|
I loving love my black MacBook
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
I guess I can wait until end of September for a new rMBP to replace my mid-2009 MBP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:For those who came in late: Worse yet, 10.12 won't run on most pre-2010 hardware currently supported by 10.11 for no discernible hardware reason. Including my 2009 Mac Pro. Do they really expect I'll upgrade to the "current" 3-year-old model instead? Laff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:I loving love my black MacBook That alone is making me lean towards that. Stupid Apple not giving me what I want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Worse yet, 10.12 won't run on most pre-2010 hardware currently supported by 10.11 for no discernible hardware reason.  My doorstop is not supported anymore.  Okay, without the snark: I'm not doubting that there is a reason. I'm having trouble being too sad about 7 year old hardware not being supported by the latest OS anymore. It seems that Apple's m.o. is to still give the most important updates to the previous releases (particularly in cases like this when the new OS doesn't support old hardware). The alternative would be having to support all kinds of old crud forever. By the time your Mac Pro is really not supported anymore in any way, it'll be 8 or 9 years old and hopefully there'll be a new model. Also, who knows, someone may hack Sierra to work with it. And in terms of actual availability, the Mac Pro was more of a 2014 release. e: Also, after 7 years there's not even any official way to get that thing repaired anymore. Depending on your needs, I would consider replacing it with an iMac. Mr. Smile Face Hat fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
flavor posted:
You are consistently the shittiest poster in this thread. 2009 Mac Pro's multicore performance still beats the pants off anything Apple sells today, aside from the newer Mac Pros of course. And the crazy magic (arcane trickery now long forgotten) of the old Pros is you can stick better hardware into them as time passes. So, doorstop my rear end. When you figure out the technical reason for Apple to draw the line where they did, I'll be thrilled to hear it. (That said, someone is inevitably going to hack this poo poo into working and the whole issue will be moot anyway.) This wouldn't be as big of a gently caress you from Apple if the current Mac Pro (2.5 years old at this point, if we want to be pedantic) didn't blow goats. I'd really love to buy a new Pro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:You are consistently the shittiest poster in this thread. Humor on a humor site? Well I never! Choadmaster posted:2009 Mac Pro's multicore performance still beats the pants off anything Apple sells today, Interesting to hear, particularly without giving the number of cores. So a 2009 Mac Pro with the lowest number of cores (4 if Wikipedia is correct) "beats the pants off" a 2015 27" iMac with the BTO CPU? Do you have any benchmarks? Choadmaster posted:the whole issue will be moot anyway. Choadmaster posted:This wouldn't be as big of a gently caress you from Apple if the current Mac Pro (2.5 years old at this point, if we want to be pedantic) didn't blow goats. I'd really love to buy a new Pro. Ah yes, of course, everyone knows it "blows goats". I'd be seriously interested in some more substance an less emotion and "everyone knows X is poo poo" from you. * * * About the OS upgrade, I see two possible reasons to cut support for old machines: Either it's because the old hardware really can't deal with it, or it's because at some point there's simply too much obsolete (in Apple's terms, i.e. older than 7 years) hardware to support that nobody could get repaired anymore anyway if it breaks down. My idea of a Mac Pro user is a person or a company for whom the cost of the hardware is not a major factor and who doesn't get too emotional about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
flavor posted:Humor on a humor site? Well I never! Being a dick != humor; perhaps this has revealed your problem. flavor posted:Interesting to hear, particularly without giving the number of cores. So a 2009 Mac Pro with the lowest number of cores (4 if Wikipedia is correct) "beats the pants off" a 2015 27" iMac with the BTO CPU? Do you have any benchmarks? Mine is an 8-core. I forgot they even made that low-end 4-core one; from what I can recall now it was a bit of a joke at the time. I've never seen one in the wild. You can look up the benchmarks on Geekbench's website if you don't feel like believing me (the current top-of-the-line iMac is sandwiched between the two 8-core models), but it's silly anyway - the real comparison shouldn't be to current computers; the 2009 MacBook (no "Pro") has the guts to handle 10.12, so what is the 2009 Mac Pro missing? This smells like a forced-upgrade situation, but there's nothing reasonable in the pro desktop class to upgrade to. flavor posted:Ah yes, of course, everyone knows it "blows goats". I'd be seriously interested in some more substance an less emotion and "everyone knows X is poo poo" from you. It's 2.5 years old and is still priced as if it were brand new. Even if it were spectacular at the time (which in some ways it was, the lack of reasonable extensibility notwithstanding), it's now an old computer at an inflated price. That is so blindingly obvious I cannot fathom why I have to explain it to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Or save money by flashing them yourself by studiously reading NetKas's, MacRumors, or tonymac forums and flash like a boss. Don't you need to solder to get them running at pcie 2.0 speeds or is that just on AMD cards? I thought the argument against throwing new cards in is because it will only run at 1.0 speeds until modified. I'd love to be wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Bloodplay it again posted:Don't you need to solder to get them running at pcie 2.0 speeds or is that just on AMD cards? I thought the argument against throwing new cards in is because it will only run at 1.0 speeds until modified. I'd love to be wrong though. For AMD cards, you have to remove a certain resistor, R17 or something before it'll run at PCI 2.0 speeds. nVidia cards don't need anything other than web drivers or native support to run at PCI 2.0. Choadmaster posted:Worse yet, 10.12 won't run on most pre-2010 hardware currently supported by 10.11 for no discernible hardware reason. Including my 2009 Mac Pro. Well, if you have an Early 2009 Pro, you can flash its firmware to make it look like a mid 2010; after that it's just a matter of either finding an old ATI 5770 Mac Edition or flash an AMD R9 280X with an EFI ROM and boom, that should be compatible with macOS Sierra..
