New MacBook Pro

@Reynaud

Tnx for posting . Had not seen it yet.
Would be really good for everyone (who likes mac/apple) if this indeed adresses the issue.
And if this short throttle-gate is over we can sigh in relief and move on (except the haters as they will always hate no mater what)

What is does mean is (at least feels like) a historic first of apple within a few days reacting and admitting guilt.
Its like we live in a bright new universe where everything is possible
Lets hope its a good sign of more openness and honesty to come. It can only benefit them.

Now lets wait for the post fix results ......

I think this time (even biggest Mac fanboys have limits) they had no choice- admit problem and fix it or face poor sales. It was actually more marketing/sales division decision than techy team one- I can bet you on this At the end Apple is all about $

First scores post fix are in and apparently looking good

From Dave2D's twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di45apZXcAEWaWA.jpg

Now Apple should on next event say that actually it's users who work harder and better than their tech team and thanks them for making latest MacBook Pro "faster than ever"

Amen, Andrew. I read about the “missing digital key” and it implies when Apple was doing their tests, they got the performance they publish on their webpages so no issue there.

But after their performance testing there may have been additional firmware changes in which the “digital key” was not active and that’s the version that went to press without redoing their performance testing. No doubt some heads will roll over this.

I feel I was too quick to judge that this was a high-level consequence of form over function. That argument I made was all wrong. It may be simply short-circuiting their release testing script after some hurried change was inserted very late for the approval of the production gold master. If I was in QA or QC, I’d expect to feel the pain, but it could go even higher up the chain of command. This has been interesting. Likely a coder made the mistake, but that’s expected as “to err is human.” That’s why you have QA/ QC and management above them that are ultimately responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First scores post fix are in and apparently looking good

From Dave2D's twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Di45apZXcAEWaWA.jpg

92 C is GOOD? I feel bad when I can't keep my desktop under 70 C with all 8 cores / 16 threads are at 100%

Temp is fine and was NOT the core issue but power throttling which lead to crazy cpu spikes.
Those spikes seem gone and whats left is normal to be expected behavior for a hot running cpu in small enclosure keeping an as high as possible temp/speed ratio.
I have 2 mac minis (on 24x7) that run over 90C since 2011 without a single crash or issues EVER.

Hi.

Here is a new YouTube video from Dave Lee:
‏
Core i9 MacBook Pro - After the Patch from Apple

https://t.co/88XlyFRI0L

He say that after the patch the 2018 MBP with a i9 is may be 35% faster than the 2017 model. So what happen with the 70% promised by Apple?
Wonder if Apple will pay back money to disappointed customers?

He also shows six i9 laptops. Tree of them can really use the i9 to its full potential. But they are big fat gaming laptops.

I think I just got my two recommendation approved:
I had several times on this forum recommended a medium to large size laptop with a 6 core Intel mobile CPU.
And for readers of this thread have I recommended to wait one year for the next 2019 MBP with a new lower power 7nm mobile graphics card.

Regards Carsten.

Apple did not confirm it was VRM issue. People can double check it, so quite interesting. Do they lie again?

Now I want to see tests against 2018 i7, not against 2017. I still feel sceptical about whole i9 model, which looks like simply waste of huge money.
New video is very vague. I wonder why?

Temp is fine and was NOT the core issue but power throttling which lead to crazy cpu spikes.
Those spikes seem gone and whats left is normal to be expected behavior for a hot running cpu in small enclosure keeping an as high as possible temp/speed ratio.
I have 2 mac minis (on 24x7) that run over 90C since 2011 without a single crash or issues EVER.

+Apple by default lets them get really hot before kicking fans, which I actually don't like in my 2016 15inch model. It gets very hot even when not doing any demanding things. At least we have 3rd party apps for controlling fans, so this can help.

New video is very vague. I wonder why?

Hi.

Me tu. I wonder if there was any form of threat or may be a solicitor involved when Apple contacted Dave Lee?

Regards Carsten.

There are now mores tests available and as far as CPU is definitely running at more stable and higher clock it's still probably not worth it.
i9 CPU itself seems to be maybe 10-20% faster than i7 and it's all mainly due to higher turbo clock (+ bigger cache). If i7 can keep same turbo clock as i9 (which seems to never go much above 4GHz in Mac) then they will be very comparable. Looks like i9 CPU is really "useless" in most thin laptops as it will never use higher clocks (eg. above 4.2GHz) which are the key difference against i7.
We are no near Apple numbers against last year models and below PC laptops performance with same CPU.

