New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly expensive. Worse for SSD.
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone needs a $4000 laptop.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low end MacBook.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.
Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance beats
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
On 2024-03-05 12:48, Tyrone wrote:
On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> >> wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone >> needs a $4000 laptop.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is
the low
end MacBook.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly >>> expensive. Worse for SSD.
Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance
beats
The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the chip carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier. In the case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs by heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same kind. (This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the various
IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a pointer to a
memory block for output or input rather than shuffle blocks of data
between device and system memory (or v-v). This accounts for a large amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded at
all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
[1] From System Information | Memory:
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local >> Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).
On 2024-03-05 12:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 12:48, Tyrone wrote:
On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne"
<bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not
everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is
the low
end MacBook.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's
grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.
Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance
beats
The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the chip
carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier. In
the case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs by
heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same
kind. (This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to
carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the
motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the
various IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a pointer
to a memory block for output or input rather than shuffle blocks of
data between device and system memory (or v-v). This accounts for a
large amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
[1] From System Information | Memory:
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron
1. Do they have the same amount of RAM?
2. Do they run the same version of macOS?
On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local >>> Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).
Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop >>>>>> the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
On 2024-03-05 16:51, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 12:02, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 12:48, Tyrone wrote:
On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne"
<bitbucket@blackhole.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop >>>>>> the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not
everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is
the low
end MacBook.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's
grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.
Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the
performance beats
The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the
chip carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier.
In the case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs
by heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same
kind. (This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to
carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the
motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the
various IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a
pointer to a memory block for output or input rather than shuffle
blocks of data between device and system memory (or v-v). This
accounts for a large amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
[1] From System Information | Memory:
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron
1. Do they have the same amount of RAM?
Yep. 24GB.
2. Do they run the same version of macOS?
Nope. The i7 is a few versions back. Can't go further. I see where you're going with that but it would not account for 1 .. 2 GB of RAM.
That said, the claim with Apple Silicon was that you didn't need near as much memory. That is BS.
On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local >>> Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).
Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)
(ACW added for info to others)
On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the >>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very >>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed >>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).
Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)
(ACW added for info to others)
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
On 2024-03-05 15:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop >>>>>>> the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
:-)
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our >>>>> local Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the >>>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? >>>>> How does each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look >>>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at >>>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the >>>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes >>>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is >>>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics >>>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very >>>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very >>>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and >>>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort >>>> display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed >>>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).
Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to
change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm
impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you! >>> :-)
(ACW added for info to others)
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that!
The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
lots of on-board storage nowadays.
On 2024-03-06 08:07:38 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 22:07:29 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 21:17:11 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:42, dgb (David) wrote:
On 5 Mar 2024 at 19:52:40 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our >>>>>> local Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the >>>>>> technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? >>>>>> How does each make you /feel/ please?
Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and >>>>> contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look >>>>> perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at >>>>> least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the >>>>> 24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes >>>>> which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is >>>>> likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font >>>>> sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics >>>>> usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very >>>>> nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very >>>>> nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious. >>>>> Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher >>>>> spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to >>>>> Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and >>>>> display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort >>>>> display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed >>>>> to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when >>>>> using this iMac M3).
Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to >>>> change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm >>>> impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you! >>>> :-)
(ACW added for info to others)
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that!
The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
lots of on-board storage nowadays.
You can buy a build-to-order Mac Mini or Mac Studio with up to 8TB
internal storage from the Apple Store or a reseller ... if your bank
account can stand it.
Long gone are the good old days of easily being able to add RAM or
change drives or graphics cards in a Mac. It not even possible in the so-called "Mac Pro tower", making that just another pointless Mac
model. :-(
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
On 2024-03-05 15:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just
drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Am 05.03.24 um 20:52 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the >>>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
QED: You live in you own bubble and you do not understand anymore what happens around your bubble.
Your Mac-selection does not impress anybody at all. My selection of Macs
is bigger and all run on the same OS-version. Even one of this barbecue grills with an Intel-processor is part of it.
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just
drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
Idiot.
On 2024-03-05 19:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 15:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just >>>>>>>> drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. >>>>>>>> :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load
of apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds
yours on this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.
Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just >>>>>>>> drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. >>>>>>>> :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
On 2024-03-06 04:06, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 05.03.24 um 20:52 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop >>>>>> the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\ >>>>>>
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>>>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story. >>>>>
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
QED: You live in you own bubble and you do not understand anymore what
happens around your bubble.
Not at all. And the observations I make are simply that: observations. They are just the numbers that show for similar operating conditions (my typical any-time-of-day app load).
