This is not a "Pro" machine.

[MacVidCards]

I already summed up my thoughts pretty well in this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17573040/

"The GPU in many iMacs is replaceable/upgradeable post purchase.

They use an MXM style of some sort or another.

The Mac ones have a different firmware and cost a FORTUNE.

I would feel safe saying that 99.99% of iMacs will go to the landfill with whatever GPU they came with.

Here is why:

http://www.dvwarehouse.com/index.php...mac+video+card

SInce they are specific to iMac, nobody makes or sells them except Apple repair or tear down places.

So a 4850 is still going for $388.

And this is a quick search, I'm sure Apple has even higher prices for these cards. (their famous "never lower a price" pledge)

I have been testing some new EFI cards we are about to intro, a GT640 for Mac Pro.

I realized the numbers I was seeing in benchies were basically same as 8800GT from 2008.

So bottom of line today keeps up with top of line from 2008. (It also has 2GB RAM vs 512Mb in 8800)

SO imagine if you had a 2008 Mac Pro and the 8800GT was WELDED in, the machine would be pretty anemic today. Instead you can go online and ordered a GTX680 and have full function in your 2008.

And THAT is why having proprietary GPUs is going to mean iTrashCans will have shorter useful life. 99.99% will likely be converted to REAL trash cans and have their original GPU in when they do.

In 5 years those FirePros will be just as outdated as 8800 is today, equal to bottom of line. And the ONLY way to upgrade will be if Apple LETS you buy something else, AT THEIR FULL RETAIL PRICE NO MATTER HOW OUTDATED."

Anyone who can honestly say they'd be peachy-keen happy with a 5 year old GPU in their Mac Pro would disagree, but most of those folks aren't on this board.

Ironically, one of the most rabid, jowl-quivering, Pro-iTube fanatics on here posts from a 2006 upgraded with a GTX570. (Instead of the 7300GT or X1900 that would be WELDED INTO HIS 2006 if it were like the iTube) So while he thinks YOU should get locked into a GPU FOREVER, he'll happily update and keep his machine useful. Height of hypocrisy.

There is no way a ratiopnal person can claim that this new design will NOT be relegated to the "obsolete" pile quicker than older models. That is the central piece of it's design. Get the old ones into landfills faster, new ones flying off the shelves.

But, hey, it's shiny. That's a plus, right?

 

[flat five]

There are old cars built decades ago that still run better than some new cheap cars.

electronics has a different scale though.. that 58' ford does the same exact thing back then as it does now.. drives you to the store etc..

people in 1958 were hyped because they used electricity to figure out a^2+b^2=c^2

while i understand you and feel similar in my own personal ways, it's hard for me to connect the dots (on this particular level) between a car & computer..

the car hasn't changed since it's invention and i'd guess we're looking at another 50+ years until it changes.. it's on a lot slower scale then what we see happening with electronics.. (which i roughly put at around 10-20yr per iteration.. we don't have as much of a past with computers to see a clearer pattern)

 

[wonderspark]

Forget cars and water bottles. It was a failed attempt to make a point.

Explain why you believe moving people out of a flexible, mature design like PCIe slots and into slower, more expensive Thunderbolt is a better design. By BETTER, I mean physically more useful, keeping in mind that today, external Thunderbolt boxes can't run GPUs.*

If you can tell me how making the industry bend to accommodate Thunderbolt is better, I'd be interested to hear it, because today, PCIe is better and cheaper.

*On Macs/OSX.

 

[flat five]

Get out while I'm ahead... move on... to planned obsolescence?

It seems like you're fully sold on the disposable way of life.

i just don't think that's the case.. i use a 1,1.. that's maybe the most relevant example i can give you without sitting around talking about myself.

i want what you want.. a sustainable product. that would (and hopefully will eventually) be much closer to the true ultimate computer..

apple is happening because we are letting it happen.. and i don't mean we as apple users and buyers.. i mean we as in, basically, everybody..

when you picked up that whopper w/ cheese after work today, you allowed apple to happen.. you did what the corporatocracy told you to do..

i tried to point out in my last long post that what i said was not in support of corporate apple.. and i mean it when i say i'm more anti-corpoation than average joe.

i was trying to talk about the designers.. they are one of us.. of course they had to play by corporate rules in some senses.. we all do.. are we seeing that in thunderbolt? likely yes but even then, the engineers did come up with something which fit corporate rules and appears to be a success from a design standpoint.

but i think i've said all i have to say about apple the corporation.. i'd rather not apple bash on an apple centric site... it's just a stupid idea no matter which angle i view it from.