There are people with same view as mine:
"Geekbench Labs founder John Poole tested the 2018 Core i9 MacBook Pro after the patch and found that it was faster with a more stable processor frequency. It was slightly slower than the 2018 Core i7 MacBook Pro. Poole says that while long running heavily multi-threaded tasks are going to see similar performance on the Core i9 and Core i7 machines, single and lightly-threaded tasks should be faster on the i9. "

I would never shell out that money for a 15" model with 6 cores. For really demanding stuff (like decoding 8k R3D) you'd need quite a few more cores anyway.

For working on the road I'd get the basic 13" without that stupid bar and the eGPU for the home base. Still under 2K.

Now I want to see tests against 2018 i7, not against 2017. I still feel sceptical about whole i9 model, which looks like simply waste of huge money.

It *is* a waste of money; it's stupid to put an i9 in an ultrabook. None of the other ultrabooks out there using i9s are doing a good job either; the i9 is an i7 that's unlocked so that it can be overclocked.

If you can't cool it enough to overclock it, why bother offering it as an option?

It's bullet point marketing, nothing more. Same's true for almost every thin and light laptop with an i9 option out there.

But that's also why the AlienWare 15 R5 and the new Razer hexacore machines (for example) have vapor chamber cooling systems in them, and aren't thin and light enough to qualify as "ultrabooks". They're a bit on the bulky side.

I really don't understand why anyone would by a Macbook, especially for any kind of serious editing/grading work. If you have to do some field cuts, almost any decent laptop will work. For real work, a desktop is the only practical option. The external GPU is inherently hampered two ways - 1. By being AMD based (I've tested Nvidia vs Radeon head to head not too long ago, and Nvidia's 1080ti trounced the Vega), and by being external, you have literally AT BEST 1/4 of the throughput of a real GPU in a pci 16x slot. Never mind the lack of internal storage, etc.

$6,700+$700 = foolish waste of money, and still no storage and a sudden lack of the only benefit - portability.

The current main system over here is basically untouchable by any mac-based solution at any cost. And it's (relatively) inexpensive. The only downside is Windows 10. Here's a breakdown of what kind of performance $6,000 can get you (now can probably be replicated for significantly less):

Threadripper 1950x
Asus MB
32 gb ram
1 tb NVMe C drive (Intel)
Nvidia 1080ti
Hardware raid controller running 5 x 2tb SSDs (4 Crucials and 1 Micron) in a RAID 5 configuration media drive - 10 tb total; ~7.5 tb formatted
Blackmagic mini monitor 4k card

The best part - we can still add 2 more 1080ti cards (though one would run at 8x - but still twice as fast as the e gpu) and another 6 tb of SSD storage to the RAID - which is already as fast as the NVMe C drive.

The new macbook pro is a mindboggling exercise in bragging about buzzworthy tags, implemented in a format that's unable to use the individual components to anything even remotely resembling capacity.

It's like having a 2,000hp engine in a car that's governed to 55 mph and has it's acceleration limited. You've still paid for the engine, but you ain't using it.

I’m really not interested One iota about benchmark tests and yada yada. If it’s an improvement on my 2012 MacBook Pro then I’m all good. It’s just gonna be a couple of very expensive months....with a pre ordered BMPCC4K coming. The combo will suit me down to the ground. I’ll next edit 4K I’m happy with proxy files and render out speeds I really couldn’t care less as I normally hit render then go watch Netflix

Well, not everyone sleeps on $, so most people really care what they get for given investment.

Well, not everyone sleeps on $, so most people really care what they get for given investment.

This is true, but on the other hand I think we have to acknowledge a few things:

1. No matter how much more similar Mac and Windows have become in recent years, switching is still a pain. There's a significant productivity penalty in the first few months and possibly even the first year or two. I've done it (switched from Mac to Windows) and even though I'm a very experienced Windows user I found it so frustrating that I ended up switching back to the Mac after almost 2 years. I may switch to Windows again in the future depending on Apple's future desktop options, but my point is that many Mac users feel the extra money is worth it to use a system they're familiar with and thus doesn't get in the way of their work. The more time you invest in learning an operating system and becoming efficient with it, the more it costs in time, money, and mental health when you switch to something that's less familiar and doesn't work the way you expect.

