Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #96109 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-28 20:20 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-10-30 15:12 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-28 20:20 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-10-29 15:10 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 13:34 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 13:42 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-29 14:28 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-29 14:44 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-29 15:12 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 14:50 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2016-11-06 07:29 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-11-07 09:14 +1300
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-07 02:30 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2016-11-07 10:11 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-10-30 15:57 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 12:37 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-31 08:50 +1300
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 17:04 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-10-31 16:08 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lloyd Parsons <email@domain.com> - 2016-10-31 11:39 -0500
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-31 17:50 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-01 16:26 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 16:44 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-11-02 15:47 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 19:15 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-29 09:55 -0600
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 12:00 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-29 13:03 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 13:06 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-29 15:17 -0500
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-29 17:12 -0600
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 10:40 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-10-30 11:59 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 12:39 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 20:15 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 17:19 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 21:42 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 17:54 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 22:03 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 18:27 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 22:41 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-30 18:44 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 23:13 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-30 18:08 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-30 20:46 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-31 01:57 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-31 17:48 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 18:17 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-31 20:01 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-01 00:19 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 16:33 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:28 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-01 21:59 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 18:11 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-02 02:49 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 18:53 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-03 00:45 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-03 01:38 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 16:48 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-04 18:04 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 10:43 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-05 15:07 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:24 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-05 15:30 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:37 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-06 07:09 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 00:25 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 13:48 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-05 18:40 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 15:59 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-05 20:26 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 17:13 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-06 07:13 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 23:45 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-01 04:10 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-01 05:31 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-01 00:45 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 16:36 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-01 18:06 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-02 10:10 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-02 18:21 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-02 15:36 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-11-03 14:17 +1300
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-03 01:35 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 18:59 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-02 16:07 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 19:26 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-03 00:46 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 16:45 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-04 00:01 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 20:58 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-04 01:12 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-05 11:43 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-11-02 02:46 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-02 18:52 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 00:25 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-11-03 17:04 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-03 21:18 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-11-04 06:42 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-30 20:43 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-31 00:48 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-30 20:40 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-31 00:46 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-31 01:55 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-10-30 17:37 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-30 20:08 +0000
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-30 15:03 -0600
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-31 16:24 -0600
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-29 13:03 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2016-10-30 08:49 +1300
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-29 15:11 -0500
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2016-10-29 16:28 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-29 13:54 -0700
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-29 23:40 -0500
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-10-30 09:29 -0400
Re: New Mac Keyboard with Touchbar? Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-10-30 15:12 +0000
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 18:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ke-dnR9tZMV06ovFnZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96237 |
