4 ms·

I run my neural networks in EC2, or on my desktop at home that has a GTX 1080. If you consider a whole Linux VM, webpack (also an instance of Node in the backg

I run my neural networks in EC2, or on my desktop at home that has a GTX 1080. If you consider a whole Linux VM, webpack (also an instance of Node in the background), and gulp to be light use, then yes I think you're in the vocal minority of people who have some extreme expectations for a portable computer.

eropple 10y ago
As with most programmers so isolated in the web bubble, you have no idea that you're describing light use. Yes, your usually-fully-idle virtual machine is light use. Yes, your marginal text processing is light use. Sometimes, I need to render video. At one point, MBPs were more than sufficient for state-of-the-art video work on the fly. But time has marched on, and Apple has not. That's why people are pissed, and it's a reasonable state of pissedness given that these are professional machines. It's gotten to the point where I have ditched Final Cut entirely for Premiere just so I can run it on Windows on a machine that is adequately specced for professional work. I hate Premiere. Apple does not offer a product that isn't priced dumb-as-dirt that can actually run Final Cut adequately, though, so that's the only choice I have. But, hell. The current lines of Mac spin up to near-screaming, even despite those special, so-quiet fans, when one watches a video, so I guess asking for performance when you make one is downright unprofessional.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > The current lines of Mac spin up to near-screaming, even despite those special, so-quiet fans, when one watches a video Ugh, no they don't. Video decoding is CPU intensive in Chrome and VLC. Video decoding in Safari and QuickTime uses negligible CPU resources. This difference is so striking that I abandoned Chrome. I use Safari, which I don't like, but 100% vs. 2% CPU usage it's so worth it. Mpv has pretty good performance too, sometimes approaching QuickTime.
  - eropple 10y ago
    That's a lot of electrons perturbed for "yes, they do, unless you make your life worse to compensate." There was a time when that wasn't the calculus for operating a Mac.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      ???
      - eropple 10y ago
        You yourself say that Safari is a worse experience. Having to choose between "using a worse experience" and "having my laptop try to self-immolate" is not, historically, a choice Apple foists on its users. (Yes, Chrome is third-party. Doesn't matter. Linux rightly gets flak when devices don't work because of third-party manufacturers, OS X can get flak when videos make Apple hardware conflagrant.)
  - bartvk 10y ago
    Yeah, it's a strange situation. No idea why you're downmodded, but indeed YouTube serves nice content to Safari that can be decoded efficiently (hardware accelerated).
- hellofunk 10y ago
  I have seen a lot of creatives switch to Premiere from Final Cut Pro for reasons other than platform support, many still use a Mac. But they claim it is a more powerful video editing system. What is it about Premiere that you don't like? I'm curious because I'm considering both platforms.
  - eropple 10y ago
    I just really don't like Adobe's UI conventions across the board. They don't feel natural on either Windows or OS X and often stuff like dragging and dropping between applications doesn't do what I expect for completely random reasons. It's powerful stuff, but I wish it wasn't so obtuse.
temp 10y ago
>who have some extreme expectations for a portable computer And you have extremely low expectations of the latest model since as you already said the old 2012 model performs "well" for your use cases.

eropple 10y ago

As with most programmers so isolated in the web bubble, you have no idea that you're describing light use. Yes, your usually-fully-idle virtual machine is light use. Yes, your marginal text processing is light use. Sometimes, I need to render video. At one point, MBPs were more than sufficient for state-of-the-art video work on the fly. But time has marched on, and Apple has not. That's why people are pissed, and it's a reasonable state of pissedness given that these are professional machines. It's gotten to the point where I have ditched Final Cut entirely for Premiere just so I can run it on Windows on a machine that is adequately specced for professional work. I hate Premiere. Apple does not offer a product that isn't priced dumb-as-dirt that can actually run Final Cut adequately, though, so that's the only choice I have. But, hell. The current lines of Mac spin up to near-screaming, even despite those special, so-quiet fans, when one watches a video, so I guess asking for performance when you make one is downright unprofessional.

4ad 10y ago
> The current lines of Mac spin up to near-screaming, even despite those special, so-quiet fans, when one watches a video Ugh, no they don't. Video decoding is CPU intensive in Chrome and VLC. Video decoding in Safari and QuickTime uses negligible CPU resources. This difference is so striking that I abandoned Chrome. I use Safari, which I don't like, but 100% vs. 2% CPU usage it's so worth it. Mpv has pretty good performance too, sometimes approaching QuickTime.
- eropple 10y ago
  That's a lot of electrons perturbed for "yes, they do, unless you make your life worse to compensate." There was a time when that wasn't the calculus for operating a Mac.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    ???
    - eropple 10y ago
      You yourself say that Safari is a worse experience. Having to choose between "using a worse experience" and "having my laptop try to self-immolate" is not, historically, a choice Apple foists on its users. (Yes, Chrome is third-party. Doesn't matter. Linux rightly gets flak when devices don't work because of third-party manufacturers, OS X can get flak when videos make Apple hardware conflagrant.)
- bartvk 10y ago
  Yeah, it's a strange situation. No idea why you're downmodded, but indeed YouTube serves nice content to Safari that can be decoded efficiently (hardware accelerated).
hellofunk 10y ago
I have seen a lot of creatives switch to Premiere from Final Cut Pro for reasons other than platform support, many still use a Mac. But they claim it is a more powerful video editing system. What is it about Premiere that you don't like? I'm curious because I'm considering both platforms.
- eropple 10y ago
  I just really don't like Adobe's UI conventions across the board. They don't feel natural on either Windows or OS X and often stuff like dragging and dropping between applications doesn't do what I expect for completely random reasons. It's powerful stuff, but I wish it wasn't so obtuse.

temp 10y ago

>who have some extreme expectations for a portable computer And you have extremely low expectations of the latest model since as you already said the old 2012 model performs "well" for your use cases.