|
Well 12 cycles in two years is bad for the battery, not enough action will kill them (albeit be ok if you spaced out full discharges every two months I guess). Whatever the case it says "replace now" in there so yeah it's probably the problem.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
fleshweasel posted:Yeah it completely ignores ergonomics. It's not totally unusable but it's a design that should've been canned early in development. I think Apple has always had a strange inability to make a good mouse. In my opinion bluetooth mice cost too much and have too many points at which they gently caress up. I've owned a couple and there's always been something or another. Now I'm using a $7 Kensington Mouse in a Box which works better than any of them. Just don't be a baby about cables and it will be fine. It may not be a design you like, but I wouldn't say the Magic Mouse is too compromised in design. The trick is to grip it with just your fingertips. Most mice are designed to be held by resting your entire palm on it. The Magic Mouse is really a great mouse, as long as you don't mind floating your wrist above the table instead of resting. Magic Mouse actually makes me use it in a way that is less likely to cause RSI than most mice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
I'm selling my 15" MBP Retina in SA-Mart. Still has 18 months of AppleCare. Stupid life changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Bit of an odd issue. I have an early 2011 macbook pro that stays plugged in on my desk for most of its life. Last week it started acting unusual in that the battery was dead. Most likely dead battery because you didn't use it as suggested above, but you could also try resetting PRAM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:It may not be a design you like, but I wouldn't say the Magic Mouse is too compromised in design. The trick is to grip it with just your fingertips. Most mice are designed to be held by resting your entire palm on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Any recommendations for a Thunderbolt Display setup where you connect it to a laptop sometimes and a tower other times? Can both be plugged in at once?
KarmaticStylee fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
How's the game performance of the 640m vs 650m in the new iMac?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a drive enclosure for use with internal 3.5" drives on OS X, and connected though USB2/3 or Thunderbolt (if not prohibitively expensive)? My Thermaltake BlacX Duet just died on me, which is sort of a blessing in disguise, because I frankly hated it*. Is there one out that that's reasonably well regarded for use with Macs - this will be used primarily with a 2012 MBA. (*: It behaved bizarrely with OS X - it would do several cycles of Time Machine, and then fail due to write errors on the 3rd or 4th iteration. This happened with multiple drives and multiple Macs, and was discussed online, so it was definitely the fault of the BlacX. I want one that doesn't have this weird behaviour).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Can anyone recommend a drive enclosure for use with internal 3.5" drives on OS X, and connected though USB2/3 or Thunderbolt (if not prohibitively expensive)? My Thermaltake BlacX Duet just died on me, which is sort of a blessing in disguise, because I frankly hated it*. Is there one out that that's reasonably well regarded for use with Macs - this will be used primarily with a 2012 MBA. I'm sure I'm missing something tremendously obvious, but I'm not seeing what's so special about a drive enclosure "on OS X" or for use with a specific MBA, save for looks maybe. Otherwise, my main concern is simply speed and reliability, which would also apply to enclosures to be used with Windows PCs. I'm simply using generic, garden variety USB 2 and 3 Rosewill and other enclosures from Newegg on my PCs and Macs. So far, they haven't corrupted any data. Haven't used any TB enclosures yet because I'm not in a situation where a restore taking a few hours would hurt me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
flavor posted:I'm sure I'm missing something tremendously obvious, but I'm not seeing what's so special about a drive enclosure "on OS X" or for use with a specific MBA, save for looks maybe. Otherwise, my main concern is simply speed and reliability, which would also apply to enclosures to be used with Windows PCs. I mentioned hardware and OS specifically because the faultiness with my Thermaltake model was apparently due to a specific incompatibility bug with Macs. Basically, I just want a model that's known to work with modern Mac models - ill check out what you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Coming from an Air, the screen of the rMBP is annoyingly glossy. Seconded, I even traded in my 13" rMBP for a 13" Air because of this. The Retina display is clearly superior in many ways, but I found that I just can’t live with a glossy display after checking the matte option every single time in the past. I wonder if we will ever see a return of the matte displays, probably not due to the way the displays are built now. I’m sure the future rMBA will be glossy only too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
eames posted:Seconded, I even traded in my 13" rMBP for a 13" Air because of this. The Retina display is clearly superior in many ways, but I found that I just can’t live with a glossy display after checking the matte option every single time in the past. Yeah I think the MBA is the best overall Mac laptop since it gets all the small details right like going with a matte display.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I mentioned hardware and OS specifically because the faultiness with my Thermaltake model was apparently due to a specific incompatibility bug with Macs. I understand that very well and I commiserate with the problems you've had, but I'm just trying to point out that nothing special should be needed. Perhaps it's even better to have something simple that's not "high concept". eames posted:I wonder if we will ever see a return of the matte displays, probably not due to the way the displays are built now. I’m sure the future rMBA will be glossy only too. Yeah, there has never been and there never will progress... I'm sure we'll never get anything more modern than the Osborne 1 - my arms are killing me .etalian posted:Yeah I think the MBA is the best overall Mac laptop since it gets all the small details right like going with a matte display. "Best overall" for people who love their memory at 8 GB or lower and their resolutions at 1440x900 or lower. I'm really not trying to bash the Air, I like it very much, but every laptop is a tradeoff, and I'd never call the tradeoff that I happen to like best the "best overall".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
flavor posted:I understand that very well and I commiserate with the problems you've had, but I'm just trying to point out that nothing special should be needed. Perhaps it's even better to have something simple that's not "high concept". Yeah, totally agree. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
I wish Intel would hurry the hell up with Haswell. I'm itching to replace my 2011 13" MBA with the 13-inch Retina MBP but won't do it until Haswell hits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I wish Intel would hurry the hell up with Haswell. I'm itching to replace my 2011 13" MBA with the 13-inch Retina MBP but won't do it until Haswell hits. SWSP, don't you have an iMac too? And an iPad and iPhone? What do you use all those for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I wish Intel would hurry the hell up with Haswell. I'm itching to replace my 2011 13" MBA with the 13-inch Retina MBP but won't do it until Haswell hits. Sorry if this discussion has already been hashed out - but what's the appeal of the 13" rMBP? It seems like shockingly bad value to me compared to virtually anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 16:05
|
|
Lexicon posted:Sorry if this discussion has already been hashed out - but what's the appeal of the 13" rMBP? It seems like shockingly bad value to me compared to virtually anything else. It's a bad value because an HD4000 is woefully underpowered for a Retina screen. HD5000 should be enough to actually function properly.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Sorry if this discussion has already been hashed out - but what's the appeal of the 13" rMBP? It seems like shockingly bad value to me compared to virtually anything else. For most users the Air at $1199 is a much better deal than the rMBP at $1699. Even after throwing in another $100 for the 8GB upgrade on the Air. However: I get 8 hours of wifi/low-brightness/surfing. About an hour more than I ever did with my Air, and almost as much as I did with my 13" cMBP. Two thunderbolt ports, plus HDMI. Useful if you have a Thunderbolt HD that you can't daisy-chain things with and therefore makes you lose your video output. The cMBP and Air only have a single TB out. You can also plug 2 displays in without having to use a USB adapter or weird Matrox DualHead2Go setup. The screen is flat out amazing even if you don't crank it up to 1680x1050. IPS, baby. 8GB RAM standard. Although when you boot it up you're using 2GB right out of the gate, presumably because of the display, as opposed to ~700MB with the Air. The base CPU is faster than the base CPU of the Air. It's closer to the i7 upgraded Air. The graphics can be 'slower' than a non-Retina but it's overblown, IMO. It's not so much the scrolling but the re-sizing, which isn't fast on non-Retina in the first place (GMail for example).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Sorry if this discussion has already been hashed out - but what's the appeal of the 13" rMBP? It seems like shockingly bad value to me compared to virtually anything else. It's mainly for people who want a compact 13" laptop but with the much nicer Retina screen. Value-wise it's not that nice compared to the 15" rMBP due to starting out with only 128GB SSD and lacking true Pro features like discrete graphics. For majority of users it's not a compelling option due to the price point and spec build.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's mainly for people who want a compact 13" laptop but with the much nicer Retina screen. I guess it must make sense for some people - it just seems like a bad deal to me. I've got a 2012 11" MBA, and I'm going to punt that and get a 15" rMBP whenever they are next revved (the MBA is great, but I want a beefier machine with a larger screen now that I've decided against getting a separate desktop). The 11" MBA and the 15" rMBP both have clear value in their own way to me - the 13" rMBP simply doesn't, in my view. It seems too expensive for what it is, and too compromised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
The smallest high-end laptop around is a status symbol for some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I guess it must make sense for some people - it just seems like a bad deal to me. I've got a 2012 11" MBA, and I'm going to punt that and get a 15" rMBP whenever they are next revved (the MBA is great, but I want a beefier machine with a larger screen now that I've decided against getting a separate desktop). The 11" MBA and the 15" rMBP both have clear value in their own way to me - the 13" rMBP simply doesn't, in my view. It seems too expensive for what it is, and too compromised. A lot of people will argue the 11" is too small to get work done on and that the 15" is too big to take with you. The 13" is missing the quad-core CPU and discrete graphics but for many users that doesn't matter. You're basically paying a $400 premium for the screen and extra ports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:A lot of people will argue the 11" is too small to get work done on and that the 15" is too big to take with you. The 13" is missing the quad-core CPU and discrete graphics but for many users that doesn't matter. Yeah, fair points all around. At the end of the day, Apple didn't get to where it is by listening to me  (if they did, they would already have produced a cheaper headless Mac with 3.5" drive bays, and an app-less phone for the prepaid markets - in retrospect, products which would have been a distraction at best).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I guess it must make sense for some people - it just seems like a bad deal to me. I've got a 2012 11" MBA, and I'm going to punt that and get a 15" rMBP whenever they are next revved (the MBA is great, but I want a beefier machine with a larger screen now that I've decided against getting a separate desktop). The 11" MBA and the 15" rMBP both have clear value in their own way to me - the 13" rMBP simply doesn't, in my view. It seems too expensive for what it is, and too compromised. In all fairness despite the big apple tax for the 15" rMBP it's probably the best desktop replacement for power uses due to weight and dimension savings vs. clunky 15" windows PCs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
FlashBangBob posted:SWSP, don't you have an iMac too? And an iPad and iPhone?
