specs. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this on a Lenvo Carbon X1. It's coming to the end of its life. It's not as old as my MBP (They are both Haswell I think).

      The keyboard on the Lenovo sucks donkeys. Nothing is in the right place, the function keys serve mostly to allow the cat to turn off the wifi while you aren't looking. The key feel is a bit dead. It sometimes doesn't want to turn on. It often cannot attach to a Wifi AP it had no problem with in the past. Compiling C code requires messing with MinGW and the inline assembly is different because windows calling conventions != Linux calling conventions.

      Wouldn't I buy the same pro for the same money today? Hell no. Things get cheaper. I'd buy a computer that offered across the board quality hardware. I have a windows gaming machine with the big graphics card, a personal laptop that I mostly do development on and whatever I have from my employer. That personal laptop can be Linux or MacOS. Since all PCs were crap hardware at the time, the MBP won. I see some options in PCs these days, so maybe I would consider a Linux laptop when the MBP goes South. Robust case, good screen, good keyboard, good CPU, lots of memory and storage. I am relatively insensitive to cost.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  2. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " Even an update to Intel's Haswell chips from 2013 would have brought huge battery life improvements" All MacBook Pro Retina has Haswell processors.

    1. Re:WTF? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      " Even an update to Intel's Haswell chips from 2013 would have brought huge battery life improvements" All MacBook Pro Retina has Haswell processors.

      Haswell is pretty outdated.

      Hell my i7 4770k is still rocking fast and not obsolete like a 3 year old chip was in the 1990s by any sense of the means, but skylake has big improvements for power effeciency, wifi speeds, intel graphics, usb type c, usb 3.1, and NVMe and thunderbolt 3 over my older system. This is especially true if I am paying big bucks for a mac or a gaming tower.

  3. #applelivesmatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bring back the PowerBook!

    1. Re:#applelivesmatter by armanox · · Score: 1

      I'd love that myself. PPC made Apple different, and cool in a way. And my G4 PowerMac is still running fine (I have a quad G5 that needs a little love before it is running fine again, but with 4xCPU and 16GB of RAM it is still a beast.)

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  4. Old price is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mac computers are very usable and nice. The problem isn't Apple is selling old hardware. The problem is Apple is selling old hardware at the same price it did on day 1.

    1. Re:Old price is the problem. by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think the machines weren't horrendously overpriced on day one either?

      I have 10 Macs in the next room (I work in schools).

      I guarantee you that they get one-hundredth of the usage of any other PC on site. And yet they cost nearly 8 times as much. And we give the kids free-reign, a lot of the staff use Mac at home, our systems are mostly online so support either setup, they are tied into our AD and file storage, they are connected to the same network, etc.

      He have several hundred iPads. Those get use. But the Macs? Even the children barely bother to touch them, even when given free time in the room they are in. I've seen the same at many other schools.

      The irony is that the only piece of software we regularly use them for used to be Mac-only and is now dual-platform. So they are literally lame ducks. And, no, our volume licensing doesn't allow us to use them via Boot Camp as they were NOT originally purchased with a copy of a Pro or Enterprise version of Windows. Even if it did, why would we do that rather than just sell them off, buy three or four equivalent PC's for each, and then just use those instead?

      Mac's aren't anything very special at all. Their hardware is lacklustre, and pretty fixed, and over-priced, and their management is much more complicated than necessary for such "user-friendly" machines.

      Honestly, two were stolen on an open day one year. I could have literally bought - there and then - six PC's for the price of the replacement new Macs that the insurance company forced us to have. Do I honestly get three times the functionality out of the Macs than the PCs? Nope. Not even in a school with music, drama (theatre shows, movie recording, etc), etc. departments using the facilities all day every day.

      Last time I received a helpdesk ticket for them for something not working, we found out that the machine in question hadn't been switched on for three months (and, no, it wasn't a holiday). Timetabled classes of 20, 10 Macs in the room, you work that out.

      I've even run Mac OS in a VM, and I honestly don't get the fuss at all. In fact, it run faster as a resource-limited VM on my Windows-based laptop that was also running over VM's than it did on the original hardware itself.

      Don't even get me started on stupid proprietary cables that add nothing but cost, obstructions to centralised management of the machines, and - honestly - if I hear the word keychain one more time I will scream (it tends to be new users, but still, it drives us insane).

      Three times I have submitted plans to remove the entire room and replace it with an IT suite with twice the machines and each time the only justification for refusal is how much it had cost to install them originally. I even factored into one of the proposals the ridiculous second-hand price they attract as a way of funding the change entirely.

      But, still, they get 1/10th the usage of any other machine I manage. And one of those is in a cupboard.

    2. Re:Old price is the problem. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      You think the machines weren't horrendously overpriced on day one either?

      I have 10 Macs in the next room (I work in schools).

      I guarantee you that they get one-hundredth of the usage of any other PC on site.

      Similar situation, the last place I was had a shithot mac suite, 2 rooms of 32 top line macs. All duel booted in windows, the only time they ever really got used was when the laptops ran out and then they booted in windows. Only a couple teachers wanted to use them as macs and even then they generally booted windows mode unless for something specifically mac.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They're overpriced on day one, and every Apple device has its own flaws, but the hardware is still a part of the difference in that cost. How many laptops have aluminum cases? And on the desktop side, that's mostly based on the cost of the form factor. Using almost all laptop parts and a large, high-DPI IPS screen is expensive - there are few PC equivalents. Most of those are nearly as expensive as the Mac.

      True, you'll get the most bang for buck on a desktop PC with a separate low-dpi monitor. The large case and cheaper screen is a large part of the cost-savings. You could argue all day whether the average user needs the higher specs, but they are present and they do cost more.

      As for the OS, it's a fairly decent BSD-based OS, though with its own graphics and audio subsystems and a disk indexing service that sometimes has serious issues.

    4. Re:Old price is the problem. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      My Dell XPS has a 4K screen and aluminum case, and better specs (CPU/RAM/SSD) than just about any MacBook at a comparable cost on the high end.... it even has a lightening port.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Old price is the problem. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The mac pro's where some what fairly priced on day one next to other pro workstations at list price (but with less choice then a dell / hp). Dell has like 4 on line stores all with different deals at different times.

      You could built you own for less and don't need to buy an $250-$300+ case to put it in.

    6. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm only talking about when those products were new.

      They're 4 years old at the same price now. That' a whole new problem.

    7. Re:Old price is the problem. by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      All duel booted in windows,

      All that tells us is that Windows is better in one-on-one duels. Were they carried out with sabres or with guns? I think Apple would have an edge with sabres.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    8. Re:Old price is the problem. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Definitely agree with that. I still don't see the point of this article... people look at the specs when they buy, and if they are happy with it, then they can choose to buy it. It's partly why I've never gotten an Apple, and now when people say they hold their value better, we can say it's because unlike every other computer manufacturer that lowers prices over time, the four year old "new" Apples cost the same.... but then that value is just an illusion. Component-wise, it's a rip off.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The point of the article is to try to embarrass Apple into releasing something newer. This is a long time for them without a refresh, and they appear to be mostly abandoning the market. Historically, they always keep the price point more or less the same, but come out with new models to fit those prices from time to time. 4 years is a long time, even for them.

      I currently have a client who wants a new Macbook Pro - not because they need more power, but because of a specific firmware issue that they want to get away from. There's nothing I can offer them, because buying a "new" one will be the same laptop.

    10. Re: Old price is the problem. by vossman77 · · Score: 1

      I am curious what do the students use the computers for? At my small college department ALL of the Desktops in the student tutoring room are barely used, because students bring their own laptops.

      What is the reason for the discrepancy? Is it spec based (they are faster), curriculum based (teachers train on the pcs), or familiarity based (linux would be used even less)? Thanks just curious.

    11. Re:Old price is the problem. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Usually a pistols at 30 paces deal. The macs were usually faster to draw but their guns were more complicated and not compatible with most of the ammo.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    12. Re:Old price is the problem. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How many laptops have aluminum cases?

      Well, yeah, I guess there aren't a ton of ...

      wait, why exactly does the case material matter? Serious question. I feel like I'm missing out on some sort of hidden benefit because I'm using a well-powered laptop with a plastic case. What am I missing out on?

      I was always told that it's what's inside that counts.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:Old price is the problem. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well... to each his own, I guess. I was looking into a MacBook because of form factor and the availability of discrete Nvidia graphics; a lot of co-workers referred to the MacBook as "the best Windows laptop." But now they use ATI, and my graphics software (which runs on Windows, so I don't have much of a choice) is certified for Nvidia.

      At the same time, my experience with OS X was not pleasant. I was offered a Mac Mini at work a few years ago and thought "why not?" I really did not like the UI; all the tweak-able things I was accustomed to under Linux were missing, you had to add on software to do simple things (like mouse acceleration) and snapping windows; I like being able to stretch a windows from any side or corner. I'm not saying OS X isn't good, but it was more frustrating than the Windows UI to tailor to what I wanted. I gave it a good try, too - I will often accept changing the way I do things if I can get accustomed to it if there are benefits overall, and I tried it out for about a month before deciding I didn't like it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 2

      It's all about what happens when you drop it. Plastic cases fall to pieces.

    15. Re:Old price is the problem. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oh. I see.

      Wait, what do you mean *when* you drop it? Why do I have to drop my computer? Why can't I be one of those people who somehow manages to make it through life without dropping important expensive fragile machines? Speaking of which, even if the case is still in one piece, is the rest of the hardware still working? How often do you drop your computer, what kind of heights are we talking about?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You're right. Let's design everything to be disposable. That's only a recent trend, you know.

    17. Re:Old price is the problem. by ledow · · Score: 1

      What makes you think you don't have to buy an AV for the Macs too?

      And most AV is cross-platform, buy it once and deploy on Mac, Linux and Windows for the same price.

      And try finding someone who will set up Macs professionally for you. They might dabble, they might even have them on their network, but big Mac installs need a Mac guy, an Apple partner, or lots of messing - just the same as any proper Windows installs.

      P.S. Have you seen the price of Mac Mini servers? And the hoops you have to jump through to get things working without them (e.g. have to have one or all your Macs will start downloading updates individually, swamping your connection to thousands of unique Apple IP's - device supervision, printer sharing, etc. Even Papercut recommend you just use a Mac server rather than try to make them co-operate, and they sell a Mac, Windows, Linux printing product).

      It's nowhere near as clear-cut (or even true) to say that Macs have a lower TCO in any sort of non-home environment.

    18. Re:Old price is the problem. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea. Let's design our computers so that they can't be upgraded.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:Old price is the problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      When you lose one argument, just jump right into another.

    20. Re:Old price is the problem. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Ha, you're declaring victory there? OK buddy. Have a great day.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Old price is the problem. by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Actually, we consider the 17" MacBook less a laptop and more a lap dance.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    22. Re:Old price is the problem. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      This rings true to me.

      I have done network setups for several schools, churches and other non-profits. Whenever I would run across MACs it would usually be to replace them for something easier to maintain like a Windows AD setup.

      In the couple of cases where MACs were not replaced, the customer would have a "MAC guy" that would do all of that work and I would not touch that stuff other than to route it's IP traffic and/or hand out it's address.

      I always got the impression that the MAC portion of the network was strictly off limits due to the fact that the person (or persons) supporting it were so rarely available.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    23. Re:Old price is the problem. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some of us are dexterity-impaired. I've gotten very good at not hurting myself when I fall, but that doesn't necessarily apply to what I'm carrying.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Old price is the problem. by armanox · · Score: 1

      Proprietary cables? The last Mac I saw that used non-standard cables was in the 90s (using a PPC 603e) with Apple Desktop Bus.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    25. Re:Old price is the problem. by ledow · · Score: 1

      The iMac power adaptor plugs, despite being on-the-whole standard IEC plugs, look shite if you plug a normal plug in as "their" plugs have a grey circular plastic moulding that forms the rest of the case. Same for certain "figure of eight" plugs they use on power adaptors - they all have right-angles and grey mouldings rather than just plug in.

      The MacBooks have proprietary magnetic-clasp adaptors.

      Need to show an iMac on a projector? Then you need thunderbolt adaptors of some kind.