On 2016-10-30 18:41, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-10-30 18:03, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-30 17:42, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Yet, there it is. Form defeats function. Result: smaller battery and >>>>>> an imposed limit on memory size. If the MBP had been thicker nobody >>>>>> would complain >>>>> >>>>> I'll posit a significant number of Apple's customers actually do want >>>>> lighter and thinner devices. They would likely complain. Others might >>>>> complain for other reasons. Expecting Apple to please everyone is a >>>>> losing proposition. >>>> >>>> Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit >>>> adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that >>>> significant number" of people at all. >>>> >>>> Doubling the memory ≠ doubling the battery volume and even less overall >>>> additional thickness to the case. >>> >>> Yes, I realize you think you know better than everyone at Apple. I'm >>> just not inclined to believe you. : ) >> >> As you like - of course you snipped out the main point. Call this >> anything except an MBP and I'll applaud its lightness and thinness and >> niceness and goodness all sorts of other esses. > > Have fun with that. I'm under no illusion my personal desires should > override what Apple decides to name their products. And I couldn't care > less about product names anyhow, since I purchased based on other > specifications. Perfectly put. And so those who have in the past relied on higher spec laptops from Apple are now to do what? Wait for the Über-Pro? -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7nd4lF7cprU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96238 |
On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-10-30 18:41, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2016-10-30 18:03, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2016-10-30 17:42, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Yet, there it is. Form defeats function. Result: smaller battery and >>>>>>> an imposed limit on memory size. If the MBP had been thicker nobody >>>>>>> would complain >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll posit a significant number of Apple's customers actually do want >>>>>> lighter and thinner devices. They would likely complain. Others might >>>>>> complain for other reasons. Expecting Apple to please everyone is a >>>>>> losing proposition. >>>>> >>>>> Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit >>>>> adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that >>>>> significant number" of people at all. >>>>> >>>>> Doubling the memory ≠ doubling the battery volume and even less overall >>>>> additional thickness to the case. >>>> >>>> Yes, I realize you think you know better than everyone at Apple. I'm >>>> just not inclined to believe you. : ) >>> >>> As you like - of course you snipped out the main point. Call this >>> anything except an MBP and I'll applaud its lightness and thinness and >>> niceness and goodness all sorts of other esses. >> >> Have fun with that. I'm under no illusion my personal desires should >> override what Apple decides to name their products. And I couldn't care >> less about product names anyhow, since I purchased based on other >> specifications. > > Perfectly put. And so those who have in the past relied on higher spec > laptops from Apple are now to do what? Wait for the Über-Pro? They should vote with their wallets, of course. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 18:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <301020161808532742%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #96232 |
In article <5L6dndmlf7af8YvFnZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Yet, there it is. Form defeats function. Result: smaller battery and > >> an imposed limit on memory size. If the MBP had been thicker nobody > >> would complain > > > > I'll posit a significant number of Apple's customers actually do want > > lighter and thinner devices. They would likely complain. Others might > > complain for other reasons. Expecting Apple to please everyone is a > > losing proposition. > > Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit > adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that > significant number" of people at all. sure it would, especially since the vast majority of people don't need 32 gig but welcome thinner/lighter/cheaper (the extra battery is not free). another thing is that apple knows the distribution of memory configurations and how hard users push it. you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-30 20:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5816946d$0$10284$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #96235 |
On 2016-10-30 18:08, nospam wrote: > sure it would, especially since the vast majority of people don't need > 32 gig but welcome thinner/lighter/cheaper (the extra battery is not > free). Vast majority don't need a "Pro", they are happy with an "Air".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno1d99d.1bl9.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #96232 |
In message <5L6dndmlf7af8YvFnZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-10-30 17:42, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> Yet, there it is. Form defeats function. Result: smaller battery and >>> an imposed limit on memory size. If the MBP had been thicker nobody >>> would complain >> >> I'll posit a significant number of Apple's customers actually do want >> lighter and thinner devices. They would likely complain. Others might >> complain for other reasons. Expecting Apple to please everyone is a >> losing proposition. > Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit > adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that > significant number" of people at all. Stop channeling JF and making shit up. You have no idea what the trade-offs are. -- One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 17:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FPqdnY0105a8IYrFnZ2dnUU7-KNQAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96249 |
On 2016-10-30 21:57, Lewis wrote: > In message <5L6dndmlf7af8YvFnZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-10-30 17:42, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2016-10-30, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>> Yet, there it is. Form defeats function. Result: smaller battery and >>>> an imposed limit on memory size. If the MBP had been thicker nobody >>>> would complain >>> >>> I'll posit a significant number of Apple's customers actually do want >>> lighter and thinner devices. They would likely complain. Others might >>> complain for other reasons. Expecting Apple to please everyone is a >>> losing proposition. > >> Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit >> adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that >> significant number" of people at all. > > Stop channeling JF and making shit up. You have no idea what the > trade-offs are. Bombast as always. Fact is a battery's capacity is for the most part proportional to its volume. This is why in some Apple products the batteries are quite complex in shape or configuration in order to fill up as much volume as possible with battery. The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would accommodate more battery. Period. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 18:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020161817015968%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #96262 |
In article <FPqdnY0105a8IYrFnZ2dnUU7-KNQAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > > >> Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit > >> adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that > >> significant number" of people at all. > > > > Stop channeling JF and making shit up. You have no idea what the > > trade-offs are. > > Bombast as always. > > Fact is a battery's capacity is for the most part proportional to its > volume. This is why in some Apple products the batteries are quite > complex in shape or configuration in order to fill up as much volume as > possible with battery. > > The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to > conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the > battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would > accommodate more battery. Period. except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. the next generation intel cpu is, which is not yet available. the 16 gig limit is not just macbooks, but pc laptops too. <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/59yrxg/the_true_reason_the_mbp_ doesnt_come_with_ddr4_or/> Apple's statement is true, but lacks detail. The true reason behind the lack of 32gb or ddr4 is intel. Skylake does not support LPDDR4 (LP for low power) ram. Kabylake is set to include support, but only for the U category of chips. So no LPDDR4 support for mobile until 2018 I think. One example is the del XPS 13. On the dell XPS 13 version, you cannot go for 32gb of ram. Meanwhile, the 15 inches does give you that option, but you have to sacrifice battery life for it. Another example is the surface book, they can't include 32gb. Only goes up to 16gb. These computers use LPDDR3 which is supported. Many mite make the argument that apple could have used the LPDDR3 version, but how would they look if they did that for the 15 inch MBP only? With intel continuing to drop the ball on these basic things in mobile, I have to call for apple to switch to ARM chips, since intel is incompetent at delivering proper mobile chipsets. I gess they are too focused on VR and AR to care. What a disappointment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 20:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <womdnY_AUpXIRorFnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96266 |
On 2016-10-31 18:17, nospam wrote: > In article <FPqdnY0105a8IYrFnZ2dnUU7-KNQAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>> >>>> Had the MBP been thick enough to accommodate a battery that would permit >>>> adequate run time with 32 GB RAM it would not have affected "that >>>> significant number" of people at all. >>> >>> Stop channeling JF and making shit up. You have no idea what the >>> trade-offs are. >> >> Bombast as always. >> >> Fact is a battery's capacity is for the most part proportional to its >> volume. This is why in some Apple products the batteries are quite >> complex in shape or configuration in order to fill up as much volume as >> possible with battery. >> >> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >> accommodate more battery. Period. > > except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. > > the next generation intel cpu is, which is not yet available. the 16 > gig limit is not just macbooks, but pc laptops too. > > <https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/59yrxg/the_true_reason_the_mbp_ > doesnt_come_with_ddr4_or/> Interesting but doesn't match the case of the latest MBP which uses LPDDR3 and can easily match Skylake / 32 GB. Just add batteries to run longer. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7q5dcFrbooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96269 |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-10-31 18:17, nospam wrote: >> In article <FPqdnY0105a8IYrFnZ2dnUU7-KNQAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >>> accommodate more battery. Period. >> >> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. > > Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for > the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved than some random guy on the net. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZaSdnfaEbqutYYXFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96270 |
On 2016-10-31 20:19, Jolly Roger wrote: > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-10-31 18:17, nospam wrote: >>> In article <FPqdnY0105a8IYrFnZ2dnUU7-KNQAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >>>> accommodate more battery. Period. >>> >>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. >> >> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for >> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. > > Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger > battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component > currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer > companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that > Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved > than some random guy on the net. It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <011120161726116846%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #96305 |
In article <ZaSdnfaEbqutYYXFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to > >>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the > >>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would > >>>> accommodate more battery. Period. > >>> > >>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. > >> > >> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for > >> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. > > > > Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger > > battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component > > currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer > > companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that > > Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved > > than some random guy on the net. > > It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more > room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is > about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. a tradeoff that apple does not want to make because the result will be heavier and more expensive, only to satisfy something very few users need. more people want thinner/lighter than want 32 gig memory. even 16 gig is more than enough for most tasks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96316 |
On 2016-11-01 17:26, nospam wrote: > In article <ZaSdnfaEbqutYYXFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >>>>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >>>>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >>>>>> accommodate more battery. Period. >>>>> >>>>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. >>>> >>>> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for >>>> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. >>> >>> Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger >>> battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component >>> currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer >>> companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that >>> Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved >>> than some random guy on the net. >> >> It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more >> room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is >> about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. > > a tradeoff that apple does not want to make because the result will be > heavier and more expensive, only to satisfy something very few users > need. > > more people want thinner/lighter than want 32 gig memory. even 16 gig > is more than enough for most tasks. I don't disagree with that at all. Just don't call it a "Pro". -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 17:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <011120161728546657%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #96320 |
