Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform.
That's the problem, under optimal conditions the performance IS consistent between the two modems. However, as the signal level starts to drop, the Intel modem's performance drops off a cliff. It's the real-world experience that suffers using Intel modems, not the lab tests.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
Perhaps instead of "cheaping-out", Apple was just trying to hit a Production Target, and sourcing from mulitple suppliers was the only way to do that. I would imagine that both chipsets performed "to spec" in their "alternate source" testing (or else Intel wouldn't have "gotten the sockets" at all; but then, after a few million units started hitting the streets, the real-world performance differences started becoming apparent.
Bottom line: Apple didn't do this "on purpose", or as a "cost-saving-measure"; but rather shopped-around of an alternate source, did due diligence on that source; but then found out that performance in the field was not equal for the two sources.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative; but, having been involved in many industrial embedded product design and production programs, that is actually much more likely than some nefarious or greedy reasons.
Anyone remember the article from a year or two ago, when it was discovered that Apple was sourcing CPUs for its phones from two different manufacturers, and the phones containing CPUs from one source performed marginally better than the phones contain CPUs from the other source?
There was a big to-do, with people trying to figure out which iPhones were "the good ones", and people who had received (or thought they had received) the slower version were complaining and debating whether they ought to return their "inferior" iPhone in order to get one of the "better" ones.
Of course it turned out the difference wasn't really noticeable unless you were specifically benchmarking for it, but the fact that it was detectable at all produced a big (well, medium-sized) scandal and a headache for Apple.
Given that, I'm not at all surprised that Apple now aims for uniform performance across all units of a given model, rather than for best-possible-performance on any given OEM chipset. Uniformity makes everyone happy, whereas an optimal performance will go unnoticed by the people who have it and the people who don't will be pissed off.
It could be pointed out that you think having to connect slow external storage is adequate is a demonstration of consumption of fruity soft drink.
Ignoring the problem of carting around a very expensive TB3 external drive with your more expensive MBP.
Theoretical max transfers of USB-C are 5GB/s, PCIe 2 is 8GB/s and PCIe 3 is 15GB/s.
Real world a fast USB-C is 900MB/s, the PCIe Samsung's SM951 can reads at ~2.2T/s.
(I do find it hilarious that USB-C is faster on commodity hardware then TB3 on Mac)
Fanbois like you are a problem for Apple.
Apple periodically needs a kick in the ass or they will continue to make expensive crap until they are teetering on collapse as has happened before.
So now you switch the topic from "Slow" to "Expensive" then back to "Slow" again.
You do realize, of course, that there is NO WAY that USB-C (which is limited to 10 Gbps) is SLOWER than TB 3 (which is rated at 40 Gbps, or 20 Gbps X 2 Ports per controller/bus). So, unless you are talking about the 2 "TB2-speed" Ports on the right-side of the 13" MBP, my statement stands. If you claim that a USB-C drive is actually slower than a TB3 drive, it's the peripheral, not the computer, that is limiting speed.
And I didn't see a benchmark for TB3 on the Mac, which you claim is so much slower than "USB-C on Commodity Hardware".
Also, don't you Apple-Haters keep saying that Apple just uses "Commodity Hardware" and "Reference Designs" anyway?
Yes they did. It was the only way to hit their Thermal Budget (which was a very good thing!)
I happen to AGREE with the decision to use USB-C/TB3 on the new MBP. Seriously.
Good for you, it would seem that maybe the reason you're so defensive is that you missed the key point that I said first and then also reiterated that I am referring to ***some*** of the market, just like Craig Federighi said "it didn't well suit some of the people we wanted to reach". You understand what that means right?
I most certainly do. In this case, I think those users are actually WRONG. Difference between "perception" and "reality". Those users PERCEIVED that there was some great impediment to using their legacy peripherals with the new MBP, when in the vast majority of cases, there was not. Problem was, the internet whiners got out ahead of Apple, and Apple didn't nip the growing meme in the bud like they should have.
The limited RAM and relatively poor GPU performance means it, like the Mac Pro, doesn't suit well to some of their supposed target market.
The fact is, there are many "peer" laptops released at the same or nearly same time that also had a max. RAM of 16 MB; but nobody seems to target THEM as being "limited RAM".
There is nothing "relatively poor" about the performance of the AMD GPUs. Apple made a design decision to support more/higher-res external displays at the expense of some gaming performance. Many more people use Macs for high-end graphics and monitor-heavy applications like video-editing than they do gaming; so it seems to be a reasonable engineering trade-off for their market.