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so much internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place of choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)
On 2024-03-06 21:40:42 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up >>>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just >>>> wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need >>>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so much
internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place of
choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)
Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or more internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard system Applications folder.
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop
up from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is
just wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio
Display is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle,
backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and
camera quality. It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent)
need to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so
much internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage
place of choice. (I'm assuming you have a really good Internet
connection.)
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
On 2024-03-06 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps >>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
But will creative cloud continue to notify you when updates are
available? It looks at /Applications to see which software you have installed.
Same goes for anything obtained from the App Store -- remove them from /Applications and the App Store will no longer notify you that updates
are available since it won't seem them as being installed.
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop
up from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is
just wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio
Display is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle,
backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and
camera quality. It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent)
need to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so
much internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage
place of choice. (I'm assuming you have a really good Internet
connection.)
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of your devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically synced (transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete something from
one device, it gets deleted from all of your other devices and iCloud.
There are more suitable services available for generic cloud file
storage.
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me
to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing
that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't suitable
for cloud storage.
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the cloud.
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users. And
I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.
The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you want.
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of your
devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically synced
(transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete something
from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other devices and
iCloud. There are more suitable services available for generic cloud
file storage.
I don't think that is right.
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause
me to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in
doing that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a
small monthly fee.
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't
suitable for cloud storage.
OK - thanks for explaining.
I've learned something new today! https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the
cloud.
I glibly accept Apple's free service which seems to work as designed.
Setting up a new iPhone nowadays is a doddle! Just place the new one
next to the old one and "voilà - it's done!
HOW do you back up your mobile devices to your computer?
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users.
And I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.
Understood. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device
with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you
want.
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of your
devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically synced
(transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete something
from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other devices and
iCloud. There are more suitable services available for generic cloud
file storage.
I don't think that is right.
It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it appears
on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it gets removed
from iCloud and your other devices.
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause
me to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in
doing that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a
small monthly fee.
Nothing wrong with that. It's good to have choices.
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't
suitable for cloud storage.
OK - thanks for explaining.
I've learned something new today!
https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the
cloud.
I glibly accept Apple's free service which seems to work as designed.
Setting up a new iPhone nowadays is a doddle! Just place the new one
next to the old one and "voilà - it's done!
HOW do you back up your mobile devices to your computer?
Apple has instructions on their website, which you can find with quick
web search for "back up iphone".
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users.
And I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.
Understood. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.
Sure.
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of
your devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically
synced (transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete
something from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other
devices and iCloud. There are more suitable services available for
generic cloud file storage.
I don't think that is right.
It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.
OK - Being able to take a photograph on my iPhone and have the image
almost instantly available on my iMac and iPad is one of the best
aspects of using Apple.
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts,
reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it
appears on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it
gets removed from iCloud and your other devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
On 2024-03-06 14:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just >>>>>>>>> drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. >>>>>>>>> :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip >>>>>>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real >>>>>>>> story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.
The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you want.
On 2024-03-06 21:40:42 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up >>>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just >>>> wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need >>>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so much
internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place of
choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)
Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or more internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard system Applications folder.
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-06 21:40:42 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in >>>>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up >>>>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just >>>>> wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display >>>> is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality. >>>> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need >>>>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so much >>> internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place
of choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)
Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or
more internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>>
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of
your devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically
synced (transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete
something from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other
devices and iCloud. There are more suitable services available for
generic cloud file storage.
I don't think that is right.
It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.
OK - Being able to take a photograph on my iPhone and have the image
almost instantly available on my iMac and iPad is one of the best
aspects of using Apple.
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts,
reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it
appears on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it
gets removed from iCloud and your other devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted from
your other devices.
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me
to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing
that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small monthly fee.
On 2024-03-07 04:33, dgb (David) wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me >>> to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing >>> that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.
Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.
On 2024-03-07 15:47:08 +0000, Alrescha said:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device
with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you
want.
iCloud definitely *is* a storage option, Apple even says so:
"Store, organize and collaborate on files and folders with iCloud
Drive. Easily upload, delete or recover files."
On 7 Mar 2024 at 21:32:54 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove one
from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your other
devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.
Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or
iPad.
See:- https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png
On 7 Mar 2024 at 22:27:39 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07 04:33, dgb (David) wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me >>>> to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing >>>> that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small >>> monthly fee.
Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.
In the days of photographs taken with a camera I have physically printed copies. I also have dozens of CD's containing what I considered 'important' photographs.
With the advent of the iPhone and Apple's iCloud I make do with nothing more than Time Machine backups. Try as I might, I cannot envisage Apple failing to keep my images safe in their iCloud.
If that makes you cringe, please tell me why!
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 21:32:54 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove one
from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your other
devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.
Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or
iPad.
See:- https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png
No, that's incorrect. iCloud Drive is not a generic cloud file storage service. Things you add to iCloud Drive are made available to all of the Apple devices that are logged in with the same Apple ID.
Apple's webpage about it:
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/109344>
Go ahead and try it for yourself. 😉
On 2024-03-06 20:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps >>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
And where does the license credential reside?
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?
On 2024-03-06 18:01, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-03-06 21:40:42 +0000, dgb (David) said:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in >>>>>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that
pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever >>>>>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is >>>>>> just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio
Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight >>>>> consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality. >>>>> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) >>>>>> need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal >>>>> storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so
much
internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place
of choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)
Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if
you're doing high-end graphics or video work, then external
Thunderbolt or more internal storage would be better since it's a bit
faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
Shouldn't matter, but I doubt a licensed install of, eg, Photoshop
would work very well.
On 2024-03-06 17:25, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2024-03-06 18:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps >>>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
But will creative cloud continue to notify you when updates are
available? It looks at /Applications to see which software you have
installed.
Are you sure about that?
Same goes for anything obtained from the App Store -- remove them from
/Applications and the App Store will no longer notify you that updates
are available since it won't seem them as being installed.
Really? Show it.
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just >>>>>>>>>> drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product >>>>>>>>>> line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real >>>>>>>>> story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no >>>>>>>> understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of >>>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on >>>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.
Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.
On 7 Mar 2024 at 23:04:03 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 21:32:54 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily >>>>>>> sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove
one from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your
other devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.
Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone
and/or iPad.
See:-
https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png
No, that's incorrect. iCloud Drive is not a generic cloud file
storage service. Things you add to iCloud Drive are made available to
all of the Apple devices that are logged in with the same Apple ID.
"Made available to" ......... I accept that. But not installed upon.
But you can't upload 500 GB of photos to iCloud and not have them on any
of your devices because iCloud isn't an alternate generic cloud storage solution you can use in that manner.
On 2024-03-07 17:39, dgb (David) wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 22:27:39 GMT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07 04:33, dgb (David) wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 01:03:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me >>>>> to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing >>>>> that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.
I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small >>>> monthly fee.
Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.
In the days of photographs taken with a camera I have physically printed
copies. I also have dozens of CD's containing what I considered 'important' >> photographs.
With the advent of the iPhone and Apple's iCloud I make do with nothing more >> than Time Machine backups. Try as I might, I cannot envisage Apple failing to
keep my images safe in their iCloud.
If that makes you cringe, please tell me why!
You can never rely on a third party to do what is best for you.
iCloud is _not_ a backup service.
Various famous cases of photo sites losing troves of photos due to
various reasons. Not even time for people to get their photos off.
I would rate Apple as very unlikely to lose your data, but the chances
that they do is a non-zero probability no matter how small.
And probably more likely is that you may end up in a situation where you don't have access to iCloud when when you need it.
Time Machine is not the most reliable backup you can have - it's mighty convenient after a whoopsie, but it's not infallible (or at least the external media isn't).
You need to have static offline backups as well. And that is more work
and maintenance. If your photos are precious - treat them as precious.
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 23:04:03 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 21:32:54 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2024 at 16:42:05 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-07, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily >>>>>>>> sending it to other Apple devices.
That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove
one from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your
other devices.
I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.
Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.
Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone
and/or iPad.
See:-
https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png
No, that's incorrect. iCloud Drive is not a generic cloud file
storage service. Things you add to iCloud Drive are made available to
all of the Apple devices that are logged in with the same Apple ID.
"Made available to" ......... I accept that. But not installed upon.
I'm not sure what you are here arguing about. When I take a photo on one device, it is transferred to my other devices. When I add a contact on
one device, it is transferred to my other devices. When I add or change
a calendar event, the same thing happens on my other devices. iCloud is primarily a synchronization service, but it does other things as well.
You seem to want to argue that because iCloud Drive doesn't always automatically download changes to each device that somehow means it's
just like any other cloud storage service, but that's simply not the
case. Most data in iCloud is synchronized to all of your devices, and if
you delete something from iCloud Drive it gets deleted everywhere else.
It is *not* a generic cloud storage service.
On 2024-03-07 14:25, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 20:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps >>>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
And where does the license credential reside?
I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to how
it ran.
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?
Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years as
you are about proportion?