In article <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>>>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to > >>>>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the > >>>>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would > >>>>>> accommodate more battery. Period. > >>>>> > >>>>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. > >>>> > >>>> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for > >>>> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. > >>> > >>> Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger > >>> battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component > >>> currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer > >>> companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that > >>> Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved > >>> than some random guy on the net. > >> > >> It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more > >> room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is > >> about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. > > > > a tradeoff that apple does not want to make because the result will be > > heavier and more expensive, only to satisfy something very few users > > need. > > > > more people want thinner/lighter than want 32 gig memory. even 16 gig > > is more than enough for most tasks. > > I don't disagree with that at all. Just don't call it a "Pro". plenty of pros are happy with 16 gig. not everyone crunches 4k video.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7shi5Fe7m8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96320 |
On 2016-11-01, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-01 17:26, nospam wrote: >> In article <ZaSdnfaEbqutYYXFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> >>>>>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >>>>>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >>>>>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >>>>>>> accommodate more battery. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. >>>>> >>>>> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for >>>>> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. >>>> >>>> Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger >>>> battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component >>>> currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer >>>> companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that >>>> Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved >>>> than some random guy on the net. >>> >>> It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more >>> room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is >>> about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. >> >> a tradeoff that apple does not want to make because the result will be >> heavier and more expensive, only to satisfy something very few users >> need. >> >> more people want thinner/lighter than want 32 gig memory. even 16 gig >> is more than enough for most tasks. > > I don't disagree with that at all. Just don't call it a "Pro". As a professional user, I have absolutely no problem with Apple calling it "MacBook Pro". So we can agree to disagree. Are we done here? -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 18:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ArKdneILwYqLjoTFnZ2dnUU7-fWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96322 |
On 2016-11-01 17:59, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2016-11-01, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-11-01 17:26, nospam wrote: >>> In article <ZaSdnfaEbqutYYXFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> The facts are clear given the statement from Schiller: less RAM to >>>>>>>> conserve battery life. And battery life depends on how large the >>>>>>>> battery is v. the draw on it. Making the MBP slightly thicker would >>>>>>>> accommodate more battery. Period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> except more battery (which isn't free) is not all that's needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Increasing the battery capacity by 20 - 30% (probably less than that for >>>>>> the issue at hand) is all but negligible cost wise. >>>>> >>>>> Says some guy on the internet, which conveniently ignoring that a bigger >>>>> battery means more internal space is needed, which affects every component >>>>> currently taking that space - hardly "negligible". How many computer >>>>> companies have you run successfully, BTW? It seems far more likely that >>>>> Apple is much more aware of the specific challenges and limits involved >>>>> than some random guy on the net. >>>> >>>> It's straight forawrd design tradeoff. Yes a bigger battery needs more >>>> room, JR, and as I've stated the MBP would have to be thicker. This is >>>> about as remote from rocket science as imaginable. >>> >>> a tradeoff that apple does not want to make because the result will be >>> heavier and more expensive, only to satisfy something very few users >>> need. >>> >>> more people want thinner/lighter than want 32 gig memory. even 16 gig >>> is more than enough for most tasks. >> >> I don't disagree with that at all. Just don't call it a "Pro". > > As a professional user, I have absolutely no problem with Apple calling > it "MacBook Pro". So we can agree to disagree. Are we done here? Of course not - this is usenet. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 02:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno1il2v.12g.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #96320 |
In message <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > Just don't call it a "Pro". This will come as a shock to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is and is not "Pro". -- "I don't care if Bill Gates is the world's biggest philanthropist. The pain he has inflicted on the world in the past 20 years through lousy products easily outweighs any good he has done.... Apple is as arrogant as Microsoft but at least its stuff works as advertised" - Graem Philipson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DJ6dnRXeR5DJ84fFnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96332 |
On 2016-11-01 22:49, Lewis wrote: > In message <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> Just don't call it a "Pro". > > This will come as a shock to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is > and is not "Pro". I can call it what I like. The MBP as configured is a high powered MBA. It lacks all that is needed for the power user. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7vfl9F56npU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96376 |
On 2016-11-02, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-01 22:49, Lewis wrote: >> In message <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> Just don't call it a "Pro". >> >> This will come as a shock to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is >> and is not "Pro". > > I can call it what I like. You were telling *others* not to call it "Pro". And Lewis was right to call you out on it. > The MBP as configured is a high powered MBA. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one; and they all stink. > It lacks all that is needed for the power user. Bullshit. I'm in the target market, and it's got everything I need. Your vocal minority simply isn't representative of the entire market. Whether or not you come to terms with that isn't really relevant to the rest of us. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno1l5ab.hv2.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #96376 |
In message <DJ6dnRXeR5DJ84fFnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2016-11-01 22:49, Lewis wrote: >> In message <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> Just don't call it a "Pro". >> >> This will come as a shock to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is >> and is not "Pro". > I can call it what I like. No, only Apple gets to decide what to call it since it is their product, you don't have to like it, but you don't get to say "don't call it Pro". > The MBP as configured is a high powered MBA. It lacks all that is > needed for the power user. Can the MBA drive 2 5K displays? And still have two Thunderbolt 3 ports left? No, it cannot. Not even close. -- