Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Submission + - The 'New' Mac Pro Is a Failure (

An anonymous reader writes: The "new" Mac Pro ("trashcan Mac") is a joke; for real pros, it's a plain and simple failure. In fact, a lot of professional Mac users are still clutching to their aluminum tower "classic" Mac Pros ("cMP"). The latest 2010/2012 cMP models are particularly coveted. And for good reason. Those machines are just better than the trashcan Mac. Right now, a cMP simply spanks the trashcan Mac's performance.

In this poll running in the Mac Rumors Mac Pro forum, as of this writing, 58 percent think the trashcan Mac Pro is a failure—which is astonishing in such a traditionally fanboy/pro-Apple forum. The thread is filled with discord and choice comments like this:

You are right. I know for sure that Apple are losing professional audio users. Composers mainly I believe, but possibly also ProTools users. Because many people are questioning Apple's commitment to pro computers because of the nMP... Many people are jumping from Mac/Logic to PC/Cubase these days.—Simon R.

Is it a giant mistake for Apple to not understand it is alienating its most core group of users?

Comment Re:Maine has been doing this since 1976 (Score 2) 34

Yes I work in rural healthcare and no, I have not seen a 'telemedicine' system worth the time, effort and money. In my rant, I'm not including a number of things that you rightly call telemedicine because that isn't how the technology is being pitched to hospitals. But you are quite right that radiology is telemedicine in the truest definition of the word. I'm hard pressed to call faxing EKGs 'telemedicine' because if you go that route, everything since the telephone is telemedicine. The stethoscope recorders are an example of a discrete part of an exam that can be transmitted remotely that has very limited clinical utility. Pretty much any cardiologist is going to ask for a echocardiogram which takes an expensive piece of equipment and a highly trained operator. So off the patient goes. So you can do it but it's really not helping the patient in any sort of coherent fashion.

The stroke protocol is interesting. They have managed to take a simple, six step checklist and create a wonderfully expensive device and system (that can be billed for, natch). Providence Anchorage loves the things but pretty much every neurologist will tell you that it's totally unneeded. Any rural facility that is capable of using clot busting agents is capable of having a trained paramedic / PA / nurse practitioner that can do the exam and then call the neurologist on the phone.

So my rant is devoted to those complex, expensive systems that are trotted out routinely that try to do very simple things (basically your examples) in complicated, typically proprietary fashion.

I actually think we agree more than disagree. As usual, it's semantics (is a video camera really telemedicine?) The low hanging fruit has been harvested and now the industry is trying to get on a rather intellectually shaky ladder.

And anybody who says that you can just 'connect' EHRs to deal with the patient's chart has never seen EHRs. Despite federal law and three decades of work, it takes custom programming, time and angst to get two different EHRs to talk to each other.

"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller