Given that roughly 100% of the Objective-C work is designed to go with the Cocoa libraries which are in Objective-C and use Objective-C conventions, what would be the advantage of pure C?
Absolutely because batteries explode. I'd assume the recycling facility will cut the battery out with box knife taking along cheap plastic parts from the keyboard and trackpad. My point to gp was that recycling is a destructive process, the glue doesn't matter.
No one is going to make a screen good enough for art that small and cheap. I don't know of anything. The closest I can think of is a a livescribe pen comes to mind which allows for digitally recording your drawings and you transfer them to a computer later. If not then only 1/2 joking and say something like a 7-9" sketch notebook with tear out pages and a good scanner attached to your home machine.
I'm not an expert on batteries. I'm not finding anything about the 80% charge level. Apple themselves does mention that they use a 2 step charging process, a rapid charge to 80% and then a trickle charge from 80-100%. So I suspect they agree that charging beyond 80% is damaging and being below 80% is damaging and are doing it in a low stress way. That being said, my battery currently reads 100% so they disagree about long term use. They do agree somewhat on storage and they recommend that rMBP be stored at a 50% charge it is going to be stored for an extended period.
In terms of anecdotes I've used every laptop I've owned mostly plugged in for about 18 years and never had that problem. I understand that is 3 different battery technologies. My iPhone is a year old but that is almost always used unplugged.
As for the $199 battery. I don't know whether Apple is taking a loss or has some way to fix the glue issue. I suspect the latter. But Apple unlike other vendors, is willing to sell services at a steep loss to facilitate other goals. My point though from an end user perspective it really doesn't matter to me. I have a 3 year warranty and after that batteries are $199. If the repairs are so expensive that Apple has to throw the computer out and give me a new one that becomes an incentive for them to say give me a $500-1000 off if I waive the battery repair after warranty, which heck is even better.
OK I'll give you one, Linus Torvalds has been using Apple products for the last 6 years. Or take their latest commercial, Graham Kent, who is one of the leaders as Scripps and is likely the most important major innovators on modern sonar.
The purpose of the standard is to facilitate repairing the types of electronic equipment in use. If the types of equipment in use change, recycling standards change and thus the EPEAT changes. The electronics recycling industry is a tiny fraction of the size and complexity of the electronics manufacturing industry. If one or the other has to bend, its pretty obvious which it should be.
This has nothing to do with big companies. There are big companies on every side of this issue.
And you go to the Apple store, or one of the well known resellers that have the right equipment, give them money and they give you a new battery. No big deal, no drama.
Exactly, and that's because Apple treat their customers like shit in the long run.
I've been with Apple for a decade now. They've always treated me well. If ease of swap out is your criteria, you aren't an Apple customer to begin with.
I have a to disagree a bit. I flip every 3-4 years. So 2 generations back was a brand new laptop in 2004. 1.2 ghz processor, 1.25g ram, 64k L2 cache, 133 mhz bus speed. I don't know if I could even buy a system that slow today if I tried. . Now that wasn't a performance machine by any stretch, it was amazing for portability. At the same time approximately I bought my daughter a machine. This was more of a desktop replacement but it was cheaper, satellite m35x: 1.4g processor, 512m ram, 400mhz bus.
My guess is around 2014 smart phones will speck around that level. The speed of improvement has slowed this decade. But not so much that 7 years is still acceptable. And hopefully Apple is starting to change that by pushing hardware again.
First off we are talking about apple computers, cell phones have different refreshment cycles. Second iPhones have a strong used market. From an environmental standpoint that's fine.
I would suspect that most Mac users will get more than 4 years from the battery. They are likely mainly used plugged in. 1000 charge cycles is a lot more than it sounds like. Further, the battery is replaceable for $199.
Well you can stop being sad. They aren't going to end up in landfills. Apple has a recycling program. They've contracted with a 3rd party recycler who is able to handle the complexity. http://www.werecycle.com/
It is not a question of trust. The EPA guideline requires that a computer be decomposable without specialized equipment. The rMBP can be recycled but (Apple's recycler knows how to do it http://www.werecycle.com/). But.. it does require specialized equipment. Hence Apple doesn't comply with the guidelines and doesn't get the cert.
No one is lying here. No one is cheating. There is no great dilemma.
I appreciate your use of Occam's razor, and I agree with the argument. Of course Apple can take them apart they say that 100 different places on their website.
I'd just like to comment that http://www.werecycle.com/ is Apple's designated recycler and they've stated they know how to take apart the rMBP properly. Its a question of the right equipment and know how but it is not impossible. That doesn't meet EPA standards since EPA standards require that something be able to be broken down without specialized equipment.
I came back to Apple with OSX 10.1 and I'm keeping my geek credit. Self respecting geeks who actually use Apple know how to get around policies that are generally misrepresented by people outside Apple culture.
As far as I understand it. The recycling process is completely destructive it isn't at the parts level. The goal is to recover the copper, aluminum, lead, gold, and palladium. So you are going to have to melt it down anyway. The glue just falls away.
