Macrumors positives and negatives

[Motoko.]

It seems to me lately that news from apple updates tend to get a high negative feedback lately.

They probably don't like the change Apple is going through but I have to say my first impressions of Apple changing were negative but after these new iPods I'm beginning to like Apple's general direction.

[Draken]

They are leading a lot of tendencies and trends, that makes them target of all kind of bad and good feelings alike, their products are "overpriced", yeah may be, but it's designs and features are unique. Well let's see what happens when Mr Jobs and Mr Ive step down.

[rawr_boy81]

A lot of the negative feedback has to do with long time Mac users who are:

1) Angry that the Mac platform seems to be getting the cold shoulder by Apple - that all the focus is on i-devices these days.

2) Windows folk coming into a Mac forum whining about how they can't get their iPod to work or going on about their Windows computer as if anyone in a Mac forum would remotely care about what they have to say.

For me I just find the lack of movement in the Mac world depressing, especially when it comes to Apple addressing issues such as the lack of GLSL 1.30 being added to Mac OS X or lack of long standing bugs not being addressed which affect third parties (read through bugzilla at the number of bugs that cause problems for developers).

[what]

So it's definitely not just trolls clicking negative on every story?

[Vice]

With the lack of focus on Macs I've lost a lot of interest in them. I'm a MacBook Pro owner and I love my notebook as it is today but I foresee a future where I wont be buying a new Apple computer because it won't offer what I need. I've always built my own Desktop systems and that would never change but now I'm thinking I'll probably go for a PC notebook on my next notebook upgrade cycle (2012) instead of a Mac.

So I can see why others who feel like I do are probably voting down iOS related news and rumors on Macrumors. I've never done it personally (and I do have an account there) as I do like the iOS devices, I own an iPhone. But again it saddens me to see the Mac being pushed aside for these new gadgets.

[.Neo]

The lack of focus on Macs is something people have convinced themselves of. In the last 1,5 years we saw new iLife, iWork, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Aperture 3, two new major iTunes and Safari releases etc. Not to mention major redesigned or altogether new Mac hardware (iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad, Apple Remote etc.) in 2009 and 2010.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in 2009. iLife '09 was released in 2009. iWork '09 was released in 2009. We're not going to see those packages updated the following year. Simple as that. But then again Apple told us that would be the case all way back in 2005 when they explained that the yearly release cycle of Mac OS X and iLife are unrealistically to keep up. We don't see Microsoft putting out a new version of Windows every year either.

If anything it has more to do with the fact that people bore easily and want something new to play with quickly.

[instant.human]

The lack of focus on Macs is something people have convinced themselves of. In the last 1,5 years we saw new iLife, iWork, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Aperture 3, two new major iTunes and Safari releases etc. Not to mention major redesigned or altogether new Mac hardware (iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad, Apple Remote etc.) in 2009 and 2010.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in 2009. iLife '09 was released in 2009. iWork '09 was released in 2009. We're not going to see those packages updated the following year. Simple as that. But then again Apple told us that would be the case all way back in 2005 when they explained that the yearly release cycle of Mac OS X and iLife are unrealistically to keep up. We don't see Microsoft putting out a new version of Windows every year either.

If anything it has more to do with the fact that people bore easily and want something new to play with quickly.

Word.

[gnuman]

But I tend to agree with people stating that their Mac hardware (iMac and their notebooks) really not getting much exposure as of late. Sure they refreshed the specs but still I believe Apple should release a desktop (tower) for personal users like they did back in their G4 days. The iMac is not suitable for everyone and the Mac Pro is way overpriced. There is no middle ground and they should have some sort of tower system, maybe slimline type case. The Mac Mini (did they refresh it?) is not really suitable as you are limited on what you can do...

[Vice]

The lack of focus on Macs is something people have convinced themselves of. In the last 1,5 years we saw new iLife, iWork, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Aperture 3, two new major iTunes and Safari releases etc. Not to mention major redesigned or altogether new Mac hardware (iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad, Apple Remote etc.) in 2009 and 2010.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in 2009. iLife '09 was released in 2009. iWork '09 was released in 2009. We're not going to see those packages updated the following year. Simple as that. But then again Apple told us that would be the case all way back in 2005 when they explained that the yearly release cycle of Mac OS X and iLife are unrealistically to keep up. We don't see Microsoft putting out a new version of Windows every year either.