On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see. >>>>
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim is
on the one who MAKES the claim?
On 2024-03-07 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less >>>>>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just >>>>>>>>>>> drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product >>>>>>>>>>> line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real >>>>>>>>>> story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no >>>>>>>>> understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same
load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds
yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.
Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.
Which you will spend time writing about...
...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.
You are certainly proving that by this reply.
On 2024-03-07 20:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:25, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 20:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps >>>>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard >>>>>>> system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
And where does the license credential reside?
I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to
how it ran.
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?
Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years
as you are about proportion?
So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my question
is ignorant?
On 2024-03-07 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see. >>>>>
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?
Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe me.
I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.
On 2024-03-07 20:37, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even >>>>>>>>>>>> less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should >>>>>>>>>>>> just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product >>>>>>>>>>>> line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real >>>>>>>>>>> story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate. >>>>>>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no >>>>>>>>>> understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same >>>>>>>>> load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds >>>>>>>>> yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.
Post the screenshots.
Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.
Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.
Which you will spend time writing about...
...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important. >>>
You are certainly proving that by this reply.
Yes, thanks for confirming you're not important. Unexpected humility
from you.
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.
On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/> >>>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone needs a $4000 laptop.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low end MacBook.
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.
Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance beats any commodity RAM plugged into slots over here and a commodity SSD plugged into another slot way over there.
All while using way less power too.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
[1] From System Information | Memory:
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron
On 2024-03-08 13:41, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:20, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:25, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 20:17, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of >>>>>>>> apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard >>>>>>>> system Applications folder.
Huh?
Give an example of one such application.
I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being >>>>>> anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)
And where does the license credential reside?
I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to
how it ran.
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run
it with the license credentials in effect?
Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years
as you are about proportion?
So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my
question is ignorant?
I didn't say I don't know. I most certainly do.
What's clear is that YOU have no clue about it.
On 2024-03-08 13:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to >>>>>> see.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?
Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.
No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
me. I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.
If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
But you don't.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see. >>>>
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
yet at the point where we have really fast persistent storage and can
thus have one big pool of memory/storage. Optane was getting closer to
that, but I think Intel did an "OS/2" (or maybe "PS/2") to it and it
withered on the vine.
My main home computer (the one I'm typing on now) is an M1 Mini with
16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. Would I like more RAM and storage? Yes. I'm ok without it right now though, and it doesn't get in my way normally.
I'm not really happy with Macs no longer being upgradeable, nor with the prices that Apple charges for (commodity) items like RAM and
storage. However, this Mini is a pretty amazing little box and I very
much like using it. I can forgive Apple's sins. :-)
I do question why, in 2024, Apple has such paltry amounts of RAM and
storage in their base model products. It doesn't seem fitting for a
premium product.
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
I do question why, in 2024, Apple has such paltry amounts of RAM and
storage in their base model products. It doesn't seem fitting for a
premium product.
Because they are profit whores. The prices they charge for the
commodity memory (RAM and SSD) is outrageous.
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
I'd like to know why you are conversing politely here yet have 'thrown your toys out of the pram' elsewhere.
Will you tell?
On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
That is my understanding too.
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!
Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
I'd like to know why you are convesing politely here yet have 'thrown your toys out of the pram' elsewhere.
Will you tell?
On 2024-03-08 19:40, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-08 13:45, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-07 20:36, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to >>>>>>> see.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?
Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.
No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
me. I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.
If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
But you don't.
I do. I put up the numbers. And that is sufficient. You see: I don't have to "prove my claim" to you. If you don't believe what I wrote,
then that's entirely, 100%, your problem.
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see. >>>>>
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.
On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to >>>>>> see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that >>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that
is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to >>>>>>> see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it >>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had
that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're
not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO
to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high,
so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain >>>>>>>> to see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had >>>>> that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple >>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
we're not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped
IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
On 2024-03-11 18:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain >>>>>>>>> to see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for >>>>>>> yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only
had that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most >>>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple >>>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
we're not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
memory allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped >>>>> IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very >>>>> high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.
On 2024-03-11 16:29, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-11 18:50, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain >>>>>>>>>> to see.
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for >>>>>>>> yourself.
I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only >>>>>>> had that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most >>>>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple >>>>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
we're not
It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
memory allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped >>>>>> IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very >>>>>> high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.
"Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
But you are JUDGED on what you do.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood >>>>>>> testing.
Testing you won't actually show...
Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.
"Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
But you are JUDGED on what you do.
You're not qualified.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 918 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 14:48:56 |
| Calls: | 12,177 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 186,522 |
| Messages: | 2,235,185 |
