301–310 of 653 posts
I really don't like when reviewers test the high end configuration only. This makes the review pretty useless for most of us who may be considering a lower spec.
>Interestingly, I disabled Turbo Boost to simulate the base i3 model’s thermals, and couldn’t get the fan to spin up audibly, no matter what I did. Those who prioritize silence under heavy loads should probably stick with the i3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because it can't be made to be "just an option". Having seen teardowns of a MacBook, I'm pretty sure that one without a touchbar would be more-or-less a completely different computer - different keyboard, yes. To accomplish that, though, you'd need to also make a different housing to accommodate it, and a different motherboard, too, because this stuff's all soldered together as a single unit these days. And…
They sell a version without a touchbar. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need a PC at all? A TV can play movies directly from a NAS.
I don’t trust my TV enough to be on the network.
Smart TVs and Roku boxes simply cannot be trusted. I have a brand new, relatively expensive Sony smart TV and while its Android TV support is more than adequate I don’t use it at all and keep it off the internet at all times. Instead, I use an Apple TV 4K.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It starts at $800, and you can instantly save $600 even for this top-of-the-line model by installing RAM yourself (it's user-upgradable again). The model & price reviewed here is the "let's not stop people from throwing money at us" option.
The RAM is upgrade-able on a Mac? Who put his neck on the line to get that option into the final product? That man is a hero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These days optical audio is dying when it comes to home theater systems, primarily due to its lack of codec support. You can't passthrough DTS-HD over optical, you can over HDMI.
I used to use optical audio but it was superseded by HDMI for home theater and USB for hifi. edit: I'd be curious to see what people are using optical for today (I'm under the impression audio pros mainly use USB interfaces as well)
I have an external DAC/amp, and I had been using optical until I recently upgraded my workstation. Now I am using USB, because the new motherboard doesn't have optical; I assumed USB would be fine, so the lack of optical wasn't something I considered with the purchase.
Unfortunately there's an awful amount of hiss with USB on this DAC. I'm not knowledgeable enough to pinpoint what's causing it, but standard remedies I've found (eliminate ground loop, try ferrite cores, get a usb filter) have not made a difference. It could be the USB interface on the DAC side, I have no idea.
While I don't _need_ an external DAC, I like using one for a few reasons: mine has a low output impedance which is good for some headphones, a convenient switch to toggle between headphone and speaker output, and a big volume knob with really smooth action. I like it. The alternative is to use the motherboard's ports; this motherboard does jack sensing such that the rear line out gets disabled if something is plugged into the front, so switching between headphones and speakers involves plugging/unplugging the headphones all the time. I also don't like adjusting volume through a tray applet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which also means the entire thing has to be thrown out when the SSD eventually dies. Sure it's going to take a while, but it will happen. Yay consumerism, I guess.
Technically not. You can boot from an external thunderbolt SSD, which is capable of the same speeds as an internal drive. It’s mildly ugly, but not a showstopper. But I thought that modern SSDs were supposed to last decades, even under heavy use. Is this actually a real problem?
I remember reading it’s not supported over USB3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He makes Overcast, the best iOS Podcasting app. Many good features to handle all the fiddly edge cases. Almost no complaints[0] and he keeps making it better. [0] The only one thing I wish he'd add would be the ability to limit concurrent downloads to prioritize at least one of them finishing. I routinely get bad wifi and seeing 8 downloads at 55% is maddening.
The only complaint that I have is that the UI is ugly ugly ugly and has so much wasted space. The previous version had so much better UI.
There is zero justification for the pricing. It needs to be starting around $399. Apple is still working the privileged pricing model. Considering it has year old processor and 8GB RAM. For $800 an i5 and 16GB should be standard. I can forgive that 128GB SSD but not the CPU or RAM. Side note, why is a computer only for games, streaming, and mining bitcoin? It that what the end user experience is limited to?
Apple uses value-based pricing, not cost-based pricing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody's forcing you to use 2x scaling. I use two 27" UHD displays with Debian/GNOME. The system-level scaling factor is 1, and I adjust application zoom levels as needed. I typically divide each display in half, and each half comfortably fits one browser window, mail client, terminal, Spotify, etc.
1x scaling will be too small for UHD at 27". MacOS only works probably with integer-based scaling - 1x, 2x, theoretically 3x. Everything inbetween will lead to blurry text/assets and decreased performance since the output as a whole will be scaled and downsampled by the GPU. I'm working a lot with text and a sharp/crisp display is important to me. 2x scaling is the only proper option in my opinion.
I run 2 27" 4k displays off a MacBook with integrated graphics, both scaled at 1.5x to "look like" 2560x1440. It works fine; text is not quite as sharp at it would be at 2x, but it's far better than it would be on an actual 1440p display. I haven't noticed decreased performance, but I'm not doing heavy graphics work.
Agreed that display manufacturers are messing this up. 4k displays should be either 20-24" for 2x scaling or 40+ inches for unscaled; 27" displays should be 5k.