Every M1 Mac Is Due For a 2022 Refresh With Faster M2 Chip, New Designs (macworld.com) 99
According to tech reporter and Apple leaker Mark Gurman, Apple is preparing to launch four M2 Macs throughout 2022. MacWorld reports: The first models will likely arrive later in the year, with the redesigned MacBook Air leading the way, followed by a new 13-inch MacBook Pro, 24-inch iMac, and entry-level Mac mini. A DigiTimes report on Tuesday said the 13-inch MacBook Pro may launch at Apple's spring event to usher in the new chip. Like 2021, Apple will be releasing Macs with several different chips in 2022. The M2 will be a successor to the M1, likely with the same 8-core design (four performance cores and four efficiency cores), and the M1 Pro and M1 Max will make their way into more high-end Macs. The first of those, the 27-inch iMac, could arrive at Apple's spring event, with a Mac mini coming later in the year. [...] There's also a new Mac Pro due in 2022 as the culmination of the Apple silicon transition. That would mean every Mac line is due for a refresh this year and nearly every model, with only the recently released 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro escaping without a refresh.
yep (Score:1, Troll)
Reminds me of the power PC days where entire lines were lucky to last a solid year before the next better one came out for the same price, I couldnt afford it then, now I am tired of trying to keep track of it, especially with that archaic UI they insist on not making more useable (I mean really why can't I make a folder in the save dialog)
Re:yep (Score:4, Informative)
(I mean really why can't I make a folder in the save dialog)
I just tried that. Used "Save" in TextEdit, and there is a clearly visible "New Folder" button.
Re:yep (Score:4, Informative)
(I mean really why can't I make a folder in the save dialog)
I just tried that. Used "Save" in TextEdit, and there is a clearly visible "New Folder" button.
Not only is there a literal button that says "New Folder"—and it isn't even buried in a toolbar or otherwise hidden, it's set off by itself, plainly obvious—you can also use the standard hotkey for creating new folders: Command + Shift + N works in a standard Save folder dialog just as well as it does in the Finder.
My best guess is that the OP is a Right-click > New Folder user, which admittedly isn't available in the Save dialog, but right-click actions are intended to accelerate work flows, not slow them down, as it would in this case. Other actions that aren't made available with a single-click button—Rename, Duplicate, etc.—remain available via right-click.
Re: (Score:1)
"...but right-click actions are intended to accelerate work flows..."
LOL, right-click actions exist because they are vastly superior to what Apple provided. Apple resisted but eventually integrated them to some extent. They are not "intended" to do anything other than keep Apple from looking bad.
Also, so tired of "work flows". It's a shame that pretense dominates everything now. And how does a specific action accelerate a work flow? Again, LOL.
Re: (Score:3)
25 years ago dude. That happened 25 years ago, and it *weird* people still bring this up.
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago dude. That happened 25 years ago, and it *weird* people still bring this up.
Hell, people still haul out the one-button-mouse meme!
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago dude. That happened 25 years ago, and it *weird* people still bring this up.
Hell, people still haul out the one-button-mouse meme!
Apple has a two-button mouse now?
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago dude. That happened 25 years ago, and it *weird* people still bring this up.
Hell, people still haul out the one-button-mouse meme!
Apple has a two-button mouse now?
Actually, they have a mouse with essentially a mini multi-touch Trackpad on the top. It supports Left and Right Click, Vertical and Horizontal Scrolling, Zoom and Two-Finger Horizontal Swipe:
https://support.apple.com/guid... [apple.com]
And if that isn't enough, Apple also offers their multi-touch Trackpad as an accessory for Desktop Computers and iPads. It supports many Gestures and also Force Touch:
https://manuals.info.apple.com... [apple.com]
https://support.apple.com/guid... [apple.com]
The Mouse (actually any USB or BT mouse) is also fully
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
(I mean really why can't I make a folder in the save dialog)
You can if the Save As dialog has a Create New Folder button.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that even an "if"? The computer knows you want to Create New File, why should it assume you don't want to Create New Folder?
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you, its completely inconsistent, some programs have it, some don't. Personally outside of the baked in apps, where I had to go back and looked at it on my Catalina intel mac mini (its old its the best it can do, but its a garage computer) none of the programs I actually use out there have that button.
The solution is to apparently learn a 3 finger shortcut, which is what I think of when I think of Mac OS and the old "if you can do this (points to a mouse button) you can run a mac" advertising
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, its completely inconsistent, some programs have it, some don't. Personally outside of the baked in apps, where I had to go back and looked at it on my Catalina intel mac mini (its old its the best it can do, but its a garage computer) none of the programs I actually use out there have that button.
The solution is to apparently learn a 3 finger shortcut, which is what I think of when I think of Mac OS and the old "if you can do this (points to a mouse button) you can run a mac" advertising
Hold down Option (Alt) as you select the Save Command. That should allow the New Folder Button to appear.
You can do it regardless (Score:1)
You can if the Save As dialog has a Create New Folder button.
I agree that should be there all the time... not sure why some cases that button is not there.
But even if it's not, in any of the system file dialogs Shift-Cmd-N will always create a new folder. I use the key shortcut all the time anyway.
Quite obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
And some time later there will be an M2-Pro and M2-Max and so on. I assume one or both of them will have changes so that you can have 2 or 4 chips in one computer, which would mean you can have up to 256GB of RAM, and possibly changes so that you can have more but slightly slower RAM.
Although if you look at the price of a terabyte of RAM, and the price and speed of an 8TB SSD, I wonder if having more RAM is actually worth it, or if paging is so fast, you don't notice it. You'd probably have 256KB page sizes to make it faster.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Today, you can buy a MacPro with 1.5TB of RAM for an eye-watering amount of money, and currently M1 Max is limited to 64GB. If they. changed the design to allow 2 or 4 M1 Max in one computer, that would be significantly more CPU power than any Intel MacPro, but still only 256GB of RAM.
Now Apple isn't selling _that_ many Macs with more than 256GB of RAM. So I think it would be absolutely worthwhile for Apple to ge
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The HBM version 3 specification was just released. There are physical parts for sale by manufacturers so someone is using them - but no idea who. If Apple wanted to bring performance to the next level then this might just do it. The memory will be really expensive but then so are Mac Pros.
I agree HBM3 is likely required for an ASi-based Mac Pro. It has great bandwidth.
But even though Hynix and Samsung say they have parts, I can't find any info on pricing, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Laugh, now it won't just be there software that is full of disgraceful bugs due to a forced yearly cycle.
You are really trying hard to misinterpret things and put a negative spin on anything, right? Talking about bugs when you can't even spell properly is pathetic. And what on earth is "forced yearly cycle" supposed to mean?
Re: Quite obvious (Score:3)
I doubt the option for slower RAM is coming - you need all that bandwidth to support the GPUâ(TM)s need for tons of memory access very fast.
Itâ(TM)ll be interesting to see what they do with the MacPro. They need to match the current oneâ(TM)s support for 1.5TB of RAM. I wonder if theyâ(TM)ll go for discrete GPUs there, or if theyâ(TM)ll do a *really* beefed up version of the iPhoneâ(TM)s GPU. The M1 Maxâ(TM)s is already a beast - but only really in the laptop space. It
Re: (Score:2)
M1 was introduced and shipping in products in 2020. M1 Pro and Max were 2021. Your assumed cadence is dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2020, they introduced the M1 chip.
FTFY
27” imac? (Score:2)
Seems like the 27” is a bit small for today. Dual 30” monitors aren’t that expensive, and when I use my old 27” imac I am amazed at just how small the screen feels.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like the 27” is a bit small for today. Dual 30” monitors aren’t that expensive, and when I use my old 27” imac I am amazed at just how small the screen feels.
Those "cheap" dual 30" screens...are 5K?
I mean, some might actually not want to downgrade just to get real estate.
Re: (Score:1)
Some realize that 4K at 30" is not a downgrade. I use a 55" 4K display, it is fabulous.
The goal is to fill your field of view with sufficient resolution. 5K is not the way to do that. 5K is a way for Apple to take your money. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
My screens are 4k, which is plenty. I usually have 6-8 windows tiled on each. I use a stand-up desk, 30” deep, for each setup, which places the screen about 24” from my eyes. 5k has little to no value for most applications, unless you are more like 12-16” from the screen.
I prefer 27" (Score:1)
Seems like the 27â is a bit small for today.
I greatly prefer a 27" over a 30"
If you really want and need a 30", you can buy one and attach it.
While they might be nice for movies I simply find them too wide to work on, for a single monitor - I don't mind dual monitors but a single screen that wide just seems to cause me eye strain.
I'll bet if you looked at monitor sales 27" would be the sweet spot.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't do real work, SuperKendall. You think an iPhone plus an iPad makes the ultimate photo pro "workflow".
How do you know?
Fuck, you don't even know the difference between an Emulator and a Translator!
Re: (Score:2)
Now Tim Cook knows better than I how much that would cost. The 24" iMac has 4480 x 2520 resolution instead of 4096 x 2304 (25% more in each direction), so the 30" should have 5,600 x 3,150 instead of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting point but I feel like 24" and 27" are still far enough apart they could just keep that.
I totally agree with your other post asking Apple to please just sell the monitor from the iMac though! I would buy that in a heartbeat, it's probably the only thing stopping me from just getting a laptop and connecting it to an external display, instead of a desktop Mac.
Re: 27” imac? (Score:2)
You can buy large monitors, but none with doubled resolution. Biggest is a Huawei monitor at 3840 x 2560.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow I was wrong. My monitors were actually 32”, 4k LG units. US$320 each. The 5k might make sense for some very specific workflows (native 4k plus toolbar borders for editing), but the 40% larger (23% in the case of a 30”) screen area is much more valuable to me. Don’t get me wrong; the iMac has much better color rendintion and contrast doesn’t wash out as much, but for my use case that really is a limited benefit.
Best value (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My Intel Macs run more software than any M1 Mac does. Will almost certainly be true of M2 Macs as well.
Looks like Rosetta isn't what the fanboys claim it to be, just an emulator with broken floating point. Meanwhile, my Intel Macs haven't become slower, nor has their performance been limiting in anything I do despite their shitty memory management. At least I'm not wearing out my SSD with swapping and I don't have a fucking notch in my laptop display.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement makes me wonder if you know what you’re talking about at all. It seems like you’re just echoing all of the standard anti-Mac talking points that have long been debunked.
Re: (Score:2)
The SSD problem was wildly overblown. There isn't actually any evidence that the M1s are wearing out their SSDs any faster than any other version of the Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
My Intel Macs run more software than any M1 Mac does. Will almost certainly be true of M2 Macs as well.
Are you sure? And what about 5 years from now?
Writing's on the wall, idiot.
Looks like Rosetta isn't what the fanboys claim it to be, just an emulator with broken floating point.
There you go again! Confusing Translation and Emulation.
You're hopeless.
Meanwhile, my Intel Macs haven't become slower, nor has their performance been limiting in anything I do despite their shitty memory management.
Other than the untrue comment about memory management, I agree that your Intel Macs (just like mine and everyone else's) will continue to run the OSes and Applications they are capable of.
But the writing's still on the wall; just like it was twice before. Three times, if you count the OS 9 to OS X transition. And five times, if you count the "32 bit Clean" and "3
Faster than M1 yet slower than M1Pro/Max (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Faster than M1 yet slower than M1Pro/Max (Score:2)
If the processor improvement would only be say 10% then people would wonder why do the effort.
Regarding battery, well more is more. The Air has decent life and squeezing say another hour out of that slender machine is a win for all users.
Re: Faster than M1 yet slower than M1Pro/Max (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If feature sizes were indeed going from 5nm to 4nm, you might expect a significant improvement in gate performance.
But there is neither a 5 nor a 4nm feature on those dies. The naming is pure marketing and has nothing to do with feature sizes.
There are many degrees of freedom in the parameters of a silicon process. The fake headline numbers of fictional features sizes are not the interesting ones.
Re: (Score:2)
If feature sizes were indeed going from 5nm to 4nm, you might expect a significant improvement in gate performance.
But there is neither a 5 nor a 4nm feature on those dies. The naming is pure marketing and has nothing to do with feature sizes.
There are many degrees of freedom in the parameters of a silicon process. The fake headline numbers of fictional features sizes are not the interesting ones.
Since you are right that Gate Capacitance is always a limiting factor, what, if anything, is on the horizon that will net the next big step in speed?
Re: (Score:2)
If feature sizes were indeed going from 5nm to 4nm, you might expect a significant improvement in gate performance.
But there is neither a 5 nor a 4nm feature on those dies. The naming is pure marketing and has nothing to do with feature sizes.
There are many degrees of freedom in the parameters of a silicon process. The fake headline numbers of fictional features sizes are not the interesting ones.
Since you are right that Gate Capacitance is always a limiting factor, what, if anything, is on the horizon that will net the next big step in speed?
GAO. https://blog.lamresearch.com/f... [lamresearch.com].
Then there is other stuff which will ramp up the density dramatically, but super secret for now and I expect all the other semi manufacturers have magic schemes too.
Re: (Score:2)
If feature sizes were indeed going from 5nm to 4nm, you might expect a significant improvement in gate performance.
But there is neither a 5 nor a 4nm feature on those dies. The naming is pure marketing and has nothing to do with feature sizes.
There are many degrees of freedom in the parameters of a silicon process. The fake headline numbers of fictional features sizes are not the interesting ones.
Since you are right that Gate Capacitance is always a limiting factor, what, if anything, is on the horizon that will net the next big step in speed?
GAO. https://blog.lamresearch.com/f... [lamresearch.com].
Then there is other stuff which will ramp up the density dramatically, but super secret for now and I expect all the other semi manufacturers have magic schemes too.
That essentially looks like they are reducing the impedance of the Junction; thus improving switching time.
Ok. Incremental improvement not directly related to minimum feature-size.
Re: (Score:2)
If feature sizes were indeed going from 5nm to 4nm, you might expect a significant improvement in gate performance.
But there is neither a 5 nor a 4nm feature on those dies. The naming is pure marketing and has nothing to do with feature sizes.
There are many degrees of freedom in the parameters of a silicon process. The fake headline numbers of fictional features sizes are not the interesting ones.
Since you are right that Gate Capacitance is always a limiting factor, what, if anything, is on the horizon that will net the next big step in speed?
GAO. https://blog.lamresearch.com/f... [lamresearch.com].
Then there is other stuff which will ramp up the density dramatically, but super secret for now and I expect all the other semi manufacturers have magic schemes too.
That essentially looks like they are reducing the impedance of the Junction; thus improving switching time.
Ok. Incremental improvement not directly related to minimum feature-size.
The benefits of decreasing feature size or any other single parameter in isolation are hitting a plateau. There are things that limit the benefits, both at the local transistor-wire level and at the system level. You could reduce the transmission time across all gates to 0 and it would not increase the performance a whole lot since most of the delays are in the wires. Improvements in connectivity have much more milage in them and improvements in connectivity unlock the benefits of feature size reduction. So
Re: (Score:2)
" Together with the 4nm process I expect maybe 20-30% of improvement of speed and energy consumption..."
Why do you expect this? Is there ANY precedent for such incredible gains for modest changes?
"Lower energy needs would be great for a next generation MacBook Air."
Would it be? What is the percentage of power consumption for the processor of the current MacBook Air? Don't know? Then STFU
What in the living HELL is "Percentage of Power Consumption"???
Go away, Poser.
Re: (Score:2)
If all the pretty consistent rumors from the most reliable leakers are correct, it looks like the number of CPU and GPU cores are the same as M1, and the chip will go from 5nm to 4 nm. The M1 is already a powerful processor, but probably they can further fine tune the cores and bandwidth in between. Together with the 4nm process I expect maybe 20-30% of improvement of speed and energy consumption, hence a decent upgrade yet current buyers of the M1Pro / Max will not yet see their investment to become obsolete.
I think you might be overestimating the benefit of 4nm over 5nm. Then again, TSMC's 3nm process is expected this year, which might actually get you into that ballpark.
Re: (Score:3)
The benefits of a smaller process are not nearly that pronounced. The smaller process might not even result in smaller transistors. The "nm" rating is really referring to a process that has the equivalent transistor density of what a "X nm", pre-finfet process (15 year ago) would have if scaled to the new size. But the newer processes have gone vertical to achieve higher density. And while this is great, the effective IC capacitance does not scale in the same way density does. And it is the capacitan
Finally (Score:1)
Free upgrades for all M1 Macs!!!
Finally my sloth pays off. (Score:2)
I'd been holding out for an M1 Mac, as I couldn't decide between the Air for the massive portability, or the MacBook Pro M1 Max systems for more power and a bigger screen... or maybe even the iMac coming later.
Now that I've waited a year I feel like I can wait to the end of this one to see what the entire range of new systems will be like to decide what to get, it's nice that if I do get an Air it will be closer in performance to the higher end systems. Or maybe even the Mini...
Re: Finally my sloth pays off. (Score:3)
Thanks for info (Score:1)
Thanks for the info, I do use my laptops for pretty heavy development work (like not just Xcode, but also at times Android Studio as well, both of which are resource hogs). Even so it seems like the Air (especially the revised Air) would be totally fine performance wise for that, I just am not sure if I can live with that small a screen... but I sure would like the compact size.
Re: Thanks for info (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree with you. Video editing on the M1 is buttery smooth. Stuff that would choke my Intel desktop runs at full speed and with no stutter on the M1. (Using Adobe Premiere as M1 native app)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd been holding out for an M1 Mac, as I couldn't decide between the Air for the massive portability, or the MacBook Pro M1 Max systems for more power and a bigger screen... or maybe even the iMac coming later.
If you are thinking whether to get an Air with M1 or a MBP with M1 Max, then you don't need the M1 Max. The M1 Pro will do fine. (Of course people who decide the Air is too slow may need maximum graphics performance).
Re: (Score:1)
If you are thinking whether to get an Air with M1 or a MBP with M1 Max, then you don't need the M1 Max.
I kind of agree but I also do video editing off and on, and honestly lots of aspects of Xcode could probably use all the power they can get.
Mostly day to day work would be fine on an Air, it's those bursty times when the system UI starts lagging that I think, I should really get a Max and not have to suffer through those chokepoints.
Re: (Score:2)
I held out for a half decent keyboard and some proper ports (whilst still sweating my old 2015 macbook pro). The M1 pro has all of this - no stupid touch bar, and has magsafe (although can be charged via USB-C if you want). It's also got a proper HDMI and an SD card slot. It seems Apple finally came to their senses and stopped trying to get us all to use one USB-C port for everything.
I have to say, so far I really like it - it runs Slack and Chrome at the same time and everything ;-). What I would say is th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure my GPU doesn't get used all that much, so maybe I could have gone "air" rather than letting my "I'm a power user, gotta go pro" reflex kick in...
Yep I am kind of thinking along those lines as well, the new Air may get close enough that I decide the portability weighs out over improved performance I would only make full use of occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a 2013 or so MacbookAir, then grabbed the still Intel retina and usb-c port refresh when it came out (easier for docking stations), but then last fall I bought the 16" Macbook Pro. On a less-technical level, that size of screen is WONDERFUL and for me worth the price of admission - it really allows apps to fit side by side, so now even couch time can be more productive.
I hope and suspect the 16" will last me closer to the original Macbook Air than that 1 year of the retina Air - my dev work isn't THAT
I can't do it... (Score:5, Informative)
Not until I know I can run x86/x64 VMs and docker images on the platform without jumping through crazy hoops.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think you can (ever) run a VM.
You can run emulators, but a _VM_, I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about VMs, but I run x86 docker images daily.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I opted for an Intel MBP last year rather than holding out for an ARM based one. I work on cross-platform software (Windows x64, Linux x64 and ARM, macOS x86_64 and ARM64, plus to a lesser degree iOS and Android), so I'm running VMs a lot. In time, I'm hoping Microsoft will provide an installer for Windows for ARM on MSDN, and of course Linux ARM builds are easier to come by now from various distros. I really think it's just a matter of time before virtualisation is possible, and I'm really n
Re:I can't do it... (Score:4, Informative)
Not until I know I can run x86/x64 VMs and docker images on the platform without jumping through crazy hoops.
Docker already works fine, it transparently uses x86 emulation as needed. Performance is nothing to write home about (3-5x slower than native) but it's acceptable for many users. Emulation is also fairly robust, so far I've found only one container that doesn't work (swagger codegen).
I've experimented with using FEX emulator ( https://github.com/FEX-Emu/FEX [github.com] ) instead of qemu-x86 and it appears to be much faster, but not yet robust enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about VMs as I've mostly ditched them in favour of containers. I haven't found a container that didn't work yet - although I wouldn't say I've put any of them near the edges of their capabilities or features.
I'd also say that I just copied the old to the new (via the very good migration tool thing) - my apps didn't all get an update on the way, and all seemed to work just fine (even the more esoteric ones). I'm sure there are some areas where Rosetta doesn't work, but I've yet to find one.
Re: (Score:2)
This. So much legacy stuff. The Intel transition was handled better, I think.
Recently, I'm worried about Apple. First 32bit apps became useless, now x64 apps become useless? Hello? People do have old software they'd like to continue using.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, I'm worried about Apple. First 32bit apps became useless, now x64 apps become useless? Hello? People do have old software they'd like to continue using.
The 32->64 bit transition was over about a decade. I figure that's a pretty long time to allow software to transition. And M1 macs run intel software pretty well. It ain't native, but the effort is pretty heroic and I expect it'll continue to improve for another year or two.
All in all, I'm a lot happier with the MacOS transitions than I am with the ios version updates obsoleting old software.
Re: (Score:2)
The 32 to 64 bit transition did not happen a decade ago. The availability of something, and the transition to it aren't the same thing. We are now having a transition towards electrical cars - but electrical cars have existed for over a hundred years. It would be wrong to claim the transition started in 1915 or something.
I'll get a new work notebook soon and will have an opportunity to try how well old stuff runs. I'll see, but I'm quite a bit... uncertain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry I wasn't clear - I meant "over a decade long period." for the 64bit transition.
And while the M1's don't run everything x86, and the obviously don't perform as well, I advise you to be cautiously optimistic. They really are great machines, and the damn touchbar is gone and the magsafe power is back.
Good luck getting one! (Score:2)
M1 is good enough for the next few years (Score:1)
Thanks but someone text Tim Cook and let him know I don't need a new laptop or desktop. 100% of the intense CPU+data shit I do (scientific computing BS) is offloaded to the cloud. Why don't they work on displays instead? I DO need someone to make me a 48 inch 8K monitor (the Dell UP3218K is 32 inches, but I figure 8K is good enough even at 48 inch diagonal). I reckon I need it until about 2028, which is when I assume a VR headset and crease-less folding phone will exist with the necessary image fidelity to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Why?
The song remains the same (Score:2, Troll)
We started out with the idea that you had to buy the under performant hardware at a great price. Back in the day it was the 6800 series, and then it was PPC. It was the only way to get the OS which you wanted. Which some of us did, we really wanted the OS and so we paid through the nose.
This was an OS which, until Windows XP had been first way superior to the competition, then a bit better, and then finally with XP no better than even. I well remember back then being a dedicated Mac user, and buying a Wi
Re: (Score:1)
Now its the hardware which is very interesting, and if it were available as barebones without the encumbrance of the increasingly retro OS with all its restrictions, some of us might be very ready to buy it
If ... we might ...
That clearly marks you as not a person that anyone wanting to sell computers should care for. Tim Cook certainly doesn't. People are queuing up to buy M1 Macs (well, not queuing up, but where I live most models have at least four weeks waiting time).
Your analysis seems a bit warped. For example you looked at "market share in laptops". You could have looked at "market share in laptops selling for 999 or higher", that is the market where the money is. And then the old "cult" and "Mac
Re: (Score:2)
I can afford it all right. I just don't want it, not at any price. What you say about market share and supply?
Same old, same old. In the old days they refused to supply the intense demand for their systems. People who desperately wanted to buy the OS could not get it, because of shortages of hardware. Same thing now. There are tons of people who would buy the hardware if they could get it at a reasonable price and unencumbered by a dysfunctional OS. But no, they'd rather drive them to Windows or Linu
Re: (Score:2)
Their way of providing for the low end of the market are older and/or used models. Particularly true for iPhones. But Macs have terrific longevity - my Air was still a decent main machine from 2013-2020, and while its retina replacement gave way to a larger screen 16" after a year, I expect this one will last me a long, long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Same old, same old. In the old days they refused to supply the intense demand for their systems. People who desperately wanted to buy the OS could not get it, because of shortages of hardware.
Apple's supply problems with the PPC were entirely out of their hands.
IBM was the sole foundry for PPC. Problem was, Apple wasn't a big enough customer to IBM; so they just couldn't be bothered to devote either the necessary Engineering nor Foundry Resources to keep up with Apple's existing Demand, nor its wishes to advance the PPC chip design. Instead, IBM was busy chasing the "Cell" CPU; which, IIRC, both Sony and Microsoft were interested in putting into their comparatively high-volume game consoles. Add
Re: (Score:3)
Aye, laddie, you are trying to call out a "true scotsman" argument when you use weasel words like "mature markets", as in
> but as with the iPhone and iPad they've rarely managed to break 20% in mature markets
??? Like the US, which is a solid split, isn't a "mature" market?
Looking at https://fortunly.com/articles/... [fortunly.com] , I see Apple at 12% of combined desktop/laptops. Like, over one in ten of every damn computer made? Yes, HP and Dell each make a lot more, but to try and pretend one in ten computers is tri
Re: (Score:2)
I run all three: 1) Windows, 2) Linux (Ubuntu+Redhat), 3) MacOSX all on good hardware. My daily driver is now the M1 MacBookPro for these four reasons. 1) battery life, 2) gorgeous screen, 3) no fan noise, 4) the sound is amazing.
Who ever thought that one day we would use non-upgradable SoC computers?
Who ever thought that a brand, life-style company could upend the CPU business? (Is Intel even trying, seriously?)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac is a Unix-base (unlike Windows) with good first party support.
(I've been fooled trying to get used to the linux desktop before - MacOS has its quirks but Linux has a lot more rough edges)
Being able to seamlessly share a clipboard w/ my phone, iPad, and computer, or using an iPad as an extra screen or pen-on-screen tablet? It feels amazing, and a true reward for living within this walled garden.
It may not be the end all be all of OS but it has a good feel, good design, and a proper terminal shell.
(to be
Re: The song remains the same (Score:2)
That was a lot of ink.
Re: (Score:2)
I see my post has moved from 'interesting' with a positive score to 'troll' with a negative one.
Look guys, this is really simple. I'll just stop commenting. Carry on operating a bubble of the like minded.
I'm not in any way trolling. I am stating, perhaps forcefully on occasion, what I really think, and giving reasons for it. I am not trying to irritate or annoy, and certainly not for the sake of it.
If you keep marking as trolling any clearly and forcefully stated views which you don't agree with, you ma
Apple will send you a new CPU to install? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have done exactly what you are suggesting (maxing out old machines) and guess what typically happens. Mostly and unnoticeable performance increase or the MOBO doesn't support it, or the BIOS upgrade you need bricks the MOBO. You can't take a 12th gen Intel chip and stick it 10th gen motherboard.
The issue for me is un-upgradable storage. What happens when the SSD dies or you need a bigger size on the M1 SoC?
It is game over at that point unless someone clever figures out how to repair and upgrade SoC SS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Independent repair shops can solder in a new, replacement-or-better hard drive these days. Same for the battery and the RAM.
Been waiting for M1 to go in 27" iMac (Score:2)
I want size without all the power and price (Score:2)
I just want a new 15" Mac laptop for less than $1500 USD.
MacBook Air 15" would be fine. They can call it whatever they want. I don't need all the bells and whistles, I'm not going to be editing video on it.