What I find so frustrating about this discussion is the inability so many seem to have to take themselves out of the argument and separate the two notions that 1) this machine does not fit their needs in particular and 2) this is a great machine for a lot of other people.
Also, how hung up people are on the word pro. Whether this machine is for you or not, can we all please just agree that pro doesn't mean anything other than the most expensive option? Certainly, noone is saying that Apple aims to serve every single market of people who self identify as pro users. If you think this machine is inadequate to do the kind of work that you do, then maybe, just maybe, it wasn't intended to? It doesn't mean that it's inadequate when it comes to countless other pro tasks.
One final thing: This machine is more powerful than the ones it replaces. Ergo, if it's not computationally up to the task of some pro task, then its predecessor certainly wasn't either. Which must mean that many of the people complaining weren't Mac users to begin with. Hmmm...
Ergo, if it's not computationally up to the task of some pro task, then its predecessor certainly wasn't either.
But that's not what people are saying: they are saying there is no reason to upgrade and that they will explore alternate solutions.
Your argument is silly anyway, in the 1980s people were using Macs a tiny fraction of the power of today "professionally" for DTP, does it logically follow now that anyone complaining that a modern machine isn't suitable for modern use cases, was never a "real professional"?
But that's not what people are saying: they are saying there is no reason to upgrade.
That's not what the grandparent was saying. She was saying that the new MacBook was inadequate for her needs.
Your argument is silly anyway
No yours is. Clearly, yesterday's hardware is inadequate for the software of today. But what I am saying is that hardware of today is probably ok for the software of yesterday.
> What I find so frustrating about this discussion is the inability so many seem to have to take themselves out of the argument and separate the two notions that 1) this machine does not fit their needs in particular and 2) this is a great machine for a lot of other people.
This lack of separation cuts both ways. I read "The claim that the new macbook will have issues with day to day performance is insane" as dismissing the latter of: "This machine is a great machine for me." and "This machine is not a great machine for a lot of other people."
> One final thing: This machine is more powerful than the ones it replaces. Ergo, if it's not computationally up to the task of some pro task, then its predecessor certainly wasn't either. Which must mean that many of the people complaining weren't Mac users to begin with. Hmmm...
Ahh, that doesn't quite follow. Aftermarket upgrades have been around to e.g. bring previous gen MBPs up to 16GB for years. Some people have found that their professional needs are expanding faster than the hardware is, and where they were once avid users, they're now being forced to reconsider their options. And then there are those who have been reluctantly limping along with computationally inadequate hardware because they're tied to it for some reason. There's a whole spectrum out there.
I agree. In principle. But I don't think that the two perspectives are equivalent, unless you think the group of people who won't be greatly served by this machine because it strikes the wrong compromises, are somehow equal in numbers or importance to the ones who will, because it does. Which I think is preposterous. But time will tell of course.
Ahh, that doesn't quite follow
Yes, I probably put too fine a point on that. The point a was trying to make was that some people seem to dismiss all the ways in which this machine is better (which is most or all of them), because it is not better enough. Which I think is a strange, entitled way to judge a it.
Also, how hung up people are on the word pro. Whether this machine is for you or not, can we all please just agree that pro doesn't mean anything other than the most expensive option? Certainly, noone is saying that Apple aims to serve every single market of people who self identify as pro users. If you think this machine is inadequate to do the kind of work that you do, then maybe, just maybe, it wasn't intended to? It doesn't mean that it's inadequate when it comes to countless other pro tasks.
One final thing: This machine is more powerful than the ones it replaces. Ergo, if it's not computationally up to the task of some pro task, then its predecessor certainly wasn't either. Which must mean that many of the people complaining weren't Mac users to begin with. Hmmm...