t takes me about 24 hours after landing to fully appreciate that I've left. It takes me 24 hours before the take-off flight to mentally prepare myself for returning
I feel sorry for you. As soon as I leave the office, I'm in vacation-mode. I'm especially saddened by the 24 hours preparing for return, why cut your vacation short? Get back into work mode on THEIR time, not yours.
Because discussions on the Microsoft/Novell deal aren't the place to talk about the broken comment system?
It's not likely the editors would be able to fix it anyway (plus, they don't even read submissions, why would they read the comments?), if you want it fixed, notify the maintainers of Slashcode.
Today I installed a program today that allows manual control of the "minimum speed" of the fans in my pro and I have to say apple seems to have picked a very good speed for the fans.
The fans on the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros run at 3000rpm, I believe on the Core Duo units they ran at 1000rpm. They've also redisgned the ventilation slots on the case, the openings are much wider than before. So far, reports seem to indicate the Core 2 Duo units being much cooler, even with the GPU clocked much higher than the original MBP (the GPUs were severely clocked down on the Core Duo units). I don't believe the Core 2 Duo cpus are significantly cooler (I think the increased clock speed probably negates any cooling advantage they'd have), so I think it's safe to say it's likely the changes they've made, specifically fan speed and increased airflow, have significantly reduced the heat issues. I also think sometime during the run of the Core Duo MacBook Pro Apple stopped dumping globs of thermal compound on the CPU and GPU, which would also have been a big help.
I know that only people with problems complain, etc, but the number of complaints regarding the MacBook Pro (and the MacBook) was high, even for Apple's highly critical customers. I really don't think we'd have seen that many complaints if there weren't above average problems with the machines. Changes made for the Core 2 Duo models clearly indicate Apple addressed those complaints. I'm as big a fan of Apple as anybody, but I think it should be clear to anybody that there were significant heat-related issues with the early MBPs (some of these issues may have been eliminated when they bumped the clock speed around the time of the MacBook's release).
- excessive fan noise at higher speed when unnecessary? (apple likes their lappies quiet)
I think this is the only reason.
But it's not to the point of being uncomfortable to use.
Yours may not be, but apparently some were. Users of some of the initial MBPs complained because the top of the computer got so hot it made it impossible to even type. That is a problem. The sheer number of complaints, as well as firmware revisions by Apple should make it obvious there were problems. Fortunately, from what I've read, it seems Apple has done a good job resolving the issues both for the new Core 2 Duo models, as well as for users of the previous Core Duo models.
But until then ppl need to just stop whining.
Just because yours was OK doesn't mean every single one was.
Never mind that you can't upgrade your MBP to 4GB RAM like the D820.
Can you actually USE the entire 4gb though? I know there are some manufacturers out there shipping systems with 4gb of memory, but only 3.2gb or so ends up being useful, due to addressing problems with the Intel chipset (and it seems very likely Dell would be using the same chipset as Apple is using in the MBP).
Apple needs to stop forcing its customers to buy premium everything before I'd even consider it. Fanboys need to stop claiming Macs aren't expensive; you're only fooling yourselves.
They do, it's called the MacBook. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to offer the range of products other vendors do (or maybe can't offer the range of products other vendors do). Macs aren't expensive for the equivalent machine, Apple just doesn't happen to offer the equivalent machine in many cases.
In any event, I'd gladly pay a little more to run OS X. I do wish they offered those nice 1920x1200 displays, however.
When did price get into it? The grandparent post only cites the lack of community support for helping get the word out about successes. You rebut with a complaint about cost, which is not relevant to the grand-parent.
OP insinuated that Slashdot running articles like this hurt their sales, by suggesting it's a waste of time. I merely suggested that maybe it's not articles like this on Slashdot (or any other site) that is the problem, it's that they're charging more than other vendors do who sell the same products on competing platforms. Or that they're selling you a game, and then an update for that game - we wouldn't let EA get away with that, why should LGP get away with it?
Regardless, you're getting an OS for free and yet complaining when some applications that can be run on it actually costs something?! That's rather unfair. OSS does not exist just for freeloading. Some people actually make a living off of it by providing value-added support or service. You are complaining about that value added service by the fact that those who make Win32 games available for Linux have to charge something, rather than pay for the entire thing out of pocket and gift it to you.
But these sites aren't related to OSS at all, other than that they supply games for Linux. The games aren't open source or free software. The issue is the same for the Mac, games like Quake 4 still go for $50, which to me doesn't seem fair, either. The games come out later, and cost more than their PC counterparts by the time they are available on both platforms.
