That was a good jab, though, and I wish you a +5, Funny.
That was a good jab, though, and I wish you a +5, Funny.
For example their best selling model of laptop for many years is the 13" macbook pro
So, we're in agreement, then, that their best selling laptop is the cheapest non-Air model they currently sell? Good.
Meanwhile, the rest of your argument comes down to "the screen you said has the best DPI actually has the worst". For the benefit of any readers we are entertaining with our debate, the comment in question is:
The new 27" retina 5k iMac ships with a screen that's much higher resolution than retina. It's really the only display they sell, currently, that comes close to possibly cleanly rendering the print font they've co-opted as a display font.
I then stated, in a subsequent post:
I misspoke in my previous reply.
In other words, I acknowledge that parts of my previous post were incorrect and hereby retract the arguments made therein. Yet you continue attacking those retracted arguments. That you can't argue the points I've left on the table shows just how weak your position actually is.
The fact is that Apple sells more MacBook Air and non-retina MacBook Pros (by your own admission, the 13" non-retina is the most popular model) than they do Retina Macbook Pros and there is a single Retina iMac model, the most expensive (and, historically, the most expensive product in one of Apple's lines has always sold marginally worse than the least, with the best seller being somewhere in the middle; the current MacBook Pro line being the outlier, with the least expensive model leading the pack), which is competing with 5 lower-priced models, ranging from 43% (coming in at the same price as the non-retina 13" MBP) to 80% of the price of the Retina model. From the cheapest iMac, that's a $1400 price differential; from the most expensive non-retina, it's a $400 jump; the jump from the non-retina 13" MBP to the Retina 13" MBP is only half that, $200. Are you seriously expecting me, or anyone else here, to believe that people who won't pay $200 for a retina display will somehow pay $400 for one?
I'm assuming you realize what that means and were just making a point. Since I was also making a point, allow me to clarify. A "normal listening volume" is one at which you can hear the music over the ambient noise in the room; "especially if" means "in addition to this case, there are other, possibly more common, cases where this happens". In short, you don't have to listen to Bose drivers at eardrum-splitting volumes to hear them distort and, without active noise cancellation, they're typically going to be driven at a level where the distortion is glaringly noticeable.
Even when they're not "driven to distortion", they're still just "acceptable okay"; is that what you want in a >$100 pair of headphones? Probably not; consider that you can get noise isolating headphones with drivers that blow away anything Bose currently puts out for half the price and get the same listening experience, as the outside noise that does get through in your average semi-quiet listening environment (e.g. anywhere you don't have to blast your eardrums to drown out the background noise) will be roughly equivalent to the distortion you'd get from the Bose drivers. Where the Bose set wins out is in louder environments, and they license the tech, so why not buy a pair from someone else, with better drivers and the Bose ANC?
In short, I don't think we disagree, I think my point was simply not made clearly enough the first time around.
What you haven't realised is the difficult part is automatically resolving sync conflicts.
Well, it doesn't seem to be a problem in the solution I'm currently using. Mind you, sarcasm>I probably have no clue how it works, given that I implemented it/sarcasm>. But you go right on ahead and keep telling me it's a hard problem. Difficult for you, perhaps, but not hard; there are a finite number of possible solutions and it should not be difficult for a well-built system to solve. True, Git (which I used as the basis for my solution) doesn't do a very good job of this natively; it took some creative and well thought out commit and merge hooks to accomplish it, a good day's work, for sure.
You are correct, though, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for what to sync and how to handle merging of whatever does eventually get synched. But, then, I never claimed that there was; my claim was that the transport part of the equation is, and has been for decades, solved. Can you argue that point?
Earlier, you said:
They are file formats. They are not methods of handing off open documents between different devices without first saving them somewhere. Completely different thing.
And I didn't disagree. I did, however, point out that the documents are, in fact, saved somewhere (e.g. a temporary file, at the very least), out of necessity. I also pointed out why this was necessary, e.g. if you at all care about data consistency and preventing work loss in case of loss of power or a software or system failure. Can it be done without a temporary file somewhere local? Sure, and without issue, as long as you never lose connectivity or power while working, and your software and system never crash. If you live in a perfect world, you are correct to say that a temp file provides no benefit; however, neither I, nor anyone else I know, live in such a world. When you're using an all that utilizes cloud storage and the app crashes or you close it while you happen to not have any connectivity, it is able to restore your work only because it stored it in a local temp file somewhere.
What application(s) are you involved in. I would like to avoid them.
That you can't boot OSX on commodity PC hardware, which hasn't been blessed by Apple, is an artificially enforced a shortcoming of OSX, as Apple does actively work to prevent that. Were apple to remove the "genuine hardware" checks (which Chameleon bypasses) from the kernel, OSX would boot just the same on any PC build with supported (whether blessed or not) hardware. And, before anyone jumps on my for trying to make this a religious issue, I'd like to point out two facts:
A) I'm a Mac user and
B) "Blessed" is Apple's own term.
As I said in a different post, I don't seen an issue with their font choice, it renders fine, to my eye, on my 17" 1920x1200 display, but a number of other posters have expressed their displeasure; I was simply providing a viable workaround.
And no, the Mac Pro was not designed for video, it was designed as a high-end workstation which, yes, can be used for video; however, let's not limit its use-case to that. It can be used for whatever the displays and other peripherals you attach to it allow it to be used for. I've been eyeballing a Mac Pro since the new ones came out, and video is but one thing I would use it for.