If anything it has more to do with the fact that people bore easily and want something new to play with quickly.

It took Apple over a year to put Core i7's in any of their computers after Intel released them. A year Neo.

Just to remind everyone of that date. The Core i7 line was released on the 3rd of November 2008

[ManosK]

What hat about the abysmal "refresh" of the MacBook Pro line! The 13.3" model is still using the ancient Core 2 Duo when i5/i7 have been in life for a long time now with other manufacturers on similar sized laptops.

[Subject Delta]

Whilst I understand people's pain, the highest profit margins for Apple are in their mobile devices these days. You can't blame a company for focusing on what makes them the most money.

[.Neo]

It took Apple over a year to put Core i7's in any of their computers after Intel released them. A year Neo.

Just to remind everyone of that date. The Core i7 line was released on the 3rd of November 2008

Tell me Vice, how many other companies do you know that sell all-in-one desktops in the same form-factor as the 20 and 24-inch iMac with desktop-grade Quad-Core Core i7 processors before Apple put them in the 27-inch iMac? My guess is not many. We all know what the drawbacks are of using a slim all-in-one design compared to more traditional towers. Let's not pretend you don't. Also your post is inaccurate:

The first computer to use Nehalem-based Xeon processors was the Apple Mac Pro workstation announced on March 3, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

Last time I checked the Nehalem-based Xeon is basically a Core i7 and apparently Apple was the very first company to offer them.

Then there is the whole ordeal between Nvidia and Intel which I imagine threw things off as well. Especially when looking at the Mac mini, MacBook and 13,3-inch MacBook Pro.

[.Neo]

But I tend to agree with people stating that their Mac hardware (iMac and their notebooks) really not getting much exposure as of late. Sure they refreshed the specs but still I believe Apple should release a desktop (tower) for personal users like they did back in their G4 days. The iMac is not suitable for everyone and the Mac Pro is way overpriced. There is no middle ground and they should have some sort of tower system, maybe slimline type case. The Mac Mini (did they refresh it?) is not really suitable as you are limited on what you can do...

Nothing has changed in that department since like what? 2002? Apple doesn't want to put out a Mac in a traditional PC form factor with iMac specs. That has nothing to do with iOS.

[Vice]

Tell me Vice, how many other vendors do you know sell all-in-one desktops in the same form-factor with desktop-grade Quad-Core Core i7 processors before Apple put them in the iMac? My guess is not many. Also your post is inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia....roarchitecture)

Then there is the whole ordeal between Nvidia and Intel which I imagine threw things off as well.

Xeon's are in those Mac Pros not core i7's

And I don't care what other makers do with their all-in-ones. What I care about is what Apple is offering. When I can get a system from Dell with a Core i7 more than a year before Apple I'm going to go buy that Dell. I reaffirm my belief that Apple needs to make a mid-tower computer between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro which has upgradable PCIe graphics cards and desktop chips not Server or Mobile chips.

Maybe if they weren't so sidetracked with iOS they'd have made one by now. We will never know.

EDIT:// I see you edited your post. The Xeons are Core i7's in core logic, however they are also 3x the price. We are consumers we want affordable desktop chips not Server/Workstation chips at 3x the price for the same performance.

Also I just wanted to add that 'Snow Leopard' could have been a point release. A service pack. It offered no new features and just improved existing code. To users we noticed very little changes at all. It does not deserve to be a full release in my opinion.

And for us notebook users our battery life decreased, sometimes significantly with Snow Leopard. It was a downgrade for us :(

[rawr_boy81]

The lack of focus on Macs is something people have convinced themselves of. In the last 1,5 years we saw new iLife, iWork, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Aperture 3, two new major iTunes and Safari releases etc. Not to mention major redesigned or altogether new Mac hardware (iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad, Apple Remote etc.) in 2009 and 2010.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in 2009. iLife '09 was released in 2009. iWork '09 was released in 2009. We're not going to see those packages updated the following year. Simple as that. But then again Apple told us that would be the case all way back in 2005 when they explained that the yearly release cycle of Mac OS X and iLife are unrealistically to keep up. We don't see Microsoft putting out a new version of Windows every year either.

If anything it has more to do with the fact that people bore easily and want something new to play with quickly.