The point is that there are some inroads made in Linux gaming---although not perfect. We as a community should at least acknowledge the effort made by those who are trying while simultaneously complaining that more-should-be-done. Otherwise, it sounds like those who are putting effort are being totally ignored.
Articles like this also highlight where improvements need to be made. Unfortunately, the REAL solution is to get the developers to develop for more than one platform. Blizzard may neglect the Linux market, but they've always supported the Mac, and with recent releases they've even done simultaneous shipments for both platforms, with the binaries for both platforms on the same disc. id Software has also been pretty good about supporting both the Mac and Linux. LGP and Tuxgames may do admirable work, but for the majority of users, it's not going to be sufficient - paying 3x the price for the privilege of running something on Linux isn't going to fly.
Yessss and if you had RESEARCHED this properly you would understand. The update we sell is for the LOKI version so that to get support people dont have to pay and get a whole new game. We arent going to support the loki version because a) its not our game, we dont have the source, and b) its not our game. The update is sold so people get a supported game for LESS.
You sell the Loki version on the website, along with the update. Couldn't you bundle the update with the Loki version, and leave the download for others who've already purchased the Loki version?
It does chap my ass that I have to pay for something a decent OS should supply, but it's basically necessary software for me these days, even with dual monitors.
If the programs that are running in the background when nobody's using it are accessing the hard disk it could greatly increase the chances of drive failure.
It has been my experience that drives have a higher chance of failing when powered on than when they're constantly in use. I've been involved in a few data center power downs, and we'd usually have several machines that'd been running fine fail to boot due to bad hard drives.
Maybe if LGP didn't sell a game for £20.00, then sell an UPDATE for £3.00 which actually doesn't add any new functionality, but merely provides support for that game from LGP and the ability to install future updates, people would be more receptive.
Maybe if Tux Games didn't charge $35 more for Quake IV than Best Buy does for the Windows version, they'd get more sales.
What do you mean by doing "their bit"? Should they keep their mouth shut about the problems they have running the games they want to play, yet shout from the rooftops when something actually IS released that supports Linux? Should they purchase games they don't want, to generate more sales for you, which is really the only thing that's going to entice developers to give your company licenses for more games.
I think most gamers care less about the integrity of their games (can a game even HAVE integrity? wtf?), and more about graphics that don't make their eyes bleed..
PC gamers demand richness and complexity of the game. Console gamers rather deterred by complexity.
Actually, I think most console gamers buy consoles because they have the games they want to play, not because they're "deterred by complexity"
The Wii is definitely a step away from the PC crowd, and you might be able to say the Wii is aiming for users deterred by complexity, but I don't think that's true of consoles in general.
APIs did often change in early releases of OS X. 10.0 and 10.1 were basically the foundations future releases built upon. It took Apple some time to get things stabilized. It wasn't until 10.4 that Apple promised "no API disruption for the foreseeable future." OS 9 to OS X was a huge change, it's really not surprising it took Apple a few releases to nail down API stability.
Yea that's it. And it sucks. Apple has had a tendency to produce devices that look interesting and unique but are less usable in real life. They did it with the Mighty Mouse, and now they are back to this
Any other examples? I haven't used a Mighty Mouse, but plenty of people seem to like them just fine. I can't think of any other nice looking but not especially usable products they've made.
How is a thin strip on the edge of the screen better than a regular touch screen?
I have to agree with this. You can hold an iPod in one hand, and scroll in one continuous motion with your thumb. I don't see how you're supposed to do that with this thing. That said, Apple patents lots of things, some end up being made, some don't.
Agreed. The MacBook (non-Pro) port replicators they have don't seem too bad (though seriously lacking in the aesthetics department), but the MacBook Pro port models are huge. And as you said, the price is outrageous.
The geekpatrol blog you referenced in your post did some MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo benchmarking, and they tested in both 32-bit and 64-bit mode. So it seems to me that they support it.
Because Apple cherry picks the test results they publish on their web site. It seems the 7 times performance improvement claim strictly relates to SPEC benchmarks.
1. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2006 using preproduction MacBook Pro units with Core 2 Duo; MacBook Pro with Core Duo and PowerBook G4 systems were shipping units. *On a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pro, Logic Pro showed a 45% performance improvement, playing 240 reverb plug-ins, compared to 165 reverb plug-ins played on a 2.16GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro. MacBook Pro continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation.
2. Estimated SPECint_rate_base2000 score: 6.6 for 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, 48.4 for 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo system and 34.8 for 2.16GHz Core Duo system. Estimated SPECfp_rate_base2000 score: 4.9 for 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, 37.1 for 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo system and 27.6 for 2.16GHz Core Duo system. SPEC®, SPECfp, and SPECint are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC); see www.spec.org for more information.
* An option for a 7200rpm hard disk (except the "aircraft carrier" model
Apparently, the 160gb (5400 rpm) and 200gb (4200 rpm) drives use PMR. Someone on the forums over at macrumors linked to a benchmark, apparently the 5400 rpm PMR drives are faster than traditional 7200 rpm drives.
* A option for a faster video card
I think the form factor has a lot to do with this. I don't know that they could squeeze an X1700/X1800 or GeForce Go 7800/7900 in the current form factor, and I don't think enough customers would want them to justify the increased size. Really, I don't see such cards being useful for anyone but gamers (is it really going to make that big a different in Final Cut Pro, Motion, or Aperture?), and gamers really should look elsewhere. Really don't know why anyone would want to do serious gaming on a laptop anyway, but that's just me.
* Higher screen resolution
Would definitely like to see this. Leopard is apparently going to support a resolution-independent UI, so you can make the widgets as big or as small as you want. That's just begging for an ultra-high resolution display.
* A docking station
BookEndz makes some port replicators, but they're really not that impressive. I think thats probably the one feature I'd like to see Apple add to the MacBook lines.
* A 12"-ish variant
The MacBook is so close. Discreet graphics are all it needs (though an ExpressCard slot would probably be nice, too). Maybe when Intel's Santa Rosa platform comes out next year.
All that said, I ordered mine, and I can't wait to receive it:)
Slashdot Mirror
t takes me about 24 hours after landing to fully appreciate that I've left. It takes me 24 hours before the take-off flight to mentally prepare myself for returning
I feel sorry for you. As soon as I leave the office, I'm in vacation-mode. I'm especially saddened by the 24 hours preparing for return, why cut your vacation short? Get back into work mode on THEIR time, not yours.
I won't personally stop you from downloading games that aren't obtainable in other ways
;)
I don't think you'll stop him from downloading games that ARE obtainable in other ways, either
Far as I understand it, no Xbox 360 game requires either a hard drive or an HD display.
Wine seems pretty good for most MS Windows 3.x programs.
That's just great. If everyone could get by with 10 year old programs, that'd be a perfect solution.
Because discussions on the Microsoft/Novell deal aren't the place to talk about the broken comment system?
It's not likely the editors would be able to fix it anyway (plus, they don't even read submissions, why would they read the comments?), if you want it fixed, notify the maintainers of Slashcode.
Today I installed a program today that allows manual control of the "minimum speed" of the fans in my pro and I have to say apple seems to have picked a very good speed for the fans.
The fans on the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros run at 3000rpm, I believe on the Core Duo units they ran at 1000rpm. They've also redisgned the ventilation slots on the case, the openings are much wider than before. So far, reports seem to indicate the Core 2 Duo units being much cooler, even with the GPU clocked much higher than the original MBP (the GPUs were severely clocked down on the Core Duo units). I don't believe the Core 2 Duo cpus are significantly cooler (I think the increased clock speed probably negates any cooling advantage they'd have), so I think it's safe to say it's likely the changes they've made, specifically fan speed and increased airflow, have significantly reduced the heat issues. I also think sometime during the run of the Core Duo MacBook Pro Apple stopped dumping globs of thermal compound on the CPU and GPU, which would also have been a big help.
I know that only people with problems complain, etc, but the number of complaints regarding the MacBook Pro (and the MacBook) was high, even for Apple's highly critical customers. I really don't think we'd have seen that many complaints if there weren't above average problems with the machines. Changes made for the Core 2 Duo models clearly indicate Apple addressed those complaints. I'm as big a fan of Apple as anybody, but I think it should be clear to anybody that there were significant heat-related issues with the early MBPs (some of these issues may have been eliminated when they bumped the clock speed around the time of the MacBook's release).
- excessive fan noise at higher speed when unnecessary? (apple likes their lappies quiet)
I think this is the only reason.
But it's not to the point of being uncomfortable to use.
Yours may not be, but apparently some were. Users of some of the initial MBPs complained because the top of the computer got so hot it made it impossible to even type. That is a problem. The sheer number of complaints, as well as firmware revisions by Apple should make it obvious there were problems. Fortunately, from what I've read, it seems Apple has done a good job resolving the issues both for the new Core 2 Duo models, as well as for users of the previous Core Duo models.
But until then ppl need to just stop whining.
Just because yours was OK doesn't mean every single one was.
Never mind that you can't upgrade your MBP to 4GB RAM like the D820.
Can you actually USE the entire 4gb though? I know there are some manufacturers out there shipping systems with 4gb of memory, but only 3.2gb or so ends up being useful, due to addressing problems with the Intel chipset (and it seems very likely Dell would be using the same chipset as Apple is using in the MBP).
Apple needs to stop forcing its customers to buy premium everything before I'd even consider it. Fanboys need to stop claiming Macs aren't expensive; you're only fooling yourselves.
They do, it's called the MacBook. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to offer the range of products other vendors do (or maybe can't offer the range of products other vendors do). Macs aren't expensive for the equivalent machine, Apple just doesn't happen to offer the equivalent machine in many cases.
In any event, I'd gladly pay a little more to run OS X. I do wish they offered those nice 1920x1200 displays, however.
When did price get into it? The grandparent post only cites the lack of community support for helping get the word out about successes. You rebut with a complaint about cost, which is not relevant to the grand-parent.
OP insinuated that Slashdot running articles like this hurt their sales, by suggesting it's a waste of time. I merely suggested that maybe it's not articles like this on Slashdot (or any other site) that is the problem, it's that they're charging more than other vendors do who sell the same products on competing platforms. Or that they're selling you a game, and then an update for that game - we wouldn't let EA get away with that, why should LGP get away with it?
Regardless, you're getting an OS for free and yet complaining when some applications that can be run on it actually costs something?! That's rather unfair. OSS does not exist just for freeloading. Some people actually make a living off of it by providing value-added support or service. You are complaining about that value added service by the fact that those who make Win32 games available for Linux have to charge something, rather than pay for the entire thing out of pocket and gift it to you.
But these sites aren't related to OSS at all, other than that they supply games for Linux. The games aren't open source or free software. The issue is the same for the Mac, games like Quake 4 still go for $50, which to me doesn't seem fair, either. The games come out later, and cost more than their PC counterparts by the time they are available on both platforms.
The point is that there are some inroads made in Linux gaming---although not perfect. We as a community should at least acknowledge the effort made by those who are trying while simultaneously complaining that more-should-be-done. Otherwise, it sounds like those who are putting effort are being totally ignored.
Articles like this also highlight where improvements need to be made. Unfortunately, the REAL solution is to get the developers to develop for more than one platform. Blizzard may neglect the Linux market, but they've always supported the Mac, and with recent releases they've even done simultaneous shipments for both platforms, with the binaries for both platforms on the same disc. id Software has also been pretty good about supporting both the Mac and Linux. LGP and Tuxgames may do admirable work, but for the majority of users, it's not going to be sufficient - paying 3x the price for the privilege of running something on Linux isn't going to fly.
Yessss and if you had RESEARCHED this properly you would understand. The update we sell is for the LOKI version so that to get support people dont have to pay and get a whole new game. We arent going to support the loki version because a) its not our game, we dont have the source, and b) its not our game. The update is sold so people get a supported game for LESS.
You sell the Loki version on the website, along with the update. Couldn't you bundle the update with the Loki version, and leave the download for others who've already purchased the Loki version?
It does chap my ass that I have to pay for something a decent OS should supply, but it's basically necessary software for me these days, even with dual monitors.
Fret not, young grasshopper, for Apple has answered your prayers.
If the programs that are running in the background when nobody's using it are accessing the hard disk it could greatly increase the chances of drive failure.
It has been my experience that drives have a higher chance of failing when powered on than when they're constantly in use. I've been involved in a few data center power downs, and we'd usually have several machines that'd been running fine fail to boot due to bad hard drives.
Maybe if LGP didn't sell a game for £20.00, then sell an UPDATE for £3.00 which actually doesn't add any new functionality, but merely provides support for that game from LGP and the ability to install future updates, people would be more receptive.
Maybe if Tux Games didn't charge $35 more for Quake IV than Best Buy does for the Windows version, they'd get more sales.
What do you mean by doing "their bit"? Should they keep their mouth shut about the problems they have running the games they want to play, yet shout from the rooftops when something actually IS released that supports Linux? Should they purchase games they don't want, to generate more sales for you, which is really the only thing that's going to entice developers to give your company licenses for more games.
I think most gamers care less about the integrity of their games (can a game even HAVE integrity? wtf?), and more about graphics that don't make their eyes bleed..
PC gamers demand richness and complexity of the game. Console gamers rather deterred by complexity.
Actually, I think most console gamers buy consoles because they have the games they want to play, not because they're "deterred by complexity"
The Wii is definitely a step away from the PC crowd, and you might be able to say the Wii is aiming for users deterred by complexity, but I don't think that's true of consoles in general.
APIs did often change in early releases of OS X. 10.0 and 10.1 were basically the foundations future releases built upon. It took Apple some time to get things stabilized. It wasn't until 10.4 that Apple promised "no API disruption for the foreseeable future." OS 9 to OS X was a huge change, it's really not surprising it took Apple a few releases to nail down API stability.
These folks live in a walled compound, and they're so closed off that they're actually starting to inbreed. No one goes that far as an act.
I dunno, I guess it would depend how hot my cousin was...
I don't think that qualifies as nice looking OR useful :)
Interesting. A suggestion to use IE is modded troll, but a suggestion to use Opera was modded funny.
Yea that's it. And it sucks. Apple has had a tendency to produce devices that look interesting and unique but are less usable in real life. They did it with the Mighty Mouse, and now they are back to this
Any other examples? I haven't used a Mighty Mouse, but plenty of people seem to like them just fine. I can't think of any other nice looking but not especially usable products they've made.
How is a thin strip on the edge of the screen better than a regular touch screen?
I have to agree with this. You can hold an iPod in one hand, and scroll in one continuous motion with your thumb. I don't see how you're supposed to do that with this thing. That said, Apple patents lots of things, some end up being made, some don't.
Interestingly enough, the second generation Nano reverted to the style of the Mini (albeit in the smaller Nano form factor).
Personally, I like the original Nano more than the new aluminum ones..
Agreed. The MacBook (non-Pro) port replicators they have don't seem too bad (though seriously lacking in the aesthetics department), but the MacBook Pro port models are huge. And as you said, the price is outrageous.
The geekpatrol blog you referenced in your post did some MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo benchmarking, and they tested in both 32-bit and 64-bit mode. So it seems to me that they support it.
Because Apple cherry picks the test results they publish on their web site. It seems the 7 times performance improvement claim strictly relates to SPEC benchmarks.
1. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2006 using preproduction MacBook Pro units with Core 2 Duo; MacBook Pro with Core Duo and PowerBook G4 systems were shipping units. *On a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pro, Logic Pro showed a 45% performance improvement, playing 240 reverb plug-ins, compared to 165 reverb plug-ins played on a 2.16GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro. MacBook Pro continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation.
2. Estimated SPECint_rate_base2000 score: 6.6 for 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, 48.4 for 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo system and 34.8 for 2.16GHz Core Duo system. Estimated SPECfp_rate_base2000 score: 4.9 for 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, 37.1 for 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo system and 27.6 for 2.16GHz Core Duo system. SPEC®, SPECfp, and SPECint are registered trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC); see www.spec.org for more information.
* An option for a 7200rpm hard disk (except the "aircraft carrier" model
:)
Apparently, the 160gb (5400 rpm) and 200gb (4200 rpm) drives use PMR. Someone on the forums over at macrumors linked to a benchmark, apparently the 5400 rpm PMR drives are faster than traditional 7200 rpm drives.
* A option for a faster video card
I think the form factor has a lot to do with this. I don't know that they could squeeze an X1700/X1800 or GeForce Go 7800/7900 in the current form factor, and I don't think enough customers would want them to justify the increased size. Really, I don't see such cards being useful for anyone but gamers (is it really going to make that big a different in Final Cut Pro, Motion, or Aperture?), and gamers really should look elsewhere. Really don't know why anyone would want to do serious gaming on a laptop anyway, but that's just me.
* Higher screen resolution
Would definitely like to see this. Leopard is apparently going to support a resolution-independent UI, so you can make the widgets as big or as small as you want. That's just begging for an ultra-high resolution display.
* A docking station
BookEndz makes some port replicators, but they're really not that impressive. I think thats probably the one feature I'd like to see Apple add to the MacBook lines.
* A 12"-ish variant
The MacBook is so close. Discreet graphics are all it needs (though an ExpressCard slot would probably be nice, too). Maybe when Intel's Santa Rosa platform comes out next year.
All that said, I ordered mine, and I can't wait to receive it