It gave me the same annoying message, but when I canceled it I was able to see the video anyway.

That doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the Windows auto-updater that refuses to remove Safari from the install list.

I don't mean to be antagonistic here, I just have an honest question: do most laptop batteries claim 1,000 recharges? Wouldn't that mean that if you charged it every night, the battery would be dead in three years? I know that's a long time for computers, but a Macbook Pro today should still be usable in three years.

Is this common for notebooks?

The 1000 charges is until the battery performance is reduced to a particular level (80%?) - it's not until the battery is dead.

Apple expects the battery to last at least 5 years.

Most other notebooks have batteries with charge cycles 1/3 to perhaps half of the rated cycles of the MBP.

"1000 charges" generally means "charging 1000 times from near 0% back to near 100%".

Overnight top-ups of, say, 20% count as fractional charges.

Or at least that's been my own experience with notebooks, cellphones, and DSLRs, all using Lithium-whatever batteries.

Cheers

Absolutely! This sort of thing happens all the time with cars. Why can't Honda/Acura sell a proper rear-wheel-drive sedan? It's not like they don't know how to build one. Why don't they offer an American version of the European Accord wagon, perhaps as an Acura? That would have much better mileage than any of their SUVs. You want it? Too bad. Let's say you're a high-performance minded car guy. How about an Audi RS4 Wagon? You can/could get one in Europe. Not here, even though you can get an RS4 sedan and an A4 wagon.

In this sense, Apple has taken a page from other big industries. They've done cost reduction and model simplification in areas where they think *most* customers won't care. And they're perfectly right to do so. Being annoyed at Apple for not having a laptop with all the right specs is just like being annoyed at Toyota or Honda for failing to sell a car with all the right specs. You can always go to another firm, or go to the aftermarket, but the fact is that you really want the proper Toyota or Honda, and it pisses you off that they don't sell what you want, even though they could.

It's not about not having the right combination of options. It's about removing features across the board. People have certainly been irritated at auto companies for reducing features before. What if Audi decided to stop offering manual transmissions altogether? Now imagine that Audi was the only company that made sports sedans.

Biometric systems for regular computers are pretty useless. They'll deter casual attempts at getting in and nothing more. I guess if you're using it for the situation you describe then it'll be good enough security.

Your blinking idea would be circumvented by cutting eye holes in the photo.

I certainly understand companies exist to make money. The bean counters know how much feature X costs, and when it's not profitable, they'll get rid of it. And, while I do dispute the idea that only 1% of users care about being able to swap batteries, I do realize it's a minority position, and not many people are going to change teams just because of it.

I think Bitt's sports sedan analogy above is apt. Apple makes great laptops that people pay a premium for above similarly-equipped PCs. And, as I said before, the Pro line is for power users who want the best Apple laptops available. The Macbook line, on the other hand, was developed to create a lower price tier with compromises like lower-res screens, slower CPUs, and fewer ports.

If Apple had let the integrated battery feature trickle up into the Macbook line, but kept the MBP removable battery design, the effect on their bottom line would be negligible, and the end user would have a choice.

Nope, that metal piece doesn't extend all the way to the bottom of the system, and the battery appears to partially sit on top of it. So right there you would have to shave off a bit of the battery along the entire length. This view helps to show that.


Maybe? The battery in the new MacBook Pro wouldn't pass any number of US or international certifications if it was shipped as a user replaceable part. Puncturing lithium batteries is a very bad idea, and I doubt Apple really wants the ire of the FAA when some dinner knife in first class falls off a tray, punctures some guys laptop bag, and starts a fire.


Yes, it's all a big conspiracy to ensure that people debate this on and on again on online forums. Glad you solved it. :-)


Correct. On a Mac laptop, it shows the cycle count in system profiler, and their support people tend to use it to determine if a battery needs to be replaced under warranty, or if it is normal.

I think perhaps a better example would be the one of removing ashtrays. After all, Apple hasn't remove the keyboards on their MBP.

Manual transmissions are actually a great example. Let's say your desired specs for a car are: rear-wheel drive, manual transmission, high performance, four-door sedan. Just that. At least in the U.S., this set of criteria narrows you down to a handful of BMWs, two GM products, and one Infiniti. That's it! (I'm probably forgetting something, and I'm deliberately excluding AWD cars, but I think my point still stands.)

You could compromise the "high performance" bit and get a Lexus IS250. You could compromise on having seating for four adults, and get a variety of coupes, etc, but if you want all those criteria together, your choices are limited.

Getting back to Windows vs. Apple, what's clearly irritating is that you can run Windows on absolutely anything. However, if you want Mac OS X, then suddenly all your options collapse, much as they might if you absolutely insisted on having a particular car brand. This is clearly one of the driving factors in the Hackintosh universe, so if you really and truly insist on a replaceable battery in a Mac laptop, then you've got an increasing incentive to buy non-Apple hardware.