----------

Forget cars and water bottles. It was a failed attempt to make a point.

Explain why you believe moving people out of a flexible, mature design like PCIe slots and into slower, more expensive Thunderbolt is a better design. By BETTER, I mean physically more useful, keeping in mind that today, external Thunderbolt boxes can't run GPUs.*

If you can tell me how making the industry bend to accommodate Thunderbolt is better, I'd be interested to hear it, because today, PCIe is better and cheaper.

*On Macs/OSX.

i talked about tb in a different thread around here but it really, for me, just boils down to it being a retarded thing to worry about too much.. it's just a cable.

----------

Ironically, one of the most rabid, jowl-quivering, Pro-iTube fanatics on here posts from a 2006 upgraded with a GTX570. (Instead of the 7300GT or X1900 that would be WELDED INTO HIS 2006 if it were like the iTube) So while he thinks YOU should get locked into a GPU FOREVER, he'll happily update and keep his machine useful. Height of hypocrisy.

is that me? because i'm on my third gpu and at no time did i 'happily' update.. the 7300 went in about 4 years.. the 8800 lasted 2 years.. im on a 5770 now.

both times, they were fixed at the shop..

there's no way the tube is designed with the idea of 'if a gpu blows, the computer is totaled and un-repariable'.. buy another

 

[goMac]

SO imagine if you had a 2008 Mac Pro and the 8800GT was WELDED in, the machine would be pretty anemic today.

Apple's welding in the GPU into the new Mac Pro? Did I miss something?

there's no way the tube is designed with the idea of 'if a gpu blows, the computer is totaled and un-repariable'.. buy another

It's not. It just means you can't sell flashed PC GPUs for it anymore on ebay.

 

[iSee]

...However, I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable...

The new Mac Pro isn't exactly designed to be disposable.

It's a fixed unit unit of computing power.

In a traditional workstation, you'd look at one CPU or one GPU as a unit of computer power. What Apple is doing here is "zooming out" one level. In the same way you wouldn't expect to independently upgrade the L3 cache or an ALU on a CPU, you aren't expected to upgrade the internal parts of the new mac pro.

To upgrade, you replace it, as you would when upgrading a GPU or CPU in a traditional workstation. I think you want sell or otherwise repurpose the old one when you upgrade. I suspect the new Mac Pros will have good resale value.

Imagine if Intel's next generation CPU included an integrated GPU with the power of two workstation-class GPUs, 64GB RAM, 512GB of high-speed secondary storage? Oh and it includes thermal management, doesn't need a separate power supply or case and has an array of high-speed connectivity? I think a lot of people might jump on that, and that is what you are getting. (Well, it's a really over-sized CPU , and the connectivity speed could be even higher for some uses, but, hey, it's just the first generation.)

Look, you can always say: oh, if I had another bay or another PCI slot I could do X, all with my same box. But there's always a limit. Ultimately you're chasing a local maximum. The real way to get more is to move outside the box. So Apple's created a box (well, cylinder) that does 99% of what a box can do. When you're at that limit, you're going to have to consider how you're going to get past that box fairly soon in any case (<-- ha, ha pun not intended but now that I see it, I'm embracing it). This goes for everyone whether it's science, medical, video, data, or whatever.

All that said, this is my attempt to understand where Apple is coming from. I don't know if it will really work. New Mac Pro expansion is a big question mark to me. USB 3.0 is cheap and covers a lot of bases. But TB seems very immature. Also, the cost is important. In the "fixed unit of computing power" model I see, what's the cost of each unit? If it's not competitive with existing products, all things considered, it's not going to work.

 

[Erasmus]

In a traditional workstation, you'd look at one CPU or one GPU as a unit of computer power. What Apple is doing here is "zooming out" one level. In the same way you wouldn't expect to independently upgrade the L3 cache or an ALU on a CPU, you aren't expected to upgrade the internal parts of the new mac pro.

Fair point.

However, as a general comment to everyone, we STILL DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE FREAKING THING COSTS.

For example, if it costs 3 grand for a reasonable spec, who would be complaining about having to buy a new one every 3-4 years, rather than paying 5 grand for a similarly performing cheese grater now, and then spending another grand to upgrade it to competitiveness in 3-4 years?

Only MacVidCards
I jest!

 

[flat five]

Imagine if Intel's next generation CPU included an integrated GPU with the power of two workstation-class GPUs, 64GB RAM, 512GB of high-speed secondary storage? Oh and it includes thermal management, doesn't need a separate power supply or case and has an array of high-speed connectivity? I think a lot of people might jump on that, and that is what you are getting. (Well, it's a really over-sized CPU

that's a neat way to see it.

----------

we STILL DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE FREAKING THING COSTS.

lol.. so true so true

i'm hoping ur post will make me lay off it for a few months.. in over my head at this point- all things considered
thanks

 

[Oracle1729]

For example, if it costs 3 grand for a reasonable spec, who would be complaining about having to buy a new one every 3-4 years, rather than paying 5 grand for a similarly performing cheese grater now, and then spending another grand to upgrade it to competitiveness in 3-4 years?

Did you used to post to Slashdot under that name?

My point is even if it's 3 grand now, you need to add the cost for external boxes for drives, SSD, etc, not to mention have extra boxes and cables strewn across your desk. you'd also have to add power bars to power external drives for even more mess, and pay more for electricity wasted by an extra half-dozen power supplies which all have their overhead.

Only 4 memory slots, so instead of buying 4 8 gig sticks now and planning to expand in the future, I feel like I have to start with 16 gig sticks and waste even more money up front.

And you're assuming this piece of iTrash will be cheaper because it has all those drawbacks.

So, plenty of drawbacks, what are the advantages for the iTrashCan over that cheese grater? Oh right, absolutely none except you think it might be cheaper.

Maybe they should throw in an empty real mac pro case and some TB to SATA cables so I can connect up some "internal" drives and hide the ugly iTrashCan.

 

[Erasmus]

Did you used to post to Slashdot under that name?

No.

My point is even if it's 3 grand now, you need to add the cost for external boxes for drives, SSD, etc, not to mention have extra boxes and cables strewn across your desk. you'd also have to add power bars to power external drives for even more mess, and pay more for electricity wasted by an extra half-dozen power supplies which all have their overhead.

Only 4 memory slots, so instead of buying 4 8 gig sticks now and planning to expand in the future, I feel like I have to start with 16 gig sticks and waste even more money up front.

And you're assuming this piece of iTrash will be cheaper because it has all those drawbacks.

So, plenty of drawbacks, what are the advantages for the iTrashCan over that cheese grater? Oh right, absolutely none except you think it might be cheaper.

Maybe they should throw in an empty real mac pro case and some TB to SATA cables so I can connect up some "internal" drives and hide the ugly iTrashCan.

Option 1: Buy a Mac Pro 5.1.

Option 2: Buy a Hackintosh.

Option 3: Wait and see what happens with the Mac Pro 6.1, and associated external peripherals. Then make an informed decision of your purchase based on accurate information, which may still include resorting to option 1 or 2.

 

[slughead]

My line of thought here is that this nonstandard interface would represent a product that's not compatible with the general WinTel PC market, which means that a different deal could be cut, because a 'cheap' Apple GPU card couldn't make its way out into PC aftermarket sales.

The problem is that the video card market is already in extremely close competition, which are likely fairly close to the margins. Even if Apple's slightly closer, the higher fixed costs of developing a separate card will likely overshadow any possible "special deal" Apple gets.

Obviously we're both conjecturing here. IIRC, the 6800 was actually sold to Powermac G5 owners for less than the PC price. Of course, that was the last time it happened.

