Oh, by "current Macbook", I thought you meant the ones that came out (which are *technically* current, in that you can purchase them). Yes, the ones based on the 2012 refresh are quite fairly characterized as four year old hardware, even though that does ignore hardware such as the CPU and other parts that get refreshed yearly. Apple does that with a lot of their hardware.
The link to wikipedia is interesting, but calling it a "glorified i3" doesn't make too much sense. The "i3/i5/i7" don't have any actual meanings- they are garbagebutt marketsquawk.
And a copypasta from my post, with one minor correction: 13" Cheap Model, with TDP 15W: base: 2 core i5-6360U @ 2.0GHz single core boost to 3.1GHz with Iris 540, (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) high end: 2 core i7-6660U @ 2.4GHz single core boost to 3.4GHz with Iris 540 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) 13" Spensy Model, with TDP 28W: base: 2 core i5-6267U @ 2.9GHz single core boost to 3.3GHz with Iris 550 (listed an unreleased on wikipedia) midline: 2 core i5-6287U @ 3.1GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) high end: 2 core i7-6567U @ 3.3GHz single core boost to 3.6GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
15" models all have TDP 35W chips. 15" 256 GB model base: 4 core i7-6700HQ @ 2.6GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia) 15" 512 GB model base: 4 core i7-6820HQ @ 2.7GHz single core boost up to 3.6GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia) Both model high end: 4 core i7-6920HQ @ 2.9GHz single core boost up to 3.8GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
My point is, when you talk about the low end 6360U, you are talking about something on their $1500 machine. When you talk about a $2700 machine, you are talking about at least a 6700HQ, which is a four core chip with hyperthreading. You can't mix and match those things to better complain- the top end 15" has pretty much the best x86 laptop chip, and the low end 13" does not have that.
I was going to say it isn't really news- but it sort of is. The new part is that Apple is using their stance as a defense in emails to powerful people. The old part is that (a) Apple has metadata that is available to them and (b) Apple shares everything that they can with any government that asks. Apple will deliver, when given a lawful order, metadata, anything that isn't encrypted, and anything that they can decrypt. This includes everything in icloud.
This should, frankly, not be a surprise, but if you just glanced at the stories from last year, you'd be forgiven for thinking that. If you instead looked at the documents that Apple provides for law enforcement ( https://www.apple.com/legal/pr... ), or law enforcements own documents (which I can't easily google at the moment, but they are out there), you'll see that Apple basically hands over every single thing, every single time. For the older phones that weren't encrypted with a user key, they would unlock the entire phone. Every thing that they are technically capable of unlocking, they do. Since forever!
I also doubt they are in any way unique in this. It *is* the law, after all. It's also probably a big part of why Apple has added more and more user-only accessible parts to their phone, such as encrypting it in such a way that they can't read it (the phone itself, iMessage). Meanwhile, every piece of metadata is duly handed over, as they have access to that.
Basically, this is only a surprise if you didn't ever bother to look into it much, which, I mean, not everyone would. The new part is the email where they defend themselves to the Clinton campaign.
Most of the F-35 stories are moderately garbage, usually able to be traced back to someone with an axe to grind. See: any of the stuff about dogfighting tests. Then read a bit more and find out what conditions they were held under, how many OTHER tests are left out (4v4, etc), and check out who wrote the original thing, and which pieces they cherry picked.
The A-10 complaints, however, are not like this. The A-10 is beloved by many whose lives depend on it, and seems to have capabilities that the F-35 does not, at least according to the fiery defenders you find on the net (who I don't see reason to doubt). I will not be surprised if some of the A-10 missions are rightfully replaced by F-35s. I would be surprised if they ALL were, however. The original desire for scrapping the A-10 came from excellent F-35 performance on some air force tests (and a desire to save money long term), but that seems unlikely to apply to every A-10 mission.
When you have a bunch of infantry bitching about something, it is probably worth listening to the bitching. And they seem to love the A-10. I mean, that seems pretty compelling.
You aren't backing up your absurd statements with data. Do you really want me to refute your "2012" claims? You have multiple generations of processors between now and then, the RAM in question wasn't used in 2012, you couldn't even get this level of graphics processing in a laptop, USB-C was years away still, etc.
You own a "dual core hyperthreaded" that appears to be a Haswell i3. The lowest end macbook pro is faster than that by a lot, and costs 1500 bucks. That's a lot, but you are constantly comparing it to the 2500+ models, which have a quad core chip that is near top of the line for macbooks, and is roughly twice as fast as yours. What's the story on virtualization tech on these chips and BIOSes? I'm not sure.
Apple didn't "lose". You can look up the specs. Like normal, you could buy a similarly specced laptop that is NOT Apple, for less money. That's been the case since forever. These are just more mac laptops man, and they are faster than the other mac laptops.
