Yeah I know, but some attitudes really make me angery.
Wow, Dave, you really need to relax. 1/2 your points make a semblance of sense, but your irrational anger clouds them. Also, "[m]atte screens suck"? LOL. There are many reasons people like them -- including the basic one that they reduce glare.
They also are not as sharp and have poorer color saturation. In any event if this guy is the pro he says he is he would buy the best screen for the job no matter who the vendor is.
It is just very difficult to respect anybody that says I have $xxxx amount of dollars to play with and if Apple doesn't do exactly what I want I will take my money else where. Apple already has build to order how much more do these people expect Apple to bend over for them.
And really, you don't think that Apple's computer line has lagged even just a little bit since they diversified?
Nope, not really. Would it have been nice to see Apple adopt Arrandale right put of the gate. Possibly but Arrandale isn't always a performance win and frankly the next round of GPUs promise much more.
The thong is if Apple was to do a me too MBP then yeah they are a LITLE late. Personally I believe that the next MBP will be more than an Arrandale upgrade. For one I see LightPeak in Apples future. Second the rumors about Apple rejecting Arrandale due to the crappy integrated GPU could be real, I would not be surprised to see an Apple / Intel deal here possibly with NVidia involved. It's amayzing how quite the NVidia vs Intel spat has become, maybe Apple slapped some sense into the group.
Maybe I will wake up tomorrow and find that I'm wrong and that Apple has generic laptops for sale. I don't think that will happen because I still smell team work between Intel and Apple. Light Peak is just part of that behind the curtain activity.
I'm not saying they shouldn't diversify, but there really haven't been too many break-throughs in their computer line as of late.
Break throughs often don't follow a time table. But really think about where Apple is with the current MBP line up. It is still a powerhouse of innovation. What many seem to think is that the only important thing is the next Intel processor, of course there is nothing wrong with that but that is not innovation from Apple. It is simply slapping in a new motherboard. In effect you can't expect innovation from Apple on Intels time table.
By the way the time to be disappointed is when the new MBPs come put and there is nothing new beyound an Arrandale processor. I'm not getting worked up before then though as long waits usually mean major overhauls at Apple.
And a couple need a refresh pretty soon (e.g., mac pro). And please don't give me a unibody mac argument -- I'm not sure what that really does for the consumer, although I bet it reduced Apple's costs quite a bit.
Actually I'd be more worried about MBP refreshes if I was Apple. No matter how you look at it the Mac Pro is a machine that doesn't go through minor refreshes often.
Given that, if you where Apple would you have refreshed the Mac Pro early this year knowing that a few months down the road you would have to reimplement for new technology? The Mac Pro simply isn't a high volume machine that one can justify quarterly or semi annual major updates on. So Apple updates when the tech is ready.
Look at it this way, this isn't the first time in forums like this that we have seen such crying about the Mac Pro. If people need quickly updated machines then they have to look at the iMacs, that is Apples high volume computer. If you are into the Mac Pro line thinking it is a machine that gets updated on less than a yearly schedule then you are buying the wrong platform.
Don't get me wrong here it would be nice if Apple where to get with it and market a high volume desktop computer. That is a computer using classical desktop parts. The Mac Pro however is not this machine. It never will be either because it is built for a different market.
Dave