 

[slughead]

Ironically, one of the most rabid, jowl-quivering, Pro-iTube fanatics on here posts from a 2006 upgraded with a GTX570. (Instead of the 7300GT or X1900 that would be WELDED INTO HIS 2006 if it were like the iTube) So while he thinks YOU should get locked into a GPU FOREVER, he'll happily update and keep his machine useful. Height of hypocrisy.

This. I just sold my Mac Pro 1,1 quad 2.66 to my friend to replace his dying mac. I can only imagine how useless the thing would be with a Radeon X1900 in it (the best card you could get for the 1,1 when it came out).

He is happy as a clam using it for his prosumer audio work and occasional gaming with the Radeon 6870 I popped in there two years ago, There's also a 1TB drive--which is all he needs.

How crappy would it be if he were stuck with the original 160GB or had to buy an expensive enclosure to put another drive or two in??

 

[-hh]

see, i just don't think it's designed to be disposable.. saying that is imagining the designers sitting around the table going "we can't use that part because it lasts too long.. we need this thing to break in 4years"..

YMMV on what 'disposable' means. For me, it is not necessarily break, but merely be such that the customer is motivated to fork over the dollars to go buy a newer Mac.

i just don't see it happening.. not at these people's level in the engineering world.. some of these designers are in an elite field of top 500 in the world.. they would quit their jobs before accepting a requirement to make their design break.. it seems built to last (relatively speaking) if you ask me.

Except that there have been design decisions made which result in variations in obsolesence.

A classical Apple example is to look at the mid/late 1990s (pre-Jobs-return) design of the 7500/8500/9500 PowerMacs ... the CPUs were put on daughtercards with lots of open space which made them very easy for 3rd parties to sell & customers to DIY a CPU upgrade ... and thousands of customers did, which ended up seriously jeopardizing Apple's ability to sell newer versions of these Macs. By the time the G4's were shipping, the abiltiy to DIY upgrade was narrowed and with the G5 effectively gone.

Moving forward another half decade to the Intel-based Mac Pro, the CPUs were again not on a user-replacable daughtercard...and the single-vs-dual CPU configurations did employ different backplanes too...and like the G5, there were zero 3rd Party companies selling upgrades. There has been a relatively recent period where DIY upgrades at the CPU level (grease and all) were again possible, even though they still weren't brain-dead simple...and the Tube configuration looks like it is probably going to marginalize this option away again too.

I appreciate the design. It's clever. However, I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable.

I agree that it does have some 'cleverness' to it, although from a living with it perspective, I can see that due to its utter lack of elevation of its air intake vents along its very bottom, it is going to be significantly more susceptible to overheading, particularly when in dust bunny environments...which isn't as rare as we would like it to believe it is.

Apple appreciates cash, so they made it harder for me to keep mine.

This is the old 'Value' paradigm, again. Adobe is trying to follow the same basic strategy with their SAAS (Software as a Service) model with CS --> CC.

I get it, but I'm not foolish enough to be hypnotized by the hype.

The interesting question that I see is just how many SMBs they're going to lose because of their squeezing for more cash? Particularly given Apple's classical distain to engage big Enterprise, it looks like a very dangerous business strategy for them.


-hh

 

[flat five]

YMMV on what 'disposable' means. For me, it is not necessarily break, but merely be such that the customer is motivated to fork over the dollars to go buy a newer Mac.

[...]

Except that there have been design decisions made which result in variations in obsolesence.

A classical Apple example is to look at the mid/late 1990s (pre-Jobs-return) design of the 7500/8500/9500 PowerMacs ... the CPUs were put on daughtercards with lots of open space which made them very easy for 3rd parties to sell & customers to DIY a CPU upgrade ... and thousands of customers did, which ended up seriously jeopardizing Apple's ability to sell newer versions of these Macs. By the time the G4's were shipping, the abiltiy to DIY upgrade was narrowed and with the G5 effectively gone.