No, because I order online and vendors haven't made it prominent. But I do look for green labels on heating units, air conditioners, clothes dryers and refrigerators. While it wouldn't out way major features I care about, in particular OSX vs. Windows, it would out weigh minor features. Reuse makes a lot more sense than recycling when it comes to computers. And if you are going to recycle something as complex as a computer, I'm a little unclear how a unibody computer is more complex to recycle or whether the better power efficiency outweighs even worse recycling.
But yeah, If I were convinced the sticker made sense and If I were choosing between two very similar computers
The problem with that strong use of innovation is it has little to do with business success. Under that definition Microsoft, with a few exceptions like the.NET compiler team, has never been innovative and never has intended to be.
Windows mostly doesn't play in embedded while Linux is a big player. Same with supercomputing where there are 0 windows solutions.
I agree that 45% is a generous figure, in terms of share but it makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. They have never shown must interest in the fully automated low maintenance server market since their whole claim to fame is low TCO based on low training and those boxes have low TCO based on doing only one simple thing.
Yes IBM at that point ran like separate companies. OS/2 LAN Manager, which was excellent, was considering threatening because it could eat into AS/400 revenues. Later their PC division didn't even sell systems with OS/2. Ambra (IBM's clone, a predecessor to Aptiva) didn't have complete driver support information though the employee support group in IBM did.
And we could go back to a pay as you go system that did work before all the government involvement which caused the initial rise in costs.
First off all, when is it in US history that government was not involved in health care? Can you give me a year?
Then, what evidence do you have that the government involvement in healthcare raises costs, given that the US health system is less regulated than most of the world's and by far the most expensive especially when the expense vs. effectiveness ratio is considered?
I jumped on the bandwagon for OS/2 with 1.3.1 when IBM cut the price to $99. Paid for 2.0 with free upgrade to 2.1 and then paid for the 3.0 upgrade. Jumped off after that. Started with Windows/Linux dual boot.
As for losing the consumer space I agree with you. I think they are in real trouble and could be essentially knocked out of consumer by 2020 hence the Windows-8 initiative with a focus on consumer. Now lets see if they can execute. But even if they fail and do get knocked out that still just shrinks them to:
-- consumer work from home PCs -- enterprise desktops -- 45+% of server sales
And arguably if they've lost consumer they can move Windows in a more business friendly direction. For example make Office a platform for Dynamics and not really the best isolated PC office solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that roughly 100% of the Objective-C work is designed to go with the Cocoa libraries which are in Objective-C and use Objective-C conventions, what would be the advantage of pure C?
Absolutely because batteries explode. I'd assume the recycling facility will cut the battery out with box knife taking along cheap plastic parts from the keyboard and trackpad. My point to gp was that recycling is a destructive process, the glue doesn't matter.
No one is going to make a screen good enough for art that small and cheap. I don't know of anything. The closest I can think of is a a livescribe pen comes to mind which allows for digitally recording your drawings and you transfer them to a computer later. If not then only 1/2 joking and say something like a 7-9" sketch notebook with tear out pages and a good scanner attached to your home machine.
I'm not an expert on batteries. I'm not finding anything about the 80% charge level. Apple themselves does mention that they use a 2 step charging process, a rapid charge to 80% and then a trickle charge from 80-100%. So I suspect they agree that charging beyond 80% is damaging and being below 80% is damaging and are doing it in a low stress way. That being said, my battery currently reads 100% so they disagree about long term use. They do agree somewhat on storage and they recommend that rMBP be stored at a 50% charge it is going to be stored for an extended period.
In terms of anecdotes I've used every laptop I've owned mostly plugged in for about 18 years and never had that problem. I understand that is 3 different battery technologies. My iPhone is a year old but that is almost always used unplugged.
As for the $199 battery. I don't know whether Apple is taking a loss or has some way to fix the glue issue. I suspect the latter. But Apple unlike other vendors, is willing to sell services at a steep loss to facilitate other goals. My point though from an end user perspective it really doesn't matter to me. I have a 3 year warranty and after that batteries are $199. If the repairs are so expensive that Apple has to throw the computer out and give me a new one that becomes an incentive for them to say give me a $500-1000 off if I waive the battery repair after warranty, which heck is even better.
OK I'll give you one, Linus Torvalds has been using Apple products for the last 6 years. Or take their latest commercial, Graham Kent, who is one of the leaders as Scripps and is likely the most important major innovators on modern sonar.
You mean something like the Fuji 10" slate PC (no keyboard, atom processor) which goes for $700-1000 and has the same screen technology?
The purpose of the standard is to facilitate repairing the types of electronic equipment in use. If the types of equipment in use change, recycling standards change and thus the EPEAT changes. The electronics recycling industry is a tiny fraction of the size and complexity of the electronics manufacturing industry. If one or the other has to bend, its pretty obvious which it should be.
This has nothing to do with big companies. There are big companies on every side of this issue.
And you go to the Apple store, or one of the well known resellers that have the right equipment, give them money and they give you a new battery. No big deal, no drama.
Exactly, and that's because Apple treat their customers like shit in the long run.
I've been with Apple for a decade now. They've always treated me well. If ease of swap out is your criteria, you aren't an Apple customer to begin with.
Fujitsu still makes excellent windows tablets. If you like what there system does why not just buy another one?
I have a to disagree a bit. I flip every 3-4 years. So 2 generations back was a brand new laptop in 2004. 1.2 ghz processor, 1.25g ram, 64k L2 cache, 133 mhz bus speed. I don't know if I could even buy a system that slow today if I tried. . Now that wasn't a performance machine by any stretch, it was amazing for portability. At the same time approximately I bought my daughter a machine. This was more of a desktop replacement but it was cheaper, satellite m35x: 1.4g processor, 512m ram, 400mhz bus.
My guess is around 2014 smart phones will speck around that level. The speed of improvement has slowed this decade. But not so much that 7 years is still acceptable. And hopefully Apple is starting to change that by pushing hardware again.
First off we are talking about apple computers, cell phones have different refreshment cycles. Second iPhones have a strong used market. From an environmental standpoint that's fine.
I would suspect that most Mac users will get more than 4 years from the battery. They are likely mainly used plugged in. 1000 charge cycles is a lot more than it sounds like. Further, the battery is replaceable for $199.
Well you can stop being sad. They aren't going to end up in landfills. Apple has a recycling program. They've contracted with a 3rd party recycler who is able to handle the complexity. http://www.werecycle.com/
It is not a question of trust. The EPA guideline requires that a computer be decomposable without specialized equipment. The rMBP can be recycled but (Apple's recycler knows how to do it http://www.werecycle.com/). But.. it does require specialized equipment. Hence Apple doesn't comply with the guidelines and doesn't get the cert.
No one is lying here. No one is cheating. There is no great dilemma.
I appreciate your use of Occam's razor, and I agree with the argument. Of course Apple can take them apart they say that 100 different places on their website.
I'd just like to comment that http://www.werecycle.com/ is Apple's designated recycler and they've stated they know how to take apart the rMBP properly. Its a question of the right equipment and know how but it is not impossible. That doesn't meet EPA standards since EPA standards require that something be able to be broken down without specialized equipment.
So the facts and the logic line up.
just like the others who were advocating for marijuana legalization.
Controlled marijuana legalization, i.e. that it becomes an FDA approved drug for cancer and glaucoma is polling over 70%. That isn't a fringe. http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/01/public-support-for-legalizing-medical-marijuana/ And from the same article in terms of recreational it is up to 41%. Again not a fringe position.
I came back to Apple with OSX 10.1 and I'm keeping my geek credit. Self respecting geeks who actually use Apple know how to get around policies that are generally misrepresented by people outside Apple culture.
As far as I understand it. The recycling process is completely destructive it isn't at the parts level. The goal is to recover the copper, aluminum, lead, gold, and palladium. So you are going to have to melt it down anyway. The glue just falls away.
No, because I order online and vendors haven't made it prominent. But I do look for green labels on heating units, air conditioners, clothes dryers and refrigerators. While it wouldn't out way major features I care about, in particular OSX vs. Windows, it would out weigh minor features. Reuse makes a lot more sense than recycling when it comes to computers. And if you are going to recycle something as complex as a computer, I'm a little unclear how a unibody computer is more complex to recycle or whether the better power efficiency outweighs even worse recycling.
But yeah,
If I were convinced the sticker made sense and
If I were choosing between two very similar computers
an EPA stamp of approval would matter.
The problem with that strong use of innovation is it has little to do with business success. Under that definition Microsoft, with a few exceptions like the .NET compiler team, has never been innovative and never has intended to be.
Windows mostly doesn't play in embedded while Linux is a big player. Same with supercomputing where there are 0 windows solutions.
I agree that 45% is a generous figure, in terms of share but it makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. They have never shown must interest in the fully automated low maintenance server market since their whole claim to fame is low TCO based on low training and those boxes have low TCO based on doing only one simple thing.
Yes IBM at that point ran like separate companies. OS/2 LAN Manager, which was excellent, was considering threatening because it could eat into AS/400 revenues. Later their PC division didn't even sell systems with OS/2. Ambra (IBM's clone, a predecessor to Aptiva) didn't have complete driver support information though the employee support group in IBM did.
IBM was a mess back then.
And we could go back to a pay as you go system that did work before all the government involvement which caused the initial rise in costs.
First off all, when is it in US history that government was not involved in health care? Can you give me a year?
Then, what evidence do you have that the government involvement in healthcare raises costs, given that the US health system is less regulated than most of the world's and by far the most expensive especially when the expense vs. effectiveness ratio is considered?
I jumped on the bandwagon for OS/2 with 1.3.1 when IBM cut the price to $99. Paid for 2.0 with free upgrade to 2.1 and then paid for the 3.0 upgrade. Jumped off after that. Started with Windows/Linux dual boot.
As for losing the consumer space I agree with you. I think they are in real trouble and could be essentially knocked out of consumer by 2020 hence the Windows-8 initiative with a focus on consumer. Now lets see if they can execute. But even if they fail and do get knocked out that still just shrinks them to:
-- consumer work from home PCs
-- enterprise desktops
-- 45+% of server sales
And arguably if they've lost consumer they can move Windows in a more business friendly direction. For example make Office a platform for Dynamics and not really the best isolated PC office solution.