491–500 of 541 posts
Why for heaven's sake is the new macbook pro €2279 when it's only $2199 in the US? It's a beautiful machine, and I'm used to some price differences between the US and Europe (USD = EUR, right, Apple?) but this is outrageous! That's almost 500 dolars more...
I get little hints of Apple losing it's finesse. The plugs are on either side of the new MacBooks, a detail that Apple previously didn't miss. And two Thunderbolts? Does anyone here actually have a thunderbolt device?
Having a USB port on each side is nice, IMHO. For example, I have a pair of external speakers where the right speaker connects to the USB port, which is a bit awkward when you only have USB ports on the left side of the laptop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like it or not, Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition that, ultimately, has been responsible for bringing us the Internet as we know it That's pretty rich. Networking was a fundamental feature of many operating systems that predate Microsoft's existence . The first web browser was developed not on Windows, but the precursor to OSX (NextSTEP) and MS played catch up in basic browser features aroun…
Re-read what I wrote and think about it. I knew it would be open for creative interpretations like yours. I did not attribute the Internet to Microsoft. What I said is that "Microsoft enabled an incredible level of global competition" and it is this competition that, in turn, allowed the internet to evolve into what we have today. Yes, networking existed way before MS. Yes, TBL wrote the first browser on NS. Yes, MS…
Microsoft had nothing to do with the openness of the PC architecture. By the time MS had any influence, the PC market had already been well established with several manufacturers churning out PC clones.
It was the cheap PC hardware that resulted from the evolution of the PC around the MS software...
Isn't it the other way around? At least in the beginning, the MS software seemed to evolve around advances in the PC hardware. At some point Microsoft probably got enough leverage to influence the process, but another company (or a consortium of companies) would have probably got to do that if MS had not been around.
Air 11": R$2699 -> R$3699 (1849 USD)
MBP 13": R$3599 -> R$3999 (2000 USD)
MBP Retina: R$9999 (4500 USD - WHAT??)
MBP Retina maxed out: R$15973 (~8000 USD...)
Apple prices went from ridiculous (buy a Mac or buy a car) 6 years ago to very competitive, until this update - apparently the good days are over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One further note on hardware quality: Perceived hardware quality is something Apple is fantastic at. Their laptops look and feel great. They feel like they'll last decades. This is misleading since they're actually built to be disposable. e.g. If you spill coffee on your Macbook Air, it's dead. You can't fix it because you can't remove the battery in a timely fashion and don't have the tools to open it. Apple won't f…
"For some strange reason Apple has managed to put retina displays in their laptops before LG or Samsung" There's nothing strange about this. Apple has been pushing very high resolution as a differentiator for 2 years now. They've made huge investments in new factories for Toshiba, Sharp and likely other display makers. They've signed huge contracts taking almost all the production from other vendors. It's not like to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apple is trying to impose that density is the same thing as resolution" I think you've confused "resolution" with "my preferred resolution". The new MBP has both a higher density and a better resolution then what you're looking for. You may be disappointed but I bet Apple thinks it can make more money by selling 2880x1800 MBPs.
It really depends on how OS X chooses to impose upon how the pixels are used. If the new "retina" desktop is merely a 1440x900 point desktop with much sharper fonts and artwork (much like how the retina iPhones are merely 320x480 point views), then this isn't necessarily desirable to someone who truly wants the higher-resolution workspace.
I guess it wasn't selling as good as the 15inch, ans is obsoleted by the retina one. But it's funny how there is so little mention of it, even if it was the top of the line for so long, representing the "everything's on board" mentality, just as the mac pro is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How the fuck is it a "downgrade"? You get higher resolution.
Less stuff fits on the screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that true hackers don't anti-alias monotype fonts, but I have been using anti-aliased Consolas for a few years now. It is a font best-designed coding books use ( http://www.abookapart.com/ ), and it should only look better, not worse, on print-like display.
> I know that true hackers don't anti-alias monotype fonts That may be true, but they're going to need a monocle if they want to see 9-pt courier at native resolution on one of these bad boys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that really holds. I had a cheap 2048x1152 23" monitor in 2009. Excepting very rare 2048x1536 15" laptop displays, it was comparable in pixel count to the previously-top 1920x1200 laptop resolution. The iMacs have had a 2560x1440 27" option since 2009 and I'd expect the next update to go higher. There have been 2560x1440 or similar 30" displays for a while, my boss was using one in early 2009 or so, 288…
you should also remember that most 15" laptops are 1280x800 or 1440x900. Today, most are the appalling 1366x768. I have to give Apple major points for sticking with decent resolutions and 16:10.