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Being a dick != humor; perhaps this has revealed your problem. What's funny is in the eye of the beholder, and I would contend that this is exactly the kind of humor that is often posted on these forums. I immediately followed it up with a more serious section, so you knew it was a joke. Choadmaster posted:Mine is an 8-core. I forgot they even made that low-end 4-core one; from what I can recall now it was a bit of a joke at the time. I've never seen one in the wild. You can look up the benchmarks on Geekbench's website if you don't feel like believing me (the current top-of-the-line iMac is sandwiched between the two 8-core models), You made the claim, you back it up. Link please. Choadmaster posted:but it's silly anyway You made the comparison, now that I'm simply asking for numbers, the comparison is suddenly silly. Choadmaster posted:the 2009 MacBook (no "Pro") has the guts to handle 10.12, so what is the 2009 Mac Pro missing? This smells like a forced-upgrade situation, but there's nothing reasonable in the pro desktop class to upgrade to. It's either something that the base model of the Mac Pro can't handle (it's not like you can expect everyone to upgrade their graphics cards etc.) or because more people have the MBP by three or four orders of magnitude. Choadmaster posted:It's 2.5 years old and is still priced as if it were brand new. Even if it were spectacular at the time (which in some ways it was, the lack of reasonable extensibility notwithstanding), it's now an old computer at an inflated price. That is so blindingly obvious I cannot fathom why I have to explain it to you. Yeah, it's all so obvious when it isn't. Intel never lowers CPU prices and Apple never lowers hardware prices, but that doesn't mean everyone automatically can read your mind and knows what you're referring to when you just post your angry judgments. Again, what's "blindingly obvious" to me is that a Mac Pro is not for you if you get too emotional about all these things and cost is such a major factor. My best guess is that when faced with a choice between supporting, say, 100,000 remaining people with 2009 MacBooks or 300 with 2009 Mac Pros and about the same effort to do either, they chose to do the former.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:For AMD cards, you have to remove a certain resistor, R17 or something before it'll run at PCI 2.0 speeds. Thanks. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Welp, drama in a thread about computer hardware. I want to say it's unprecedented, but, it ain't, tis what it is. Shut the gently caress up, guys. It was a joke, it wasn't a joke, whatever. Who gives a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Pivo posted:Welp, drama in a thread about computer hardware. I want to say it's unprecedented, but, it ain't, tis what it is. You do, otherwise you wouldn't be posting about it. I'm genuinely interested whether a four-core 2009 Mac Pro performs better than a 2015 27" iMac, but I'm not going to do that guy's research for him. And I don't think anyone has any reason to be angry here - as has been pointed out, he can flash the firmware and probably get more life out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
It seems pretty silly to try to claim that the Mac Pro hardware can't handle it when they are supporting older MacBooks. I expect it has mostly to do with the fact that Apple doesn't give a poo poo about the Mac Pro. At this point I think you have to either be in a situation where you can upgrade to the latest model whenever it comes out, every 3-5 years, or accept that your hardware won't be supported for the lifetime of the product. I'm not saying this is good, but I do think it is the realistic answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
They don't support the '09 Mac Pro on Sierra because it didn't come standard with a WiFi card. Just do the 2010 firmware flash and it apparently installs without issue. Not a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
It's easier to implement a cut off date for hardware by choice and keeping the amount of machines you have to actively support in an OS to a limited amount must be a good thing for overall stability and maintenance. It sucks for those with older machines, but your existing hardware/software isn't going to just stop working and most of the people running these things are in production environments and purposely hold off on upgrading anyway because they know their setup is rock solid. Do pro apps generally require the latest OS X revision to install? If not, it's even less of an issue. It sucks but you know it's going to happen at some point, especially since the OS became 'free'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:It's easier to implement a cut off date for hardware by choice and keeping the amount of machines you have to actively support in an OS to a limited amount must be a good thing for overall stability and maintenance. Precisely, and whoever's machine came out immediately before that date is going to question why that cut had to be made at exactly that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
