Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Next Generation MacBook Pro

Next Generation MacBook Pro (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 02:58 PM
 
Well, if that's how Safari works in ML, I won't be happy.
Things are supposed to get better, not worse when new software is released.
HyperNova Software, LLC
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69 View Post
Things are supposed to get better, not worse when new software is released.
Whatever made you think that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69 View Post
Well, if that's how Safari works in ML, I won't be happy.
Things are supposed to get better, not worse when new software is released.
Do you think it might be worth waiting for actual software release to judge whatever is being foisted on you?

Some moron on an Internet forum running around waving his arms while running unreleased software is hardly worth fretting over, even if he does eventually turn out to be right.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 04:13 AM
 
My statement stands but I'm hardly worried about how Safari under ML will render web pages.
The keyword is 'IF'.

I'd be upset if the Sun stopped shining but I'm certainly not going to worry about it
HyperNova Software, LLC
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Do you think it might be worth waiting for actual software release to judge whatever is being foisted on you?
Some moron on an Internet forum running around waving his arms while running unreleased software is hardly worth fretting over, even if he does eventually turn out to be right.
Post reported.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Excellent, the sports issue is within arm's reach, I'll be here all day.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
Greetings. I am unable to delete my posts, and apparently you moderators are on some kind of a strike.

Therefore, I have removed the content of the original post by hand.

I am asking for this post to be deleted, since I don't seem to have the option to do that myself.
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 06:57 AM
 
I wonder if the new MBPTNG was seeing more sluggish sales than usual, because they've expanded the upgradability of the low end (lower cost) model.

Apple Expands Build-to-Order Configuration Options on Retina MacBook Pro

Apple is now offering all available upgrades on the low-end model, giving customers full control over their configuration needs. For example, users who want to upgrade storage on the low-end model can now do so with 512 GB ($500) and 768 GB ($1000) standalone options that do not also require an upgraded CPU. Similarly, users interested in boosting the base 2.3 GHz CPU to the 2.6 GHz chip can now do so on the base model for just $100 without having to step up the full $600 to the high-end model with both CPU and storage upgrades.

---

However, while the options are there, they don't seem to work properly. eg. There is a 2.6 GHz option for the low end model, for $100, but if I click on it, the price doesn't update. It only updates for the upgrades that were previously there, like the 8 --> 16 GB upgrade. Note also that these options do not exist on the Canadian site. I see them on the US site.

EDIT:

Now those options have disappeared completely... or not. I just tried a different browser, and they've reappeared on the US site, and I see it on the Canadian site too. And the prices do change once you add it to the cart.

EDIT AGAIN:

The prices now change properly as soon as you click on an option. It seems that Apple may be updating this live right now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 08:42 AM
 
Or it could mean that sales are high enough that Apple has recouped enough up-front investment and can offer extra options on the lower-margin machines.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 08:50 AM
 
Isn't it more likely that supply is becoming less constrained so they are prepared to offer more options on lower margin versions?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Or it could mean that sales are high enough that Apple has recouped enough up-front investment and can offer extra options on the lower-margin machines.
That doesn't make sense IMO. It seems to me usually Apple tries to milk the high end as long as possible, and definitely for longer than just a few weeks.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 10:39 AM
 
The store has been effed up all morning.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Isn't it more likely that supply is becoming less constrained so they are prepared to offer more options on lower margin versions?
Yep.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 06:28 PM
 
I came into the thread to read about others' experiences with the new rMBP before buying one. Needless to say the last page of posts was rather entertaining .

Mental note to leave Safari 6.0 the heck alone.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 09:01 PM
 
?????
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 08:23 AM
 
$500 to replace MBP:TNG battery

Repair outfit iFixit has posted a completed repair guide for the Retina MacBook Pro. The guide breaks tasks down by component, such as the logic board, left and right fans, or the SSD. Of special interest though is the battery, which iFixit estimates could cost $500 to replace "if technicians follow the safer Apple-suggested procedure and replace the entire upper case assembly along with the battery."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 08:47 AM
 
But Apple will do it for $200...
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 09:57 PM
 
Yeah, it makes me wonder how Apple is doing it. Are they replacing that entire top case assembly as well?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2012, 09:16 AM
 
Apple operates on a radically different cost model than iFixit does. And both Apple and iFixit have their own marketing reasons for how they cost things out.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2012, 10:57 AM
 
Apple will be able to recycle the top cases and what they would charge for a new top case will be many times what it costs to make them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Well, that was quick:

MBP:TNG SSD upgrade



It's a Sandforce 2281 drive though, presumably with the standard SF firmware.

At $580 for 480 GB and generic SF firmware, you'd be better off just getting the upgrade from Apple directly. Apple charges $500 for the 256 GB -> 512 GB upgrade, and it's not a generic Sandforce drive.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2012, 06:21 PM
 
Does Apple offer aftermarket ones though?

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 07:19 AM
 
You do get an external USB3 enclosure for your existing drive card as a freebie with the OWC until September 30th.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/owc-mercury-auro-pro-ssd-for-retina-mbp/

I have the horrible feeling that I’m going to have to kill you. I thought you might appreciate a drink first. I know I would.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
You do get an external USB3 enclosure for your existing drive card as a freebie with the OWC until September 30th.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/owc-mercury-auro-pro-ssd-for-retina-mbp/
Meh. OWC sells a USB 3.0 enclosure for $26. That means you're still paying more than $550 for a 480 GB Sandforce drive.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Does Apple offer aftermarket ones though?
No, you'd have to order that up front.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
You do get an external USB3 enclosure for your existing drive card as a freebie with the OWC until September 30th.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/15/owc-mercury-auro-pro-ssd-for-retina-mbp/
Meh. OWC sells a USB 3.0 enclosure for $26. That means you're still paying more than $550 for a 480 GB Sandforce drive.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Does Apple offer aftermarket ones though?
No, you'd have to order that up front.
What I meant by it is that with Apple you get 512GB and thats it, with the OWC for your $550 you get the original 256GB + 480GB. Yes its in an external case, but with that case (free or $26 on top) you're getting 736GB of storage, not 480GB, 512GB or your original 256GB. 736 is more than 256, 480 or 512, that's all.

I have the horrible feeling that I’m going to have to kill you. I thought you might appreciate a drink first. I know I would.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
What I meant by it is that with Apple you get 512GB and thats it, with the OWC for your $550 you get the original 256GB + 480GB. Yes its in an external case, but with that case (free or $26 on top) you're getting 736GB of storage, not 480GB, 512GB or your original 256GB. 736 is more than 256, 480 or 512, that's all.
Yeah, but that OWC drive is just a regular SandForce, the same kind you can get on Newegg for $350 (normally, I'd name names and offer a link, but I'm terrified to do so given the derail that happened last time). At least the Samsung Apple's using costs $550 on Newegg, so Apple's $500 charge isn't that out of line. Of course, a 256 GB Samsung is around $200, so Apple really ought to be charging $350 for the upgrade, not $500, but that's the Apple tax for you.

What bothers me is that there's no way to defer an SSD upgrade with Apple's Samsung drives. I paid about $600 for my 256 GB Crucial two years ago, and now the same drive is around $200. With these 512 GB SSDs, it'd be a good idea to stick with the 256 that comes with the machine for a while and then upgrade to 512 in a year or two when the prices drop on those, but currently that means paying way too much for a SandForce drive. I dunno.

I suppose we're in a transitionary period right now. Sooner or later, someone's going to have to come up with some kind of standard form factor for these blade drives using mSATA, mini PCIe, or something similar, and then we'll have a decent amount of choice again.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I suppose we're in a transitionary period right now. Sooner or later, someone's going to have to come up with some kind of standard form factor for these blade drives using mSATA, mini PCIe, or something similar, and then we'll have a decent amount of choice again.
ObPetTheory: internal Thunderbolt.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
ObPetTheory: internal Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt is just external PCIe + DisplayPort, so I don't really see the point. A PCIe or mini-PCIe slot basically is internal Thunderbolt.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2012, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post

Thunderbolt is just external PCIe + DisplayPort, so I don't really see the point. A PCIe or mini-PCIe slot basically is internal Thunderbolt.
Cable lengths. There are SSDs connected over PCIe now, but servers are designed around drives being placed independently of the motherboard - plus that you get a single interface that works externally as well. It just seems like something Intel might try, given their interest in SSDs, Thunderbolt and a general move towards simplifying things.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Cable lengths. There are SSDs connected over PCIe now, but servers are designed around drives being placed independently of the motherboard
Is there a practical reason for that, or is it just that way because hard drives are so large that there's no way they could all fit near the motherboard?

Mini-PCIe / mSATA cards like Apple's SSDs (not sure which of the two they're using, but it's probably one or the other) don't have any cables to worry about at all. They just snap into a slot, just like a RAM DIMM. You could quite easily fit a bunch of them into a relatively small space, I suspect. Also, the Thunderbolt connector is much thicker than the mPCIe / mSATA connector, which means it would get in the way of miniaturization on laptops (the MacBook Air, for example, is only thick enough to accommodate a Thunderbolt connector in the very back of the machine).

plus that you get a single interface that works externally as well. It just seems like something Intel might try, given their interest in SSDs, Thunderbolt and a general move towards simplifying things.
That was the idea of the internal FireWire port that Apple included in the early G4 towers. It was never used, and so far Thunderbolt hasn't been doing as well as FireWire did in the early days. I'm doubtful that this would take off, unfortunately.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2012, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post

Is there a practical reason for that, or is it just that way because hard drives are so large that there's no way they could all fit near the motherboard?
Generally you don't want the HDDs to get hot, while parts of the motherboard can get very hot, but that doesn't seem to apply so much to SSDs, no. It's also fairly popular to have them hot-swappable, but generally, motherboards can get crowded, and forcing them to be at a right angle to the mono is quite limiting in say a blade. A clicky-foldable slot thingy like a DIMM or the Apple MBA solution would work in a laptop.


Mini-PCIe / mSATA cards like Apple's SSDs (not sure which of the two they're using, but it's probably one or the other) don't have any cables to worry about at all. They just snap into a slot, just like a RAM DIMM. You could quite easily fit a bunch of them into a relatively small space, I suspect. Also, the Thunderbolt connector is much thicker than the mPCIe / mSATA connector, which means it would get in the way of miniaturization on laptops (the MacBook Air, for example, is only thick enough to accommodate a Thunderbolt connector in the very back of the machine).
Apple uses a proprietary port, although it uses SATA electrically - and yes, a bay with a mini-PCIe port would solve pretty much the same problem except for the common interface thing. To be honest, a common interface is more of a wish than anything else. In the end I think something like the cards Apple uses will rule laptops, servers will use PCIe-based solutions and desktops will curl up in the corner and die.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Bums me that they killed the 17" size. It is a superior size for real productivity in the field.
Maybe they'll bring it back when they can source an even higher re 17" panel and a mobile GPU that can handle powering it. They probably figured there was no point having one with a bigger screen if there was a smaller unit with better resolution.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2012, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Bums me that they killed the 17" size. It is a superior size for real productivity in the field.
Maybe they'll bring it back when they can source an even higher re 17" panel and a mobile GPU that can handle powering it.
I hope so. Best for me would be even larger than 17," which might be feasible in some future MBP. But that is just a dream; probably the only way >17" would be sales-justified for Apple would be if Apple was to cost-justify it as a marketing tool to reinforce the image that "Apple makes the best."

IMO such "the best products" branding for Apple has huge value in the state of today's tech marketing; essential even. Android and Win8 boxes of all kinds are proliferating and will gain share via device-specific features as well as by price. Joe and Susie consumer generally differentiate based on a complex set of nontechnical perceptions, and to own the "top quality" perception has inestimable value in today's tech marketplace IMO.

IMO that also is why Apple should maintain a top-quality MP line. Giving up the top of any computing product line to others has huge negative implications for Apple's perception in the market as it exists today.


They probably figured there was no point having one with a bigger screen if there was a smaller unit with better resolution.
Maybe, but I think there is a point. Personally I love the retina displays, but productivity is a function of both screen real estate and pixel density. Multiple displays is best of course but that only works at fixed locations.

-Allen
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2012, 01:21 PM
 
Bigger than 17" is a bit silly. I saw a 20" PC laptop once and it was ridiculous.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2012, 03:50 PM
 
19" did not seem all that bad at the old proportions. 18" or even 19" at modern proportions on a thinner lighter laptop IMO would still be civilized.

-Allen
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2012, 04:12 PM
 
Even 17" seems to me like »why bother bringing that along?« My 15" MacBook Pro seems large to me already, a little larger than I'd like, I suppose I'll go for 13" if quad core and retina screens become available.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2012, 11:46 PM
 
Some people use two displays on the road - two laptops and this, although the comment about the Lion version being in beta may not be so encouraging.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2012, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Some people use two displays on the road - two laptops and this, although the comment about the Lion version being in beta may not be so encouraging.
Is ScreenRecycler an OS X Synergy implementation?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2012, 02:53 AM
 
No, it's basically a reverse VNC. Synergy does not seem to share the screen AFAICT.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2012, 08:34 AM
 
Thanks P for that! Sweet.

As soon as the ML version is out of beta I am in.

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2012, 10:44 AM
 
Got 5 MBPTNG's for a client. All 16GB RAM 2.7's with the 750GB SSD. Sweet

Apart from two already showing faults with their graphics cards. Hey ho I guess that's rev0 adoption for you. Off to the apple store we go...
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
19" did not seem all that bad at the old proportions. 18" or even 19" at modern proportions on a thinner lighter laptop IMO would still be civilized.
19" is a sick monstrosity IMHO. Its best usage is as a desktop replacement... sitting on a desk at home. But hey, to each his/her own.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Even 17" seems to me like »why bother bringing that along?« My 15" MacBook Pro seems large to me already, a little larger than I'd like, I suppose I'll go for 13" if quad core and retina screens become available.
Yeah, a friend of mine has the 17" and he does carry it around it's too big for me too. In fact, I downgraded from 15" to 12" a decade ago because I thought 15" was way too big.

I'm a little surprised Apple axed the 17", but not hugely surprised, as I've only seen a few out there in the wild. In contrast, the 15" seems extremely common.

Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Got 5 MBPTNG's for a client. All 16GB RAM 2.7's with the 750GB SSD. Sweet
Apart from two already showing faults with their graphics cards. Hey ho I guess that's rev0 adoption for you. Off to the apple store we go...
Ouch. What's the video problem? I wonder if the TNG retina screen is stressing them out.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
19" did not seem all that bad at the old proportions. 18" or even 19" at modern proportions on a thinner lighter laptop IMO would still be civilized.
19" is a sick monstrosity IMHO. Its best usage is as a desktop replacement... sitting on a desk at home. But hey, to each his/her own.
I fully agree large laptops' "best usage is as a desktop replacement" (DTR). But DTR work can occur in multiple locations, not just "sitting on a desk at home." If all one does is some coding, emails and surfing a 13" device is very convenient, but smaller sizes greatly reduce the productivity of many workflows. And for "sitting on a desk at home" or at a fixed work location smaller sizes work fine for DTR by adding an external display. There is no real need for 17" or 19" when an external display is feasible.

The fact is that for real work smaller displays including 15" unequivocally are less good than larger sizes. E.g. next week I will fly to Colorado for a week and will be doing real work (comparing multiple PDFs, spreadsheets, Photoshop, Aperture, etc.). Even 17" is limiting, but smaller sizes are even more limiting.

Or one may travel to a jobsite for a day or a few days at a time. Limiting one's productivity just to save a pound or two during the travel to site IMO is illogical. Of course that is just my 02; I recently worked a site for a month where a dozen engineers all worked spreadsheet comparisons and MS Project using 15" laptops. I went to the trouble to haul in an external display, but I was the only one who did so. Personal preference I guess, but IMO anyone who full-shift day-in and day-out compares multiple complex spreadsheets, PDFs or images on a small display is poorly using the available technology.

I built very large spreadsheets on small Mac SE displays but after larger displays became available I resolved to never again suffer the loss of productivity of trying to do such work on a tiny display on an ongoing basis.

Like you said, hey, to each his/her own.

-Allen
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2012, 11:08 AM
 
And hence my last statement.

Plus, I'm not saying the market doesn't exist. I'm just saying the market is very small, and indeed, Apple decided to eliminate that 17" laptop product... and to never introduce a 19" model.

Obviously people (like your own colleagues) can do "real work" with more portable machines.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Obviously people (like your own colleagues) can do "real work" with more portable machines.
Yup. And paid as hourly consultants, so maybe they like the serious inefficiency of working on small displays. However most likely is they simply never thought about the impact of workstation setup on productivity.

IMO it is nuts to intentionally do spreadsheet, PDF, or images comparisons without having displays big enough to see documents side-by-side. Not justifiable now that display real estate is available, fast and cheap.

Just my 02 of course.

-Allen
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2012, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Ouch. What's the video problem? I wonder if the TNG retina screen is stressing them out.
My guess is that the graphics card IS marginal on these machines. Plus given the thinness and heat involved I suspect hot spots build up inside the machine and overstress the GPU. It's a whole new interior and exterior design. Apples track record of getting production right straight out of the gate is not good. I suspect a lot of recalls. The local Apple reseller was not at all surprised to see two back in. They have quite a collection already.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2