Please post the cpuinfo of the Haswell chip you own. I suspect that we will find a discrepancy with this claim, based on the other post you made. The low end Surface Pro 3 you mention has a 1.5 GHz chip branded as i3, and none of the macbook pros have that.
The low end 15" costs 2400 bucks and has a "Radeon Pro 450". The high end 15" costs 2800 bucks and has a "Radeon Pro 455". Both can be upgraded to the "Radeon Pro 460". You are correct about the "1 teraflop" in the low end one. I don't *think* you can straight compare to the desktop RX cards, and I don't *think* that teraflops is the best metric (especially when comparing to consoles). That being said, it is absolutely clear that these are not super powerful cards, and are not all that powerful when compared with what you can jam in an alienware or other top branded system. It's also clear that Apple made a bunch of choices based on battery life, and also that by not competing in the 17" laptop category, they are kind of telling you what to expect.
> Only a dual core skylae? You're kidding for a $2700 system?
Not sure what you mean. The 2400 dollar and 2800 dollar system both have quad core skylakes. They have the Radeon 450 or 455 (or 460 for more money).
> The CPU is terrible too. For a reference I own the haswell version of this chip on my Surface Pro 3
I'm a little less than certain that you know what you are talking about here, given the above mistakes. But, here's the surface pro 3 page: https://www.microsoftstore.com...
The "799" option may be the 850 one you are talking about (the other options are all more than 850, and you say you paid that much, meaning probably with tax?). It has a "Intel Core i3 - 1.5GHz". That's much slower than the one in the cheap version of the 13" macbook. It isn't the equivalent of the price point you are talking about, and isn't the equivalent of anything Apple is talking about, as far as I can tell.
Basically, your post at LEAST is counting the premium macbook pro prices ("$2700 system") with the low end macbook pro components ("dual core skylake", "haswell version"), and may have even more errors.
> the escape key is gone for VIM and Emacs
The escape key is present unless the application overrides it. Why would vim and emacs override the default escape key? The bar defaults to normal keyboard buttons, and changes based on the application. It should run console stuff A-ok. I'd me more concerned about it not behaving properly in Linux or Windows, but it is very likely that it either has sensible hardware defaults or drivers- but that's still a risk if you wanted to dual boot, until someone checks it out.
> Apple dropped the bomb big time and should have waited and used 32 gig dimms
Remember that they update these things every year, and not on Intel's schedule. The last Macbook Pros used a mix of broadwell and haswell, the year before that was all haswell, etc. That means that next year will have whatever is out when they do their refresh, which will probably be kabylake, and it might have the new RAM type by then. Basically, if you have a use case for a laptop with 32 gigs of RAM, dude, you're getting a Dell. Or an anything but an Apple. Or waiting until next year.
Apple fans (their actual paying audience) are spending most of their time complaining about the four USB-C ports, but you can at least defend that decision from a technical perspective, even if it does mean that everyone will have a little pouch of dongles to carry with them for the next four to eight years. Some are also distressed about the 32 gigs of RAM, but I think some of that is bleed over from the Mac Pro being very suspicious in its age.
Yea, it's the 6660U. The G was a typo. G and U are nowhere close to each other on my keyboard, so no clue how that happened.
I mention the possibility of shoving a Kabylake into the low end, along with some theories as to why they would not (it could require different chipset and testing, it lacks the top end graphics option), and yea, marketing could be a part as well. But if there are valid technical reasons that we can see, there's probably more that Apple can see.
> Apple only really cares about the immensely profitable iOS devices.
I mean, they care, but their entire Mac division is like a 40th of their phone division, and tech on their phones also goes into their tablets at a very high rate. There's also a lot less difference between an iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus when compared to, say, a Macbook Pro and an iMac. The combination of Macbook (regular or "Air"), Macbook Pro, iMac, and almost-abandoned Mac Pro all together add up to be the Mac division as well, whereas the phones are just doing all that sales on a couple models that are almost the same. That doesn't mean they don't care, but it does mean that they aren't as motivated to take risks. Even with all the negative feedback about USB-C, you really CAN convert USB-C to pretty much anything, it's a very high bandwidth port, so there's a good chance that their decision to switch to that for a body that they will keep for four years is actually designed to be prescient. Plus, they kept the 3.5mm jack instead of blowing smoke up everyone's ass about it. The Macbook Pro they announced is basically "the most powerful components we could buy and integrate and sell at a premium", which is kind of what Apple does for most of their machines- their chips are effectively top of the line.
As to the release dates- I had a hard time finding them in other notebooks or laptops (or *anywhere*) when I looked. ark is a great resource, but I normally try poking around other places to be sure it was actually released as in, exists in the market.