flavor posted:You do, otherwise you wouldn't be posting about it. Mac Pro (Early 2009) Intel Xeon X5570 2930 MHz (8 cores) 17750 iMac (27-inch Retina) Intel Core i7-4790K 4000 MHz (4 cores) 16647 Course if you want to take single core performance into account: iMac (27-inch Retina) Intel Core i7-4790K 4000 MHz (4 cores) 4363 Mac Pro (Early 2009) Intel Xeon X5570 2930 MHz (8 cores) 2306 MacBook (Early 2015) Intel Core M-5Y31 1100 MHz (2 cores) 2300 Now for my own  Mac bitching, the 2009 MacBook and Mac mini both had C2D and 9400M, and after looking it up, the same wireless specs. Maybe something to do with the other ports, like no drivers for whatever specific Ethernet/FW/etc chips for the 2009s?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Interesting, thank you! So the statement "2009 Mac Pro's multicore performance still beats the pants off anything Apple sells today" was incorrect, like I remembered. And the benchmarks didn't even have the current (2015) iMac yet, which has an i7-6700K when maxed out. In multi-core, the 4-core 2014 iMac is 7% slower than the 8-core 2009 Mac Pro, and in single-core the iMac is 89% faster (which I would consider "beating the pants off the 2009 Mac Pro").
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
flavor posted:Interesting, thank you! So the statement "2009 Mac Pro's multicore performance still beats the pants off anything Apple sells today" was incorrect, like I remembered. And the benchmarks didn't even have the current (2015) iMac yet, which has an i7-6700K when maxed out. In multi-core, the 4-core 2014 iMac is 7% slower than the 8-core 2009 Mac Pro, and in single-core the iMac is 89% faster (which I would consider "beating the pants off the 2009 Mac Pro"). Congratulations, you found something you were technically correct about. We're all very proud of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Oh Flavor, never change. I had a 2009 Mac Mini that I upgraded with an SSD and gave to my parents because they only need to do basic browsing and my dad uses it for MLB.TV. Guess they'll be staying on 10.11, though it's not like they're using it for anything where macOS would be useful. Hell, if anything, I'll avoid macOS, since I feel like Apple has been slowly neutering it more and more. Disk Utility was poo poo in 10.11 compared to 10.10 and earlier, and I actually reverted a couple of systems in my house back to 10.10 since 10.11 was causing kernel panics and networking issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Chill dudes, please redirect your energies to productive discussions about how loving awesome the new MBPs are going to be come fall. My thought on "old" HW support though -- I think everything Nehalem or newer should be giving the same general desktop experience, all other things being equal (amount of RAM, SSD, etc.). lovely, bottom-tier web developers keep coming up with websites that make an i7-620 choke, but the overall OS experience outside of that is on par with the newer machines (sure, maybe Mail.app opens slightly faster on a 2016 MBP than a 2010). I think C2D-based machines could be limping along, but those guys suffer running Chrome and chogging through some brogrammer's steaming shitpile of JavaScript.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I have a dreaded "what Mac should I get?" question. I'm switching from using PCs for the last dozen years because I'm fully invested in the Apple ecosystem otherwise (iphone, ipad, appletv), my wife owns a Mac Book Air, and I'd like to get into some basic development in Swift. I'm debating between a MacBook and 13" rMBP. I'll mostly use it at a desk. I have a Dell U2412M monitor which offers Displayport, VGA, and DVI-D connections, which I believe would be limited to VGA with the MacBook. I'll be doing some work in Windows, but I'm not sure if it'll be in Bootcamp or Parallels or VMware (I don't know the differences).And like I mentioned above, some starter level development work in Xcode. Lastly, I'm aware that going with a MBP probably means waiting a couple of months for the updates. So, my questions: can I get by with a MacBook? Is 8 gigs of RAM enough? I'm not too worried about 256 gigs of SSD since we have a NAS in the house, but if there's other concerns about the lower storage space, I'd love to know more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
canyonero posted:I have a dreaded "what Mac should I get?" question. I'm switching from using PCs for the last dozen years because I'm fully invested in the Apple ecosystem otherwise (iphone, ipad, appletv), my wife owns a Mac Book Air, and I'd like to get into some basic development in Swift. I'm debating between a MacBook and 13" rMBP. Yes. You'd be fine with a MacBook. Potential keyboard concerns are mitigated in part by your use case. Also I'm pretty sure you can get USB-c to DisplayPort or Dvi-d/hdmi. Having said that I'd probably spring for some upgrades on it, like more storage, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