i understand what you (and wonderspark) are saying.. it's just that i have some problems with choosing a hardnosed stance on the whole thing.. mainly 2 reasons.. with computer technology, we're still (yes still) infants in the whole thing and have yet to even reach a viable solution that will itself last 20+ years -- much less the parts which are being used to provide that tech.. using the g5 as an example: the technology itself is now obsolete so even if it were sold with DIY in mind, nobody would be using it anymore just like nobody is using it now.. i wouldn't completely blame apple's business tactics for that because some of the 'blame' has to be put in the proper location.. that being we haven't yet reached an appropriate technology plateau which will allow for more sustainable computer hubs..

my other problem with choosing a stance is that we don't have an alternative.. every corporation out there wants you to give them money then give them more money.. every single one. i wish there was a company whose #1 goal was to sell you an awesome and everlasting product which you will only purchase one time (aside from a casket)..

so it would be nice to hear these types of comments followed up by a solution.. because all i hear is "don't use apple because they want you to keep spending money.. instead, use xyz123 because they seriously wish they had as many customers as apple"


dunno, i use apple because their computers, in my experience, last longer and are built better than anything else out there.. and yes, of course they could make last even longer and even stronger with user replaceable parts but they are a corporation. and are going to be very similar in many regards to every single corporation out there.. but this is obvious, right?

 

[GermanyChris]

i understand what you (and wonderspark) are saying.. it's just that i have some problems with choosing a hardnosed stance on the whole thing.. mainly 2 reasons.. with computer technology, we're still (yes still) infants in the whole thing and have yet to even reach a viable solution that will itself last 20+ years -- much less the parts which are being used to provide that tech.. using the g5 as an example: the technology itself is now obsolete so even if it were sold with DIY in mind, nobody would be using it anymore just like nobody is using it now.. i wouldn't completely blame apple's business tactics for that because some of the 'blame' has to be put in the proper location.. that being we haven't yet reached an appropriate technology plateau which will allow for more sustainable computer hubs..

my other problem with choosing a stance is that we don't have an alternative.. every corporation out there wants you to give them money then give them more money.. every single one. i wish there was a company whose #1 goal was to sell you an awesome and everlasting product which you will only purchase one time (aside from a casket)..

so it would be nice to hear these types of comments followed up by a solution.. because all i hear is "don't use apple because they want you to keep spending money.. instead, use xyz123 because they seriously wish they had as many customers as apple"


dunno, i use apple because their computers, in my experience, last longer and are built better than anything else out there.. and yes, of course they could make last even longer and even stronger with user replaceable parts but they are a corporation. and are going to be very similar in many regards to every single corporation out there.. but this is obvious, right?

People are still very much using G5's currently in professional settings. MR has a few members using G5's in print. If you are using a CS short of 5.5 you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference between a late G5 and most MP's if the image does not have 100+ layers. Late G5's were PCI-E have SATA will take SATA 3 cards and like early MP will boot from SATA optical drives. I even burned Blu Ray in my quad.

These are the kind of things people are complaining about 8 years from now do you think TB2 will be supported? Will it be around even?

When people argue against the new MP they are not arguing against progress the are arguing the implementation of the progress. PCI is industry wide it's not going anywhere TB is not it's really still just Apple with a few builder boards thrown in. The same issue befalls FW it's great I love it to death but it's adoption wasn't wide enough to insure market sustainability. TB is great I think it's really the best thing going in high speed connectivity but without market adoption it's just not going to survive but now Apple has tied me to it for all future expansion. TB has no discernible benefit over PCI and an unknown future. The bleeding edge is a fun place to be but if my income is derived from the computer as tool the bleeding edge is not the place to be.

GC

 

[liquid stereo]

Very simple

1 The number of people being moved is very small.
1.1 Those interested in an expandable chassis Mac are few.
1.2 The subset of those who actually expand or upgrade the chassis is even smaller.

2. The industry has already bent.
2.1 Non upgradeable is fine.
2.2 Replace is the new upgrade.

3. There is no 3.

Forget cars and water bottles. It was a failed attempt to make a point.

Explain why you believe moving people out of a flexible, mature design like PCIe slots and into slower, more expensive Thunderbolt is a better design. By BETTER, I mean physically more useful, keeping in mind that today, external Thunderbolt boxes can't run GPUs.*

If you can tell me how making the industry bend to accommodate Thunderbolt is better, I'd be interested to hear it, because today, PCIe is better and cheaper.