Apple also released a Skylake last year, in the iMac. I haven't heard of such problems (though possible they exist, I think I'd have seen people flipping their shit). These are new Skylakes, of course, and were not available last year.
> They could wait 6 more months and create a modern notebook.
But why? The latest Macbook Pros had Broadwell and Haswell. It's not unreasonable for the 2016 models to have Skylake. Next year's refresh will probably have Kabylake, or Cannonlake, depending entirely on what exists for their needed spread of things. They refresh every year, going to whatever processor is best. Why delay for half a year to match Intel's (ever changing) cycle?
From what I can tell (I don't think Apple has given us the chip numbers), it goes like this:
(remember that "i7" and "i5" don't have meanings- they are just marketing garble, and don't, for instance specify the difference between hyperthreading and non-hyperthreading, or two and four cores: all of these chips have hyperthreading)
13" Cheap Model, with TDP 15W: base: 2 core i5-6360U @ 2.0GHz single core boost to 3.1GHz with Iris 540, (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) high end: 2 core i7-6660G @ 2.4GHz single core boost to 3.4GHz with Iris 540 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) 13" Spensy Model, with TDP 28W: base: 2 core i5-6267U @ 2.9GHz single core boost to 3.3GHz with Iris 550 (listed an unreleased on wikipedia) midline: 2 core i5-6287U @ 3.1GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia) high end: 2 core i7-6567U @ 3.3GHz single core boost to 3.6GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
In this case, all of the high end models have Iris Pro 550, and all of the low end models have Iris Pro 540. Intel's actual highest listed Iris Pro models are Iris Pro 580, but all of those are on chips that are either pretty expensive, have a higher TDP, or both.
Meanwhile, the 15" laptops all have Radeon graphics cards in them. These have chips that offer more processing power, but less graphics power (with the obvious assumption that the Radeon graphics will be used for that purpose).
15" models all have TDP 35W chips. 15" 256 GB model base: 4 core i7-6700HQ @ 2.6GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia) 15" 512 GB model base: 4 core i7-6820HQ @ 2.7GHz single core boost up to 3.6GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia) Both model high end: 4 core i7-6920HQ @ 2.9GHz single core boost up to 3.8GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
These models are all generally more capable than similar models released earlier. It is likely that Intel and Apple actually reached an agreement via branding and capability on these: it is likely not a coincidence that Intel happened to have highly compatible i5/i7 branding for each step of Apple's needs, for instance.
Regardless, I've seen folks pointing out that Apple really IS using the best Intel chips available on social media, including doing it myself some, as people were all 'muh kaybee layke?' over the last day. These chips are a mix of hyperthreaded 2 core chips with Iris 540 or Iris 550 (on the 13 inch) and hyperthreaded 4 core chips with the lesser HD 530 (on the 15 inch). Meanwhile, the only Kabylake that looks like it could be show up to this party at all is the 7500U, a 15W chip with 2 cores, going from 2.7GHz base to 3.5GHz single threaded boost with HD 620. This chip could maybe have sat in over the cheap model (it costs more though), would require just that one model to be designed and tested around Kabylake stuff, and wouldn't have the Iris graphics (and doesn't have a graphics card). Intel certainly doesn't have the Kabylakes needed to fit their intended build case.
Who cares? The point isn't the battery life. The point is that if you are looking at the "nearest competitor", they do, in fact, offer 32 GB of RAM. I'd be surprised if Apple fucked up battery life, or that the interviewee was incorrect about his reasoning. But claiming that Apple's competitors don't go up to 32 GB, which is what the post I replied to was saying, is bullshit.
> Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet
This guy is campaigning on a platform that includes congressional term limits, has promised to appoint a special prosecutor, and is openly calling on everyone to be aware of voter fraud and even election fraud, which calls the entire democratic process into question (reminder: the only reason our government is considered legitimate is because of the democratic process). Meanwhile, almost all of his scandals and problems come from him doing whatever the fuck he wants to anyone he wants, at any time he wants.
If anyone thinks that Trump is their puppet, they are fucking deluded. I seriously doubt the RNC thinks that for one second.
Plenty of people WILL vote for Gary Johnson. He's on track to set records for libertarian votes, both by number and by percentage. The historical record I think is 1% of the vote. Johnson has polled way higher than that: even if those votes don't turn out, it seems VERY likely that he'll storm past the old 1% barrier.
But that's not what you are asking. You aren't asking, "why won't 3rd parties get at least 3% of the vote". You are asking "why don't the 3rd party votes actually add up to enough to elect one of them".
This is because of several reasons!
1st- We have a "plurality" voting system in almost every state. That means that whichever candidate gets the MOST votes, gets ALL the electoral votes for that state. That means that if you have two similar candidates and one liberal candidate, that the liberal candidate can win, even if the sum of the two conservative candidates greatly eclipsed that liberal candidate. Knowing this, people will normally vote for the major party candidate. With something like Instant Runoff Voting, or Condorcet, you might not see this.
2nd- Lesser known, the electoral college ONLY succeeds in electing a candidate if a MAJORITY of electoral votes are delivered for that candidate. So if, out of 538 possible electoral votes, candidate A gets 268, candidate B gets 255, and candidate C gets 15 votes, the winner is... up to the House of Representatives. Who can vote in any of the top three candidates in terms of electoral college votes.
3- Because of this, a vote for a Green candidate is perceived as "stealing" a vote from the Democrat, and a vote for a Libertarian or Constitution party member is perceived as "stealing" a vote from a Republican. I disagree with this sentiment strongly, but that's the general idea behind it, and I don't see it changing until we have a voting system that is something beyond plurality voting at the state level.
So if you assume that your vote might matter, and you disagree strongly with a major party candidate, agree strongly with a third party candidate, and agree somewhat with a major party candidate, you are VERY likely to vote for the major party candidate that you agree somewhat with.
Mittens had "binders of women" to ensure that, should he win, he would be sure to have a large list of qualified women to appoint and hire. He didn't say he HAD them, he said that women's groups had DELIVERED "binders full of women" to him.
"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men... I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
This is Romney being sure that he couldn't be accused of being sexist, being sure that the "war on women" thing wouldn't apply to him, by working with people on both sides to avoid even the APPEARANCE of sexism. It became, of course, "proof" of his sexism, with predictable media slant.
The message was clear: any Republican, whether or not they are sexist, will be painted as sexist by the media, the painting will be fully effective. ALL this accomplished was the removal of "is not a sexist" from the list of requirements for Republican presidential candidates- after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.
I wonder if that had any effect? Now that you've opened up the pool of Republican presidential candidates to sexists, what would be the end result of that? Hrm....
> By comparison the typical user would...be completely irrelevant to a 2% marketshare. We are well within the explanatory powers of Windows 10 being a spyware festival of rotten meat. I addressed this in my op with " While the awful privacy invasions and security issues of the new OS aren't anywhere close enough to force all, most, or frankly even many users to flee"....
While Windows 10 has been pushed into many computers accidentally on purpose, to many of us, Windows 10 was the final straw for our personal machines. While the awful privacy invasions and security issues of the new OS aren't anywhere close enough to force all, most, or frankly even many users to flee, plenty of Windows users are looking for an out- and those that have use cases that are compatible with Linux have moved (and in smaller numbers are still moving) for that reason.
So I think we are seeing a Windows 10 bump. Certainly Linux desktop is vastly superior to where it was a few years ago, but that's not normally the sort of thing that pushes for a change. We'll probably see it again in a couple years when Microsoft tightens its coils some more- hopefully the desktop Linux experience will be even better then!
This is your best apologism? Open amorality? Go fuck yourself. If all politicians are corrupt, FIRE THEM ALL by voting in people WHO ARE NOT. Hiding the corruption, or worst of all, FUCKING VOTING FOR IT, will only end in a terrible crash of civilization. If you're fine with it, if you're numb with it, you are fucking BROKEN.
For fuck's sake man, it IS a fully functional keyboard. The top row can turn into other keys IF the application requests it. What is the anger against this cool gimmick of theirs? Am I missing something?
I didn't really believe you. This is good- you are wrong. But I have an idea as to *WHY* you are wrong.
I went to Dell's website. I selected 15-16 inch laptops (you mentioned that the bigger machines are huge and ugly- since the MBP is 13 and 15 inch, you must mean larger than 15 inch is huge and ugly). I then selected the core i7 6th gen (skylake), and filtered by RAM ("12gb and up"). The results included a Dell XPS 15 for about 2600 bucks. This had: 1 TB Solid State, 32 Gigs of RAM.
Here's my guess: you (probably, maybe) erroneously were looking at SEVENTH gen Intel processors (kabylake). The MBP, and the one I linked, are SIXTH gen (skylake). Intel hasn't shipped their top of the line kaby lake laptop processors yet: if you filter by that, you only find the machines that have been refreshed to use the actually-released chips yet, which are by definition not top of the line in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, by "current Macbook", I thought you meant the ones that came out (which are *technically* current, in that you can purchase them). Yes, the ones based on the 2012 refresh are quite fairly characterized as four year old hardware, even though that does ignore hardware such as the CPU and other parts that get refreshed yearly. Apple does that with a lot of their hardware.
The link to wikipedia is interesting, but calling it a "glorified i3" doesn't make too much sense. The "i3/i5/i7" don't have any actual meanings- they are garbagebutt marketsquawk.
Here's my post on it:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
And a copypasta from my post, with one minor correction:
13" Cheap Model, with TDP 15W:
base: 2 core i5-6360U @ 2.0GHz single core boost to 3.1GHz with Iris 540, (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
high end: 2 core i7-6660U @ 2.4GHz single core boost to 3.4GHz with Iris 540 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
13" Spensy Model, with TDP 28W:
base: 2 core i5-6267U @ 2.9GHz single core boost to 3.3GHz with Iris 550 (listed an unreleased on wikipedia)
midline: 2 core i5-6287U @ 3.1GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
high end: 2 core i7-6567U @ 3.3GHz single core boost to 3.6GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
15" models all have TDP 35W chips.
15" 256 GB model base: 4 core i7-6700HQ @ 2.6GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
15" 512 GB model base: 4 core i7-6820HQ @ 2.7GHz single core boost up to 3.6GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
Both model high end: 4 core i7-6920HQ @ 2.9GHz single core boost up to 3.8GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
My point is, when you talk about the low end 6360U, you are talking about something on their $1500 machine. When you talk about a $2700 machine, you are talking about at least a 6700HQ, which is a four core chip with hyperthreading. You can't mix and match those things to better complain- the top end 15" has pretty much the best x86 laptop chip, and the low end 13" does not have that.
I was going to say it isn't really news- but it sort of is. The new part is that Apple is using their stance as a defense in emails to powerful people. The old part is that (a) Apple has metadata that is available to them and (b) Apple shares everything that they can with any government that asks. Apple will deliver, when given a lawful order, metadata, anything that isn't encrypted, and anything that they can decrypt. This includes everything in icloud.
This should, frankly, not be a surprise, but if you just glanced at the stories from last year, you'd be forgiven for thinking that. If you instead looked at the documents that Apple provides for law enforcement ( https://www.apple.com/legal/pr... ), or law enforcements own documents (which I can't easily google at the moment, but they are out there), you'll see that Apple basically hands over every single thing, every single time. For the older phones that weren't encrypted with a user key, they would unlock the entire phone. Every thing that they are technically capable of unlocking, they do. Since forever!
I also doubt they are in any way unique in this. It *is* the law, after all. It's also probably a big part of why Apple has added more and more user-only accessible parts to their phone, such as encrypting it in such a way that they can't read it (the phone itself, iMessage). Meanwhile, every piece of metadata is duly handed over, as they have access to that.
Basically, this is only a surprise if you didn't ever bother to look into it much, which, I mean, not everyone would. The new part is the email where they defend themselves to the Clinton campaign.
Most of the F-35 stories are moderately garbage, usually able to be traced back to someone with an axe to grind. See: any of the stuff about dogfighting tests. Then read a bit more and find out what conditions they were held under, how many OTHER tests are left out (4v4, etc), and check out who wrote the original thing, and which pieces they cherry picked.
The A-10 complaints, however, are not like this. The A-10 is beloved by many whose lives depend on it, and seems to have capabilities that the F-35 does not, at least according to the fiery defenders you find on the net (who I don't see reason to doubt). I will not be surprised if some of the A-10 missions are rightfully replaced by F-35s. I would be surprised if they ALL were, however. The original desire for scrapping the A-10 came from excellent F-35 performance on some air force tests (and a desire to save money long term), but that seems unlikely to apply to every A-10 mission.
When you have a bunch of infantry bitching about something, it is probably worth listening to the bitching. And they seem to love the A-10. I mean, that seems pretty compelling.
You aren't backing up your absurd statements with data. Do you really want me to refute your "2012" claims? You have multiple generations of processors between now and then, the RAM in question wasn't used in 2012, you couldn't even get this level of graphics processing in a laptop, USB-C was years away still, etc.
You own a "dual core hyperthreaded" that appears to be a Haswell i3. The lowest end macbook pro is faster than that by a lot, and costs 1500 bucks. That's a lot, but you are constantly comparing it to the 2500+ models, which have a quad core chip that is near top of the line for macbooks, and is roughly twice as fast as yours. What's the story on virtualization tech on these chips and BIOSes? I'm not sure.
Apple didn't "lose". You can look up the specs. Like normal, you could buy a similarly specced laptop that is NOT Apple, for less money. That's been the case since forever. These are just more mac laptops man, and they are faster than the other mac laptops.
> Kerby Lake
Lets go to Kirby Lake instead. I hear that generation can inhale other chips and gain their powers!
Please post the cpuinfo of the Haswell chip you own. I suspect that we will find a discrepancy with this claim, based on the other post you made. The low end Surface Pro 3 you mention has a 1.5 GHz chip branded as i3, and none of the macbook pros have that.
> First off the AMD graphis is an RX 450!
The low end 15" costs 2400 bucks and has a "Radeon Pro 450". The high end 15" costs 2800 bucks and has a "Radeon Pro 455". Both can be upgraded to the "Radeon Pro 460". You are correct about the "1 teraflop" in the low end one. I don't *think* you can straight compare to the desktop RX cards, and I don't *think* that teraflops is the best metric (especially when comparing to consoles). That being said, it is absolutely clear that these are not super powerful cards, and are not all that powerful when compared with what you can jam in an alienware or other top branded system. It's also clear that Apple made a bunch of choices based on battery life, and also that by not competing in the 17" laptop category, they are kind of telling you what to expect.
> Only a dual core skylae? You're kidding for a $2700 system?
Not sure what you mean. The 2400 dollar and 2800 dollar system both have quad core skylakes. They have the Radeon 450 or 455 (or 460 for more money).
> The CPU is terrible too. For a reference I own the haswell version of this chip on my Surface Pro 3
I'm a little less than certain that you know what you are talking about here, given the above mistakes. But, here's the surface pro 3 page:
https://www.microsoftstore.com...
The "799" option may be the 850 one you are talking about (the other options are all more than 850, and you say you paid that much, meaning probably with tax?). It has a "Intel Core i3 - 1.5GHz". That's much slower than the one in the cheap version of the 13" macbook. It isn't the equivalent of the price point you are talking about, and isn't the equivalent of anything Apple is talking about, as far as I can tell.
Basically, your post at LEAST is counting the premium macbook pro prices ("$2700 system") with the low end macbook pro components ("dual core skylake", "haswell version"), and may have even more errors.
> the escape key is gone for VIM and Emacs
The escape key is present unless the application overrides it. Why would vim and emacs override the default escape key? The bar defaults to normal keyboard buttons, and changes based on the application. It should run console stuff A-ok. I'd me more concerned about it not behaving properly in Linux or Windows, but it is very likely that it either has sensible hardware defaults or drivers- but that's still a risk if you wanted to dual boot, until someone checks it out.
> Apple dropped the bomb big time and should have waited and used 32 gig dimms
Remember that they update these things every year, and not on Intel's schedule. The last Macbook Pros used a mix of broadwell and haswell, the year before that was all haswell, etc. That means that next year will have whatever is out when they do their refresh, which will probably be kabylake, and it might have the new RAM type by then. Basically, if you have a use case for a laptop with 32 gigs of RAM, dude, you're getting a Dell. Or an anything but an Apple. Or waiting until next year.
Apple fans (their actual paying audience) are spending most of their time complaining about the four USB-C ports, but you can at least defend that decision from a technical perspective, even if it does mean that everyone will have a little pouch of dongles to carry with them for the next four to eight years. Some are also distressed about the 32 gigs of RAM, but I think some of that is bleed over from the Mac Pro being very suspicious in its age.
Yea, it's the 6660U. The G was a typo. G and U are nowhere close to each other on my keyboard, so no clue how that happened.
I mention the possibility of shoving a Kabylake into the low end, along with some theories as to why they would not (it could require different chipset and testing, it lacks the top end graphics option), and yea, marketing could be a part as well. But if there are valid technical reasons that we can see, there's probably more that Apple can see.
> Apple only really cares about the immensely profitable iOS devices.
I mean, they care, but their entire Mac division is like a 40th of their phone division, and tech on their phones also goes into their tablets at a very high rate. There's also a lot less difference between an iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus when compared to, say, a Macbook Pro and an iMac. The combination of Macbook (regular or "Air"), Macbook Pro, iMac, and almost-abandoned Mac Pro all together add up to be the Mac division as well, whereas the phones are just doing all that sales on a couple models that are almost the same. That doesn't mean they don't care, but it does mean that they aren't as motivated to take risks. Even with all the negative feedback about USB-C, you really CAN convert USB-C to pretty much anything, it's a very high bandwidth port, so there's a good chance that their decision to switch to that for a body that they will keep for four years is actually designed to be prescient. Plus, they kept the 3.5mm jack instead of blowing smoke up everyone's ass about it. The Macbook Pro they announced is basically "the most powerful components we could buy and integrate and sell at a premium", which is kind of what Apple does for most of their machines- their chips are effectively top of the line.
As to the release dates- I had a hard time finding them in other notebooks or laptops (or *anywhere*) when I looked. ark is a great resource, but I normally try poking around other places to be sure it was actually released as in, exists in the market.
Apple also released a Skylake last year, in the iMac. I haven't heard of such problems (though possible they exist, I think I'd have seen people flipping their shit). These are new Skylakes, of course, and were not available last year.
> They could wait 6 more months and create a modern notebook.
But why? The latest Macbook Pros had Broadwell and Haswell. It's not unreasonable for the 2016 models to have Skylake. Next year's refresh will probably have Kabylake, or Cannonlake, depending entirely on what exists for their needed spread of things. They refresh every year, going to whatever processor is best. Why delay for half a year to match Intel's (ever changing) cycle?
> Pulling USB mass storage support so that people can't copy music. "[crickets]"
What do you mean?
From what I can tell (I don't think Apple has given us the chip numbers), it goes like this:
(remember that "i7" and "i5" don't have meanings- they are just marketing garble, and don't, for instance specify the difference between hyperthreading and non-hyperthreading, or two and four cores: all of these chips have hyperthreading)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(I could have messed up something in transcription)
13" Cheap Model, with TDP 15W:
base: 2 core i5-6360U @ 2.0GHz single core boost to 3.1GHz with Iris 540, (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
high end: 2 core i7-6660G @ 2.4GHz single core boost to 3.4GHz with Iris 540 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
13" Spensy Model, with TDP 28W:
base: 2 core i5-6267U @ 2.9GHz single core boost to 3.3GHz with Iris 550 (listed an unreleased on wikipedia)
midline: 2 core i5-6287U @ 3.1GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
high end: 2 core i7-6567U @ 3.3GHz single core boost to 3.6GHz with Iris 550 (listed as unreleased on wikipedia)
In this case, all of the high end models have Iris Pro 550, and all of the low end models have Iris Pro 540. Intel's actual highest listed Iris Pro models are Iris Pro 580, but all of those are on chips that are either pretty expensive, have a higher TDP, or both.
Meanwhile, the 15" laptops all have Radeon graphics cards in them. These have chips that offer more processing power, but less graphics power (with the obvious assumption that the Radeon graphics will be used for that purpose).
15" models all have TDP 35W chips.
15" 256 GB model base: 4 core i7-6700HQ @ 2.6GHz single core boost to 3.5GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
15" 512 GB model base: 4 core i7-6820HQ @ 2.7GHz single core boost up to 3.6GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
Both model high end: 4 core i7-6920HQ @ 2.9GHz single core boost up to 3.8GHz with HD 530 (listed as Sep 1 on wikipedia)
These models are all generally more capable than similar models released earlier. It is likely that Intel and Apple actually reached an agreement via branding and capability on these: it is likely not a coincidence that Intel happened to have highly compatible i5/i7 branding for each step of Apple's needs, for instance.
Regardless, I've seen folks pointing out that Apple really IS using the best Intel chips available on social media, including doing it myself some, as people were all 'muh kaybee layke?' over the last day. These chips are a mix of hyperthreaded 2 core chips with Iris 540 or Iris 550 (on the 13 inch) and hyperthreaded 4 core chips with the lesser HD 530 (on the 15 inch). Meanwhile, the only Kabylake that looks like it could be show up to this party at all is the 7500U, a 15W chip with 2 cores, going from 2.7GHz base to 3.5GHz single threaded boost with HD 620. This chip could maybe have sat in over the cheap model (it costs more though), would require just that one model to be designed and tested around Kabylake stuff, and wouldn't have the Iris graphics (and doesn't have a graphics card). Intel certainly doesn't have the Kabylakes needed to fit their intended build case.
Who cares? The point isn't the battery life. The point is that if you are looking at the "nearest competitor", they do, in fact, offer 32 GB of RAM. I'd be surprised if Apple fucked up battery life, or that the interviewee was incorrect about his reasoning. But claiming that Apple's competitors don't go up to 32 GB, which is what the post I replied to was saying, is bullshit.
> What are people doing that requires so much memory?
1- Multitasking
2- Running their own code that requires a lot of memory
3- VMs
4- Any or all of the above
Bonus: Ramdisking!
> I would think the Dell XPS line is probably the nearest competitor to these laptops
Ok...
> while the 15 inch comes with 8GB or 16GB.
Here's one with 32 gigs of RAM:
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop...
> Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet
This guy is campaigning on a platform that includes congressional term limits, has promised to appoint a special prosecutor, and is openly calling on everyone to be aware of voter fraud and even election fraud, which calls the entire democratic process into question (reminder: the only reason our government is considered legitimate is because of the democratic process). Meanwhile, almost all of his scandals and problems come from him doing whatever the fuck he wants to anyone he wants, at any time he wants.
If anyone thinks that Trump is their puppet, they are fucking deluded. I seriously doubt the RNC thinks that for one second.
Plenty of people WILL vote for Gary Johnson. He's on track to set records for libertarian votes, both by number and by percentage. The historical record I think is 1% of the vote. Johnson has polled way higher than that: even if those votes don't turn out, it seems VERY likely that he'll storm past the old 1% barrier.
But that's not what you are asking. You aren't asking, "why won't 3rd parties get at least 3% of the vote". You are asking "why don't the 3rd party votes actually add up to enough to elect one of them".
This is because of several reasons!
1st- We have a "plurality" voting system in almost every state. That means that whichever candidate gets the MOST votes, gets ALL the electoral votes for that state. That means that if you have two similar candidates and one liberal candidate, that the liberal candidate can win, even if the sum of the two conservative candidates greatly eclipsed that liberal candidate. Knowing this, people will normally vote for the major party candidate. With something like Instant Runoff Voting, or Condorcet, you might not see this.
2nd- Lesser known, the electoral college ONLY succeeds in electing a candidate if a MAJORITY of electoral votes are delivered for that candidate. So if, out of 538 possible electoral votes, candidate A gets 268, candidate B gets 255, and candidate C gets 15 votes, the winner is... up to the House of Representatives. Who can vote in any of the top three candidates in terms of electoral college votes.
3- Because of this, a vote for a Green candidate is perceived as "stealing" a vote from the Democrat, and a vote for a Libertarian or Constitution party member is perceived as "stealing" a vote from a Republican. I disagree with this sentiment strongly, but that's the general idea behind it, and I don't see it changing until we have a voting system that is something beyond plurality voting at the state level.
So if you assume that your vote might matter, and you disagree strongly with a major party candidate, agree strongly with a third party candidate, and agree somewhat with a major party candidate, you are VERY likely to vote for the major party candidate that you agree somewhat with.
Mittens had "binders of women" to ensure that, should he win, he would be sure to have a large list of qualified women to appoint and hire. He didn't say he HAD them, he said that women's groups had DELIVERED "binders full of women" to him.
"I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men... I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
This is Romney being sure that he couldn't be accused of being sexist, being sure that the "war on women" thing wouldn't apply to him, by working with people on both sides to avoid even the APPEARANCE of sexism.
It became, of course, "proof" of his sexism, with predictable media slant.
The message was clear: any Republican, whether or not they are sexist, will be painted as sexist by the media, the painting will be fully effective.
ALL this accomplished was the removal of "is not a sexist" from the list of requirements for Republican presidential candidates- after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.
I wonder if that had any effect? Now that you've opened up the pool of Republican presidential candidates to sexists, what would be the end result of that? Hrm....
> By comparison the typical user would ...be completely irrelevant to a 2% marketshare. We are well within the explanatory powers of Windows 10 being a spyware festival of rotten meat. I addressed this in my op with " While the awful privacy invasions and security issues of the new OS aren't anywhere close enough to force all, most, or frankly even many users to flee"....
While Windows 10 has been pushed into many computers accidentally on purpose, to many of us, Windows 10 was the final straw for our personal machines. While the awful privacy invasions and security issues of the new OS aren't anywhere close enough to force all, most, or frankly even many users to flee, plenty of Windows users are looking for an out- and those that have use cases that are compatible with Linux have moved (and in smaller numbers are still moving) for that reason.
So I think we are seeing a Windows 10 bump. Certainly Linux desktop is vastly superior to where it was a few years ago, but that's not normally the sort of thing that pushes for a change. We'll probably see it again in a couple years when Microsoft tightens its coils some more- hopefully the desktop Linux experience will be even better then!
This is your best apologism? Open amorality? Go fuck yourself. If all politicians are corrupt, FIRE THEM ALL by voting in people WHO ARE NOT. Hiding the corruption, or worst of all, FUCKING VOTING FOR IT, will only end in a terrible crash of civilization. If you're fine with it, if you're numb with it, you are fucking BROKEN.
Disgusting.
For fuck's sake man, it IS a fully functional keyboard. The top row can turn into other keys IF the application requests it. What is the anger against this cool gimmick of theirs? Am I missing something?
I didn't really believe you. This is good- you are wrong. But I have an idea as to *WHY* you are wrong.
I went to Dell's website. I selected 15-16 inch laptops (you mentioned that the bigger machines are huge and ugly- since the MBP is 13 and 15 inch, you must mean larger than 15 inch is huge and ugly). I then selected the core i7 6th gen (skylake), and filtered by RAM ("12gb and up"). The results included a Dell XPS 15 for about 2600 bucks. This had: 1 TB Solid State, 32 Gigs of RAM.
http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop...
Here's my guess: you (probably, maybe) erroneously were looking at SEVENTH gen Intel processors (kabylake). The MBP, and the one I linked, are SIXTH gen (skylake). Intel hasn't shipped their top of the line kaby lake laptop processors yet: if you filter by that, you only find the machines that have been refreshed to use the actually-released chips yet, which are by definition not top of the line in any way.
> She is a vim user
Is the offspring of a vim user and an emacs user fertile? I don't know if such miscegenation is legal- I would check the POSIX standard to be sure.
Skylake is not obsolete. Kind of confused about the 16 GB max, but that does not seem shockingly small for a laptop.