2. Of course Resolve is really best on a desktop machine but we need to recognize that some people work on the road, sometimes for months at a time, and a desktop machine isn't a practical option for them. At that point, though, you also have to ask whether Resolve itself is a practical option; I think most nomadic videographers are using something else (e.g., Brandon Li, who uses FCPX).

I agree+ Macs keep their value very well, where PCs loose it badly.
Point is that there is almost no reason to buy new i9 model (which is really expensive) and only people who sleep on $ can "easily" justify it. It's because this i9 will never get into its possible turbo modes (eg above 4.2GHz) due to being installed into laptop which will never deliver enough cooling power. i7 is about same CPU and it can also go to 4.3GHz (which will be most likely also never achieved). At the end both CPUs will at best work at around 4GHz, so because they are almost the same CPUs they will deliver same real word experience.
i9 in MacBook is basically in 95% just a pr thing which generates money and keeps brand prestige.

Based on values found on the net:
i9 at its full potential can hit almost 1400 in CineBench test. In Mac it hits around 950 (with Apple fix), so this is about 30% worse than it could be.
i7 can do about 1300 when properly cooled, in Mac is does about 1050 (with Apple fix). This is also about 15% worse than in Dell XPS.
I could not find better value for i9 model, so for long test it's actually slower than i7 (so what on earth am I paying almost 300£ extra for?). For whatever reason i7 can "easier" maintain higher frequency over long times, so at the end it's actually faster in Macs.
Looks like Apple needs to properly tweak i9 as there is no reason why it should be slower. If anything it should be the same (and faster for peak moments where eg. only 1 or 2 cores are used). Looks like Apple done poor job and "code" for i9 is not really tweaked properly at all. Their quick fix for initial/embarrassing result is good, but in the same time i9 based machine is still very disappointing.

What is interesting that many review websites actually focus on i9 model and don't even show/compare it against i7. We know why and most likely who is behind it This includes new test by Dave Lee, which are very "vague" and sounds like Apple censored. Poor world of corporates influence.

There's a significant productivity penalty in the first few months and possibly even the first year or two.

Don't get it - nobody get's any work done in the OS (besides copying files) - Premiere/Avid/Photoshop/Resolve etc. work the same over the platforms,
so where does that "2 year productivity penalty" come from?

So unless you are a FCPX user that switches to windows, there should be no difference.

I agree+ Macs keep their value very well, where PCs loose it badly.

For every used Mac out there you have at least 10 used PCs on the market, simple question of supply and demand, but nothing to do with value per se.

I never thought about buying used PC, but I could do it for Mac. Maybe it's due to pricing as for PC range is huge. You can't buy cheap Mac.

There's a significant productivity penalty in the first few months and possibly even the first year or two.

Don't get it - nobody get's any work done in the OS (besides copying files) - Premiere/Avid/Photoshop/Resolve etc. work the same over the platforms,
so where does that "2 year productivity penalty" come from?

If Resolve is the one and only program you use on a computer, then of course there's little productivity hit; it works the same across platforms. If you're using a computer dedicated only to video editing it's not a big issue (except when things go wrong, in which case you have to learn how to fix things in Windows that you knew how to fix in the Mac...and things will go wrong).

A lot of non-professionals, though, will use their computer as a multi-purpose machine, running lots of different applications on it in addition to Resolve. Most cross-platform apps require you to pay for a Windows version if you already bought a Mac version, and vice versa, and then there are apps that are not cross-platform and you have to learn how to use a Windows app that has different interface and workflows than what you were used to on the Mac.

This is especially true for laptop users, which is what we're talking about here. I don't know of many laptop users who use their machines only for video editing; they probably have lots of other apps on them.

Even silly things like keyboard layout can slow you down -- I type a lot in French and some in Irish, both of which entail heavy use of accents; I've had the Mac key combinations for accents memorized since the late 1980s but with Windows it's all different.

I never thought about buying used PC, but I could do it for Mac. Maybe it's due to pricing as for PC range is huge. You can't buy cheap Mac.

I buy all my Macs refurbished and have never had a problem. I saved $700 on my current Mac Pro, which I bought refurbished from the Apple store (still has its 1-year guarantee), which brought it down to a more reasonable (but still expensive) price range.

