I don't need to know what it is you do if your needs are met by the current hardware. There can be people in the same field as you doing more intensive work. You can have one person that uses Photoshop, for example, and just does basic editing. Then you can have another person that edits gigantic files with hundreds of layers maxing out their RAM. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I don't care what it is is that you do. If your needs are met by current hardware then you don't understand the issues people have with the current hardware. It can be any field.
you're making an awful lot of assumptions.
I'm not making any assumptions. I was talking specifically about their hardware. You're talking about software.
the flaw in logic here is that you can just add bigger/faster/newer/more hardware and get results in the software to coincide.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you implying they can't have faster hardware because they won't be able to figure out how to code the software for it? o__O
It's exactly the case. You're not in the group of people that have an issue with the current hardware, therefore you cannot understand their problem. You are basing your use case as a means to gauge other people's needs and that's not how reality works. I'm sorry.
Yikes, and that was Steve Jobs who delivered that stentiment. So to claim that "Steve Jobs would never ..." or that "Tim Cook needs to be fired" or that "Johnny Ive is too obsessed or incapable or whatever" even statements of "I never (or no one ever) asked for this!!!" all fall by the wayside. Because Steve Jobs would have! And said so! Which means Tim Cook instead is upholding Steve Jobs ideals instead of destroying them. And Johnny Ive is just passionately executing them. That's gotta be a bitter pill to swallow. "Technology alone is not enough."
most pro software is 20+ years old.. thousands upon millions of lines of code, that while optimized somewhat over the years, certainly can't be expected to be rewritten every time a new computer is release.
None of that has anything to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about Apple's hardware decisions are not based on consumer input. They do what they want. You're going off on a tangent about software and I have no idea why. And if software is 20 years old that has nothing to do with Apple. Apple doesn't care if something is 20 years old and they don't code their software to cater to archaic applications. It's up to developers to update their software. Apple has rewritten most of their applications from the ground up. They don't support 20 year old code. I have no idea what point you're even trying to make. I'm not even sure any of what you just said makes any sense. It has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
I'm done. This is the backwards logic that keeps these discussions going. You don't get it, therefore you will discuss it to death ... and then when you have nothing left to say because you don't understand their situation, it always falls back on "buy something else." People have a right to discuss their issues with current circumstances. It's not up to you to decide if that's okay or not.
right.. "I'm done!"
'.)
Saying it's correct doesn't make it correct.
I'm sorry that the complaints aren't in non-trigger form for you.
You can stop now.
No really, you can stop now.
I don't know about 30 days; but my MBP certainly stays in standby for over a week on a fairly regular basis.
Perhaps he should have said, "We can't put a signficantly-bigger battery in". The amount of empty space is enough for about 5 extra minutes of runtime.What's with all the empty spaces around the battery?
Can't put in a bigger battery? My ***!
What are you, an Elf?
No.
No.
And it would also be insignificant to battery capacity.
The fanboyism runs deep.