But again, the internet whiners started trotting out FPS-rates in a few games, and the PERCEPTION got ahead of Apple's ability to reign-in and explain (which they did) their GPU decision. But by the time they got their explanation out, it was drowned in a maelstrom of 12-year-old gamers whining about this week's latest game.
But here is the bottom-line from the linked article above:
"... if pushing two high-end 5K screens at once was a design goal for Apple, AMD was the only way to go."
As for the USB issue it is a small issue but Apple built a reputation on being sleek and efficient rather than having clumsy solutions and they've certainly regressed in that respect.
Now if you like it and can suffer the performance issues and don't mind the clumsiness then great, that's good for you. The fact that it doesn't work well for me is also fine, I'm not sure why you have such a problem accepting that, but I hope they remedy that in the future just like are doing with the Mac Pro.
The "clumsiness" that you mention is only TEMPORARY, and represents a design that is Forward-Thinking, rather than "rooted in the past".
So, Apple gets "dinged" for putting "obsolete" hardware in their designs; but when they put in the latest (laptop) CPU, highest-level External-Display Support (in a laptop), and best I/O Ports for the next 5 years (that are inexpensively and relatively painlessly backward-compatible to most legacy ports), they get hammered for that, too???
So, what's a computer-designer to do? Look back, or look forward.
Apple chose the latter. But it seems that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't...
"I used to think that it was a privilege to serve people who also loved the idea of service, but now I think many members of the free software community are just deeply anti-social types who love to hate on whatever is mainstream."
Mr. Shuttleworth has exactly identified why it will NEVER be the "Year of the Linux Desktop".
Are you really so dependent on the Internet that you can't imagine life without it? Like you'll curl up and die unless you can see and post on Facebook, or play online games, or see the latest memes? If so then I pity you, I don't think you're a survivor, not at all. You'll pay through the nose to your ISP no matter how shitty they treat you, I guess, be sure to enjoy that.
LOL.
I will be 61 next month.
I don't have any social media presence. I think the last time I played a video game was nearly 20 years ago. Email and web surfing are about my speed.
But I was perhaps speaking on behalf of the 21 year olds. Most of them can no more live without the internet than they can live without food.
Unless there is legislation passed that requires you to pay for Internet service, we still have the ability to vote with our dollars. If people stop using the internet because it's just not worth it, they'll have to change or go out of business. It's never too late for the Internet to be 'just a passing fad', if they screw it up bad enough exactly that could happen. In all seriousness, do you really believe that your life would end without the Internet? If you do then you need to re-examine your priorities in life, and that's what I really believe.
Error 53 has to do with replacing the touch sensor. They have encryption built in and can't be moved from one phone to another. You can replace the button itself without a sensor but swapping from a parts phone gives error 53.
I know that. Read the thread. The person above my post started talking about "Touch Disease", which has nothing to do with the Error 53 lawsuit TFA is about.
Real desktops have space for direct storage, external is just t.o.o s.l.o.w.
Apple is going to rape you for that big black dildo shaped piece of mid-level hardware and then you want to be raped again to buy a TB3 (USB-C) drive which is still slower than the cheaper pcie.
"Here's a nickel kid, get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert
If you think a TB3 External SSD is "too slow", then you have amply and clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject.
RAM limits are Intel's fault. They haven't kept up with their own Timeline.
No, other laptops, including ones like the Razer Blade come with 32GB of RAM.
But not QUAD CORE Kaby Lake's. Check again.
Apple chose number and depth of displays over gaming performance with the GPU choice.
There are many things besides gaming that GPUs are used for, in fact Apple are quite invested in projects like OpenCL. Regardless I'm not phased about why they made those decisions.
so it was a smart choice, IMHO.
And if they backflip like they have with the Mac Pro you'll agree with that too.
Sez you.
I simply don't know what you mean by "very little works with it". Very little worked with the USB Ports on the original iMac, too
You say "i don't know what you mean by" and then in the next sentence you use the exact same phrase in the exact same context. I didn't carry my iMac around so adapters weren't a problem.
I don't see why you're so defensive about this, I'm pointing out the problems (and many many people have voiced the same complaints) that it has for my use case. The same thing happened with the Mac Pro and ultimately Apple have listened to their customers. It has shortcomings, you don't have to take it personally and I hope they resolve those.
I happen to AGREE with the decision to use USB-C/TB3 on the new MBP. Seriously.
I have a non-retina 2013 MBP. It has Ethernet, FW800, MiniDP/TB1, 2 USB 3.0, and an SD Slot. (No HDMI though).