Hi.

The performance of the smaller MacBook Pro 13 2018 is significantly better after the software update. But the situation is not quite as good for the 15-inch model.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/MacBook-P ... 234.0.html

The official statement says the manufacturer forgot a digital key in the firmware. However, the update is about 1.5 GB?

What!!!
How can it be 1.5 GB?

Regards Carsten.

I wonder is it possible to undervolt the new Macs in bootcamp using intel XTU application as well as make other tunnings

So sustained demanding usage over time finally appears to demonstrate the insufficient cooling of the MacBook Pro 15” i9 even with the firmware fix. A few people have said the prudent course is delaying a purchase if you are set on having the i9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m still feeling skeptical in spite of your findings. For one thing, nearly everyone buying these new MacBook Pros will not be buying the eGPU. I’m concluding the eGPU and the 13” i5 may be a reasonably good value among generally bad values solely due to inadequate cooling. And I’m very Pro Apple and macOS!

I think due to the overheating (and underperforming?) reports of the MBP, I've decided it won't live up to my needs. I would prefer a laptop but may have to live with a desktop. I'm trying to make the move to 4k video and my current setup (2015 MBP) is not up to the task. Due to various reasons I will need to stick with MacOS so a Windows system is not in the running.

I'm also having to rule out the new(ish) iMac Pro because the price is sick.

Wondering if anyone thinks a 27in iMac would handle 4k video well (quad core i7 and Radeon Pro 580 graphics). I'd most likely be using Resolve and/or Premiere Pro. A decent setup would be $2500 compared to $7k for an iMac Pro. Thoughts??

Depends on your codec. My iMac (non Pro) with the Radeon 580 handles ProRes 4K very well. R3D not so much.

If you really want something portable, get the cheapest MBP and the eGPU. Make optimized or transcoded files for the road. When you get back to the desk, connect the eGPU and you nearly have the same power as the iMac.

For every used Mac out there you have at least 10 used PCs on the market, simple question of supply and demand, but nothing to do with value per se.

Yeah.. but for every potential mac customer (new or old) there are 10 PC ones... so it evens out.

Its just better built, has a more durable exterior & finish, no ugly hologram stickers, probably more rigorous design and longevity QC, and maybe a narrower line of design options (they look somewhat similar for over 16 or so years) that fixated it in the minds as one, standing out, premium product.

Depends on your codec. My iMac (non Pro) with the Radeon 580 handles ProRes 4K very well. R3D not so much.

If you really want something portable, get the cheapest MBP and the eGPU. Make optimized or transcoded files for the road. When you get back to the desk, connect the eGPU and you nearly have the same power as the iMac.

Thx Uli. What about an iMac with the eGPU? Will that handle R3D without transcoding? I've heard some bad things about the new MBP lineup (mainly heat throttling) that will almost certainly apply in my situation but the ability to view/edit the footage is the first priority.

Depending on resolution. 4K maybe will work (probably not), but nothing above for sure without going to half or 1/4 decoding setting. You need really fast CPU (2 xCPU) to work with high resolution RED.

I would not advise the regular iMac for R3D, not even with the eGPU.

Red footage needs massive CPU power or the (e)GPU will get 'starved'. You'd need the best iMac Pro for an insane price or a good PC build for far less. I'm a die hard Apple fan, but currently they don't have a real 'pro' machine.

If you have more time than money, you could make a first light and transcode the stuff you need into ProRes 4444. The regular iMac would do that even without an eGPU, but working with R3D natively isn't fun.

Thanks for the info!

Following along Uli’s recommendation, it may also be efficacious to work on your Timeline with optimized media at ¼ size or less resolution. Your footage in the Viewer isn’t going to look perfect of course, but that may not be a concern. When you Deliver, you use your original media at full resolution. I recently used 1/16 resolution and it looked so ugly it can be distracting, but it works for your Edit and Colour pages and the deliverables at full resolution were fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I buy all my Macs refurbished and have never had a problem. I saved $700 on my current Mac Pro, which I bought refurbished from the Apple store (still has its 1-year guarantee), which brought it down to a more reasonable (but still expensive) price range.

and i buy re-furb'd HP's for the same reason

I would not advise the regular iMac for R3D... I'm a die hard Apple fan, but currently they don't have a real 'pro' machine.

If you have more time than money, you could make a first light and transcode the stuff you need into ProRes 4444. The regular iMac would do that even without an eGPU...

I hate the summer at least it’s a bummer in this heatwave when I’m working on BMD raw 4608x1920. The Edit and Colour was a hummer on my iMac 27” high-end late 2015 machine. But I can’t think of anything dumber than having to Deliver my HEVC 10-bit DCI 2K vídeo at 1 frame per second!

Even then I just had one of those overheated temporary shutdowns and when it restarted it ignored the 1 fps setting and was rendering at 3 fps for several minutes until the temperature exceeded 100 degrees and it went back to 1 fps. I’m stuck here babysitting it until it’s finished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey man , patience is gold...
Just be happy you are not into vfx where i am used to waiting several hours of rendering a single frame of a crazy sim on 4 computers. 1fps is pure luxury

When I was attending arts university, we were doing S-8 in training and 16mm for final project.
Electronic 4K was not even a dream then.

Boring oldtimers, aren't we? But back to the main topic:

Now that I'm sometimes supervising a university lab with both PCs and Macs myself, I have do say one thing in favor of MacOS. It cause less service hours and Resolve is quite a bit less buggy (even the beta) on Mac than on PC. It's not a conspiracy or anything like that, but logic should tell you so: hardware and OS are from one source and the number of variations in hardware is limited. Just more so when it's closed boxes where you may only add some RAM by yourself (or not even that in case of the iMac Pro). Yes, Apple fu…d up too with early High Sierra and Red footage.

But compare that to endless possibilities of the OS from Microsoft running on trillions of possible configurations. You wonder how they can make it work decently at all! Not that they don't fu, just recently there was update 1803.

Yes, you can definitely have power from a PC for less. But people tend to forget the number of hours they spend looking for workarounds. Just like Apple fans forget the money they spent

The only 1 issue is that there is no real Mac PRO for high-end work.

I'm definitely with you on that one. I would not recommend an iMac for R3D, for example.
Even compressed DNG is tough without enough fast cores.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Glenn. I was in shock that I had to babysit a run at 1 fps, but having the Intel Power Gadget helped explain why, and it was all about temperature staying below 100 degrees Celsius.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some numbers:

Just as a side note. iMac PRO 18 cores seems to have decent cooling:

10h render at 100% and CPU is still at base+ clock and not crazy hot. Problem is what happens if we stress GPU at the same time

I agree+ Macs keep their value very well, where PCs loose it badly.

It's actually part of Apple's marketing more than anything else. Apple's fans have been touting Apple's slow updates as a feature; that doesn't happen in the competitive world of Windows boxen. Everyone else rolls out updated hardware constantly, so the prices of their older hardware drops steadily. Apple retains hardware for longer periods, and keeps its prices artificially high.

Point is that there is almost no reason to buy new i9 model (which is really expensive) and only people who sleep on $ can "easily" justify it. It's because this i9 will never get into its possible turbo modes (eg above 4.2GHz) due to being installed into laptop which will never deliver enough cooling power.

That's most likely true for EVERY ultrabook that has an i9 option: it's bullet-point marketing that delivers zero value to the customers, but tricks them out of extra bux.

Looks like Apple done poor job and "code" for i9 is not really tweaked properly at all. Their quick fix for initial/embarrassing result is good, but in the same time i9 based machine is still very disappointing.

They're the same processor under the hood. The difference is in the thermals and power regulation; i.e. the i9 is an unlocked i7 intended for overclocker rigs, not ultrabooks.

What is interesting that many review websites actually focus on i9 model and don't even show/compare it against i7. We know why and most likely who is behind it This includes new test by Dave Lee, which are very "vague" and sounds like Apple censored. Poor world of corporates influence.

Apple's trying to resurrect its Reality Distortion Field by throwing lawyers at at it, eh?

That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Asus is taking a flak for doing exactly the same thing, but since it has so much smaller a profile than Apple, it's getting less flak. Apple's a bigger target, even though Asus makes and sells a lot more computers.

Don't get it - nobody get's any work done in the OS (besides copying files) - Premiere/Avid/Photoshop/Resolve etc. work the same over the platforms,
so where does that "2 year productivity penalty" come from?

Internal resistance. It make zero sense. And if FCPX or Premiere is the problem, just drop it and upgrade to Resolve, problem solved.

