Something there doesn't add up. Mojave came out in late 2018. It's simply not the case there is any 2017 Apple hardware it doesn't support. Indeed, laptop support goes back to anything made in 2012 or newer.
Dual 66MHZ 603 CPUs at first, and later dual 133MHZ 603e CPUs. For the time interesting, but hardly head and shoulders above the 200MHZ Pentium Pros of the same era.
I live less than. a mile from a mid-sized town (15k peopl), 25 miles from the heart of Silicon Valley. The only reliable internet access available is 8mbit DSL using copper and satellite (HughesNet). No cable, no fiber, dodgy cell service, and at last try Starlink was not remotely reliable. Last big rainstorm we lost service for 5 days.
I’d love to be able to ditch copper, but if AT&T is allowed to pull the plug, it means expensive, high latency satellite will be the sole option.
Similar but no DSL because we're about 6 miles from the nearest town. We're literally screwed here. The redwoods are too tall for satellite so there's just no other option.
I live in Florida and found Starlink worked mostly fine in a rain storm (occasional disconnects). This is using their newer portable receiver though, which one did you use?
In 2012, I left the Castro Valley part of sfEastBay and moved to a small Southern town with fiber optic 10gbps available at every electric-supplied address (I lived 8 years inside a rustic national forest with a fiber/copper jack on my ramshackle cabin's powermeter).
I mean it sounds like you don’t live in a town? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect service providers to string an extra mile of cable just for one customer.
There’s always going to be trade offs in living location.
Then you'd be wrong. Those service providers got their monopolies by promising the state they'd serve the rural customers. That you don't understand these basics disqualifies you from this entire topic.
People are born not knowing anything. If you know something, it is your responsibility to share that knowledge. Remember that you were also born not knowing about the nature of subsidies and state granted infrastructure monopolies. There’s no need to be an ass while sharing your knowledge in the same way that whoever taught you wasn’t an ass to you.
A small fraction of Americans shop daily for food. For the majority, it's a weekly (or even less frequent) occurrence.
And no, fresh bread is not really a thing, outside of a few urbanish settings. A healthy proportion of bakeries don't even sell bread - only pastries, cakes, etc.
> People are picking on that lede tweet somewhat unfairly. Numbers in the rest of the article say that the same benchmark run between the two "pro" variants improves only 6%. And that's actually quite disappointing for a chip that's supposed to be a on a new semiconductor node. Not a lot of people make a laptop purchase decision over 6%.
The M3 Pro has been neutered - the normal M2 Pro* was 8 Performance + 4 Efficiency cores (same as the Max) whereas the M3 Pro is just 6 P + 6 E cores.
If you want the full complement of CPU cores on the M3, you have to get the Max variant.
*There was a special 'low' end M2 pro that only had 6 + 4 cores.
Neutered? What a strange way to describe a chip that is about faster than its predecessor in most benchmarks. You're strangely focusing on an implementation detail rather than actual performance.
If a car company replaced a 4.0 liter internal combustion engine with a 3.8 liter engine that outperformed its predecessor, would you say that they "neutered it" because hey, you're getting 0.2 less liters of displacement?
For me to call something "crippled" or "neutered" or some such it would have to have actual functionality removed, or a meaningful reduction in actual performance. This is the opposite of that.
If you want to call the M3 Pro an underwhelming upgrade relative to the M2 Pro, that's your right and I don't really disagree with you, but I also think it compares pretty favorably to the annual incremental upgrades from Intel and others.
The M3 Pro has been restricted to prevent it from competing with the Max on CPU performance. Whereas the M2 Pro and M2 Max were essential identical on CPU performance (with the exception of the 10-core M2 Pro which was only standard on the low-end 14" model).
To me that feels like neutering.
Doesn't mean it's a bad chip/machine but clearly the product marketing people made the call here.
To neuter an animal is to remove their testicles, eliminating their ability and drive to reproduce and generally making them less aggressive.