*On Macs/OSX.

 

[-hh]

...
When people argue against the new MP they are not arguing against progress the are arguing the implementation of the progress.

That's a particularly great statement, well worth noting.

PCI is industry wide it's not going anywhere TB is not it's really still just Apple with a few builder boards thrown in. The same issue befalls FW it's great I love it to death but it's adoption wasn't wide enough to insure market sustainability. TB is great I think it's really the best thing going in high speed connectivity but without market adoption it's just not going to survive but now Apple has tied me to it for all future expansion. TB has no discernible benefit over PCI and an unknown future. The bleeding edge is a fun place to be but if my income is derived from the computer as tool the bleeding edge is not the place to be.

And this illustrates that some of the customer base actually does spend the time to think through the longer term implications of various design/technology decisions.

One of the big concerns that I have with TB is that here we are, two years after Apple launched it and a full year after WinTel PCs could have embraced it too...and still it is stuck in the mud: it is unfortunately going to take quite a bit more work by its sponsors and advocates to get it upgraded from Albatross to White Elephant and more work again to get it raised up to a moderately respectable 'Speciality Niche' that will still be around in five years.

From a strategic direction perspective, I suspect that part of the real shortcomings here has been because Apple has chosen to leave the TB peripherals to the 3rd Party suppliers, rather than to invest in Apple-branded stuff themselves and to that end, I think it is fair to say that original Mac probably wouldn't have taken off to have spawned the entire desktop publishing era without the Apple Laserwriter.


-hh

 

[liquid stereo]

Brilliant

I think this is quite prescient. The Laserwriter provided the complete (and necessary) component-package/solution.

Apple has to walk the tightrope of leaving room in the marketplace for third party solutions.

That's a particularly great statement, well worth noting.
.
.
.
From a strategic direction perspective, I suspect that part of the real shortcomings here has been because Apple has chosen to leave the TB peripherals to the 3rd Party suppliers, rather than to invest in Apple-branded stuff themselves and to that end, I think it is fair to say that original Mac probably wouldn't have taken off to have spawned the entire desktop publishing era without the Apple Laserwriter.


-hh

 

[flat five]

People are still very much using G5's currently in professional settings. MR has a few members using G5's in print. If you are using a CS short of 5.5 you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference between a late G5 and most MP's if the image does not have 100+ layers.

yeah, i know.. when i said 'nobody', i meant it in a figure of speech manner as opposed to literal interpretation.

i still own (well, my daughter now owns) a 17" powerbook.. i used it in my work until maybe 1.5yrs ago and had to ditch it due to software problems. you'll be hard pressed to find modern cad which runs on ppc these days.. i'm sure the devs could continue to support it but i, personally, would much rather see them putting resources on the intel side of things (and even then, my main software (rhino) is 10.7+.. my 1,1 is topped out at 10.7.. i'd keep using the 1,1 but it's only a short matter of time before it will no longer run my software.. but yeah, the powerbook has photoshop 8 on there and it runs just fine.

These are the kind of things people are complaining about 8 years from now do you think TB2 will be supported? Will it be around even?

i don't know and i don't care.. people can't care about everything, you know?
i care more about software and UI because i see these as the most important things where a user can actually noticeably benefit and acquire more efficiency in the work.. people around here don't seem to care about that stuff as much and it's more about hardware.. i get it. it's fine. i understand.. but i'd hope you can equally give me the freedom to not care about if thunderbolt will be around in 8 years.

The bleeding edge is a fun place to be but if my income is derived from the computer as tool the bleeding edge is not the place to be.

again, i keep trying to stress that i do not live on the bleeding edge.. i use a 1,1 with 7GB ram and a 5770.
i know, without a doubt, that many people around here look at that and think "oh, he's not doing 'professional' work.. he should use an iMac.. he wastes money" but it doesn't bother me..
i've used my software on the latest and greatest and guess what.. there's very little difference in the app's behavior.. i can feel some clock speed difference with large models while all layers are turned on and, obviously, i can see a difference in rendering times with the 8core i used (compared to my quad)..
but there is not one single difference which says to me "you must upgrade your computer now because it's slowing you down in a way which will make the additional $$investment worth it"

i buy new mid-range macs.. those are generally the ones that suit my needs at the time they're available.. and what's seemingly crazy around here, they will continue to suit my needs until the software stops working on them.. so i'll again buy the midrange $3000 new mac and let it take me through the next 6 or 7 years which i'm confident it will..