      Mac Minis (their nearest "server" equivalent despite not having any of the hardware of a normal server, like ECC RAM etc.) - they have a requirement in certain conditions for original Apple keyboards. If they crash, for example, booting up often requires swapping out the KVM for a proprietary Apple keyboard (not even sure how it detects that situation, but you can get to the point that things won't boot without the original keyboard, no matter what you try). Hey, at least they have HDMI unlike the iMac, right?

      But, then, if you'd ever tried to network this things you'd know this.

    26. Re: Old price is the problem. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Ever dealt with some of the education licences?

      You pay one licence per full time member of staff, get unlimited licences for as many computers as you like, for all Microsoft OS, but the condition is that the original PC must have come with Pro or Enterprise on it when you bought it.

      Applications and Server are annual recurring purchases as you suggest, but Windows and Office are odd-balls, especially in education when you pay for dozens of copies and yet can legally install thousands of them.

    27. Re:Old price is the problem. by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Valuable perspective, but it is only one perspective (the IT manager). And I'm not sure it is really relevant since the recommendations at MacRumors.com are not for IT buyers but for personal use buyers. From the "Having to manage my own machine without support from a professional" perspective, a Mac has consistently been the best choice. Yes, they cost more, but I have fewer headaches (though by no means none) related to managing them in the handful of hours each week I have to use it when I'm not earning a living.

      Furthermore, your experience is different from other IT managed scenarios in that you are managing for children, and the computers are shared resources. As I recall a couple of years ago there was a /. article about how IBM had moved to letting everyone select their own device and found that Mac's resulted in disproportionately fewer help desk tickets. The money spent on hardware resulted in savings from support. Your mileage may vary of course

      I've personally helped dozens of people switch from PC's that they never really felt comfortable with, to Mac's which enabled them to get more from their machines. That kind of productivity gain and piece of mind can't be tabulated on a spreadsheet and so therefore has essentially zero value in an IT managed scenario, but for the day-to-day user of the machine it has great personal value. That is why Macs do so well with people buying their own machine, but not at large corporations.

      Finally, the older MBAir that hasn't been updated will probably never be updated. The differences in portability between the Air and the MBPro are almost meaningless at this point. It exists in the line-up to hit a certain price point, and do so profitably. As long as it can fill that role, and still sell in meaningful volumes, Apple will keep it around. It's good business, regardless of what flamebait writers say.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  5. Wait..what? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    The company does amazing work to keep its iPhones and iPads ahead of competitors, performance-wise.
    Um....

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Wait..what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um...they do perform better. With lower specs. Android is bloated and buggy and requires more raw power to accomplish the same productivity. Yes, I'm going to give you a car analogy: In 1985, you could buy a car that produced around 160 horsepower from a 5.7-liter V8 engine. Today's V6 engines produce 260+ horsepower from small 3.5-liter V6 engines.

      Yes, your car in 1985 had a larger engine and used more gasoline, but it still gets outperformed by smaller, more efficient units today.

    2. Re:Wait..what? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse java script tests with CPU tests. Java script tests test the browser more than the CPU.

    3. Re:Wait..what? by lucm · · Score: 2

      Same usual bullshit. Comparing $1,000 iPhone with a $125 Chinese garbage android.

      Dollar for dollar, Samsung or HTC devices run circles around iPhones.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Wait..what? by GabeGhearing · · Score: 2

      The S7 is between $600 - $900 dollars depending on what CPU and radios you get. Samsung sticks some markets with their crappy home-built processor and others get the Snapdragon 820. Different carriers also certified different S7 phones... http://www.techtimes.com/artic...

      The 64GB iPhone SE is $500 with a CPU that is on-par with the best Samsung S7. If you want a fast small phone, Android really sucks.

      The 6s and 6s+ are about $100 more than equivalent speed variants from Samsung... but they are getting refreshed in a month so you can expect them to be cheaper/faster than Samsung at that time.

    5. Re:Wait..what? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Most any Ferrari outperforms your V6 anything else sold new today. And Apple would have you believe Macbooks, Airs, etc are more like Ferraris than Mustangs.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Wait..what? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Samsung just announced the Note 7 (which is the 6th Note), running the Snapdragon 820 SoC, for $880.
      It's not as fast as the latest iPhone in single core performance, and I believe it loses out in multi core performance.

      However, this is largely due to the fact that the Note 7, like most Android devices, will throttle performance at an OS level and at a hardware level to preserve battery life and prevent overheating. Another significant factor is that Android is absolute ass.

    7. Re:Wait..what? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Italian trash. Historically most Ferraris had less than 200 ponies and ran 16+ second 1/4 miles, competitive with British put-puts. Skunked on power.

      Seriously overpriced garbage. Unless you pay megabucks for a new one (which all contain 'truck motors' just like Enzo used to hate on.)

      The Pontiac GTO was faster than the Ferrari GTO. Tested and proven multiple times, most famously on Monza.

      Apples ARE more like Ferraris than mustangs, overpriced, slow, fashion accessories marketed in insecure rich morons.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Wait..what? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, no.

      http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

      On most benchmarks, the iPhone is faster. The iPhone SE, in fact, seems to be the top performer among iPhones, and it's the cheapest of the current generation.

      Samsung's phones (and anything using the Qualcomm chips) tend to outperform the A-series chips when it comes to multi-threaded tasks, so you'll see physics simulations on high-end Android devices run better than iPhones. But honestly, that's not much of what most people do on their phones. On any real-world (ish) benchmark to do with browsing, IO or framerate, the iPhone is in the same ballpark or much faster.

      Dollar-for-dollar, the iPhone is basically the best bet in town, even with 11-month-old silicon. Given that they're going to be announcing the next generation next month, this is only going to get better for Apple.

      Look, there are lots of reasons to complain about both Apple and iPhones, and their SoCs have never been one of them. They produce power-efficient, highly integrated SoCs with great I/O throughput.

    9. Re: Wait..what? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Which Pontiac GTO would you buy with a 6 cylinder engine?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Wait..what? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Plus, Apple is technically incorporated over seas so it just adds to the Ferrari analogy.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    11. Re:Wait..what? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse java script tests with CPU tests. Java script tests test the browser more than the CPU.

      So Android gets declared the winner because their browsers suck? Okay.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    12. Re:Wait..what? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that.
      Just that you can't use java script benchmarks, especially with different browsers, to compare CPU performance.

      And there is a lot more to a browser than its java script performance. I use Firefox for ad blocking on my phone. I couldn't care less if the web page java script took 4 ms instead of 2 ms if I am going to see ads, and loose even more time loading them and scrolling them.

    13. Re:Wait..what? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      All right, Gramps, we'll get off your lawn.

      You DO realize that we're not actually STUCK in the 1960s, and that Ferraris no longer suck?
      Did you know Pontiac doesn't even exist any more, let alone make the goat?
      And, the goat's latest iteration was little more than a rebadged Aussie family sedan and in no way compared to any contemporary Ferrari?

      There are some treatments available for Alzheimer's disease now - I suggest you start looking into the various options. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    14. Re: Wait..what? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      One where the 455 threw a rod, cracking the block and someone dropped in a Buick GNX twin-turbo V6. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  6. What's the driver for upgrading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have the same computer I've had for the last 4 years, and except replacing my mirror RAID with SSD drives, it's been the same. I'm a developer who does a lot of contract work, but 70% of my work is creating pretty diagrams, documents, writing e-mails and browsing. Using Eclipse or Visual Studio doesn't require me to upgrade. last game I bought on the PC was New Order and that works fine.

    So who needs a brand-new computer:
    - gamers; a minority especially on a Mac
    - folks doing audio/video stuff; a minority as well
    - developers? Doubtful, I have an old Mac for the occasional app development and it works just fine with Xamarin
    - hipsters or other people bragging about their gear? A minority

    Most of the people I know with a Mac have the same machine humming along for 2-3 years as well. It's usually sales guys or "artistes" who tout the latest gear, but 90% of the time everyone gives them a blank look when they mention their new toy.

    No one in the real world cares about the latest system.

    1. Re:What's the driver for upgrading? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      That's not quite what we're talking about here.

      It's one thing to buy a computer which is reasonable at the time and still be using it 4-5 years later because it is still perfectly fine for your needs. That's a sensible thing to do.

      It's another thing entirely to pay new-computer prices for a new PC whose hardware is basically 4 years old. That's a borderline insane thing to do. You can get a lot of longevity out of modern computer hardware, but you can't stave off obsolescence forever and starting from a point 4 years behind the curve is not wise.

    2. Re:What's the driver for upgrading? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You forgot:
      - People paying a premium price for their system.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:What's the driver for upgrading? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this on a late 2013 MacBook Pro. Not sure what the author of TFS who thought they hadn't updated since 2012 was smoking - this model was released just under 3 years ago and was the first generation to use Haswell. They've done a small speedbump since then. I'd happily buy a faster one if it existed, the problem is that the new Intel chips are only marginally faster than the previous ones. Every previous laptop upgrade for me (on a roughly 3-year cycle) has at least doubled performance. I'd be interested in 32GB of RAM and 2TB of SSD (or more of both) and a faster GPU, but it's still not that compelling. I was hoping that Skylake would give us 8-core (not 4+4 hyperthreading) in a mobile chip, but it hasn't.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:What's the driver for upgrading? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      I do rendering on my 2012 12-Core Mac Pro. It would cost me almost three times what I paid for that to get a new 12-Core Mac Pro to replace it. Which, thanks to my software moving to CUDA, would make a new Mac Pro useless to me. Add to this the fact that no modern Mac supports CUDA due to Apple going with AMD GPUs, and that pool of software is growing ever smaller. I'm almost to the point of abandoning Macs altogether and getting a Windows multi-GPU workstation instead. For a hell of a lot less than a new Mac Pro.

      Unless every vendor out there suddenly decides to support the trainwreck that is OpenCL, I've long ago purchased my last Mac.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  7. Wait ... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 2012 laptop is faster than the 2015 laptop but Apple should stop selling it ... why, exactly?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Wait ... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      So a type-c USB/Thunderbolt is not important?? NVme internal SSD is not important? More power savings is not important?

      yeah it is 2016 not 2013.

      Apple users will try to justify the silliest things for their trash lol

    2. Re:Wait ... by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      I had the same thought but it's a 2012 "MacBook Pro" (i.e. their pro laptop) vs a 2015 "MacBook" (that weird netbook thing with one port, I think).

    3. Re:Wait ... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The 2012 MacBook Pro is faster than the 2015 regular MacBook, largely because the priorities are different (the Pro is supposed to be a productivity laptop while the regular is more for maximum battery life).

    4. Re:Wait ... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I'm not an Apple user.

      I'm just asking WHY they should discontinue stuff that is faster (which in many cases is what's important to the average user) than the stuff they were making last year. There comes a point when stuff is just 'good enough', the same way many people never upgraded from XP to Vista because XP was simply Good Enough for everything they were doing.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:Wait ... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Because they're the most profitable tech company in the world.

      And everyone else is confused.

      FTFY

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:Wait ... by lucm · · Score: 1

      Because they're the most profitable tech company in the world.

      And everyone else is jealous.

      Depends how you define "most profitable". Just compare Apple and and Microsoft; Apple reached the trillion dollars mark in all time revenue a year before Microsoft (2015), but when it comes to all time profit Microsoft is still ahead by a few billions. Yet, Microsoft was tiny compared to Apple in early days, and they have maybe half the revenue of today's Apple.

      Google has a higher profit margin than both but a shorter history. Even Facebook has a higher profit margin than Apple.

      So if you want to brag about an achievement you had nothing to do with, at least brag about Apple's revenue, not Apple's profit.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:Wait ... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      You are talking like a geek.

      Artist and photo and video professionals use Macs. They own iPhones. They want to move a few terabytes of data back and forth with external disks via thunderbolt.

      Security? Well gee do not let a stranger plug something in how hard is that? USB can be a risk too if you think about it?

      Like I said if I were building a new PC today I would go skylake for these features as I am putting down some serious bucks. If I am paying $1700 I want the best and if it is an investment and not an expense for a toy meaning I use it to earn a living doing artsy stuff like most Mac users then yes these are solid features I would demand. Otherwise I would buy a used machine for much less if I didn't need them. I own a Nexus 6P and it does suck I can not fast charge nor transfer fast stuff on my haswell at home

  8. My four year old could use a computer by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't realize Apple was selling computers specifically designed for four year olds. Where can I get one for my daughter?

    1. Re:My four year old could use a computer by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Even worse, from the headline it seems they're selling them to one specific four year old. Must be a 1%er.