canyonero posted:I have a dreaded "what Mac should I get?" question. I'm switching from using PCs for the last dozen years because I'm fully invested in the Apple ecosystem otherwise (iphone, ipad, appletv), my wife owns a Mac Book Air, and I'd like to get into some basic development in Swift. I'm debating between a MacBook and 13" rMBP. I'm currently using a rMB and it's had no problem filling the shoes of my 2014 15"rMBP. Some VMWare Fusion machines, Python development in PyCharm. I got the M5 8GB 2016 512GB SSD rMB. I will say I'm still on the fence about keeping it. While I love the touch-pad, weight, and even the keyboard, I do miss the larger screen at times when I don't have an external around to plug into. Either way one of them is going to my parents at the end of the month. For your monitor, just get an Apple or 3rd party AV adapter (make sure it supports change-through). I got the Apple one and it works fine with an HDMI<>DVI cable. I know the 3rd party are cheaper, but just pay attention reviews and make sure they aren't all sock puppets. There's some poo poo ones being sold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Reasons to NOT go with the MacBook: You need a big screen while on the road You're invested in a bunch of Thunderbolt adapters You need dedicated graphics or quad-core i7 I loved the 11" Air but the screen was too low resolution. I'm tempted by the MacBook but #1 I don't use my computer that much any more and #2 I have a 2013 rMBP 13" with 8GB/512GB so I really have no reason to switch If I were you, I'd get the Macbook based solely on the reason that it will have way more resale if you decided you want to get the new MacBook Pro in the fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
The 12 MacBook has a garbage keyboard
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
It has a fantastic keyboard. That's another thing that will make it hard to go back if I end up giving my parents the rMB. The rMBP keys feel a bit mushier to me now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
japtor posted:Now for my own IMHO, it's more of an arbitrary calendar-based limit rather than hardware limit, as many early and mid-2009 machines were already declared 'vintage' by Apple as of March of this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
canyonero posted:So, my questions: can I get by with a MacBook? Is 8 gigs of RAM enough? I'm not too worried about 256 gigs of SSD since we have a NAS in the house, but if there's other concerns about the lower storage space, I'd love to know more. If it matters, the rumor mill is in virtual agreement that the rMBP is gonna get a major chassis update before the end of this year- if Apple sticks to its usual schedule we should see a reveal later in the summer. That said, the rule of thumb for the last three major notebook updates/introductions has been to wait a year (less so for the MacBook but the 2013 rMBPs and 2011 MBAs were definitely better buys than the launch models from 2010/2012) so take that for what thou wilt, I guess. FWIW, I don't think a 2016 MacBook's a bad idea at all, but maybe you want more ports/potentially an OLED F-key bar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:IMHO, it's more of an arbitrary calendar-based limit rather than hardware limit, as many early and mid-2009 machines were already declared 'vintage' by Apple as of March of this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:The 12 MacBook has a garbage keyboard this, but the complete opposite of what this wrong and bad poster said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
japtor posted:That'd make sense at least. Kinda curious how easy/hard it’d be to hack an installation on then. I saw some posts about it getting stuck at initializing USB something. The Late 2013 Mac Pro introduced Fresco Logic FL1100 based chipsets, and there are built-in drivers in OS X 10.10 and up for ASmedia chipsets which are supposedly in some MacBook Pro models. Someone testing macOS Sierra on MacRumors says their VLI chipset based USB PCIe card is now recognized. So maybe they finally debugged USB once and for all? I doubt it. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback and recommendations. I'm not sure I'll ever understand the keyboard anger (I've played with one at an Apple Store), but whatever. How long does it tend to take for stuff to show up in the refurb area? If I have to wait a few months for the 2016 refresh Macbooks to get there, I may as well just wait to see what the MBP updates are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:this, but the complete opposite of what this wrong and bad poster said. I was in store again yesterday and tested it out with TypeRacer and won. I approve of the keyboard. (I also won on one of those iPad smart keyboards, and that felt a lot weirder to me, but it was the first time trying that one out) Binary Badger posted:So maybe they finally debugged USB once and for all? I doubt it. But hey we’re getting a new filesystem finally! Maybe USB will be fine by the time we get wireless USB or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Netkas already managed to install macOS Sierra on his Early 2008 Mac Pro (3,1).. looks like he had to resort to a bit of trickery to