i mean, that's my buying strategy.. it works ok for me.. if i'm 'wrong' in my strategy then so what.. it's really not that big of a deal..
it'd be like me getting on here and telling you all how stupid you are for buying cars.. i haven't owned a car in 12 years.. they're horrible investments and you all are dropping mad amounts of cash on them.. i mean, i could buy a new mac every single year with the amount you guys are spending on cars.. etc.

 

[GermanyChris]

it'd be like me getting on here and telling you all how stupid you are for buying cars.. i haven't owned a car in 12 years.. they're horrible investments and you all are dropping mad amounts of cash on them.. i mean, i could buy a new mac every single year with the amount you guys are spending on cars.. etc.

The thing is RB is in bleeding edge not because the tech is new so much more because it is the only path going into the future..

This needs to be said more often actually, car free is liberating. In NYC a car is not worth the hassle nor expense the same really applies to any major metropolitan area.

 

[flat five]

When people argue against the new MP they are not arguing against progress the are arguing the implementation of the progress.

That's a particularly great statement, well worth noting.

i guess that depends on what you mean by 'people'.. a few people here are capable of having a discussion with other people while having differing opinions.. most people seem to think if another thinks different then they must fight them and choose the stance of "i think the trash can is stupid therefore it's not progressive" (in fact, a few people have even specifically said this computer is moving backwards on the progression scale)

 

[GermanyChris]

i guess that depends on what you mean by 'people'.. a few people here are capable of having a discussion with other people while having differing opinions.. most people seem to think if another thinks different then they must fight them and choose the stance of "i think the trash can is stupid therefore it's not progressive" (in fact, a few people have even specifically said this computer is moving backwards on the progression scale)

I'm one of those people though, that really why I haven't weighed in on these discussion much since WWDC. I'm a grab you by the throat and break you nose type not a lets have a debate type.

A person is inextricably tied to their opinions especially key things If I don't like your opinion on particular things I'm not going to like you nor respect you.

It'd have been more honest to say I really don't like MVC and his opinions and his picking fun at my statements I think are unfair and uncalled for.

 

[flat five]

I'm one of those people though, that really why I haven't weighed in on these discussion much since WWDC. I'm a grab you by the throat and break you nose type not a lets have a debate type.

yeah, i know.. i've seen your posts over the years.
i'm just glad we're behind computers because i don't like fighting in real life.. i feel sorry for the other guy after i kick his ass ..it's a no win situation for me.

A person is inextricably tied to their opinions especially key things If I don't like your opinion on particular things I'm not going to like you nor respect you.

yeah man.. i get it.. we're all like this in certain situations.. nobody is perfect.. i don't want to come off as sounding like i'm riding the high horse because i realize i'm equally as flawed as all 7billion of you other mofos..

 

[GermanyChris]

yeah, i know.. i've seen your posts over the years.
i'm just glad we're behind computers because i don't like fighting in real life.. i feel sorry for the other guy after i kick his ass ..it's a no win situation for me.


yeah man.. i get it.. we're all like this in certain situations.. nobody is perfect.. i don't want to come off as sounding like i'm riding the high horse because i realize i'm equally as flawed as all 7billion of you other mofos..

Meh..I don't anymore so much but that's not always been true. (I have a saint of a wife I called her from jail in Honolulu 9 days before our wedding after a fight which lead to a DUI and she still married me). It made me think and forced retired the fists.

Anyone who say's though that they've never gotten their a$$ kicked has never been in fight.

 

[flat five]

Anyone who say's though that they've never gotten their a$$ kicked has never been in fight.

lol.. yeah, i was just posturing in the bold quote..
i'm pretty sure i've been beat down as many times as i've given the beat down..
either way though, i never really feel too good afterwards.