For me I don't want to see new things, I just want to see Apple address the issues relating to graphics performance, improving OpenGL compatibility by supporting at least OpenGL 3.3, fixing long standing bugs, focus on moving more Safari rendering to GPU if possible using Core Animation, fix long standing framework bugs that anger developers etc. I'm happy to go with out a new version for Mac OS X for another 2 years but I do expect in the mean time that Apple spend that time fixing bugs at a regular pace, connecting with developers to address bugs that cause heart ache, and other stuff. It has to do with 'toys to play with' and more to do with expecting Apple to fill in the gaps.

But I tend to agree with people stating that their Mac hardware (iMac and their notebooks) really not getting much exposure as of late. Sure they refreshed the specs but still I believe Apple should release a desktop (tower) for personal users like they did back in their G4 days. The iMac is not suitable for everyone and the Mac Pro is way overpriced. There is no middle ground and they should have some sort of tower system, maybe slimline type case. The Mac Mini (did they refresh it?) is not really suitable as you are limited on what you can do...

Why isn't it suitable for everyone? What is wrong with a top of the line iMac? I could understand the argument 10 years ago when IT was moving so fast that a computer was out of date in 3 weeks but these days I can't see a 1GB video card being obsolete within 3-4 years - heck, my desktop which is an iMac 2.66Ghz with a Radeon HD 2600 Pro /w 256MB is more than sufficient and it is close to 2 years old. Unless you're really out to play mega fast games the fixation on expandability doesn't make sense.

What hat about the abysmal "refresh" of the MacBook Pro line! The 13.3" model is still using the ancient Core 2 Duo when i5/i7 have been in life for a long time now with other manufacturers on similar sized laptops.

It happened because of the problems with nVidia and Intel; there needed to be a refresh and if they were going to do 13.3inch with the i3 it would have required a resign and thus put them behind the eighth ball. I'm not happy that they're using Core 2 but their decision has nothing to do with them being 'pathetic', 'stupid' or a pack of idiots as you're insinuating with your post.

Whilst I understand people's pain, the highest profit margins for Apple are in their mobile devices these days. You can't blame a company for focusing on what makes them the most money.

Is Apple's main focus on i-devices or is it the market focusing on i-devices which given the perception that Apple's focusing excessively on it?

[.Neo]

Xeon's are in those Mac Pros not core i7's

And I don't care what other makers do with their all-in-ones. What I care about is what Apple is offering. When I can get a system from Dell with a Core i7 more than a year before Apple I'm going to go buy that Dell. I reaffirm my belief that Apple needs to make a mid-tower computer between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro which has upgradable PCIe graphics cards and desktop chips not Server or Mobile chips.

Then you require something else that Apple offers, which is okay and you should definitely go with something else. A company can't suit everyone's needs. I don't see anything wrong with that. However, you're claiming that Apple lost focus with the Core i7-thing as an example. That example doesn't work because the Core i7 simply wasn't suited to be build into the 24-inch iMac. Apple can't change the laws of physics. They addressed the issue with the 27-inch iMac within a year.

Maybe if they weren't so sidetracked with iOS they'd have made one by now. We will never know.

It's a choice Apple made a very long time ago. Long before iOS was in the picture.

EDIT:// I see you edited your post. The Xeons are Core i7's in core logic, however they are also 3x the price. We are consumers we want affordable desktop chips not Server/Workstation chips at 3x the price for the same performance.

Again, you're claiming Apple lost focus because of iOS and doesn't keep up with the times. The Mac Pro was the only Mac in Apple's lineup that could house the Nehalem-based processors. They were updated with the new architecture, before anyone else.

Also I just wanted to add that 'Snow Leopard' could have been a point release. A service pack. It offered no new features and just improved existing code. To users we noticed very little changes at all. It does not deserve to be a full release in my opinion.

The exact same thing can be said of Windows 7 in my opinion.

[Vice]

Apple had two options with the MacBook Pro 13"

1. Use the i3 and its integrated graphics and get rid of the 9400M = People moan about low graphics performance compared to old model

2. Use Core 2 Duo and keep the 9400M = People moan about CPU being slower / Not refreshed, But don't complain about GPU performance

Apple chose option 2.

[.Neo]

Exactly, so where does that leave them? They had to make a choice, the lesser of two evils. It's not that Apple doesn't want to put a Core i3 in the MacBook Pro. In this case they (I imagine others as well and ultimately the consumer) are victims of the ongoing struggle between Intel and Nvidia.

