Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 444

THIS is the laptop.

That's definitely looking like a beast, what little I can make out of the system. Core i7 (quad I'm sure) and 970M graphics? What's interesting to me is that CPU wise, the latest 2016 MBP CPU is a neck and neck comparison, but the GPUs obviously are a clear win for the 970M, and also likely a huge battery eater. What's interesting is that laptop makes no mention of the integrated Iris graphics. Are non mac laptops still bound by discrete graphics, or have they also included auto-switching to the integrated Iris graphics to save power when convenient? Also, that laptop states it comes with dual spinning drives for the price I saw, which wasn't surprisingly high, but in line with what I expected. With bigger M.2 drive (only 1 supported?) and 1 or 2 SSDs, you can probably create a better battery life situation if you haven't already, if that's important to you.

As for heat and battery life, I dunno, both my 2011 17" and my 2014 15" retina run hot and don't last long; the 2011 claims 81% battery capacity still and it does seem to last about as long as the 2014. My wife's 2013 13" does the same, but it also has a bad RAM slot (common on that model) and a slew of other issues, so I attribute all of its problems to the faulty design and manufacturing.

A quick note - as these are older macs, and likely have been upgraded OS wise, you might wish to inspect your running processes. I had a mini just recently that shutdown due to heat sporadically. I traced it down to the upgrade process not having completed successfully due to XCode requiring registration agreement, or something like that. Once fixed, it ran cool as a cucumber again. And yes, there are Apple products with issues, like any other. The 3 year AC is vital on laptops, and I've used it for 3 of 4 of my laptops. The current 2014 is the only one that hasn't had it used. For any of your issues, I'd have immediately taken it to the apple store, where so far they've replaced 2 minis, 2 batteries, and 1 logic board, no questions asked. So yes, I too have my set of failed hardware. :) My list of other systems is far longer, and usually ends with: junked after 'n' months as unfixable.

Now that I've gotten that rant off my chest: thank you for not contributing to that.

Don't intend to - I also run a hack.... That should tell you everything you need to know.

I really just want Apple to make something that I can actually use. I greatly prefer Mac OS to Windows (I'd prefer Linux to either of those if the apps I need ran on it), but the hardware just isn't keeping up. I'm buying a machine for the long haul and I need it to not already be 2-3 years out of date when I buy it.

BTW, that hack runs a 980x, which hasn't been worth upgrading since 2010. Latest hardware just doesn't mean much in desktops anymore. Yes, I can double the performance of the desktop, it'll cost me something like $5K to do so, and run some rather interesting hardware. It doesn't seem cost effective until I need a new machine. However, I'd agree that if I'm paying top dollar, I should at least get current hardware. The minis and mac pros have not been keeping up to date.

it's something a company with Apple's resources and engineering talent could pop off on a monthly basis, which is faster than the new parts come to market on average.

Actually I read an article on the latest Intel processors, Kaby Lake?, and why they weren't in the 2016 refresh. Essentially, the MBP design was already finalized, tested, and sent to manufacturing before the processor was available. That CPU also required new supporting hardware on the logic boards. I get why Apple didn't use it. Should they have shifted their release date? Considering that Intel has had manufacturing issues previously and there's always bugs to deal with, I'd say they made the right decision. Release hardware now, but perhaps they should have a spring release for the next cycle? They've done it before.

They'd stop seeing a lull in sales as refreshes (or rumors of them) approach, as well; it'd basically be refresh-day sales all year long as most people aren't gonna mind having hardware that's a month "out of date" but many do mind having last year's model if the new one's supposed to come out in a month or two.

TBH, I've spoken against the 2014+ minis as abominations and the 2013 Mac Pro, although a really really nice piece of engineering and design, it's totally impracticable for high end users, and was dated by 2014 at the latest. When you charge premium prices for premium hardware, your hardware better be premium, and by the end of 2014, those GPUs were bottom upper tier at best. I'd love a cube or box that you can access parts and change out even GPUs and CPUs like, you guessed it, the 2012 Mac Pro.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 444

Well, as listed on that page, it's 4k. Come on, man, I know you can read :)

Actually - I get a twitter page on that link.... I was slightly confused.

As for battery life, continuous integration. Tests run nearly constantly; every time I save a file, the functional test suite runs. Whenever I upload a file to one of several VMs (one for each type of server in the application cluster), another test suite runs that interacts with the site hosted on that cluster of VMs to verify that critical use-cases function correctly. The 2014 rMBP did a fine enough job keeping up, provided I didn't mind the system bogging down as the test suites ran, or artificially limiting how fast they'd run in order to avoid that (hey, we all like taking more breaks, right?) but, really, it got annoying after a time. Running that load, the rMBP could manage a couple hours of battery life, tops; seems about on par with the PC, but the PC doesn't bog down under the load. I wouldn't really say it eats batteries, considering it slightly edges out the rMBP under similar loads.

Most interesting. I run a similar suite, including DBs, webservices, etc. Granted, I at most run 2 VMs concurrently now, I ran as many as 6 previously. Still never ate this MBP battery in less than 6 hours unless I was running some hi-res or poorly coded game that kept running at 100fps or something standing still. Now that will eat battery, and make for an uncomfortable lap. The alienware machine did the same FWIW. And weighed over 10 pounds doing it.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 444

This is the laptop. I'll admit, I can't really evaluate battery life as I never really use it unplugged for more than an hour or so. As one would expect, it will vary with workload and yes, I've had it nealy death after just over an hour, but I've also experienced the same with my 2014 rMBP; I've also never topped 5hr with that rMBP, but I've had that PC over 80% after an hour.

I use my laptop unplugged for at least 3 and sometimes as many as 7 hours at least once a week. Battery life is somewhat important in my use case. I'm curious how you have yours configured and what you run that you don't get at least 5 hours on battery. I have mine configured for power savings on battery, which means falling back to Intel graphics if possible.

Considering that it's pushing a much heavier GPU and higher resolution display, it really wouldn't surprise me if it didn't manage to win any awards for battery life. Lighter and faster than my rMBP, though, and I've noticed it runs a fair bit cooler as well.

It's pushing a significantly higher built in resolution than 2880x1800? (I've seen a few 3200x1800s but for all intents and purposes that is an equivalent load, 3800x2160 is generally far more expensive by the time you get comparable memory/disk hardware) What you're describing sounds impossible though - beefier GPU, higher resolutions and at least as fast as the MBP, but runs cooler and eats batteries? Something doesn't add up there.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 444

When you don't need to replace your laptop or desktop every 1-3 years like a Dell, well, I suspect your sales numbers won't be quite as growth oriented.

Funny, I have a $299 Toshiba that was bought in 2010 that's still in use. Well, I don't have it, I gave it to a friend 2 years ago, but they're still using it daily. I was actually going to reply with something along the lines of "that only happens when you buy the cheaper models, but you're still ahead dollar-for-dollar and get periodic performance boosts as a bonus; when you spend as much on a PC laptop as you do on a Mac, they tend to last as long"; then, I remembered that $299 gem.

There's always exceptions. The general rule with all the company laptops I've dealt with was if you got more than 1 year out of a battery, that was a net plus. If the laptop itself didn't implode due to one of many different causes within the first 2 years, that was a win. This was primarily Dell, HP, and other lesser name brand laptops. The desktops generally lasted 2-3 years, tops, before things started going squirrelly.

But I'll still elaborate on my point: I can spend $2400 on a 15" MacBook Pro (I'm pulling this from memory of my purchase in 2015, prices may be different today) and hope it lasts me 5 years, of I can spend $300/yr on a cheap PC, only have spent $1500 after 5 years and, at the end of that 5 years, have something faster than the Mac I would have spent $2400 on. Going the PC route gives me a $900 savings every 5 years and continuous performance upgrades.

Here's the thing - I'm not looking purely at cost. I freely admit you can get a $200 laptop, saw one today, in fact, a Core2 Duo running win 10 - I'm sure it smokes, or will, as soon as you try to run some video processing through it. :) Seriously, when you compare a high res screen, fast memory and disk I/O in a package with weight and battery life, you just can't touch the mac specs for much less than a mac. In fact, I ran those comparisons for screen resolution, memory, and disks against the various offerings from Dell, Lenovo, and HP, and in only 1 instance could I match the performance specs with a cheaper machine. However, it weighed 2#s more and, being a Dell, you'd have to figure in a new battery every year and about half the stated battery runtime. If all I needed was a web browser, I'd firmly agree with you. My particular needs involve much more than that, and those requirements actually make the mac very competitive just on price. At that point it's a few trade offs: can I live with replacing the battery, shorter runtime, and almost always greater weight vs slightly reduced connectivity or extra dongles? Plus, of course, can you live with Windows and its restrictions/invasions, or the extra overhead of maintaining your own Linux/BSD installation, or deal with the pain that is OSX...

Just kidding.. :)

Of course, I need more performance than the $300 PC laptops will give me, so that's not a viable solution for me, but it does illustrate how the Mac doesn't necessarily demonstrate "better value" based on "lasting longer". For the average user, that $2400 Mac would have to last 8 years to match the value of the $300 PC; and that's generously assuming the PC is upgraded yearly like clockwork. Additionally, at some point in that 8 year cycle, the $300 PC will surpass the $2400 Mac in performance.

Just for fun, I had a 2004 Powerbook, not top end, but nice. Sold it after 5 years for over $400. It had a relatively new battery, thanks to a recall program, and generally ran great at the time. The 2006 MBP that replaced it is just now getting ready to be put out to pasture. It was limited to 10.7, but has 10.6 on it. Note that this is 11 years old, and was used for 4 straight years as a daily development machine. It was replaced by a 2009 MBP in early 2010 for heavy development purposes. That machine was used daily until the SATA controller flaked out in 2015. 5 years of daily abuse, and then it was a controller chip that went bad. I got almost $400 for it as well on trade in for the current 2014 MBP I'm running. The 2009 MBP had a SSD upgrade and was as snappy as most offerings out in 2014.

The 2014 MBP is smoking fast. It handles many things near my desktop's speed, a rather built out 980x with an SSD RAID 0 subsystem, primarily because I couldn't get price competitive single SSDs to anywhere near match the laptop's performance. Yes, my MBP showed that I was still disk I/O limited on the desktop. With 4 SSDs in RAID 0, I'm close on disk I/O. It was cheaper than trying to upgrade to a M.2 motherboard which would have required a new CPU, etc.

And it was beaten by a $1700 PC laptop which, I bet you won't guess, is still in use a year and a half later, with no signs of needing to be replaced any time in the foreseeable future. It's actually still competitive with the 2016 MacBook Pro so, if you want to say a Mac laptop will last 5 years, it looks like I'm gonna get at least 6 out of this; it's sure built well enough to do it.

Interesting, something from Alienware, perhaps, or similar? How much does it weigh? I ask, because I did a rather thorough evaluation of top end laptops before buying the last one in early 2015, and one of my criteria was lugging it around. My second question is battery life? While I don't get 10 hours out of my MBP, I do get over 6. A brand new Lenovo upper tier business system I tried out lasted about 2 hours and weighed an extra pound.

If Toshiba can make a laptop that lasts (and is still going strong in daily use) 7+ years for $300, why can't Apple tap that market?

They did - iPad.

And Apple could totally do that with a more recent C2D than what's in your 2006 MBP. If that's enough performance for you, something more recent should be marketable to a wider audience, as well; after all, people have no problem paying $300 for a C2D-based PC these days.

Apple did that with the 2014 minis. 2012 minis cost as much or more than the "upgraded" 2014 minis being sold today.

I can't answer why Apple didn't do it. I don't know why they ignored their Mac Pro and mini line as long as they have. It appears they thought the Mac Pro would be what pro people wanted, and that the iMac would work for everyone else. The mini was repositioned to be that low-end $300 machine you mention above, albeit starting at a little over $400 and then "upgradeable". I'd argue the highest end mini should be selling for under $500. It's a piece of crap compared to what you can build for that kind of money. I personally wanted minis to be the grid a mac pro would control for some serious processing power.

Comment Re:I have a dream (Score 1) 444

We'll see. Honestly, of the entire Mac lineup, the Mac Mini had the most enterprise appeal (after the rack-mountable Mac servers were discontinued) simply for the ability to cram a shit-ton of them into a small space. You can easily rack-mount 6 of them in 1U so, if you wanted to run OS X on your servers, or just wanted a multitude of smaller discreet servers, you could really pack some reasonable power into a rack. That changed when they downgraded the Mini in 2014 and I do hope they reverse course.

Yes, absolutely true. 6 in 1U is a bit tight....

I'm a software developer, I run development servers in VMs....Before WSL and Bash on Windows being able to do all the things I need a UNIX-like environment for, I did miss the Mac, but that reality has changed.

Agree on dev and load types, totally not on the WSL/Bash comments, because that's not all I use in dev environments. In fact, not having to deal with anything windows has been a blessing. I have less trouble switching between various Linux/BSD installs than I do going back to Windows GUI of the day. And no, I have not run spy on you Win10. I likely never will.

The new Mac Pros might be too little too late. As long as they can still run Windows and Linux, though, there is still hope for a refreshed Mac Mini, for the above-stated reasons.

Mac Pros may or may not be interesting. It depends on what they come up with. As long as refreshed minis have minimum quad core CPUs and expandable memory to at least 32GB, they'll make awesome little boxes. They can have a "consumer" dual core version for all I care at $300. I won't buy a dual core anything until core technology leaps to be able to run 4 or more threads each at 100% core speed.

Outwardly, Apple states that they are still dedicated to the Mac, but I think that ship has sailed. We're also seeing iPad sales on the decline and there's nothing going on in iPad land; the iPhone is really what's keeping Apple afloat at this point. Yes, they're making money hand over fist, and they've got cash reserves that could pay everyone's salaries for a decade if money stopped coming in all of a sudden, I don't think Apple is going to die. But I do think the Mac has been on a death spiral for nearly a decade and has less than a decade left.

Macs have been selling reasonably well. I'd still buy a 2015 MBP over anything else out there. I haven't used the touch bar MBP, so can't say if it's better or worse. As for iMacs, never saw the appeal really, unless you were doing a kiosk type system, as minis pre 2014 did a much better job filling that niche.

tablets aren't selling very fast. I bought my second one just recently, after 5 years. The old one still works fine for most things, except Apple stopped issuing iOS upgrades. What that means is that my app library will slowly become incompatible with the rest of my ecosystem, but it will work for a large number of things I use it for just fine until the battery dies. That means that tablets last about as long as MBPs. For what it's worth, I still have a 2006 being used daily, and my 2009 died after a little over 5 years. A friend of mine still uses his same model 2009 every day. When you don't need to replace your laptop or desktop every 1-3 years like a Dell, well, I suspect your sales numbers won't be quite as growth oriented.

Comment Re:Looking forward to Microsoft's response (Score 1, Informative) 50

I doubt people are using this for Vista, 8 or 8.1.... However, Win7 was considered the last usable windows system, and a rather largish group of folks don't want Win10. Personally, I voted with my feet a long long time ago, and run pretty much anything that's not MS.

Comment Re: BETRAYAL (Score 1) 369

So, what is the failure about the Obama economy?

I was wondering that myself. The current economy was brought back from the last Republican disaster not by a Republican president nor even Republican legislators (GOP is known as the party of "No" after all). Just think about that, and the fact that the economy appears to have peaked right as Trump started making "America Great Again"

Comment Re:Old rules prevent creating new networks (Score 1) 71

Both of those reduce diversity - the first nationally, the second within regions.

Seems to me that eliminating the rule would fix the first one and increase the diversity of opinion available to viewers.

(Meanwhile, if the FCC wants to prohibit something to try to increase diversity, they could limit the number of outlets within each region a single party could own. That would also free up some outlets for new wholly-owned network builders, too.)

Doing the first without the second gets you into the worst possible situation you can be in.

Comment Re:Been there. Didn't like it. (Score 1) 71

I have no problem with 1 company being able to reach all people in the US. I do have issues with 1 company effectively owning all sources in 1 area, otherwise known as a monopoly. My personal take on this would be no company can own more than 10% of broadcasting entities servicing an area with a minimum allowable of 1. That would seem to spur competition and keep the number of competitors higher than they are today.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.

Working...