  9. Re:Only LUDDITES buy laptops. by whoozwah · · Score: 1

    lol. Apptops. This is actually funny.

  10. I'm a developer with a 5 year old Mac Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's right, I got it in July of 2011 and it is still working fine! Is it maxed out on memory (16gb) and also was upgraded to have a flash drive. At this point I want to see how far I can take it - it's kind of a point of pride for me now although I really don't have any complaints about it. Even the battery works well enough to get me though a meeting.

    1. Re:I'm a developer with a 5 year old Mac Pro by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      You can change the cpu's and videos in there real easy!

    2. Re:I'm a developer with a 5 year old Mac Pro by moosehooey · · Score: 1

      Douchebag.

    3. Re:I'm a developer with a 5 year old Mac Pro by Megane · · Score: 2

      Late-2011 17" here, bought it in 2012 when they were discontinued, 16GB RAM and a 480GB SSD (from about two years ago). The trackpad has worn out, but I have a replacement on order. I immediately downgraded it to 10.6.8 (it shipped with 10.7), and only recently upgraded to 10.9. I also recently purchased a used Core i7 Mac Mini (6,2) which I haven't upgraded from 8GB RAM yet.

      I had one PPC and two Intel Aluminum era Powerbooks, and that case was flimsy crap (for instance, CDs wouldn't eject because the case frame went out of alignment). The Unibody is a lot more sturdy, and mine has been through more than its share of abuse and is still ticking, aside from the trackpad.

      Current Apple hardware isn't as good as it was back in 2011 before they became obsessed with Retina displays and gluing shit together, but it still isn't quite as bad as the 4-digit PowerPC era.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  11. Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pretty much every Windows OEM has had an Intel Skylake-powered processor in its laptops for more than a year now, but Apple's computing lineup is still shipping with the three-to-four years old processor, and graphics card.

    Ahem. That's a bald-faced lie. The 2016 MacBook now has a Skylake processor.

    Exhibit A.

    IOW, nothing but Clickbait. As usual.

    1. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Congrats, the consumer-level notebook now has a modern CPU. Now, where is a modern MBP? You know, the one nerds buy?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The actual liar here is you, by your selective editing:

      It's been a while since Apple upgraded its MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro models. Four years, one month, and twenty-four days, to be exact, in case of the MacBook Pro. Apple is inexplicably still selling the exact same models for its Mac line that it introduced in 2012. Pretty much every Windows OEM has had an Intel Skylake-powered processor in its laptops for more than a year now, but Apple's computing lineup is still shipping with the three-to-four years old processor, and graphics card.

      Read it again, follow the track. It's talking about the Mac Boook Pro. That's the computing line-up there. The most you can complain about is a slight ambiguity, but you induced that yourself.

    3. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by cahuenga · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't have a dog in this fight but... from your link: Oculus Founder: Rift Will Come To Mac If Apple "Ever Releases a Good Computer"

    4. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that the 2014 Mac mini was actually a downgrade from the 2012 models. The 2014 models also introduced non-upgradable RAM which is a step backwards for most of us. And last, they're still using 5400RPM hard drives and charge a premium for it. I'd rather see a smaller 120GB SSD than a slow 500GB hard drive.

    5. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Congrats, the consumer-level notebook now has a modern CPU. Now, where is a modern MBP? You know, the one nerds buy?

      To quote Little Georgie Tirebiter:

      C-C-Coming, mother!

    6. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by cahuenga · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe there are PLENTY of other non-Mac computers that don't meet Oculus' specs. In fact, "Earlier this year, Nvidia stated that roughly only 13 million computers – less than 1 percent of all computers on the planet – are powerful enough to smoothly run VR games.". So now what?

      Which completely misses his point, i.e., that there is no Mac at any price or spec powerful enough to support Oculus. We aren't talking about cheap boxes here.

      “It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn’t prioritize high-end GPUs. You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn’t match our recommended spec. So if they prioritize higher-end GPUs like they used to for a while back in the day, we’d love to support Mac. But right now, there’s just not a single machine out there that supports it.”

    7. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That quote is also bullshit. The current generation MacBook Pro was introduced in late 2013 and received a small speed bump some time after that.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      1. Oculus is full of shit.

      From the article that you yourself linked:
      [E]ven the highest-end Mac you can buy would not provide an enjoyable experience on the final Rift hardware, which is significantly more powerful than early development kits. "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs," he said. "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs."

      Mac hardware can run Windows, and thus drive the Oculus hardware. Name the Mac hardware that meets their specifications. Or provide some factual basis for the claim that their specifications are too high. Either way, four letter words do no impress.

      2. I believe there are PLENTY of other non-Mac computers that don't meet Oculus' specs.

      Not relevant, since nobody required that all Mac hardware be able to adequately drive the Oculus hardware. There are PLENTY of non-Mac computers that do meet Oculus' specs. Name one Mac.

    9. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      Facebook sellout wonders why laptops don't have 5 terraflop GPUs. News at 1..

    10. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs."

      1. Don't you think that says volumes about Oculus' specs, rather than the Mac Pros? No, of course you don't.

      2. From what I have heard, the GPU in the Mac Pro is optimized for CAD-type stuff and computing-functions, rather than for high-speed gaming. Horses for Courses. I seriously doubt that anyone buys a Mac Pro as a Gaming Machine.

    11. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by quicks0rt · · Score: 1

      Non-Retina Macbook Pro - last release, Jun 2012, discontinued Retina Macbook Pro - last release, May 2015, last known cpu: Broadwell, quad-core released 2015 as well. Macbook Air - last release, March 2015, also Broadwell. MacPro - least release, Dec 2013. Who's lying now, anonymous coward?

    12. Re:Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Pretty much every Windows OEM has had an Intel Skylake-powered processor in its laptops for more than a year now, but Apple's computing lineup is still shipping with the three-to-four years old processor, and graphics card.

      No "Selective Editing" by me. The term "Computing Lineup" means ALL Apple Computers, not just the MBP as you wrongly assert.

      So, to further inform you, that currently means: The iMac, Mac Pro, Mac mini, MacBook, non-Retina MacBook Pro and Retina MacBook Pro.

      So the statement that Apple's "Computing Lineup" (which would be the Set of ALL Current Apple Computers) by definition includes the Skylake-Equipped MacBook.

      No "Selective Editing" on my part. Just "Selective Comprehension" on your part.

  12. Who lit his tampon string on fire by m0s3m8n · · Score: 2

    They seem to work just fine as they are! Shit, I still have a 2008 Macbook (original Al case) the works just fine too. Maybe a color change would make Sam happy.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  13. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    ... are still good.

    Actually I'm struggling with this right now. I have a 2006 core2duo macbook, which is a nice machine still but there's no OS updates. I've been trying for days now to figure out how one converts this to a Linux machine. Ideally I want to USB boot linux but I'm starting to give up on that plan. The trouble is these machines, unlike newer ones, have 32 bit UEFI boot. apps that create USB Live sticks, like Mac USB loader, won't work with UEFI. I ran into a git project called enterprise that supposedly can create a USB loader for UEFI but you have to compile it on 32 bit linux and I'm not sure the result can load a 64 bit linux so I'm averse to trying to get it working. When I try to boot it off an external Live CD, it doesn't work. and Mac's Bootcamp does not appear to be compatible with this, though I have not actually tried it yet. (perhaps someone knows if bootcamp would let me create a 64 bit linux disk partitiion?)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  14. If people are stupid enough to buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    then Apple should continue to take advantage of these extra-stupid buyers. Clearing inventory is almost always needed. Clearing inventory at first-day prices is genius. Steve Jobs still lives on at Apple!

  15. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Unless your Mac has a 32-bit processor. Apple and developers have stopped issuing updates for 32-bit software. A problem for my 2006 MacBook (black, of course). I can run 32-bit Linux and Windows 10.

  16. Processors aren't better by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a sensible strategy. Moores Law is over. Intels processor performance is only 30% better than it was 5 years ago. Computers aren't improving much year over year overall. The last jump in decent improvement was the introduction of SSD's. I am sorry to say it looks like digital computing is a dead end: we won't be seeing AI or the Singularity everyone wishes for with digital computers.

    1. Re:Processors aren't better by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      This is a sensible strategy. Moores Law is over. Intels processor performance is only 30% better than it was 5 years ago. Computers aren't improving much year over year overall. The last jump in decent improvement was the introduction of SSD's. I am sorry to say it looks like digital computing is a dead end: we won't be seeing AI or the Singularity everyone wishes for with digital computers.

      Not true with Macs as video professionals and users of the latest IPhones want USB type-c and thunderbolt 3 to move video over with better i/o. Battery is important too!

      So yes it is not about the CPU, but that does not make these dated for expensive mac products for artists and iphone users who want to transfer and fast charge their devices

    2. Re:Processors aren't better by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Most iphone users charge their phones using a charger. Artists make up about 1% of the Mac market now. The common Mac user doesn't need thunderbolt 3 to browse reddit at Starbucks. There is no compelling reason to upgrade to a marginally faster computer.

    3. Re:Processors aren't better by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      I am sorry to say it looks like digital computing is a dead end: we won't be seeing AI or the Singularity everyone wishes for with digital computers.

      Where did THAT come from? I'm not trying to run God on my laptop.

    4. Re:Processors aren't better by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity where is the next big jump? Or, what's the current bottleneck?

      I put a SSD in my gaming machine as my OS drive and wowzers does it boot faster than my TV. Once prices drop on huge drives (Steam sits on a TB drive), I'll switch it over. My CPU, mobo, and RAM are from 2011 and I put in a new graphics card in 2014. It seems like this guy will be fine for a couple of years - might pop in some more RAM - and then I'd have to think about things again.

  17. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by msk · · Score: 1

    Have you explored Clover?

  18. old, but gold by hagnat · · Score: 1

    i still i own and use on a daily basis an iMac from 2011. It's still a great computer, and beyond a planned RAM upgrade, there isn't a thing i would change on it

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
    1. Re:old, but gold by chispito · · Score: 1

      there isn't a thing i would change on it

      It's so perfect you wouldn't opt for more battery life or storage?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:old, but gold by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      This! A hundred times this! I can't even recall the number of times people asked for more battery life for their iMacs!

    3. Re:old, but gold by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Considering it's a desktop, that's a little strange. Though it's true they have zero battery life.

    4. Re:old, but gold by hagnat · · Score: 1

      storage is up to half a tera. If i wanted more i could simply use some external drives, but meh
      battery life is really an issue. If it's not plugged to the wall it wont work :/

      --
      "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
    5. Re:old, but gold by chispito · · Score: 1

      Derp. My bad.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  19. Hell, even Wikipedia is more accurate than this. by w3woody · · Score: 2, Informative

    A quick check of Wikipedia would tell you what most people who follow Apple already know: that Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare, upgrading their computers on a regular basis.

    The current 13 inch and 15 inch MacBook Pros that Apple sell were last updated early 2015. (This correlates with Apple's own on-line store.)

    It's not to suggest their current models aren't a little long in the tooth. And it's not to suggest that Apple may be a little behind in using the latest and greatest processors--though one problem Apple has is that they sell quite a bit of volume, so sometimes being on the bleeding edge may not permit them to get the volume of parts they need. But they most certainly are not selling a 4 year old computer.

  20. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You need to install the rEFInd Boot Manager. I was able to install Linux Mint from CD on my 2006 MacBook.

    http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/

  21. Thunderbolt is kind of an bust & intels low pc by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thunderbolt is kind of an bust & Intel low pci-e count does not really help. But at least with skylake they will get DMI 3.0 that moves the 2.0 X4 DMI link to 3.0 X4.

    Also the big thin push hurts them more with cutting ports and only having 1 TB bus so that all ext stuff has to shear the TB link with DP data. Now if they do put some stuff like E-net and wifi on the DMI / chipset bus. Then in the laptops / mini they can switch the X16 to X8 video (if the system has an non Intel gpu) X4 TB 3.0 X4 pci-e storage or with out video X8 2 TB 3.0 buses X8 2 X4 storage.

    Now the macpro is a real bust and with 1 cpu the pci-e lane count does not give them the room to do TB 3.0 without an lot of changes. Like switch the video to X8 X8 freeing up 3 X4 links for TB and 1 more X4 for the 2th pci-e storage card. or adding an 2rd cpu giving them room for 2-4 storage cards and 4-6 TB 3.0 buses + 10 GB e-net.