do it, but he also says flashing the Early 2009 (4,1) to Mid 2010 (5,1) works. Also installing Sierra onto a hard drive on a supported machine, then moving it to a 3,1 or 4,1 works too. The consensus is that you need to install a Broadcom combo WiFi/Bluetooth 4.0 card for most of the fancy schmancy Continuity features to work.. japtor posted:I feel like you could replace USB with any long standing annoyance and the sentence would still work. Firewire and Thunderbolt have been pretty steady for me, and they're homegrown technologies as far as Apple is concerned. IMHO, Apple still treats USB as a Not Invented Here technology and thus it's buggy as hell. That USB booting works at all is more of a testament to EFI than anything else. Rumors imply that when Apple found that their USB stack was programmed by poo poo stains, all they did was hire a single engineer to rewrite the USB kernel to use a fudge that effectively breaks USB 3.0 hubs that don't meet certain requirements. James Katt/Macintouch posted:The limitation that the new USB driver leaves us is that each external USB 3.0 hub needs one controller chip for every 4 USB 3.0 ports. Only a few external USB 3.0 hubs do this - such as the Plugable 7-Port USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Hub with 25W Power Adapter and Two Ports with BC 1.2 Charging Support. quote:But hey we’re getting a new filesystem finally! Maybe USB will be fine by the time we get wireless USB or something. Like we have to wait for every alternating OS revision for fixes to appear. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:If it matters, the rumor mill is in virtual agreement that the rMBP is gonna get a major chassis update before the end of this year- if Apple sticks to its usual schedule we should see a reveal later in the summer. Wait, what? We should see a reveal later in the summer? Where is that coming from? I thought I was doing a good job with my homework before switching to a Mac. 6 months later I still have not pulled a trigger and perhaps never will? I am now used to my lovely laptop with broken pixels. I win Mac thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:That said, the rule of thumb for the last three major notebook updates/introductions has been to wait a year (less so for the MacBook but the 2013 rMBPs and 2011 MBAs were definitely better buys than the launch models from 2010/2012) so take that for what thou wilt, I guess. But that can only be determined in hindsight, and, as you say (and I agree), the MacBook hasn't had that problem. Also YMMV, but Apple has been super fantastic to me about repairing and replacing broken things, so I'm not having any reservations about getting the latest model of anything. canyonero posted:I'm not sure I'll ever understand the keyboard anger (I've played with one at an Apple Store), but whatever. A lot of people get super attached to things being exactly a certain way, and if there are any changes, even if they are for the better, they get very upset. I think the new keyboard is much more precise, but it feels a little different (I'd say "solid"), so that may trigger some people somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
flavor posted:But that can only be determined in hindsight, and, as you say (and I agree), the MacBook hasn't had that problem. Also YMMV, but Apple has been super fantastic to me about repairing and replacing broken things, so I'm not having any reservations about getting the latest model of anything. I dig, but for me it's more of an "Apple builds the chassis and then they spend the next year getting their partners into gear with the customers' needs" situation that's happened more than once. The 2011 Macbook Air takes a hot dump on the 2010 model in speed, CPU power, battery life, and graphics because Sandy Bridge and the HD 3000 are a home run compared to what shipped in the Air the year that Apple originally refreshed the chassis. With the rMBP, the 'late 2013' models benefitted from the switch to Haswell, with way more capable integrated graphics (that wouldn't poo poo themselves running the retina display), muuuuuch better and faster storage, and the switch from the 650m to the 750m in the high end 15" model. If you plan on holding onto your computer for 4+ years, it's a big difference. In this case, I suppose we've gotten lucky with Intel's recent performance gain issues making all computers from the past, like, 5 years still feel decent and good. Still, I feel like a 2013 rMBP is a much more future-proof machine than a 2012 one, and I'm glad that I waited to buy it in the same way that I was happy I'd waited until 2011 to replace my Blackbook with a 13" Air that was actually capable of playing TF2. Snowmankilla posted:Wait, what? We should see a reveal later in the summer? Where is that coming from? I thought I was doing a good job with my homework before switching to a Mac. 6 months later I still have not pulled a trigger and perhaps never will? I am now used to my lovely laptop with broken pixels. I win Mac thread. There's been a purported part leak of a 13" top case that
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:06
|
|