I bought it BECAUSE it had the things the 2013 Retina MBP did NOT (namely, FW and an Optical Drive).
So I Get It.
However, I'd trade it in a HEARTBEAT for the 2016 MBP with TouchBar. Why? Because I am smart enough to realize that the 2016's USB-C/TB3 Ports are SO much more Versatile, and the overall Expandability is SO vast, that there is simply no comparison!
I cannot fathom why people get so bent out of shape over an extremely short-lived "problem"; especially when the "fix" is so inexpensive and so readlily available!
The iPad 2 shipped just three weeks shy of one year from when the iPad 1 shipped - nothing unusual about a 1 year upgrade cycle. It initially shipped with iOS 3.2 and continued to receive updates for several years through iOS 5.1.1. The primary reason it did not receive further iOS updates was that there was only 256MB of ram, not enough to run iOS 6 or later.
Wrong.
The iPad 2 was supported to the end of iOS 9, which just happened late 2016. In fact, the iPad 2 on which I am typing this is actually running the last rev. Of iOS 9 (9,3,5, IIRC). That's 5 years of OS Updates, for those who are paying attention.
Performance, especially high-demand performance, is nearly DOUBLE in real-life from the 2015 MBP, thanks to much-improved thermal design and lower-wattage CPU.
I'm not saying things haven't improved, some certainly have but some have not or at least not improved at an appropriate rate which is why I said "some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one". GPU performance is not on par with industry improvements and nor is the RAM situation which means some of the market isn't well served by it and - being in that market segment - I hope they change that because I've been a big fan of the MBP for many years.
Ports: Four identical USB-C/TB 3 Ports with 80 Gbps of raw I/O bandwidth
Yes but very little works with it and getting dongles is a clumsy solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed, especially with Apple products which were well-known for being well integrated and work well with their other products. I like them because they're elegant solutions, not clumsy ones that require adapters to make common things work.
Again I just want to re-iterate this isn't the same for all of their customers, I can certainly see a market segment where these aren't problems at all and maybe that's you and that's fine too.
RAM limits are Intel's fault. They haven't kept up with their own Timeline.
Apple chose number and depth of displays over gaming performance with the GPU choice. Many more people do stuff that can benefit from more displays than do Gaming on Macs; so it was a smart choice, IMHO.
I simply don't know what you mean by "very little works with it". Very little worked with the USB Ports on the original iMac, too (even though Wintel motherboards actually had USB Ports a couple of years before the first iMac). But fast-forward about a year and a half, and USB peripherals were EVERYWHERE. But unlike trying to get a serial or parallel printer to work with that USB Port Was REALLY hard, getting your USB-A thingy to work with the MBP's USB-C Port is completely trivial.BIG difference!
The touch disease is flashing grey bars at the top of the screen and the screen stops responding while this is going on. Flexing the phone slightly makes it go away.
I thought TFS mentioned "53". What does the "touch disease" (a/k/a "de-balling", which many other devices have also suffered from) have to do with Error 53?
And if an end user breaks the home button and knows their PIN (which is more secure than a fingerprint), then they should be able to replace that. Apple put that roadblock end only for their own bottom line.
Meanwhile, I'm still rocking a GeForce 7950GTX. Yeah, the newest game I've played is Portal. 1. I'm sure I'll get back to gaming some day -- the Bio Shock games look amazing to me (and I'm sure there are even newer, better games than those). But, right now in life, it just hasn't seemed as important or interesting as it used to.
Translation: I discovered that sex was something I could have with people OTHER than myself.
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149. Of course you get a refurbished board and minimal warranty. Apple cheapened up the phone and didn't solder a metal shield to the board that reinforced against flexing. Now they used some foil tape as a shield. However 3rd party companies will fix it the right way, reflow the chip and solder on a shield. They even offer a better warranty than Apple!
This wasn't that. Error 53 is the "Unrecognized Touch ID" error, from changing the Home Button. And it is fully intentional as an anti-theft/anti-breaking-in deterrent.
They aren't broke. They are designed to work that way, so we can't fix them.
Wrong. It's a Security Feature.
Error 53 is what happens when you don't transfer the Home button from an original display/digitizer assembly to the new digitizer/display assembly, and cause a mismatch between the serial number for the home button's controller that is written to the SoC at product manufacture. Apple can reconcile that; but won't, for obvious reasons (because someone could then steal your phone, replace the Home button which has THEIR fingerprint stored in it, and then break into your phone.
Sorry some poeple get caught up innocently by repair shops that don't bother to read the ENTIRE ifixit article, that explains why you have to transfer the Home button to a new display assembly.