  22. Yeah, they should totally stop selling it by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's not like selling the same model for several years keeps support costs down or anything.

    Oh, wait ...

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:Yeah, they should totally stop selling it by ddtmm · · Score: 1

      The least they could do is drop the prices to some degree. They've always been notorious for keeping the prices high years after release. Look at their monitors.Why would anyone buy 5-10 year old LCD monitor technology, at peak prices??

    2. Re:Yeah, they should totally stop selling it by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Comcast and TWC are making bank leasing STB to customers at extortion pricing. But hey it makes them money so why shouldn't the customer get screwed in the deal?

  23. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Does that erase the OSX as well. I'd prefer to keep the Old OSX if I could. I'm also somewhat worried about bricking the computer in the process.

    CDs are problematic for me in one sense. I can attach an external CD drive (but the mac won't boot off the linux CD). But the internal CD isn't working and I don't plan to replace it.

    SO could you explain your process more and what state it leaves the mac in? dual boot? linux only? no chance of ever running OSX again if one wanted to go back? Perhaps one could run OSX in a virtual machine on top of the linux.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  24. Re:Well the OS is over 10 years old by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Never mind that OSX came out in 13 versions over the years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_OS_X

  25. At least do price cuts / ram / cpu and storage by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    At least do price cuts / ram / cpu and storage boosts to make them look like they are not ripping people off.

  26. Re:Depreciated to $0 but no replacement by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is never too late to join the glorious PC master race.

  27. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    the FAQ for that look pretty scary. (discussing Kernel panics and missing drivers in the FAQ suggests these are Frequent.)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  28. "2012 processors and 4GB of RAM" by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    I am looking for a new laptop and one with "2012 processors and 4GB of RAM" is totally suitable for my needs.

  29. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Clover appears to be using ReFind. SO what's the difference?
    My main goal is to boot a USB stick. If I can't have that I'd like a dual boot hard disk. and if I can't have that i'd settle for a Linux hard drive.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  30. Why? by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it happens, I am writing this on a 4-year old MacBook Pro. It is fast and reliable and I have yet to find any Mac software I want that I cannot run. If I lost this one, I would definitely want to buy a replacement, but I don't feel a need to upgrade just because. Now, I know that having the latest-greatest CPU is cool, but what exactly would that buy me if I bought it?

  31. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Will this run 64 bit linux even though the 2006 model wants a 32 bit loader?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  32. Stop whinging and do something! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Create a Change.org petition for Apple to upgrade their hardware. [ I'm sure it will be as effective as the one to shutdown Rotten Tomatoes over their "Suicide Squad" reviews. :-) ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  33. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    SO could you explain your process more and what state it leaves the mac in? dual boot? linux only?

    The process is trial and error. I did it once and that was enough for me. I have a dual boot configuration with Snow Leopard and Mint Linux. After installing the new booter, you might be able to boot from USB. I haven't tried it.

  34. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    the core2duo is a 64 bit processor. that's what's in the 2006 mac. The problem I think has something to do with the 32 bit boot loader. See my post above.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  35. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    will it run 64 bit linux?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  36. Re:Education Market (scam) by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    How the hell do you design a HDD cable that fails? High heat and thin thin thin!

  37. Yes and no by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    One part of me agrees, but another part of me says If the stuff you need to do still runs OK then whats the problem?
    Apple is completely a walled garden so they can also control the software bloat.

    It seems most of the push for new consumer hardware is actually because Microsoft themselves are always shovelling more and more sloppy and pointless resource-gobbling crap into Windows, and that the culture that Windows itself follows and encourages is to write temporary files and other crap all over the C: drive without ever deleting it.

    I've met enough non-technical people that somehow believe that the thing to do is to to buy a new PC every time they fill up their old one or when it slows to a crawl because they can't stop installing shit that runs in the background.

    1. Re:Yes and no by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

      It's not always about what you need. It's about what to get your kid who's just now heading off to college. It's what to give your new hire when you standardized on Macs when Windows 8 was released. It's what to replace your existing 2008 Mac with when it finally dies.

    2. Re:Yes and no by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> It's about what to get your kid who's just now heading off to college

      In this case you're probably best off with a Windows PC. It pains me to say that, but apart from the cost savings, any apps the college gives to students will at least be most likely to support Windows if not actually Windows-only.

    3. Re:Yes and no by balbeir · · Score: 1

      What ? Windows Only ? Did I inadvertently time travel to 1995 ?

  38. Re:It's Dead Jim? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    But if they get out of the computer market, does that mean they'll start selling macOS for PCs? Maybe limit to certain chipsets, CPUs and GPUs to make things simple (for them).

    Otherwise without macOS you don't have XCode and without XCode you don't get apps for the iPhones and iPads.

  39. Does it work? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2
    Is it reliable and do what you need it to do? Can you afford it? If the answer is yes, leave the measurbating to the tech nerds and buy what meets your needs. if its OS X, get a Mac, if Windows does it buy a machine that runs it. If OSS is your thing get a machine that runs Linux. I have several Macs 5 or more years old nah are still in daily use and do what I need just fine. I don't care if some hipster at Starbucks thinks it déclassé. YMMV.

    As for MacRumors, they seem to be of the opinion that a major update is on the way and it is worth waiting to see before buying. I agree with that sentiment if you do not absolutely need one now or want the free Beats...

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  40. Re:Depreciated to $0 but no replacement by lucm · · Score: 1

    Then upgrade to an iPad Pro! It has almost the same specs as the first non-pro Surface launched in 2012.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  41. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Will this run 64 bit linux even though the 2006 model wants a 32 bit loader?

    If you have a 64-bit processor, it should run a 64-bit OS. I have a 32-bit processor on my MacBook, so its limited to using a 32-bit OS.

  42. Re:Only LUDDITES buy laptops. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Rhymes with Craptops. Apple approved!

    Crapple approved?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  43. stop selling? by e432776 · · Score: 1

    I guess it depends on how many they are still selling. I am confused about why the entire Mac line seems to be neglected, though. Presumably a company the size of Apple has some engineers working on coming up with some new Macs?

  44. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Part of that is because Clover lets you run OS X on standard PC hardware. Pretty well, I might add - it's on my daily driver PC.

  45. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    the core2duo is a 64 bit processor.

    My 2006 MacBook has a Core Duo 32-bit processor.

    http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/specs/macbook_2.0_black.html

  46. And this is the reason you WANT this machine. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This entire suggestion is stupid unless consumers enjoy paying for obscenely priced factory memory and non-removable hard drives, which these components being replaceable are two great features that still exist in this "dinosaur" model they're still selling.

    And yes, I'm still considering biting the bullet to buy one for those specific reasons, since Apple has gone the asinine route and forces you to buy their memory and hard drive upgrades at time of purchase for every other model they sell. I already own a late-2012 i7 Mac Mini (which is almost identical hardware to this model) that absolutely SCREAMS with 16GB RAM and SSD upgrade, so I'm already familiar with how this "ancient" laptop would likely perform with some minor replaceable components.

    Once this model disappears, you will be forced to purchase damn near every hardware upgrade you might ever need up-front and all from Apple. Dunno about anyone else, but I won't be enjoying that stupidity at all.

    1. Re:And this is the reason you WANT this machine. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Or you could just, I dunno, not buy a Mac in the first place and get a nicely specced PC or laptop for a reasonable price, with upgradeable components. The cult of Mac is just absurd.

    2. Re:And this is the reason you WANT this machine. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The cult of Mac is just absurd.

      Ah yes, I should just agree to be assimilated with the Borg 10 Anniversary Edition instead.

      Needless to say, now is not the ideal time to start trying to defend or promote Micro$haft solutions.

      Hardware durability matters to me as well. I'm still running my 2008 Macbook (one graphics repair needed in 8 years, and was done for free out of warranty by Apple), and my 1984 Apple IIc is still operational as well (recently fired it up in memory of Terrapin Logo. RIP, Mr. Papert.)

    3. Re:And this is the reason you WANT this machine. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I should just agree to be assimilated with the Borg 10 Anniversary Edition instead.

      I run Linux.

      Hardware durability matters to me as well. I'm still running my 2008 Macbook (one graphics repair needed in 8 years, and was done for free out of warranty by Apple)

      And it just so happens I'm writing this on a PC from 2008. Again, the cult of Mac is absurd. You think your Macs are built from magical fairy dust.

  47. Apple been weak in everything since Jobs died by 2ms · · Score: 2

    Before Steve Jobs died Apple were completely creaming everyone in basically everything they did innovation and consumer experience wise. No one else made nearly as good laptops, the iPad was as big a revolution as they get in electronic devices, the iPhone was a complete revolution that bankrupted any company that didn't clone it virtually down to the appearance of every icon in GUI, the iPod, iTunes bankrupted all major record stores, etc -- every 2 years or so they would come out with something that blew everything else out of the water.

    Now in the 5 years all we have is a stupid watch.

    The difference between Apple with Jobs and Apple under Cook couldn't be starker. This is new to you people??

    1. Re:Apple been weak in everything since Jobs died by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      A stupid watch that was years behind the Android version and wasn't nearly as good. Still isn't.

      They probably have a Steve Jobs replacement working for the company. He's being held back by the pointy haired bosses. Just as Steve himself was. They actually fired him. Stupid dumbasses - they rule the world.

      Here's hoping that they get off their collective asses and look at their talent because they have some incredible people working for them and give 'em a chance! Hey, they can only make things better at this point.

    2. Re:Apple been weak in everything since Jobs died by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Yes, I feel Apple lost it's edge when Steve died.
      Many things haven't come from Apple since than, and many things that have come would not have cut it with Steve I think.

      They are no longer setting trends, but following their competition, which is a bad place to be in a market.

      I also feel like they have abandoned the "Pro" market, without fully admitting it.

      I was in the market for a nice Apple desktop this year. I ended up buying a 2012 Mac Pro second hand cheaply, adding SSDs, 32 GB RAM and a NVidia GTX980 (with MacVids rom from their UK reseller).

      No iMac, Mini, Macbook (Pro) can match that thing, and I get really close to 2013 Mac Pro performance for a fraction of the price. Waranty could be an issue, but probably the thing will work for years.

      When I bought my first Macbook Pro, just after they switched to Intel. I made a comparison, and a Dell with the same specs was more expensive. They were selling really competitive hardware for competitive prices. And most of it latest generation high end tech that worked well as a "Pro" desktop replacement.

      After 2010-2012 I haven't seen anything from them that I really thought was competitive and that I would want to buy. That's why I'm running a 2012 Mac Pro and a 2011 Macbook Pro. There is no compelling reason to buy anything newer from Apple unless you really want a retina display. Before 2010 this was different.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  48. Re:Well the OS is over 10 years old by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough Apple had OSx longer than they had Mac OS 1-9

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  49. Hackintosh by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why I'm going the Hackintosh route. Better hardware at a much better price.

    1. Re:Hackintosh by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      I've worried about that myself, but AFAIK Apple doesn't force automatic updates so if that day comes I won't have to download it. The Hackintosh scene is pretty good about vetting new updates and making sure they play nicely. Workarounds will always be found.

    2. Re:Hackintosh by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I looked at Hackintosh, but OS changes/upgrades are a pain and even installing it in the first place.

      I ended up getting a cheap 2012 Mac Pro, adding some SSDs, 32 GB RAM and a GTX980 (with MacVids ROM), fully supported hardware, and a very nice OSX desktop machine that is the equal of anything Apple can sell me right now.

      When you're competing with your own hardware from 4 years ago, then in the electronics market you are doing something very wrong. Moore's Law isn't that dead yet.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  50. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by penguinstorm · · Score: 1

    So you're saying it's a Linux distro?

    Seriously, I wouldn't convert a Mac to Linux. I'd just use a stock commodity machine.

    If I were a betting man I'd bet on Apple transitioning away from selling *computer* hardware in...five years...and turning OS X into a commercial Unix.

    --
    Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
  51. Internal DVD by pchasco · · Score: 1

    My wife is a Mac user and last year we bought her a new prior-year model from the store. She both insists on using a Mac and insists on having an internal DVD drive. The only offering that met her requirements was the prior model.

  52. Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The whole article summary is cookoo flamebait. First Apple does have skylake processors in it's line up. https://apple.slashdot.org/sto...
    They just don't use the intel model name "skylake" on their product descriptions.

    The alleged website saying "dont buy" is not complaining about this. For example the macpro they list as "don't buy" is actually "can't buy". Apple doesn't list that model in it's store. And their reasoning for not buying it is because it's not a retina version, and there's not any price difference with the retina.

    Finally like every single computer maker, mac does have a range of models and guess what the lower end ones have slower procesors. But they also get an hour longer battery life than the i7 models.

    Guess what? the track pads don't have two buttons! Alert commissioner gordon!

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article is talking about the Macbook Air and Macbook Pro. Read the f**king article next time.

    2. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      In fact on that website the buy, don't buy, neutral opinions are based on expectations of refresh and availability to help people figure out if now is a good time to buy. Apple is old-school marketing, they don't talk about tomorrow's product until it is today's product. Customers don't want to buy something that will be updated immediately after purchasing it, so that's where that website comes in to play. That website helps predict future products and advices based on predictions (and is often wrong!), it is not associated with Apple in any way and I would imagine Apple doesn't particularly like it.

      As someone who is physically holding a newer than 2012 corporate issued macbook pro retina, I can attest that there are newer products than the 2012 version. Mine has an i7, nVidia graphics and an SSD. I am pretty disappointed with their choice to use AMD graphics in newer models, and am reluctant to buy, but work issued shit is work issued. It is faster than my personal 2012 Macbook Pro primarily due to SSD performance, processor speed means very little in a laptop for most people (and I question why you wouldn't just use a desktop if you really care, for say games or compute heavy workloads).

      I'm not even sure if you go to macrumors and come away with those sorts of opinions if you meet the IQ threshold to own a computer of any sort. Similarly if you want a company to stop selling an older product based purely on your own internal feelings about how useful that product might be to others, I'm pretty sure you have exhibited all the requirements for a seat in Congress or even The White House, but probably should avoid technology as a career choice.

    3. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by sethstorm · · Score: 2

      As someone who is physically holding a newer than 2012 corporate issued macbook pro retina, I can attest that there are newer products than the 2012 version. Mine has an i7, nVidia graphics and an SSD. I am pretty disappointed with their choice to use AMD graphics in newer models, and am reluctant to buy, but work issued shit is work issued. It is faster than my personal 2012 Macbook Pro primarily due to SSD performance, processor speed means very little in a laptop for most people (and I question why you wouldn't just use a desktop if you really care, for say games or compute heavy workloads).

      The Lenovo P series would like to have a word about compute-heavy workloads in a laptop form factor.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    4. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by I4ko · · Score: 1

      15.6" is not a laptop form factor. Even 14" that is not 4:3 is not a laptop form factor. For a real laptop it has to be the size of A4/Letter sheet of paper and no larger, only thicker.

    5. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      15.6" is not a laptop form factor. Even 14" that is not 4:3 is not a laptop form factor. For a real laptop it has to be the size of A4/Letter sheet of paper and no larger, only thicker.

      Who made you the law on what constitutes a laptop? A 15.6" laptop will sit on my lap without difficultly.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by terjeber · · Score: 1

      First Apple does have skylake processors in it's line up

      Not in the models this article is about. You should read more than the headline. The Pro models are not being updated. Apple is also very late with updates to FCPX. Apple has long hinted it doesn't give a shit about the professional market, and this is more evidence. The old bread and butter market for Apple, graphical designers, video professionals etc are dropping Apple. Not strange. Their Pro line of products have been a joke for at least two years.

    7. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by I4ko · · Score: 1

      A cat will sit on my lap without difficulty, it doesn't mean the cat is a laptop.
      When you have to pack 17 days worth of clothing and a laptop in a proper size carry on bag, then you will see why 15.6" does not qualify as a laptop.

    8. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      A cat will sit on my lap without difficulty, it doesn't mean the cat is a laptop.

      When you have to pack 17 days worth of clothing and a laptop in a proper size carry on bag, then you will see why 15.6" does not qualify as a laptop.

      It may not be optimal for travel but your ad hoc and arbitary categorization is just wrong.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by Cederic · · Score: 1

      copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my MacBook Air, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this PC, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

      Lets see. 1.7GB file (so a little larger than your scenario, sorry), copied from one disk to another (so will take a little longer than your scenario, sorry). 11.19 seconds.

      How the fuck does it take two minutes on a Macbook Air, let alone 20 minutes on anything?

      I'm guessing the issue here isn't the operating system. This feels like a wetware issue.

    10. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The article is talking about the Macbook Air and Macbook Pro. Read the f**king article next time.

      You mean the two machines in their line-up that almost everybody agrees will not get any update any more, but still sell well? Explain to Apple why they should drop models that still sell from their line-up only because some dude from The Verge supposedly said that, but we can only read comments to that (how screwed is that BTW, maybe somebody should fix their website before telling Apple what to do).

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    11. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      As someone who is physically holding a newer than 2012 corporate issued macbook pro retina, I can attest that there are newer products than the 2012 version. Mine has an i7, nVidia graphics and an SSD. I am pretty disappointed with their choice to use AMD graphics in newer models, and am reluctant to buy, but work issued shit is work issued. It is faster than my personal 2012 Macbook Pro primarily due to SSD performance, processor speed means very little in a laptop for most people (and I question why you wouldn't just use a desktop if you really care, for say games or compute heavy workloads).

      The Lenovo P series would like to have a word about compute-heavy workloads in a laptop form factor.

      Hrrm, all of the tests online are "hands-on", IOW they don't actual tested the piece, but only played with it a little. And of course no info on actual battery life, just the always optimistic claims by Lenovo. Ohh, BTW, the battery is non-replaceable.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    12. Re:Macbook does have skylake, TFA is baloney by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And if you have to pack 49 days worth of closing, you will see why 7.5" does not qualify as a laptop.

      Sounds ridiculous? Yeah, it is. So is what you wrote, and for the same reason.

  53. Keep moving the goal post by s.petry · · Score: 2

    The discussion was about performance, not price. You just moved the goal post.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Keep moving the goal post by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The goal post wasn't moved. You're just comparing NFL to the Arena league. They're both football, but they aren't the same sport.

  54. Re:Depreciated to $0 but no replacement by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    I was actually looking for a MacBook for the size, great reviews, and the fact that you could get a discreet Nvidia graphics processor, which is what all my professional graphics software are certified for (I do use some of it on ATI with success, but they aren't officially supported). A number of people at work referred to the MacBook as the best Windows laptop. Unfortunately, I have to laugh at this article because shortly before I was given a budget for a new laptop at work, Apple switched to ATI. I ended up with a Dell XPS.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  55. Please stop with these stories by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    All this does is drive the price of used Macbooks and replacement batteries up. Thanks a lot,

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  56. Re:Hell, even Wikipedia is more accurate than this by Clomer · · Score: 3, Informative

    But they most certainly are not selling a 4 year old computer.

    They actually are. As of this writing, the non-retina Macbook Pro is still available for sale on Apple's site. Go to apple.com, click Mac -> Macbook Pro -> Buy and then scroll about halfway down the page. That model, which is being sold for $1099, hasn't been updated since June 2012, though it did have a $100 price cut in July 2014.

    --
    Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
  57. Re:Hell, even Wikipedia is more accurate than this by Solandri · · Score: 1

    that Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare, upgrading their computers on a regular basis.

    This is actually a huge problem. I'm the computer guru among my circle of friends, so they usually come to me for recommendations when buying a laptop. With the PC laptops it's pretty easy. Listen to what they need, find a model which fits their needs, and give them an exact model number(s) to go out and buy.

    With the Macbooks... oh boy. You either need the serial number (which on some models required removing the battery to read it), or you need physical access to the machine while it's turned on and not locked down with some sales software so you can look up the model number via the Finder. It's gotten to the point where I either need to go with them to the store, or have to be on the phone with them while they read me the serial number before I can tell them if it's the right one for them to buy.

    As for TFA, the gap is because Apple mostly skipped Broadwell, and they have this thing about keeping an older processor in their lineup as a "cheaper" option. Normally I'm pretty critical of Apple, but Skylake hasn't been that impressive compared to Haswell, both in terms of computing power and in terms of battery life (the Core M series excepted). I still see a lot of Haswell PC laptops for sale, and if the person doesn't need USB-C or 4k video output over HDMI 2.0, I don't really see a problem with Haswell laptops. (Though I should mention not all Skylake laptops can do 4k@60 Hz over HDMI.)

  58. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Okay I just tried your suggestion about the 64 bit standalone. I created an MSDOS FAT disk on the mac, and put the 64 bit standalone in the /EFI/BOOT directory of this.. Rebooting the mac with the option key pressed it does not show any new boot devices.

    I did not rename the standalone to BOOTIA32.EFI but rather used it's natural long name as it was downloaded.

    I also see four other versions of the standalone listed on the site. one is called coreboot and one is called ia-386. None explicitly say 32 bit but I'm going to try the ia-386 as my best guess.

    Suggestions?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  59. This wouldn't be so bad if... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    ... Apple didn't combine their stale hardware with an unfortunate tendency to orphan it. The biggest risk seems to be video GPU chipsets. http://www.cultofmac.com/14695... [cultofmac.com]

  60. I bet they're loads cheaper now though, right? by Maritz · · Score: 1

    I imagine the discounts Apple are giving on that 2012 hardware are very tasty.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  61. Why should they stop? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    There are still suckers who buy them because they say Apple on the outside.

  62. Some fact checking needed here... by itsdapead · · Score: 2

    It's been a while since Apple upgraded its MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro models. Four years, one month, and twenty-four days, to be exact, in case of the MacBook Pro.

    Way to go with the half-truths.

    The obsolete 2012 Macbook Pro is indeed still on Apple's books -but Its long been banished from the main MacBook Pro page on Apple's website and tucked away at the bottom of the "Buy" page. Presumably because some big customers still want a spinning rust hard drive and an optical drive. Nobody who has done 5 minutes of research would buy one unless that's what they wanted.

    Meanwhile the flagship Retina Macbook Pro range got new processors and unique haptic touchpads just over a year ago, and the (probably to be discontinued) MacBook Air got a minor bump this spring. The MacBook got Skylake in the spring and the 27" iMac got Skylake last November.

    Now, Apple do have a problem - 15-month old computers still aren't sexy - but its partly due to Intel's woes with the various configurations of Skylake chips which have been trickling out gradually over the last year. E.g. the 15" Retina Macbook Pro really needs the i7-6x70HQ chips with Iris Pro which weren't launched until Q1 this year, the i7 version of the 13" rMBP needs the i7-6567U which, according to Intels ARK site, hasn't been launched yet. The architectural speed-up with Skylake isn't that huge, so using a chip with lower TDP or inferior GPU just for the sake of "Skylake" can easily end up as a downgrade.

    Dell, HP et. al. have a million models and are happy to build systems around whatever chips are available today - they have some pretty tempting MacBook-killers but you do have to look carefully at the power rating & GPU of the processor before declaring a winner. Meanwhile, Intel have started the hype for Kaby Lake before finishing the Skylake range - its possible that Apple will wait for that, since it has Thunderbolt3 on-chip and Apple are presumably going to standardise on TB3.

    Not completely defending Apple here - the Mac Pro is nearly 3 years old, the Mac Mini 2 years. Both of those were also affected by Intel delays but there ought to be something Apple could have done to maintain interest. Chances are, the Mac Pro (basically a dedicated Final Cut X machine and a waste of money if you don't run OpenCL software) just isn't selling. The Intel delays aren't exactly new and its within Apple's power to maybe design some new Macs around available chips. Unfortunately, Tim Cook has been doing a very good impression of someone more interested in watch straps than full-featured computers, so people are worried.

    But, no, folks: the flagship Retina MacBook Pro is not starting kindergarten this year, and the rumor sites are flagging them "don't buy" because they're expecting new models by the end of the year.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    1. Re:Some fact checking needed here... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      MacBook Air was last updated last spring (2015).

      This spring, the base 13" Air got updated to 8GB RAM as standard rather than 4. Or, if you prefer, $100 got knocked off the 8GB model, Like I say, a minor bump.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  63. Well. Not exactly. by tk77 · · Score: 1

    "Apple is inexplicably still selling the exact same models for its Mac line that it introduced in 2012...Apple's computing lineup is still shipping with the three-to-four years old processor..."