[Vice]

Then you require something else that Apple offers, which is okay and you should definitely go with something else. A company can't suit everyone's needs. I don't see anything wrong with that. However, you're claiming that Apple lost focus with the Core i7-thing as an example. That example doesn't work because the Core i7 simply wasn't suited to be build into the 24-inch iMac. They fixed that with the 27-inch iMac within a year.

Yes I do require something else. Apple is the only company doing OS X if we have bought in to their ecosystem it is their responsibility to drive it forward and offer tools that the users need. Otherwise they should allow the OS to be installed on other hardware. They can't have it both ways. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

It's a choice Apple made a very long time ago. Long before iOS was in the picture.

Well unfortunately you can't answer that as we will never know when Apple makes its decisions.

Again, you're claiming Apple lost focus because of iOS and doesn't keep up with the times. The Mac Pro was the only Mac in Apple's lineup that could house the Nehalem-based processors. And they were updated with the new architecture, before anyone else.

I am claiming that Apple is behind the times and has been for a long time. The 30" Display still has not been replaced with anything. It took them ages to release that 27" Display after the 24" - They are investing heavily in iOS and I do not see that same investment in OS X.

The exact same thing can be said of Windows 7 in my opinion.

I agree, Windows 7 was just an update. Not that this has anything to do with this discussion. This is about Apple, not what their competitors are doing.

This is the thing that gets me. A lot of Apple users put Apple above other system makers but when Apple start to falter their first defense is 'Well others are doing the same thing' you can't hold Apple to a higher regard and at the same time compare them to what others are or are not doing, they have to be consistently better to be regarded as such.

You already did this yourself with asking what other companies do I know of that uses Desktop class chips in all-in-one systems and this Windows 7 comparison. If Apple is so amazing we wouldn't of needed Snow Leopard in the first place and they would be using Desktop class chips in the iMac.

HP was able to fit a Quad in their all-in-one. Just saying.

[Subject Delta]

Then you require something else that Apple offers, which is okay and you should definitely go with something else. A company can't suit everyone's needs. I don't see anything wrong with that. However, you're claiming that Apple lost focus with the Core i7-thing as an example. That example doesn't work because the Core i7 simply wasn't suited to be build into the 24-inch iMac. Apple can't change the laws of physics. They addressed the issue with the 27-inch iMac within a year.

That is nonsense. The Core i7 is used on a standard Micro ATX motherboard, it doesn't need a new board design, just a slightly different socket, which Apple could have fitted easily into the current design. And you are seriously claiming Apple would have needed a year to order new motherboards from their design companies? seeing as the chipsets where available.

[.Neo]

Yes I do require something else. Apple is the only company doing OS X if we have bought in to their ecosystem it is their responsibility to drive it forward and offer tools that the users need. Otherwise they should allow the OS to be installed on other hardware. They can't have it both ways. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

They can't satisfy every single customer out there they satisfied in the past. Sucks for you, but things are how they are.

Well unfortunately you can't answer that as we will never know when Apple makes its decisions.

If they wanted to put out a Mac in a traditional form factor with iMac specs they would have done so already. For a company that designs the iPhone 4 and 27-inch iMac building something like that shouldn't be much of a problem.

I am claiming that Apple is behind the times and has been for a long time. The 30" Display still has not been replaced with anything. It took them ages to release that 27" Display after the 24" - They are investing heavily in iOS and I do not see that same investment in OS X.

The Core i7 argument didn't really work out so now we're on to the Cinema Displays. Okay. The 27-inch took ages to come out? The 24-inch LED Cinema Display was released in late 2008. How many other companies already offered high-resolution 27-inch displays at a viable price point in the meantime? I'm not talking about those 27-inch DELL monitors with the exact same resolution as my former 24-inch LED Cinema Display.

You already did this yourself with asking what other companies do I know of that uses Desktop class chips in all-in-one systems and this Windows 7 comparison. If Apple is so amazing we wouldn't of needed Snow Leopard in the first place and they would be using Desktop class chips in the iMac..

You're not making much sense here and next to that I'm not putting Apple above anything. If Apple doesn't suit my needs anymore I'll drop them in a heartbeat. Simple as that. I switched back and forth between Windows and Mac OS simply based on how both markets developed.