Apple Ink's user license agreement has nothing to do with ownership.
Apple Ink does not confer ownership of any of its products. Apple Ink retains ownership of all its products after sell. The buyer only buys the user license agreement document, nothing more.
Therefore, if Apple Ink does not want to fix a product, it is well within its ownership of the product to do nothing.
Same reason as the Mac Pro: mistakes were made (particularly re: specifications and ports) that mean some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one. The Macbook Pro traditionally compared well in terms of performance to other available highend notebooks, the new one does not, particularly with respect to RAM and GPU.
Hopefully they remedy this and the next Macbook Pro is again a high performance machine.
Still not with you on that.
Performance, especially high-demand performance, is nearly DOUBLE in real-life from the 2015 MBP, thanks to much-improved thermal design and lower-wattage CPU.
SSD performance is through the roof. Fastest, or among the fastest, on the market, partly due to Apple's own SSD controller. Nearly DOUBLE the speed of the 2015 MBP.
Ports: Four identical USB-C/TB 3 Ports with 80 Gbps of raw I/O bandwidth (more than even the 2013 Mac Pro) give the 2016 MBP the highest expandability of ANY laptop. Get over it and buy some $2 passive USB-A to USB-C adapters or replace your USB-A to USB-B Cables with USB-A to USB-C cables for about $4 per cable. Done. Now, was that so hard? In a couple of years, when EVERYTHING (or nearly so) has transitioned to USB-C, you'd be in the same boat; but in the other direction, if Apple had put USB-A connectors on the MBP.
GNOME 3, while awful, has been the least of my problems with 'modern' Linux. Weird problems with systemd often prevent my Linux system from booting far enough to even get to a login prompt. I'd switch to a different distro, but all of the major ones now use systemd. I don't want to use an archaic distro like Slackware, or a niche distro like Devuan, or a weird one like Gentoo. So recently I've been using NetBSD and really liking it. I don't know if I even want to go back to Linux.
"1. Fastest SSD. Not my benchmark [9to5mac.com]; but, BTW, where's yours?"
http://i.imgur.com/wZ0cjjt.png - you dare compare a laptop to anything I have and it will stomp the shit out of your CRAPPLE any day.
And there's still room for expansion in that configuration, too.
Hardly a fair comparison; since that is NOT a laptop, and costs as much as a cheap house! A Cray can outperform any Dell, too; but what's the point? You're just grandstanding. NO Laptop, not even a Sager, has that much crap in it. It simply wouldn't fit. Try again. And if you claim that really IS in your Sager, then I want the model number.
"80 Gbps of raw I/O"
Dude, I have THAT MANY LANES OF PCI-E 3.0 per motherboard (of which there are 4 in that config.)
Again, what's your point? You're comparing a LAPTOP to some sort of monstrosity that dims the lights when you power it on! FFS!!!
"Sorry, the new MBP DOESN'T even GET to the thermal limits. According to multiple reviews [notebookcheck.net], Both the CPU and GPU run flat-out 100% duty cycle 24/7. They really did fix it. Try again, Slashtard."
As I look at three brand-fucking new ones, dead from overheating/deballing of the SoC, which I'm being paid to repair. Try again, oh ye who has no Apple repair certification.
Now I KNOW you're lying! What "SoC" would you be talking about in a MacBook Pro? The TouchBar controller? And why would YOU be working on a has-to-be-under-warranty 2016 MBP? These days, Apple wouldn't pay Depot Repair for an under-warranty unit. It would go straight back to Apple. They have all-but killed-off "Certified Repair" centers for Apple stuff.
And I may not have an Apple Repair Cert.; but I have certainly done my time on electronic repair benches, before I got a better job.
Most of that weight is battery, and modern GPUs barely use all that much power, so much that nVidia dropped any distinction between desktop and mobile - all nvidia mobile GPUs are desktop-GPUs now, since you've had your head in the sand for about five months or so.
Who cares what the weight is from. It's still a LUGGABLE.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform.
That's the problem, under optimal conditions the performance IS consistent between the two modems. However, as the signal level starts to drop, the Intel modem's performance drops off a cliff. It's the real-world experience that suffers using Intel modems, not the lab tests.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
Perhaps instead of "cheaping-out", Apple was just trying to hit a Production Target, and sourcing from mulitple suppliers was the only way to do that. I would imagine that both chipsets performed "to spec" in their "alternate source" testing (or else Intel wouldn't have "gotten the sockets" at all; but then, after a few million units started hitting the streets, the real-world performance differences started becoming apparent.