    While I agree that Apple needs to seriously update their line. They last updated the MacBook Pro in mid 2014, with chips released Q3'14 (according to Intel). I7-4578U, i7-4980HQ, etc...

  64. Re:Only LUDDITES buy laptops. by sexconker · · Score: 1

    So, Chromebooks?

  65. Fashion Accessory? by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't own any Macs, but my next computer will be a Mac. It's more than a fashion statement.

    Linux still doesn't "just work." If it does "just work," it's probably because you have old hardware. Linux will probably never be ready for the desktop unless hardware stops changing.

    Microsoft? They've completely crossed the line with Windows 10. They're trying to make it like a big phone with invasion of privacy and telemetry. Microsoft has abandoned power users. I suppose gamers still need to use it, but they're giving up a lot.

    Chromebooks aren't made for power users and are glorified web browsers.

    What's left? Macs. They have good support, a desktop that works, and are based on BSD. Since it's not really a gaming platform, having the latest and greatest specs aren't that important, but generally they have solid specs. Expensive? They retain their resale value. I wish I could get rid of my 2014 Asus Zenbook even though it's really fast. Windows 10 is horrible and the drivers are constantly breaking when there are updates. I doubt I'd get a fair value on eBay or Craigslist, and I don't want to expose myself to fraud and/or idiots.

    1. Re:Fashion Accessory? by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's left? Macs.

      Such a glowing endorsement.

    2. Re:Fashion Accessory? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      As a former rabid Apple fanboy (16ish years in recovery), that's about my assessment of Apple today, or across the last decade or so. Nothing worth getting super riled up and excited about because it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but still... the alternatives are worse.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    3. Re:Fashion Accessory? by reiscw · · Score: 1

      I have a three-month-old Lenovo Yoga 460 with sixth generation Intel and it works fine under Fedora 24 and Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Debian 8 has some issues (wifi) but Debian 9 does not (I like Debian best, and will probably move to it when 9 goes stable). No special configuration was needed for any of the hardware. For five minutes I ran Windows 10 on it (when I took it out of the box before I wiped the Windows partition) and I got a BSOD.

      You do need to be careful choosing hardware when you run Linux (I am partial to ThinkPads, and one at work and one at home) but the myth of Linux not running on newer hardware is not fair in my opinion. I realize I don't run any fancy graphics --- maybe that's what makes the difference in your case.

    4. Re:Fashion Accessory? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What's left? Macs.

      Such a glowing endorsement.

      'Macs are the worst form of computer system, except for all the others.'

    5. Re:Fashion Accessory? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Sounds like this election.

    6. Re: Fashion Accessory? by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      I have Linux, Windows and OSX on a Early 2015 MBP at home. The MBP doesn't "just work" any more than a Linux or (since Windows 7) even Windows does. It's a stupid myth.

    7. Re:Fashion Accessory? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I have a 5 year old Mac and I haven't upgraded for 2 reasons. One is that it still works great and is fast enough. Two is that I don't really like the new Macs. I have have an old Dell 6500 that runs Linux really well that I use for everyday computing and an i7 mac mini for video editing. The Dell seems awesome since I put Peppermint OS on it. It doesn't really show it's age at all until I try to transcode video on it.

    8. Re:Fashion Accessory? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity what doesn't "just work" on your Mac?

    9. Re:Fashion Accessory? by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      SOME Chromebooks ARE made for power users, and are glorified LINUX machines (more than just web browsers). You should look into that.

    10. Re:Fashion Accessory? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Mac's don't just work either. I can't think of a computer that does just work. I have to solve just as many weird ass issues on the Mac that the Windows guys do - often times more because my solutions are often horrible hacks, where Windows actually supports things like enterprise client management.

      Source: JAMF CCA/CMA - I manage thousands of them at work.

    11. Re:Fashion Accessory? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      SOME Chromebooks ARE made for power user

      The same SOME Chromebooks that also cost more than SOME Macs?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    12. Re:Fashion Accessory? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      > Linux still doesn't "just work." If it does "just work," it's probably because you have old hardware. Linux will probably never be ready for the desktop unless hardware stops changing.

      Your post would have been true ~15 years ago. Around 2005 it became far more plug & play than Windows ever will be. Sometime between 2007 and 2009 it became much better than Windows at supporting various WiFi chipsets out of the box. Even setting up printing is stupid-easy in Linux now (ironically, largely due to Michael Sweet, then later, Apple - THANK YOU for CUPS!).

      Is it perfect? Hell no. However it is much closer to the ideal than the state which you imply.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:Fashion Accessory? by mattventura · · Score: 1

      It's true that if you want to run Linux on a random machine, it might not work. But if you do some research beforehand, you can find hardware that it works fine on. Dell even has a few business laptops (so not their consumer crap) that can be ordered with Linux to shave $100 off the price. I'd assume it works fairly well on those machines if it comes with them.

  66. Misunderstanding by nine-times · · Score: 1

    Is the company really saving that much money by using 2012 processors and 4GB of RAM as standard?

    It seems that this is in reference to the non-Retina Macbook Pro, which means that the author is completely missing the point. Apple isn't selling those as a method of saving money. Apple doesn't put those models in their marketing. They aren't on display at Apple Stores. It's not remotely the model that Apple wants you to buy. It's a legacy model. No one at Apple is going to recommend that you buy that model, except in very specific circumstances.

    Essentially, Apple continues to sell them only because they're still in demand. If you want an Apple laptop that has an Ethernet port or Firewire ports (without using a dongle), or without a Retina Display, or with a built-in DVD drive, that's the one model that Apple keeps around in order to cater to your needs.

    If anything, this is a problem caused by Apple being too far ahead of the curve in their laptop designs. They were the first company to drop PS2 ports in favor of USB. They were the first company to drop all floppy and CD/DVD drives. They were the first company to implement high resolution displays. I'd expect that, in a few years, you might find that the only port to be found on any of their devices is the current iteration of Thunderbolt. When you keep moving ahead so quickly, you're going to find that you're leaving some of your customers behind. As a result, they have sometimes held onto legacy models to service people who can't use the newest designs, for whatever reason.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding by Megane · · Score: 2

      They were the first company to drop PS2 ports in favor of USB.

      They never used PS2, they used their own ADB. And even after they stopped putting ADB ports on the back of computers, they still used ADB for their laptop keyboards until they went with Intel.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Misunderstanding by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Ok, regardless, they were the first company to throw their weight behind USB and do away with old legacy ports.

  67. will this work UEFI macs? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    the mac core2duo 2006 are UEFI 32 bit boot systems. So I am wondering how it's going to recognize and EFI or even if the path makes sense for this

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  68. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by thogard · · Score: 1

    I have an aged iMac that has a wonderful true 24 bit display but a bad bios so I can't boot the new stuff. I'm tempted to take it back to the vendor and demand a refund as the only reason it isn't useful is because Apple won't provide an update. The thing works great as a hackintosh so it can run the new software without fail.

    Apple made its best code when it also supported the PPC. They had to build things for two majorly different systems and that found lots of bugs early in development. Remember OS X started in 386land and moved to PPC and then back to Intel as it moved from NeXT to Apple. Oddly enough there are people who register performance ratings and have seen modern IBM power CPU running OS X that far out run the current Intel stuff. It sort of sucks that Apple stopped selling top of the line CPUs because of a golf game.

  69. Re:Well the OS is over 10 years old by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    It's much older than that. OS X was Apple's renaming of OPENSTEP, which was a renaming of NeXTSTEP, which debuted in 1988. Mac OS X has been in constant and active development since only a few years after Classic MacOS and for five years longer than Windows NT.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  70. Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by allquixotic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am so sick of Slashdot posting bold-faced lies and FUD on their front page. You can buy Macbooks with Skylake, which is a CPU architecture that wasn't even released until about a year ago, and Macbook Pros with Broadwell, an architecture released in early 2015.

    If you buy a 13" Macbook Pro (latest generation) on apple.com right now, it will come with a CPU and chipset released to market by Intel about a year and a half ago, not four years ago.

    And if you're complaining about the physical chassis, well, maybe it's just that Apple has reached what they consider to be the optimal layout and dimensions for their chassis. I mean, IBM/Lenovo hardly ever changed their ThinkPad physical design characteristics for a number of years in the mid to late 2000s, until Lenovo started messing with a good thing, and ended up utterly ruining the ThinkPad brand and stopped providing the features that people who bought them wanted/needed.

    I am not an Apple fanboy; I think the company is pretentious, greedy, anti-competitive, and significantly less visionary with the loss of Steve Jobs. The very little they do for open source is overshadowed by their aggressive litigiousness and the walled garden platform they created.

    BUT -- and this is a big thing for me -- Apple can do *more* with 4 or 8 GB of RAM than Microsoft can do with 16 GB of RAM. Their software is extremely well-designed, optimized for fast, high-fidelity displays, and the font rendering is beautiful and second to none. They don't have a ton of old legacy code like Windows does; the legacy that does exist has easily been swept under the rug in favor of new designs. And being based on BSD is a huge plus for software dev.

    The efficiency and responsiveness of Macbook Pro and iPhone has made me appreciate and admire these *products* that I own, even though I only started buying Apple products in 2015 after spending decades swearing I never would and preferring GNU/Linux or Windows-if-absolutely-necessary.

    I'm tired of having to grossly over-spec my machines (and often end up paying even more than I paid for my Apple products) for trash software like Microsoft Windows and Android, two great examples of over-engineering plus bloat plus the worst parts of an open or semi-open platform (security vulnerabilities, malware, etc.) ... A $1800 MBP with a year-old processor and 8 gigs of RAM is faster, more enjoyable to use, lighter, and has better battery life than a $3000 13" Windows 10 "ultrabook". And my $1000 iPhone 6S Plus with 2 gigs of RAM is faster, far less buggy, completely free of bloat, and easier to use than any Android phone on the market.

    Again, I'm not an Apple fanboy. I don't love the company and I have zero loyalty to them. I dare someone else to do better. For years I thought everyone else *did* do better, but it's clear to me now that I was actually deluding myself into thinking that having 4 gigs of memory wasted by background service bloat on Windows was "necessary".

    I'm very satisfied with their products right now and extremely dissatisfied with their competition. I'd actually recommend to those in the market for a laptop to seriously consider the Macbook Pro. It's not ideal for gaming, of course, but it's great for anything from content creation to heavy web surfing to flash games and even does VMs extremely well in VirtualBox or VMware. And I also do some heavy C++ and Java dev on this box. It just never slows down no matter what I do. Love it.

    1. Re:Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by avandesande · · Score: 2

      "Apple can do *more* with 4 or 8 GB of RAM than Microsoft can do with 16 GB of RAM. "

      This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard....I have 12gb of ram on my win 7 machine and i have never maxed it out.... multiple versions of VS, photoshop, countess chrome tabs. What planet are you on?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by allquixotic · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unless you have more RAM than you have persistent storage, you *always* max out your RAM after only a few minutes of the machine being on. All "extra" RAM that isn't allocated to processes, is used as page cache for the storage layer, which dramatically improves read performance because DRAM is much faster than even the fastest SSD (and hundreds of times faster than HDDs).

      My point wasn't whether or not you "max out" your RAM using programs. My point was that the core operating system and "plumbing" stuff uses a lot less memory on OS X than it does on Windows. Plus, on Windows, you have to wear a digital condom (run a resource-hungry virus and firewall suite) to avoid getting owned by every other malicious ad on the Internet, which artificially increases the absolute amount of mapped RAM that has to be dedicated to processes just to keep your system running well.

      So, OS X is more RAM efficient. Hardware-wise, it's also got a much faster SSD (on the Macbook Pro, at least) than is available to the vast majority of PCs. This SSD matches up favorably with the best SSDs that Samsung and Intel have to offer. It is significantly faster than the Samsung 850 Pro. So even if this Macbook Pro system starts to experience some memory pressure, it's a lot less obvious on a Mac that the system is swapping than it is on a PC.

      The OS X kernel and driver stack is also very well-designed for low latency input and display functions. Windows is significantly improved with WDDM and recent kernel improvements in Windows 10, but I can still feel the input latency difference in basic things like typing text in a textbox on a webpage, comparing OS X and my high-end Windows 10 desktop.

      I've got a GTX 1080, 64 gigs of RAM and an i7-6700K in my desktop, with two SSDs in RAID. Even with Windows 10 and a fuckton of bloated services and hundreds of processes running just about everything that exists, the responsiveness is pretty good, and I rarely experience any kind of performance problem, even if I'm playing *multiple games* simultaneously. But look at how much I had to invest in that hardware to reach that point. Would I be able to do the same with Macbook Pro specs (8 gigs of RAM) running Windows? No, absolutely not. But OS X manages to handle whatever I throw at it.

      Anyway, here's a summary of my experience with Apple hardware. The current-gen Macbook Pro and iPhone have a much faster *storage layer* (SSD / NAND) than the vast majority of PCs and Android phones, and yet the Apple products are not hideously more expensive than their competitors. In fact, if you were to buy a PC or an Android phone with comparable storage layer performance to what Apple offers as "standard", you'd almost certainly pay a lot more.

      My thesis is that, even though they skimp a little on the RAM, their focus on supplying excellent, high-end solid state storage that far exceeds the SATA 6 Gb/s performance ceiling, is a wise investment technically-speaking, as it allows them a great amount of flexibility with their memory management. And their well-designed, efficient software manages the user experience extremely well, even if resources are under high demand.

      That's the 2016 Apple technology landscape in a nutshell: Use "good-enough" CPUs, with "good-enough" GPUs on x86 and top-notch GPUs on mobile. Be very battery efficient to keep weight down. Provide just enough RAM but not excessive amounts. Go all-out on solid state storage performance and blow away all but the most expensive enterprise SSDs. And produce the most optimized OS in the world and use that to reduce the need to procure expensive, high-end hardware.

      Not saying you can't get a good experience on Windows or even GNU/Linux; I own and run boxes with Windows 10 and Ubuntu 16.04. But you usually need to invest significantly more for the same result. Ditto for Android vs. iOS. Hey Samsung, when are you going to offer 128 GB internal storage on your phones? Oh, what's that? We're supposed to use a dog-slow MicroSD card instead? That's what I thought. Peace out.

    3. Re:Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      A lot less? You imply that somehow the OS is worse by more than 8 gigs, which is a ridiculous claim. I have work machines with 8 gigs of ram and they hardly ever max out, and when they do it's because I never close anything and have 50+ windows open.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by RockoW · · Score: 1

      https://www.slrlounge.com/ligh... I know that you feel it run faster but isn't the case.

    5. Re:Disingenuous article - so, so wrong. by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      2 years behind is a fair criticism of Apple Macbooks.

      ...but the article didn't say 2 years behind. It specifically said "4 year old computers" and cherry-picked one obsolescent model that Apple have apparently retained for customers with legacy needs. That's dishonest and marks the difference between fair criticism and trolling.

      The Dell 13 and 15 were available with Skylake a year ago for under $700 and $1000 or fully loaded with quad-core Skylake and NVIDIA 960 for $1700.

      You do understand that "skylake" is a whole range of processors with different numbers of cores, different power consumptions and different grades of integrated graphics? And that those permutations have been trickling out gradually over the last year? Do you get that "upgrading" an old model Broadwell/Haswell processor with 28W TDP and premium Intel "Iris" graphics (as used in the Retina MacBook Pros) to a "Skylake" processor with only 15W TDP and lower-model intel "HD" graphics (as found in the cheaper Dells you mention) might not be a guaranteed win? You do realise that the 1920x1080 displays in the $700/$1000 Dells you quote aren't in the same league as the 2560x1600 (13") and 2880x1800 (15") displays in the MacBook Pros - and that the more comparable QHD Dells cost a lot more?

      Now, the Dell XPS 13 is certainly a serious rival to the MacBook Air (which even Apple fans acknowledge is probably on the way out). Also, there are XPS 13 and XPS 15 models with QHD displays and Iris/Iris Pro graphics but (a) they have prices in the $1600-$2000-beyond range putting them firmly in the Retina MacBook Pro ballpark and (b) those configurations certainly haven't been available since last year (announced maybe - not available).

      Pretty sure the XPS 13 with the i7-6560U & "Iris" graphics (which does sound like a serious 13" MacBook Pro contender) only appeared in the last month or two - the Intel Ark site is still showing that processor as "Announced" rather than "Launched" - and it costs $1600 for 8GB/256GB SSD/QHD display - vs. $1800 for the comparable MacBook (but that includes $300 for the bump from i5 to i7 which is probably a waste of cash for U-series processors).

      Sure - $1800 vs $1600 & USB-C/TB3 still sounds like a win for Dell - so why make stupid comparisons between Macs with $700 Dells that aren't remotely comparable?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  71. Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

    Perhaps it is flamebait, but it brings up an interesting (to me) question. At this stage of the game, Apple makes most of its money off of its mobile devices. Sure, it still sells Macs - and people still like and buy them. But Mac's aren't their core business any more - and their single-supplier model has kept that part of their business capped at a pretty modest volume.

    Maybe now it would finally make sense for Apple to license OS/X to other OEM's. That way, they'd make some money off of the software (they could charge at least as much as Microsoft does), and possibly grow the ecosystem. I suppose there'd be a chance of HP or Samsung building devices could outsell Apple's, but Apple's certainly capable of competing with the best. And they don't have to license it to low end crap OEM's. And, of course, they wouldn't license iOS, but while OS/X is still relevant, they ought to consider taking a chance.

    I'm not saying this because I want a Mac clone - I personally don't like OS/X much, and I use Linux at home. But it'd be interesting to see the market shaken up a bit.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As a long-time Mac user, I'm all for this. I'd love it if Apple's Mac laptops still met my needs, but they just don't come close. I've been stuck at 1 TB of storage since the last time I upgraded my black MacBook's hard drive about seven or eight years ago. Every subsequent laptop upgrade—the non-retina MacBook Pro and the Retina MacBook Pro after that—have had exactly the same maximum capacity. And every time, I've hit the capacity limit within six months (even without migrating files from the previous machine), requiring me to carry multiple external hard drives around with me at all times.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the world has moved on, because other companies didn't foolishly lock themselves into 100% solid state storage for everything by making the laptops too thin to hold a spinning hard drive. As a result, I can stick up to a 4 TB drive in just about anybody else's laptops, and in some models, I can fit two of them. I would kill for a supported OS X laptop with 8 TB of storage, or even a 4TB drive and a 1 TB SSD. I would have those options if Apple opened up OS X licensing.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is flamebait, but it brings up an interesting (to me) question. At this stage of the game, Apple makes most of its money off of its mobile devices. Sure, it still sells Macs - and people still like and buy them. But .....

      Yep a bit of flamebait but the truth is a very large numbers of web developers
      work on a Mac and the result is a Mac is a very pleasurable device for web content.
      The current versions have AC WiFi and a GigE hard wire network links that
      allow developers to push or pull source as fast as any.

      Same is true for consumer web surfing where MAC retina seems to be
      the touchstone for content.

      I have a modern HiDPI display with a 6th Generation Intel® Core i7 Processor and
      darn nice graphics driving 3200 x 1800 IPS but applications and font rendering flat out suck
      at times on Win10. I should note that Win10 has improvements but... it ain't all soup yet.
      Applications I need and want are on the naughty list for HiDPI, you can see one such
      list here: http://www.eizoglobal.com/supp...
      I looked at the history and many of these applications also fell flat when Apple came out
      with retina displays and a year+ later fixed thing.

      I did try a modest Intel® Core i7 system as a server and sent it back because it kept dying.
      One would have thought that Intel could make a motherboard that ran fine with a new i7
      but for many months it was a mystery. I will grab another in a couple months -- while it
      worked it was fast as stink so I still want one but I want one that works. BTW: The fix sounds real
      so I am shopping again.

      Windows 10 is another consideration. Win10 revived a couple old laptops where graphics
      drivers and thermal power management stunk on Linux.

      Then there is the secret sauce in all new generation BIOS to boot 6th generation processors.

      Yes I want an update but there are more moving parts being juggled than is easy to count.
      I wonder if others can see any clues in macO sSierra (now in beta).

      I forgot the FBI and other TLA's out there.... I wonder what secret demands have been made
      if any.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    3. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Apple makes its money on hardware, and OSX helps sell hardware. Apple tried licensing OSX to other OEMs once, and it was not a financial success. I don't think the market for selling OSes is there for anyone other than Microsoft.

      Apple wants the experience of using their products to be pleasant, and they do that in laptops by controlling the whole environment. They can save a lot of compatibility testing that way, too.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      I can't think of many people who are willing to lug full-sized mobile workstations just for *storage* space. If you need more than 1TB of storage permanently inside your laptop, you're likely an edge case.

      Sure, it would be nice if I could have all my RAW files and all my music and my entire TV and movie collections with me at all times, but would I go back to a 3kg monster just for that? What exactly are you lugging around on your laptop?

      Apple probably (rightly so, IMO) just doesn't care about the twenty potential customers worldwide that need more than a terabyte of storage in a very mobile laptop. Unfortunate, but understandable... how much money do they stand to make from you? $3000-4000 isn't even a drop in the bucket.

    5. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      My guess is that "you're doing it wrong". ;)

      Seriously though, I've managed to change my laptop habits to where I have divided my true "mass store" needs (things I might occasionally want but don't need access to at all times, like my full music or video collections) onto externals. Also historical projects move there. This leaves my core frequently used info on the 1TB SSD, and right now, I have more than 500GB free. I do have a subset of videos (recent unwatched) and music (core playlist) that I carry with me as well. After those changes, I externalized those external drives onto my HTPC, and now they're available to everyone in the household, and my laptop is free to move at will.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Time to release OS/X to OEM's? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --What the actual F do you need EIGHT TERABYTES of real-time storage on a *laptop* for?? Serious question. Why not set up a file server at your house and another one at work, and sync them once a week or so?

      --Seriously, I will be *happy* to help you with building a Linux+ZFS+Samba+Squid server (before disk costs) for under $1K. ~12TB of RAID10 storage using 6x4TB disks, free 28-31 day ZFS snapshots included, auto-scheduled monthly scrubs and SMART tests.

      --Feel free to email me for a quote (but reference the Slashdot comment.) I have deployed several of these servers and can easily saturate a Gigabit network connection (~90MB-110MB/sec, sustained large-file transfers over Samba or FTP) using off-the-shelf equipment and standard Cat5E cables.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  72. Not new behavior by henrym · · Score: 1

    They're just hoping to get back to the old Apple II glory days where they kept the same Apple //e on sale for 10 years!

  73. As an Apple user, I agree by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    I've notice that Apple has really shit the bed when it comes to... well... everything. It's like since Jobs died, Cook pulled the rudder right off the boat and now he's just standing there, looking confusedly at the rudder in his hand.

    But it's another thing entirely to be charging massive premiums for hardware so old that I'm surprised the parts are even still being manufactured. Where is Apple sourcing their parts at this point, Ebay?

    I want a new Mac for work, and I want to give employees the option of using a Mac instead of Windows, given how brain-damaged Microsoft is being with respect to Windows 10, but I'll be damned if I'm going to drop 2-3k per machine on hardware whose PC equivalent can be purchased for peanuts on Craigslist.

    As far as CPUs are concerned, they arn't really that big of a deal because lets face it, the past *several* generations of CPUs from Intel have only incremental differences in performance. Most of the differences have gone into power efficiency improvements, and support for newer accessory technologies like DDR RAM, USB, PCI, onboard GPU, etc. But there have been massive jumps in what GPUs can do, and currently available Macs are a joke by comparison. Right now, for example, there's not even any point in porting current AAA games to Mac because the hardware won't be able to run them.

    There is something to be said about taking the conservative approach for some things, for example one thing I like about OSX is that Apple doesn't make massive fundamental changes the way Microsoft does. And Apple's support is still second to none. But Apple really needs to pull their thumb out and start refreshing their hardware.

    Apple has a massive opportunity right now with the whole Windows 10 fiasco, very similar to how IBM had an opportunity with OS/2 during the turbulent switch between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Unfortunately, also like IBM, I'm expecting Apple to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because they're management is too paralyzed by their own undeserved egos to do what needs to be done.

  74. Late to the party... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

    I'm late to the party here, but here's my opinion.

    Even back when I worked as a Systems Engineer in the Apple ecosystem- their hardware was a generation behind, more expensive, and landlocked to their own OS.

    That doesn't mean that weren't a great computing platform. But in today's ecosystem I'm not sure that business model works so well. And I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't care since the bulk of their profits come from elsewhere.