The thing I don't understand is that you expect Apple to do stuff that is impossible, hence my question if you saw other companies doing it. Just like any other company Apple has to make choices and they rely on other companies. They can only work with the parts others offer.

HP was able to fit a Quad in their all-in-one. Just saying.

Yeah, in February 2010 at much lower clock speeds... (HP Touchsmart with Core i7)

That is nonsense. The Core i7 is used on a standard Micro ATX motherboard, it doesn't need a new board design, just a slightly different socket, which Apple could have fitted easily into the current design. And you are seriously claiming Apple would have needed a year to order new motherboards from their design companies? seeing as the chipsets where available.

The Core i7 would overheat and burn a hole through the plastic back when put in a 24-inch iMac. The 27-inch iMac offers much more space due to its sheer size and a whole new cooling system in order to keep things cool. Apparently that didn't even cross your mind.

[Vice]

Actually they had Quads in their all-in-one in 2009. Utilizing Core 2 Quads. Something Apple never did.

And the reason I moved on to the displays is because I won the Core i7 argument as you never made your case. There was no point hammering on about something you know nothing about.

And FYI. Apple was slower to release Core i5 and Core i7 notebooks than competitors as-well. Dell had XPS lines out for months and months before the MacBook Pros got there updates.

But look I don't wanna argue with you Neo this is just something we will never agree on. You see things one way and I see things another way.

[.Neo]

Actually they had Quads in their all-in-one in 2009. Utilizing Core 2 Quads. Something Apple never did.

We were talking about the Core i7, not Quad-Core CPUs in general. Don't change the subject.

And the reason I moved on to the displays is because I won the Core i7 argument as you never made your case. There was no point hammering on about something you know nothing about.

You didn't win anything. The Core i7 simply couldn't be implemented into any existing Mac model and no other company beat Apple to it. Actually companies like HP didn't implement the Core i7 into similar form factor computers until after the 27-inch iMac was released. Meaning Apple was ahead in the game. Next to that Apple was the very first to sell the Nehalem-based Xeon processor as part of their Mac Pro line-up. That's my case.

And FYI. Apple was slower to release Core i5 and Core i7 notebooks than competitors as-well. Dell had XPS lines out for months and months before the MacBook Pros got there updates.

How thick were those laptops in comparison to the MacBook Pro?

But look I don't wanna argue with you Neo this is just something we will never agree on. You see things one way and I see things another way.

Fine by me. (Y)

[Vice]

We were talking about the Core i7, not Quad-Core CPUs in general. Don't change the subject.

Your argument was using high-end chips in the iMac the ones used in Desktops. HP have managed to put Quad Cores with high TDP's in their all-in-ones for years. Something Apple has never been able to do until very recently.

You didn't win anything. The Core i7 simply couldn't be implemented into any existing Mac model and no other company beat Apple to it. Actually companies like HP didn't implement the Core i7 into similar form factor computers until after the 27-inch iMac was released. Meaning Apple was ahead in the game. Next to that Apple was the very first to sell the Nehalem-based Xeon processor as part of their Mac Pro line-up. That's my case.

Every company beat Apple to market with Core i7 systems. It doesn't matter what form factor they took, the performance was available to consumers. Some companies even offered Desktop Class Core i7's in Notebooks. Notebooks that include a screen and when closed are thinner than the iMac. So it is entirely possible to shoe-horn a desktop class chip in to an iMac form factor without 'burning a hole through the case' as it has been done.

And my argument was, nothing to stop Apple from making a Mac Pro that took the Core i7 processors. You can even use Xeons the ones used in the Mac Pro in a Core i7 1366 socket. They could have supplied a Single chip Mac Pro with an i7 but they chose not to, delaying the availability of i7 equipped Macs by months and at exuberant costs due to their Xeon usage. But I know you didn't know this so it's okay (Y)

How thick were those laptops in comparison to the MacBook Pro?

Why don't you go take a look for yourself? They look very stunning and are very thin and light.

[Subject Delta]

The Core i7 would overheat and burn a hole through the plastic back when put in a 24-inch iMac. The 27-inch iMac offers much more space due to its sheer size and a whole new cooling system in order to keep things cool. Apparently that didn't even cross your mind.

Seriously? you actually believe that? the heat output of the i7 is not enough to burn a hole in a computer :/ and it isn't as if the output of the i7 is that much higher.