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Feb 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Mid-2010 27" iMac: Photo editing (Photoshop and Lightroom) and iTunes media server for my other Apple devices; mostly the Apple TV. It has a 256GB internal SSD for the editing performance, and a RAID 1 3TB FW800 DAS for bulk storage. It's also the last 27" that had standard DisplayPort input, so it makes the perfect display for my mini-ITX gaming PC, PS3, or Xbox 360. You'll pry it from my cold, dead hands. And yeah I'd like the 13" retina MBP too. I have no interest in the 15" form factor, and while I'd actually like the 11" MBA the most, the screen resolution is what has held me back from getting one. 13" would be a bit of a compromise, but for me the retina screen makes up for the extra size. japtor fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Feb 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
japtor posted:Got a plan for when you eventually want to move on here? Just keep using it as long as it works as a screen (and I guess server) or just hope someone figures out how to make TB video input adapters for the newer iMacs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:[list]
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:This is why I want to find a 2010 27" iMac so badly. It sucks that it's so difficult to find them from reliable sources now. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Your mini-ITX gaming "console" is adorable. What a great idea. I have a lot of dreams and ideas of what my ideal computer setup would be like, and it includes having a gaming PC somewhere in there attached to a Thunderbolt Display. I'm very much a minimalist type of guy and your idea hit the right spot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:If you just want to use it as a media server and monitor, a 2009 27" should work as well. I know at least one person who might be interested in selling his 2009 27". The C2D might not be up to snuff for transcoding but as a media server it would be fine. my 2009 iMac has a core i5.  Edit: And actually I had been thinking of selling it. Although I imagine shipping it across the country to another goon would make me nervous for it. 
echobucket fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
echobucket posted:my 2009 iMac has a core i5. Didn't want to spring for the i7? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
echobucket posted:my 2009 iMac has a core i5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:Your mini-ITX gaming "console" is adorable. What a great idea. I have a lot of dreams and ideas of what my ideal computer setup would be like, and it includes having a gaming PC somewhere in there attached to a Thunderbolt Display. I'm very much a minimalist type of guy and your idea hit the right spot. I did see some funky vertical case design (think G4 Cube) on Anandtech a few weeks back that could be another good candidate, since everything was aligned vertically the footprint looked small. There was some other recent one that looked like a shrunken G5/Mac Pro but I think that was meant for server use, I don't remember if it could fit a full size card.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
japtor posted:Just clicked on that now. I would say that case seems pretty chunky (having seen them a few times at Frys)...but I'm thinking my perception is all jacked up from having used Mac minis for everything for the last 5-6 years.  Few mini-ITX chassis can fit the largest GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
echobucket posted:my 2009 iMac has a core i5. Star War Sex Parrot posted:Few mini-ITX chassis can fit the largest GPUs. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:This is why I want to find a 2010 27" iMac so badly. It sucks that it's so difficult to find them from reliable sources now. I'm actually about to sell a NIB 2010 27" iMac. Seriously. Dad bought it for his business and it's just sat unopened since Dec 2010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:BitFenix Prodigy 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:It's certainly bigger than most SFF chassis and definitely dwarfs a Mac Mini. That said, I have a GTX 680 in it and that was preceded by the even larger Radeon 7970 HD. Yeah, considering all the raw power shoved into that little box it's still a small footprint compared to having a tower. Plus I like the clean look. The last GPU I bought before going the laptop route was a GeForce 7900 GS KO, just to play STALKER. I thought that thing was big, but nowadays GPUs look like car radiators. By the time I have enough money to build my own mini-ITX gaming PC, SWSP will have perfected the entire process and I can just skim off his blueprints. Edit: BTW, what desk is that in your pics, SWSP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 03:34
|
|