    What Apple and other companies are missing, is that now is the time to *invest* in the desktop space. With VR coming into vogue, alternative OS availability, strong gaming, and the semi-demise of Microsoft- it's time to embrace the desktop rather than run from it. The platform is far from finished, still has incalculable advantages in performance, and has many uses not even dreamed of yet.

    But Apple, in my historical opinion, stopped trying to lead shortly after the release of OS 10- which had great promise. I've still got the alpha and developer releases on CD- and yes it runs on generic x86.

    So we'll see the death of the Apple platform unless they invest heavily in newer technologies. But they've been so engorged with cash from the iPhone that they will not see this vision. The smart move would be to move OS X onto commodity hardware.

    But I do not think that will happen. Rather they will milk the desktop for whatever they perceive to be left- and when the desktop platform roars to live with a new killer app- they'll be left flatfooted.

    And... um.... VR is kind of doing that now. It remains to be seen if that will be sustained.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Late to the party... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      You are old and so you think desktop computers are still basically a good idea. I don't even know anybody who has a desktop computer at home. Buying one now is a solution looking for a problem. Sure, VR will have hefty system requirements that right now a desktop computer is best for. But if VR becomes big, tying the system to a desktop computer is inevitably a temporary measure. You'd want something self-contained.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Late to the party... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      I'm not old. What an asshat statement.

      Ageism on Slashdot? Pathetic.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
  75. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by Khyber · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  76. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

    You think?

  77. Quoting parent: "HERP I H8 MAC!" by kelarius · · Score: 1

    Parent's rambling nonsense

    "Baseless apple apologizing" LOL

    1. Not a fanboy, personally I've never purchased myself a mac. I've used many but I can never justify the cost.
    2. Laptop weight can easily be considered a specification. If you like carrying around a 10lb brick then by all means ignore the build however don't assume everyone is as narrow minded as you.
    3. That you're so incredibly focused on CPU/GPU upgrades shows how much you really know about what happens inside of your computer.
    4. Yes, the Broadwell builds are a couple of years old but that's pretty normal for Apple's refresh schedule. They usually update their MacBook Pro lines about every 18 months. So they're due, and there is every indication that they will be doing so this fall, probably around October.

    I suppose I should have made my first post more clear, my statement was meant to point out that TFS was flamebait, and likely the article as well. This kind of reporting in general, the kind that ignores facts and shapes the story to push an agenda, really irritates me and I do what I can to shine light on these instances when possible.

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
  78. What's it like to be wrong about everything? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    TFA was made-up bullshit. Macbook Pros have been updated in the previous 4 years and do have available skylake processors.

    Tesla most certainly does not lose $15K on each car. That's fucking absurd, and you're an idiot. Using that math then at one point Ford was also losing $15K on every Model T it made.

    Tesla sells cars for more than the manufacturing cost of that car, they have healthy margins in that sense. However they then take that money and invest it in things like a giant battery factory, supercharger stations, designing the next car, and upgrading their ability to manufacture more cars quickly. On paper, this looks like a loss and to morons like you it looks like they are losing money on each sale.

    But, that's the thing about morons, they see stupidity everywhere except in the mirror.

  79. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Thanks.
        At the moment the i386 standa alone appears to be slashdotted as the mirror link is not responding. I'll try it when it's back.

    in the mean time i'm still confused about the UEFI versus EFI thing. this supergrub 2 ls labled EFI. the mac is UEFI. I'm imagining the firmware must be hunting for UEFI boot loaders not EFI. SO how is this going to work? I must not understand it or this is only going to work for EFI macs (post 2007)

    I did try renaming the x86_64 standalone to the name suggested but nothing showed up as a boot device in the mac option-boot process. (It's the only version that the mirror was letting me download).

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  80. Re:Depreciated to $0 but no replacement by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

    It is never too late to join the glorious PC master race.

    Apple lives matter.

  81. Why fix what isn't broken? by largeGrande · · Score: 2

    My four year old macbook still works better than most new PC's

  82. My feeling exactly by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    While I am looking forward to the new Macbook Pro models, at the moment, my 3 year old, bought on Apples refurb website has worked nearly flawlessly. I use it for both Mac and Windows via VMWare's Fusion and while I wish for a larger hard drive, the SSD makes the machine super fast. I typically use an external keyboard and mouse so the only upgrade I was really concerned with was the retina display, which I have. All in all, I am not complaining. The machine was expensive but has earned it's keep.

  83. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by rgbscan · · Score: 1

    My daily PC is a Hackintosh, and I've yet to have a kernel panic, unexplained crashing and freezing, or anything like that since I built it over Christmas break. My experience has been that it just works. Everything works as it should... sound, sleep, LAN, Bluetooth, etc. I had some of the stuff already, and some I bought used on eBay. Put it together for under $900 out of pocket. I'm running....

    Intel Core i5-4590 (6M Cache, 3.3 GHz)
    Gigabyte H97 Extreme Multi Graphics Support UEFI DualBIOS Micro ATX DDR3 1600 LGA 1150 Motherboard
    Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB DDR3 1600 MT/s (PC3-12800)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB SC GAMING, Silent Cooling Graphics Card
    Samsung 850 EVO 5000GB 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD Boot drive
    Thermaltake CORE V21 Black Extreme Micro ATX Cube Chassis
    Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo CPU Cooler
    OSXWIFI Combo WiFi and Bluetooth PCIe Card
    Corsair 750 watt Power Supply
    4x 2TB WD Red drives in software raid for a storage volume
    24" ASUS 1080p Monitor

    OS X El Capitan – Latest version, updates via app store have not been an issue (even though the combo updater is recommended)
            UniBeast – Free (Registration required)
            MultiBeast – Free (Registration required)

    Installed with the iMac 14,2 profile

  84. ..and Apple wonders why revenues are hurting by pghmike4 · · Score: 1

    I'm using a relatively old late 2011 Macbook Pro. I'd probably update to a lighter machine with good specs (USB 3 especially, and a retina display), if one were available. But I'm *not* going to buy that joke of a Macbook, with the yucky keyboard and the single USB C port, and a 12" screen. I'm amazed Apple is leaving this much money on the table. Do they not have any business sense? In any event, they should be putting denser memory in their current lineup. 8 GB is really a minimum for today's OS/X versions. This is basic stuff. Have they caught the Republican party's disease, and lost the ability to execute their basic functions?

  85. oh that makes more sense by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    i first read that as apple should stop selling computers to four year olds.

  86. IPhone is pretty old too by strstr · · Score: 1

    Its still shipping with a dual core processor and those came out in 2011. They haven't moved up to quad or eight cores yet.

    Screens hit 720p around the same time and that's where Apple sat. 1080p came in 2013. qHD launched in 2014 ..

    Apple has nothing close to qHD.

    Apple builds crap computers and sits on old tech but continues to sell it at full price without lowering the price.

    64GB of flash upgrade? They like to charge hundreds for it when it cost $15 bucks in other form factors and they never increase the amount or lower the cost.

    http://www.obamasweapon.com/

  87. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    They make a ton of money selling computers. It's incredibly profitable. Why do you think they would stop?

  88. Apple does what it wants by tsa · · Score: 1

    Apple can do whatever it wants to. You don't have to buy their stuff. I don't get why people find it necessary to make a fuss about stuff like this.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Apple does what it wants by chasm22 · · Score: 1

      Well a big fuck you to you. Just look in the mirror and tell us what the fuck all the apple lovers would be writing if this article was about Microsoft using four year old processors in their Surface line. Hmm?

      Do you want us to believe for a second that Tim FUCKING Cook wouldn't be trying to get Congress to pass a law banning such sales?

      That you are happy with Apple selling four year old processors at the same time as their VP is going around saying how sad it is that there are so many old pc's that Apple thinks are

    2. Re:Apple does what it wants by tsa · · Score: 1

      To help improve your replies I have the following suggestion: after you read or heard or saw something that upset you, count to 100 before you formulate a reply. During the time you count to 100 you will calm down a bit, and then you will be able to formulate a coherent response instead of the mindless drivel you posted above. It's better for all of us, you'll soon find.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  89. Moore's law is not over by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    Because it has never been actually formulated.

    One popular interpretation was the about the increase of component density, which has resulted for a while in an increase in the processors performance.

    Nowadays, the general interpretation in the semiconductor industry is that Moore's Law is about the decrease of the $/bit (and sometimes about the decrease of energy/operation), and in regards to this metric the industry is still on track and will stay so for another decade at least. The improvements for our laptops and probably also for our phones and tablets won't be as noticeable as they have been in the past, but the computer industry will continue to change our lives by being more and more ubiquitous as the price goes down, and as VR and AI become more widely available.

    By the way, Moore's paper starts with:

    With unit cost falling as the number of components per circuit rises, by 1975 economics may dictate squeezing as many as 65,000 components on a single silicon chip

    . It has always been about economics.

  90. Why is this surprising? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Apple isn't a computer company. They are an electronics gadget (cell phone/tablet) company that happens to have a small line of laptops they sell as well.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  91. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by armanox · · Score: 1

    You can use Disk Utility in OS X to shrink your OS X partition, giving you space to do your Linux install (I made the space on my 2006 MacBook Pro (Core 1 Duo), but never actually installed it). I've only done dual boot on PowerPC-based Macs, never on the Intel ones.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  92. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by armanox · · Score: 1

    Running on modern POWER hardware? I'd love to see OS X on a POWER 8.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  93. Read your own articles by lucm · · Score: 1

    Did you actually read the link you posted? Or did you stop at the top chart (which is javascript performance only)? Or are you implying that only javascript matters when it comes to mobile devices?

    There's absolutely nothing in that article that supports your point. You could have simply replied "no" and that would have had the same value in this argument.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Read your own articles by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the link you posted? Or did you stop at the top chart (which is javascript performance only)? Or are you implying that only javascript matters when it comes to mobile devices?

      There's absolutely nothing in that article that supports your point. You could have simply replied "no" and that would have had the same value in this argument.

      And you where so focused on how well Android devices did on the PCMark tests that you missed that it didn't run on Apple devices. But hey, that's the best sort of Benchmark, right? Did you turn to the next page?

      And the whole test doesn't even take throttling into account. Something Apple specifically focused on in the design process that their CPUs didn't need to do.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  94. And of course the hillarious thing about this by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1
    Is that 2 months ago most but those mentioned in the story noticed that the "4 year old computer" is being phased out http://9to5mac.com/2016/06/21/non-retina-13-inch-macbook-pro/

    I mentioned in an opinion piece back in April that while Apple still sells a single non-Retina MacBook Pro model, it does its best to tuck it away out of sight – not mentioned at all on the main MacBook Pro page, and hidden at the bottom of the ‘buy‘ page. It now appears that the company is doing the same thing in its retail stores to the last remaining product of an optical drive bygone era.

    We’ve been hearing reports of the model being withdrawn from display in Apple Stores for a week or so now, and checks by both AI and TNW appear to confirm that this is official

    So yes, Apple still sells it, if you specifically ask for it, and tell them to look in the back of the storage room.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  95. What's left? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Should be Hillary Clinton's election slogan... :)

  96. Re:Stop using OS X and their 10 year old computers by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Nice. I'm apparently stuck with Yosemite forever, unless someone can find a way to get Final Cut Pro (5.1 - bundled with Final Cut Studio) working well on El Capitan. It's bad enough that the installer was a PPC app that won't run on Yosemite because of no Rosetta - while the program itself is a universal app. I had to migrate that whole installation from a Time Machine backup.

    My build is at least 3 years old, with Ivy Bridge. I've had a rock solid computer, except my SSD. I think I have a faulty SATA cable, because the drive will disappear with no warning once every few months. Hey, just like a real Mac!

    Someday I'll just have to get with the program and move to FCP X. What I really want is Final Cut Studio 3, but that costs more than FCP X now on eBay. There's a program that can convert FCP 7 projects to X, but mine are all still technically FCP 5.

  97. how old? by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    I read this article and the complaints section on my several-years old HP core 2 duo model. Who knows the computer's actual model name because as with most Windows pc's, it's completely forgettable.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  98. Re:Depreciated to $0 but no replacement by lordDallan · · Score: 1

    After all, they are "moving at a faster pace"

  99. The main man is gone by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Apple probably has another Steve Jobs working for them. They're holding him back. The pointy haired boss types that work for Apple. Real shame.