Its just better built, has a more durable exterior & finish, no ugly hologram stickers, probably more rigorous design and longevity QC

If you compare to the cheapest, generic Windows machine you can find, that might be true. If you compare premium laptops though, the reverse is true. And in my experience so far, due to rampant and long-lived design flaws in Apple's laptops, they've generally been among the least reliable in my experience... compared to gaming and premium laptops from HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus... (Razer not so much, they look nice but do not last). Even Microsoft. Once Microsoft opens its eyes to adopting Thunderbolt, the Surface line will be back on my radar.

Are any of them perfect? Of course not. But I've actually had a lot more problems with macs than with non-macs (I've also never purchased a machine from a generic vendor). I like OSX though... but Apple needs to stop pretending that it's a computer company and admit that everyone else in the premium category is ahead.

But I had a MacBook Pro Retina that tended to disconnect its USB controller when under load because when the GPU + CPU got hot enough, which was common when rendering even 2K in Resolve, one of the parts deformed from thermal expansion. That would then unmount the drive, and often killed renders as a result.

That one lasted for several generations... and got replaced with that butterfly keyboard.

Don't get it - nobody get's any work done in the OS (besides copying files) - Premiere/Avid/Photoshop/Resolve etc. work the same over the platforms,
so where does that "2 year productivity penalty" come from?

Internal resistance. It make zero sense. And if FCPX or Premiere is the problem, just drop it and upgrade to Resolve, problem solved.

Nah, you missed the part where I replied that most laptop users are not using them as dedicated studio machines that only run a video post-production program and nothing else. Most people are using their laptops for many other purposes as well, like running their business, managing their finances, writing documents, whatever. You have to consider switching in context: switching platforms is not simply a matter of installing one familiar program and using it the same way because it's cross-platform. You have to consider the whole picture. Even though I've been using Windows exclusively for my job since 1995, when I tried switching my home computer from Mac to Windows I became less productive and a lot more frustrated; I use my home computer for all my creative work (photography, music, simple graphic design, developing and maintaining websites, writing, editing, etc.) plus managing my finances, home inventory, etc., and in many of those cases I had to switch to new apps on Windows that were unfamiliar, plus Windows 10 in the early days was quite a bit less stable than it is now.

My point is not that Mac is better than Windows; there are a lot of things I like better about Windows--especially the much larger range of hardware options and repairability/upgradability. My point is that switching platforms is not a decision to be made lightly.

Are any of them perfect? Of course not. But I've actually had a lot more problems with macs than with non-macs (I've also never purchased a machine from a generic vendor). I like OSX though... but Apple needs to stop pretending that it's a computer company and admit that everyone else in the premium category is ahead.

But I had a MacBook Pro Retina that tended to disconnect its USB controller when under load because when the GPU + CPU got hot enough, which was common when rendering even 2K in Resolve, one of the parts deformed from thermal expansion. That would then unmount the drive, and often killed renders as a result.

That one lasted for several generations... and got replaced with that butterfly keyboard.

For me PC laptops still have by average more problems. I had many PCs before owning Mac and I bought Mac after trying out 3of the most expensive PC laptops. Each of them was ok, but had at least 1 serious issue, like XPS famous coil noise which drives me mad.
Not so sure about current Macs series- maybe iMac PRO is okish, but at this price I most likely will never buy it.

For me PC laptops still have by average more problems.

Oddly enough, for me it's been the opposite. From the late 1980s through the mid 2000s, every single Mac I bought either came with significant hardware problems or developed them within the first two years. I never buy extended warranties for anything except Apple products for this reason; it's been worth it for me. My last three Macs (including the two I currently own) have been trouble-free, but they've been the exception not the rule. In contrast all the IBM/Lenovo ThinkPads I've owned have been rock-solid from a hardware perspective; all the problems were with the operating system (Windows). They're perfect for running Linux, though.

Rakesh, Apple officially stopped thinking of itself as a computer company when they changed their name from Apple Computer Inc to Apple Inc. And that was much to the chagrin of the Beatles’ Apple. Apple is involved in technology, but just like your neighbourhood pharmacy that sells food, Apple is becoming less reliant on computers for their income each year. Their next major line of business: mobility (cars, bikes, scooters—anything that uses electronic technology to move you).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk