What will disappear next?

[theluggage]

What do you think people who switch from Windows to Mac have to do? Think about applications and hardware that won't work in OS X. All that doesn't stop them from switching.

...but who knows how many more would switch without that obstacle? What do you think has kept Macs largely out of business use? I've used Macs on and off for ever, but I only switched over to Mac as my primary machine when they moved to Intel and Bootcamp/Parallels/VMWare became available.

And as with any technology you'll soon reach a point where it is outdated.

Except... the days when your top-of-the-range computer would be hopelessly outclassed 18 months later have gone. Back in the good old days, when you upgraded your 2-year-old computer, you ended up with something twice as fast, with twice as much RAM and twice as much HD (or even more if you look back to the jump from 8 to 32 bits) that could take on new applications that were impossible on your old wreck. There was a really strong incentive to spend money on an upgrade and upgrade peripherals, buy adapters as needed.

Now, looking at the case in point - upgrading from an early 2011 17" MBP to the current 15" rMBP does not[/n] bring you double the speed, double the RAM, double the storage, double the screen resolution. Yes its faster, but the 'dramatic' speed up comes from using SSD, which can easily be added to the MBP. RAM is the same max 16G, and you can easily end up with less storage unless you spring for the (v. expensive) 1TB SSD (you can put a 1TB SSD in your MBP for less). Even the screen isn't a clear win c.f. the 17" MBP (you're trading sharpness for physical size).

Sure - I'd like a rMBP, for the extra portability (although the 17" MBP is portable enough to shuttle between desks) and the ability to run a second external display... and I'm sure it would be a bit faster - but my MBP isn't exactly slow.

If it breaks you need to shell out a lot of money because usually you'll have to replace nearly everything in the chain.

...again, true in the past when a 2+ year old machine was so outclassed it was not worth spending money on to get fixed. Yeah, I'd probably use the excuse to by a shiny new Mac if my MBP died, but if money was an issue it would certainly be worth looking in to getting it fixed or buying a secondhand replacement.

The problem to some is that they see no reason to upgrade because what they use now is simply working for them. In that case, don't upgrade and stick with what you have Upgrade when things break but be prepared to shell out quite some money because of outdated tools.

I don't disagree... but that is going to be bad news for Apple and other PC manufacturers who have got used to a world in which people routinely change their computer every 2 years.

 

[dyn]

...but who knows how many more would switch without that obstacle?

I wonder that too as well as what would happen to the products and OS X as we know it. Would it still be the same, would there be a drop in quality?

What do you think has kept Macs largely out of business use?

That one is really easy to answer: Apple shoots for consumers, not businesses. That means that most of the things they do is aimed at consumers and only part of it is aimed at businesses. That's why their business products never really took off and why it is still quite hard to integrate Macs into a larger network. Take a look at PXE boot for example. Nearly every client supports it except for Macs. They have their own proprietary network booting system which requires OS X Server. Take a look at the hardware available for OS X Server and compare that too the hardware available for ordinary servers. Biiiiiiig difference (Apple does not have out of band management whereas the others all have that option, most have it by default even!).

Doesn't mean Macs are completely useless, they are just a bit more difficult to integrate than Windows machines. Something similar applies to Linux but this highly depends on the distribution.

I've used Macs on and off for ever, but I only switched over to Mac as my primary machine when they moved to Intel and Bootcamp/Parallels/VMWare became available.

On one side it is sad that IBM messed up their PPC but on the other side I'm glad they did because it made Apple move to Intel. I like it because I can run Windows, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. on the same machine as where I can run OS X without losing too much performance (the emulation of x86 on PPC comes at a huge performance loss). So choosing a different architecture made them more interesting to a lot of people. They also drew a different kind of audience. A good example of why change sometimes is necessary and why change is good.

There was a really strong incentive to spend money on an upgrade and upgrade peripherals, buy adapters as needed.

That also has a lot to do with pricing. Back in the days you didn't upgrade your computer because it was so darn expensive. You wanted it to last as long as it could. Upgrading was just cheaper. Things have changed over time and Intel has something to do with it. They aimed for lower pricing of notebooks with their Centrino platform for example. They did something similar to netbooks and now with ultrabooks.

Now, looking at the case in point - upgrading from an early 2011 17" MBP to the current 15" rMBP does not[/n] bring you double the speed, double the RAM, double the storage, double the screen resolution. Yes its faster, but the 'dramatic' speed up comes from using SSD, which can easily be added to the MBP.

Yep but the same thing applies to SSDs. The difference between SSDs is much much smaller than between HDD and SSD. People upgrading from SSD to SSD are usually a bit disappointed when it comes to performance because of that. Also, workloads differ where some won't benefit much or even at all from an SSD (tasks that are more cpu, memory and/or gpu intensive).

Btw, with retina you do get nearly the double resolution but only in pure pixels. The OS does something different to it in order to make things still easy to read. Actually being able to see letters, numbers, pictures, etc. is the most important thing. This can be very personal (eye problems, taste) so it is not the best thing to use in a general comparison.

...again, true in the past when a 2+ year old machine was so outclassed it was not worth spending money on to get fixed.

Now, let's stop talking performance because that wasn't what I was talking about at all. There is far more to a computer than performance alone. It depends on other features like size, weight, looks, build quality (if your old one is falling apart you are more likely to replace it), batterylife, using certain features in the OS (how well does the new OS with the cool new features support your current hardware?), being able to run different operating systems (PPC vs Intel), expandability, ports, display (is it fast? does it display colours accurately?) and so on. In some cases it means upgrading is pointless, in other cases it means that it is the most sensible thing to do.

To give you an example: at work we have these huge trusty, solid and very powerful notebooks. Unfortunately those notebooks weigh a ton and many people complain about it. There are quite a few who've replaced it with a MacBook Air which is not nearly as powerful but it is an awful lot lighter and saves their back and shoulders. Their reason for buying a new machine simply was pain (due to the weight), not performance.

All I'm saying is: there are good reasons to not stick to some technology, there are good reasons to buy a new machines, there are good reasons to stick to your current configuration and there are good reasons to only perform an upgrade. It is up to you to decide if you replace, upgrade or stick with it but in neither of those cases does it say anything about whether the new tech is better or worse than the older tech. The new tech is simply progress and you get to decide to go along with it or not.

And yes that could be a problem for manufacturers but it will be as much a problem as upgrading your computer every x years. There are many many customers and every customer has its own upgrade path. That's why it doesn't matter what kind of upgrade path you have. It will only matter to you because of how much and when you can spend your money.

 

[flopticalcube]

Frankly, I'm surprised Apple still makes Macs at all. They really are a tiny fraction of their profit now. The future will probably take ideas from their most successful products: the iPhone/iPad. Look for ever thinner designs and fewer ports. I can see the Ethernet port disappearing since Apple already offers a TBolt to gigabit Ethernet adapter. SDXC slot after that probably.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

TIL people are bemoaning the lack of VGA on a modern computer in 2014.

what's VGA

 

[scaredpoet]

Frankly, I'm surprised Apple still makes Macs at all. They really are a tiny fraction of their profit now.

Macs are necessary and will be for some time. You still can't develop an iOS app directly on an iOS device, for starters. That requires a Mac.

And while more iOS devices are sold than Macs these days, it's still the case that Macs remain profitable. Apple makes more profit out of a single Mac than HP makes out of 7 PCs. And aside from that: the fact that apps need to be developed on them means Mac sales are the cause for App Store sales, developer fees, and more hardware purchase because of the app store ecosystem.

So, I don't see Macs going away. But just like their PC counterparts, they will evolve. Old technologies will be discontinued and new technologies will be incorporated.

 

[silvetti]

Of course, I wonder how many Mac buyers (especially new ones) do their homework that thoroughly.

Me

 

[henry72]

NON-Retina Display

 

[Larry-K]

Me

So you're the guy!

 

[coldsweat]

I'm really hoping the next iPad Air will have a parallel port.

Because of reasons.

I'm really hoping the next iMac will have an old PC 'Turbo' button