I would put myself in the 99% of people who never think about removing the battery in my laptop too much. Of all the laptops I have ever owned only one, my Macbook has ever had a replacement, and that was a warranty job done at the Apple store. It doesn't seem to be a killer feature of a laptop to me, if it reduces costs and boosts battery time by having it built in then I'm up for that.

My iPhone has a battery that can't be replaced my myself and if anything the life of that seems to be strangely growing lately, I assume Apple pump millions of $$$ into the research and it seems to be paying off for me.

Anyway most trains here in the UK have power points at the tables on longer journeys so I would just use my power adaptor with me (which I have anyway) and I would much rather use my iPhone anyway as I always look at people on planes and trains with their laptops out and think to myself "prick".

A total non-issue to me the average Joe user.

To change the topic, the new iPhone 3Gs looks pretty amazing. What the hell will they find to put in there next? Hugo and team really are pulling off some amazing stuff, the iPhone has become part of my everyday life, I love it, it does everything I want it to and it looks like it's going to do some stuff that I didn't even know I wanted. Pity the upgrade path is a little rocky.

I am most excited by finally having TomTom on the iPhone along with some neat looking car hardware, finally an easy solution in the car to several problems.

Cheers

Cris.

I think you're wrong. Compare this. There's an aluminum separator visible basically the whole way between the battery and the main board. And, yes, it doesn't quite reach the bottom panel, but it would not take up any more room if it were to.


Make the battery case out of aluminum. Problem solved. Unless the current plastic case is so thin as to be non-rigid, that's not any additional space, and any issues with the battery shorting against the case are easily solvable with some insulating tape.


I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that they probably did it solely for manufacturing reasons, and are spinning it as a positive to the consumer in order to ameliorate the reduced feature set.

That said, at least the battery actually is field-replaceable, though maybe not officially. I was under the impression that it was soldered to the board and if the battery died, it was back to the factory. Of course, if the cells being used are non-standard, the chances of there being an after-market replacement are slim. Which means that when Apple EoLs it, it's a paperweight.

You're not quite following my point, which is that the model you wanted existed last year, but this year they removed the option, while everything else stays pretty much the same.

You forgot Mercedes.

I love internet forums. It's one of the few places where it's easy to argue even when the participants seems to agree with each other.

To be fair, the points Apple are flaunting with the new battery are its longevity and weight savings. And with the enclosure of the machine they're also bragging about weight and rigidity. This is different from saying something like "with a built-in battery you'll never run the risk of losing or dropping your battery again".

Our differences seem to be whether or not having the battery unremovable is made up for by increased working time. I doubt that the increased working time is significant and therefore not worth it. You seem to think that the additional time is worth it.

Personally, I feel like moving from 5.5 hours to 6.5 hours, while numerically significant, is pointless in the real world. I can't think of any useful threshold at the 6 hour mark.

Let me reword that; it's been pointed out to me that I might not be being clear. Additional battery life is never pointless, but an extra hour isn't going to change anyone's usage pattern, especially considering that that number is probably well within the margin of error for how long either battery is actually going to last doing real work. In particular, that 15% improvement certainly doesn't make up for the loss of a 100% improvement.

I don't even have a strong enough pull in my direction to say that I think the non-removable battery is made up for by "X" other property.

My previous PBG4 system couldn't get 2 hours of battery run time. I didn't own a previous generation MBP17, but even if I could only get 5.5 hours from this battery that'd still be fine by me.

My point has always been that there are multiple reasons that Apple made the decision. And that regardless of those reasons, the non-removability (non-instant anyway) doesn't affect the vast majority of customers.

If you're into wagons, then you were probably pissed when Lexus canceled the Lexus IS300 Sportwagon when they migrated to the current body style. It was there. Now it's gone. Similarly, Volvo no longer offers your wonderful S60R. So far as I can tell, the only Volvo offered today in the U.S. with a manual transmission is the C30, even though they used to offer it on a variety of other cars. Volvo has taken away something they used to offer, just like Apple.
Mercedes has manual transmissions on European cars, but in the U.S., I think the only option is the C300 Sport Sedan. You can't get a manual on the C350 or the AMG version, or on any of the other sedans.

The issue is that you also need room on that separator to deal with clasps or whatever is used to hold the bottom panel or battery in. The older MacBook had a thicker separator for that exact reason.


For the 13 inch system, the battery went from 45 watt-hours to 58. So 1/3rd more capacity, and that seems significant to me. The 17 inch system is harder to compare apples to apples, since there was never a Unibody model with a removable battery. The link you provided also fails to say how they tested. I'd expect better comparisons to be coming out soon with the 13 and 15 inch models, since one of the few changes to them was the battery.

The 3GS to me seems to be just a standard evolution. It's a good one, but at this point the iPhone is definitely locked into an annual upgrade path much like the iPods. Upgrading every year is going to be costly due to most phone carriers moving to 24 month contracts and subsidies to keep initial costs down. Personally, I'd like to have the new phone, but will probably skip this year and wait for whatever new version comes out next year. A two year jump will definitely bring more new features to my iPhone experience, while also saving me money to use on other things like new apps.

True, I guess 3.0 also adds lots of non-hardware features for us who won't be upgrading.

It looks like the camera is a fairly major upgrade, the touch auto focus looks particularly good to me. Also if what they are saying about the new speed and power is true I guess we can expect even more powerful apps on the way.

Speaking of apps, I found myself buying onOne's DSLR Remote the other day, if there was a pointless app this has to win top prize. It looks so cool, and it is, but I can't for the life of me figure out where I would use it. Even their example it pretty useless, I mean where would you put your laptop on a basketball hoop?

Cheers

Cris.

Yea. My thinking is that iFartMobile is kinda funny, at least to some people. But DSLR Remote is a fully serious app made by a properly serious company. They are selling it basically on geek factor alone, it is pretty pointless, how many situations can I think of where I would be happy to leave my DSLR and my laptop to remote shoot with my iPhone but restricted to WiFi range? All it does is extend the tethered shooting functions of the included Canon software to the iPhone. I have to admit it looks a pretty impressive thing when you are showing people.

I guess I am a PocketWizard user so that may slightly adjust my expectations

Cheers

Cris.

Okay, now we're off on a total tangent, but WTF, Mercedes? They apparently only offer 3 cars total in the US that have manual transmissions. And, FWIW, AMG doesn't offer a manual anywhere in the world, and hasn't for quite some time.

There are also two Cadillacs that fit the bill, the CTS and the CTS-V, the latter of which is a monster, at 556 HP and 551 lb. ft. of torque. It's basically a Corvette ZR1 with a Cadillac body.

It's a wonder GM is in dire straights when you look at such brilliant moves as this.

Maybe it's because the rest of the car is built out of all the same parts as a Cavalier.

Yeah, the similarities are striking.

The CTS and the revitalization of Cadillac is what's right with GM. I can't say I care for vehicles like the Escalade, but it sells well and had a huge part in turning the brand image around. The CTS, CTS-V, SRX, and XLR are legitimately good cars. The difference between them and my former 1996 Fleetwood is astounding. Perhaps the interior bits could use a little upgrade to compare with BMW or Mercedes, but the Cadillac is priced much less in most cases.

I would say there's a reason why Cadillac survived the GM collapse, but they also chose to keep Buick which I can't understand.

I haven't actually seen a CTS-V in person, but if its "interior bits" are like the ones I saw on an '04 or '05 CTS I test drove — and from that picture, they appear to be — they need more than a "little upgrade". They're all cheap black plastic with white silkscreened labels that look like they'll wear off in about a week.

That said, I really liked the driving experience, and the CTS-V, by all accounts, is a really nice car. It currently holds the laptime record around the Nürburgring for a 100% stock production car.

I'm not a big fan of the new Cadillac styling, but it's certainly distinctive in an era of similarities. Try to get your grandmother to distinguish between a BMW 5-series, a Lexus GS, an Acura TL, Infiniti M35, and a Hyundai Genesis without looking at logos.


I would assume it has something to do with sales, though I don't have any numbers, but I think it makes sense otherwise. My mom owned a mid-'90s LeSabre, and it was more well appointed than the CTS I drove by a long shot. It was a nice car, while being nicer than a Chevy and not as expensive as a Cadillac. Buick really is a good mid-range between standard and luxury, and their models are distinct.

Compare Pontiac, the other other GM brand, which currently has seven models, of which only one, the G6, is not a badge engineered version of another card sold in the US, or a captive import, and no one's clamoring to buy a G6.

They should probably dump Chevy, too, but that's their ... I don't want to say "flagship" brand, but, I guess, most prominent brand. Chevy is (was?) to GM what Ford is to Ford. So they probably can't do that.

They should definitely dump GMC, though. Or cancel the Chevy-branded versions of those trucks. I've never understood why they both exist.

Surprisingly, you can also get the Pontiac G8 GXP with a manual transmission, and it's a RWD sedan. I suppose that makes sense, since it's a captive import of the Australian Holden Commodore.

Huh ? There are plenty of faster times from 100% stock production cars than the CTS-V at 7 minutes 59 seconds.

That isn't to say that 7:59 isn't impressive, you'd never guess it from the way the car looks.

It set the record for a production sedan apparently.