Bottom line: Apple didn't do this "on purpose", or as a "cost-saving-measure"; but rather shopped-around of an alternate source, did due diligence on that source; but then found out that performance in the field was not equal for the two sources.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative; but, having been involved in many industrial embedded product design and production programs, that is actually much more likely than some nefarious or greedy reasons.
Anyone remember the article from a year or two ago, when it was discovered that Apple was sourcing CPUs for its phones from two different manufacturers, and the phones containing CPUs from one source performed marginally better than the phones contain CPUs from the other source?
There was a big to-do, with people trying to figure out which iPhones were "the good ones", and people who had received (or thought they had received) the slower version were complaining and debating whether they ought to return their "inferior" iPhone in order to get one of the "better" ones.
Of course it turned out the difference wasn't really noticeable unless you were specifically benchmarking for it, but the fact that it was detectable at all produced a big (well, medium-sized) scandal and a headache for Apple.
Given that, I'm not at all surprised that Apple now aims for uniform performance across all units of a given model, rather than for best-possible-performance on any given OEM chipset. Uniformity makes everyone happy, whereas an optimal performance will go unnoticed by the people who have it and the people who don't will be pissed off.
Exactly. You have hit the nail on the head!
It could be pointed out that you think having to connect slow external storage is adequate is a demonstration of consumption of fruity soft drink.
Ignoring the problem of carting around a very expensive TB3 external drive with your more expensive MBP.
Theoretical max transfers of USB-C are 5GB/s, PCIe 2 is 8GB/s and PCIe 3 is 15GB/s.
Real world a fast USB-C is 900MB/s, the PCIe Samsung's SM951 can reads at ~2.2T/s.
(I do find it hilarious that USB-C is faster on commodity hardware then TB3 on Mac)
Fanbois like you are a problem for Apple.
Apple periodically needs a kick in the ass or they will continue to make expensive crap until they are teetering on collapse as has happened before.
So now you switch the topic from "Slow" to "Expensive" then back to "Slow" again.
You do realize, of course, that there is NO WAY that USB-C (which is limited to 10 Gbps) is SLOWER than TB 3 (which is rated at 40 Gbps, or 20 Gbps X 2 Ports per controller/bus). So, unless you are talking about the 2 "TB2-speed" Ports on the right-side of the 13" MBP, my statement stands. If you claim that a USB-C drive is actually slower than a TB3 drive, it's the peripheral, not the computer, that is limiting speed.
And I didn't see a benchmark for TB3 on the Mac, which you claim is so much slower than "USB-C on Commodity Hardware".
Also, don't you Apple-Haters keep saying that Apple just uses "Commodity Hardware" and "Reference Designs" anyway?
Can't have it both ways, Haters...
But not QUAD CORE Kaby Lake's. Check again.
They didn't have to use kaby lake.
Yes they did. It was the only way to hit their Thermal Budget (which was a very good thing!)
I happen to AGREE with the decision to use USB-C/TB3 on the new MBP. Seriously.
Good for you, it would seem that maybe the reason you're so defensive is that you missed the key point that I said first and then also reiterated that I am referring to ***some*** of the market, just like Craig Federighi said "it didn't well suit some of the people we wanted to reach". You understand what that means right?
I most certainly do. In this case, I think those users are actually WRONG. Difference between "perception" and "reality". Those users PERCEIVED that there was some great impediment to using their legacy peripherals with the new MBP, when in the vast majority of cases, there was not. Problem was, the internet whiners got out ahead of Apple, and Apple didn't nip the growing meme in the bud like they should have.
The limited RAM and relatively poor GPU performance means it, like the Mac Pro, doesn't suit well to some of their supposed target market.
The fact is, there are many "peer" laptops released at the same or nearly same time that also had a max. RAM of 16 MB; but nobody seems to target THEM as being "limited RAM".
There is nothing "relatively poor" about the performance of the AMD GPUs. Apple made a design decision to support more/higher-res external displays at the expense of some gaming performance. Many more people use Macs for high-end graphics and monitor-heavy applications like video-editing than they do gaming; so it seems to be a reasonable engineering trade-off for their market.
But again, the internet whiners started trotting out FPS-rates in a few games, and the PERCEPTION got ahead of Apple's ability to reign-in and explain (which they did) their GPU decision. But by the time they got their explanation out, it was drowned in a maelstrom of 12-year-old gamers whining about this week's latest game.
But here is the bottom-line from the linked article above:
"... if pushing two high-end 5K screens at once was a design goal for Apple, AMD was the only way to go."
As for the USB issue it is a small issue but Apple built a reputation on being sleek and efficient rather than having clumsy solutions and they've certainly regressed in that respect.
Now if you like it and can suffer the performance issues and don't mind the clumsiness then great, that's good for you. The fact that it doesn't work well for me is also fine, I'm not sure why you have such a problem accepting that, but I hope they remedy that in the future just like are doing with the Mac Pro.
The "clumsiness" that you mention is only TEMPORARY, and represents a design that is Forward-Thinking, rather than "rooted in the past".
So, Apple gets "dinged" for putting "obsolete" hardware in their designs; but when they put in the latest (laptop) CPU, highest-level External-Display Support (in a laptop), and best I/O Ports for the next 5 years (that are inexpensively and relatively painlessly backward-compatible to most legacy ports), they get hammered for that, too???
So, what's a computer-designer to do? Look back, or look forward.
Apple chose the latter. But it seems that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't...
"I used to think that it was a privilege to serve people who also loved the idea of service, but now I think many members of the free software community are just deeply anti-social types who love to hate on whatever is mainstream."
Mr. Shuttleworth has exactly identified why it will NEVER be the "Year of the Linux Desktop".
Trolololol.
You must be lost, friend, here, let me redirect you back to where you belong: http://www.4chan.net/b
Sorry. Never been there. But thanks for ASSuming.
I'm more likely to visit
http://www.aarp.org/
But not really that, either. Just the right and group...
You must be under 30. Perhaps even under 21.
Are you really so dependent on the Internet that you can't imagine life without it? Like you'll curl up and die unless you can see and post on Facebook, or play online games, or see the latest memes? If so then I pity you, I don't think you're a survivor, not at all. You'll pay through the nose to your ISP no matter how shitty they treat you, I guess, be sure to enjoy that.
LOL.
I will be 61 next month.
I don't have any social media presence. I think the last time I played a video game was nearly 20 years ago. Email and web surfing are about my speed.
But I was perhaps speaking on behalf of the 21 year olds. Most of them can no more live without the internet than they can live without food.
Unless there is legislation passed that requires you to pay for Internet service, we still have the ability to vote with our dollars. If people stop using the internet because it's just not worth it, they'll have to change or go out of business. It's never too late for the Internet to be 'just a passing fad', if they screw it up bad enough exactly that could happen. In all seriousness, do you really believe that your life would end without the Internet? If you do then you need to re-examine your priorities in life, and that's what I really believe.
Do you really believe your own bullshit?
I don't know about anyone else, but if it comes to that, I'll start thinking seriously about skipping Internet completely,
Sure you will.
Error 53 has to do with replacing the touch sensor. They have encryption built in and can't be moved from one phone to another. You can replace the button itself without a sensor but swapping from a parts phone gives error 53.
I know that. Read the thread. The person above my post started talking about "Touch Disease", which has nothing to do with the Error 53 lawsuit TFA is about.
Which is what I was pointing-out.
Poor desperate fanboi,
Real desktops have space for direct storage, external is just t.o.o s.l.o.w.
Apple is going to rape you for that big black dildo shaped piece of mid-level hardware and then you want to be raped again to buy a TB3 (USB-C) drive which is still slower than the cheaper pcie.
"Here's a nickel kid, get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert
If you think a TB3 External SSD is "too slow", then you have amply and clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Good day.
Great argument.
It is the only one needed.
RAM limits are Intel's fault. They haven't kept up with their own Timeline.
No, other laptops, including ones like the Razer Blade come with 32GB of RAM.
But not QUAD CORE Kaby Lake's. Check again.
Apple chose number and depth of displays over gaming performance with the GPU choice.
There are many things besides gaming that GPUs are used for, in fact Apple are quite invested in projects like OpenCL. Regardless I'm not phased about why they made those decisions.
so it was a smart choice, IMHO.
And if they backflip like they have with the Mac Pro you'll agree with that too.
Sez you.
I simply don't know what you mean by "very little works with it". Very little worked with the USB Ports on the original iMac, too
You say "i don't know what you mean by" and then in the next sentence you use the exact same phrase in the exact same context. I didn't carry my iMac around so adapters weren't a problem.
I don't see why you're so defensive about this, I'm pointing out the problems (and many many people have voiced the same complaints) that it has for my use case. The same thing happened with the Mac Pro and ultimately Apple have listened to their customers. It has shortcomings, you don't have to take it personally and I hope they resolve those.