That's not what they did to the M3 Pro. What they did was, they improved it a bit relative to the M2 Pro. But not as much as they improved the models that bracket it.
I realize I'm complaining about needlessly hyperbolic tech-related smack talk on the frigging internet, which is sort of like complaining about moistness in the ocean. But still, lol @ describing a modest upgrade as "neutering."
You know what was neutered? The Apple IIgs. Those 65c816 CPUs could go up to like 16mhz, easy peasy. But they stuck a 3.57mhz 65c816 in there and never upgraded it so that the IIgs wouldn't encroach on the Mac. Now that was a real hatchet job.
Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel like a significant improvement. The base M3 and the M3 Max have fairly large gains over their predecessors, but the M3 Pro doesn’t have nearly as large of a gain (this is all mentioned in the article). It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin.
I’m holding judgement until I see real world performance benchmarks vs synthetic but I fully understand everyone’s reservations with the M3 Pro.
Sure it might be faster but in context it doesn’t feel
like a significant improvement.
So they can't just make things faster in an objective way. They have to make you "feel" a certain thing.
It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants
people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin.
Few thoughts there.
1. Well, they certainly won't mind if you buy the Max. No argument there.
2. As for Apple's intentions I think they were extremely honest during the initial presentation itself. The market for these machines are primarily M1 and Intel Mac users. Very few people upgrade their laptops every single year.
3. The M2 lineup was a bit weird, right? If I am remembering correctly there was not a clear case for the M2 Max versus the M2 Pro. I think the M3 lineup is a bit of a correction there. While I certainly wish every chip got like, a million times faster... the product tiers here seem less confusing.
> It stands out and it’s pretty clear that Apple wants people to “upgrade” to the Max which comes with a +$800 margin.
Eh? Someone who was previous going to buy an M2 Pro would very likely buy an M3 Pro, not an M3 Max.
This is likely Apple managing yield. If they'd stuck with the same core count, the M3 Pro would be faster, sure, but it would probably also be more expensive.
People often have an unrealistic notion of what solar can do. A single 50kW charger would require 125 400w panels minimum - around 3000 square feet of area - and still only be able to provide max current for a few hours of the day. And 50kW is still slower than most people will tolerate if they’re not at home/work.
What are the implication for snowfall and skiing? We know the Utah state government and the people who elected them don't care about the environment or the health implications of poor quality air, but presumably they do care about jobs, and resorts employ a lot more people than farms do, no?
Already sold out for Q4 2023. Looks like there is a lot of demand for customizable full-sized laptop. Unlike the Framework 13, there's not Intel option (yet?) but an 8-core AMD 7940HS ought to be sufficient for most potential users...
I had forgotten this particular peculiarity of Oregon as the last 2 times I passed through, it was in an EV. Not that the EV transition is going to happen overnight, but one way or another, the future of gas station attendants is looking limited.
> Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together, helps partners certify software against it, etc. etc. etc.
> It's true, Red Hat doesn't "own" the Linux kernel, but it's done a ton to help develop it over the years. But RHEL is not merely the kernel nor any single upstream. RHEL is a product that comprises thousands of packages all tested together and then released as a supported product.
> What Red Hat is trying to guard is not the source code to any single or even groups of projects. It's trying to preserve and capture the value it created from all those parts. Coincidentally, that value is what businesses, competitors, and the community are clamoring for and not the source code alone.
That's a point that (unfortunately) seems to have been lost along the way. A big part of the reason why people use(d) CentOS was because of the confidence they had that it'd be stable, functional, receive timely security updates, etc. And the main reason that was true is the work RedHat put into RHEL.
That said, it's not entirely a one-way street. The widespread use of CentOS meant much wider support for RHEL by open-source packages (and some closed source ones) than a locked down, limited availability RHEL would have had. I know of places that use RHEL because CentOS is widely available, and of places that would never bother to support RHEL if it weren't for the availability and (near) ubiquity of CentOS.