I happen to AGREE with the decision to use USB-C/TB3 on the new MBP. Seriously.
I have a non-retina 2013 MBP. It has Ethernet, FW800, MiniDP/TB1, 2 USB 3.0, and an SD Slot. (No HDMI though).
I bought it BECAUSE it had the things the 2013 Retina MBP did NOT (namely, FW and an Optical Drive).
So I Get It.
However, I'd trade it in a HEARTBEAT for the 2016 MBP with TouchBar. Why? Because I am smart enough to realize that the 2016's USB-C/TB3 Ports are SO much more Versatile, and the overall Expandability is SO vast, that there is simply no comparison!
I cannot fathom why people get so bent out of shape over an extremely short-lived "problem"; especially when the "fix" is so inexpensive and so readlily available!
The iPad 2 shipped just three weeks shy of one year from when the iPad 1 shipped - nothing unusual about a 1 year upgrade cycle. It initially shipped with iOS 3.2 and continued to receive updates for several years through iOS 5.1.1. The primary reason it did not receive further iOS updates was that there was only 256MB of ram, not enough to run iOS 6 or later.
Wrong.
The iPad 2 was supported to the end of iOS 9, which just happened late 2016. In fact, the iPad 2 on which I am typing this is actually running the last rev. Of iOS 9 (9,3,5, IIRC). That's 5 years of OS Updates, for those who are paying attention.
Still not with you on that.
Performance, especially high-demand performance, is nearly DOUBLE in real-life from the 2015 MBP, thanks to much-improved thermal design and lower-wattage CPU.
I'm not saying things haven't improved, some certainly have but some have not or at least not improved at an appropriate rate which is why I said "some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one". GPU performance is not on par with industry improvements and nor is the RAM situation which means some of the market isn't well served by it and - being in that market segment - I hope they change that because I've been a big fan of the MBP for many years.
Ports: Four identical USB-C/TB 3 Ports with 80 Gbps of raw I/O bandwidth
Yes but very little works with it and getting dongles is a clumsy solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed, especially with Apple products which were well-known for being well integrated and work well with their other products. I like them because they're elegant solutions, not clumsy ones that require adapters to make common things work.
Again I just want to re-iterate this isn't the same for all of their customers, I can certainly see a market segment where these aren't problems at all and maybe that's you and that's fine too.
RAM limits are Intel's fault. They haven't kept up with their own Timeline.
Apple chose number and depth of displays over gaming performance with the GPU choice. Many more people do stuff that can benefit from more displays than do Gaming on Macs; so it was a smart choice, IMHO.
I simply don't know what you mean by "very little works with it". Very little worked with the USB Ports on the original iMac, too (even though Wintel motherboards actually had USB Ports a couple of years before the first iMac). But fast-forward about a year and a half, and USB peripherals were EVERYWHERE. But unlike trying to get a serial or parallel printer to work with that USB Port Was REALLY hard, getting your USB-A thingy to work with the MBP's USB-C Port is completely trivial.BIG difference!
The touch disease is flashing grey bars at the top of the screen and the screen stops responding while this is going on. Flexing the phone slightly makes it go away.
I thought TFS mentioned "53". What does the "touch disease" (a/k/a "de-balling", which many other devices have also suffered from) have to do with Error 53?
And if an end user breaks the home button and knows their PIN (which is more secure than a fingerprint), then they should be able to replace that. Apple put that roadblock end only for their own bottom line.
Bullshit.
Meanwhile, I'm still rocking a GeForce 7950GTX. Yeah, the newest game I've played is Portal. 1. I'm sure I'll get back to gaming some day -- the Bio Shock games look amazing to me (and I'm sure there are even newer, better games than those). But, right now in life, it just hasn't seemed as important or interesting as it used to.
Translation: I discovered that sex was something I could have with people OTHER than myself.
If your phone has the "touch disease" Apple will admit its their fault and fix it for you for $149. Of course you get a refurbished board and minimal warranty. Apple cheapened up the phone and didn't solder a metal shield to the board that reinforced against flexing. Now they used some foil tape as a shield. However 3rd party companies will fix it the right way, reflow the chip and solder on a shield. They even offer a better warranty than Apple!
This wasn't that. Error 53 is the "Unrecognized Touch ID" error, from changing the Home Button. And it is fully intentional as an anti-theft/anti-breaking-in deterrent.
They aren't broke. They are designed to work that way, so we can't fix them.
Wrong. It's a Security Feature.
Error 53 is what happens when you don't transfer the Home button from an original display/digitizer assembly to the new digitizer/display assembly, and cause a mismatch between the serial number for the home button's controller that is written to the SoC at product manufacture. Apple can reconcile that; but won't, for obvious reasons (because someone could then steal your phone, replace the Home button which has THEIR fingerprint stored in it, and then break into your phone.
Sorry some poeple get caught up innocently by repair shops that don't bother to read the ENTIRE ifixit article, that explains why you have to transfer the Home button to a new display assembly.
Apple Ink's user license agreement has nothing to do with ownership.
Apple Ink does not confer ownership of any of its products. Apple Ink retains ownership of all its products after sell. The buyer only buys the user license agreement document, nothing more.
Therefore, if Apple Ink does not want to fix a product, it is well within its ownership of the product to do nothing.
Ha ha
Prove it.
Case law says otherwise.
Same reason as the Mac Pro: mistakes were made (particularly re: specifications and ports) that mean some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one. The Macbook Pro traditionally compared well in terms of performance to other available highend notebooks, the new one does not, particularly with respect to RAM and GPU.
Hopefully they remedy this and the next Macbook Pro is again a high performance machine.
Still not with you on that.
Performance, especially high-demand performance, is nearly DOUBLE in real-life from the 2015 MBP, thanks to much-improved thermal design and lower-wattage CPU.
SSD performance is through the roof. Fastest, or among the fastest, on the market, partly due to Apple's own SSD controller. Nearly DOUBLE the speed of the 2015 MBP.
Ports: Four identical USB-C/TB 3 Ports with 80 Gbps of raw I/O bandwidth (more than even the 2013 Mac Pro) give the 2016 MBP the highest expandability of ANY laptop. Get over it and buy some $2 passive USB-A to USB-C adapters or replace your USB-A to USB-B Cables with USB-A to USB-C cables for about $4 per cable. Done. Now, was that so hard? In a couple of years, when EVERYTHING (or nearly so) has transitioned to USB-C, you'd be in the same boat; but in the other direction, if Apple had put USB-A connectors on the MBP.
GNOME 3, while awful, has been the least of my problems with 'modern' Linux. Weird problems with systemd often prevent my Linux system from booting far enough to even get to a login prompt. I'd switch to a different distro, but all of the major ones now use systemd. I don't want to use an archaic distro like Slackware, or a niche distro like Devuan, or a weird one like Gentoo. So recently I've been using NetBSD and really liking it. I don't know if I even want to go back to Linux.
Hmmm. Howabout macOS?
"1. Fastest SSD. Not my benchmark [9to5mac.com]; but, BTW, where's yours?"
http://i.imgur.com/wZ0cjjt.png - you dare compare a laptop to anything I have and it will stomp the shit out of your CRAPPLE any day.
And there's still room for expansion in that configuration, too.
Hardly a fair comparison; since that is NOT a laptop, and costs as much as a cheap house! A Cray can outperform any Dell, too; but what's the point? You're just grandstanding. NO Laptop, not even a Sager, has that much crap in it. It simply wouldn't fit. Try again. And if you claim that really IS in your Sager, then I want the model number.
"80 Gbps of raw I/O"
Dude, I have THAT MANY LANES OF PCI-E 3.0 per motherboard (of which there are 4 in that config.)
Again, what's your point? You're comparing a LAPTOP to some sort of monstrosity that dims the lights when you power it on! FFS!!!
"Sorry, the new MBP DOESN'T even GET to the thermal limits. According to multiple reviews [notebookcheck.net], Both the CPU and GPU run flat-out 100% duty cycle 24/7. They really did fix it. Try again, Slashtard."
As I look at three brand-fucking new ones, dead from overheating/deballing of the SoC, which I'm being paid to repair. Try again, oh ye who has no Apple repair certification.
Now I KNOW you're lying! What "SoC" would you be talking about in a MacBook Pro? The TouchBar controller? And why would YOU be working on a has-to-be-under-warranty 2016 MBP? These days, Apple wouldn't pay Depot Repair for an under-warranty unit. It would go straight back to Apple. They have all-but killed-off "Certified Repair" centers for Apple stuff.
And I may not have an Apple Repair Cert.; but I have certainly done my time on electronic repair benches, before I got a better job.
Most of that weight is battery, and modern GPUs barely use all that much power, so much that nVidia dropped any distinction between desktop and mobile - all nvidia mobile GPUs are desktop-GPUs now, since you've had your head in the sand for about five months or so.
Who cares what the weight is from. It's still a LUGGABLE.
Hopefully they have the 'courage' to admit the same thing about the new Macbook Pros.
But why would they need to?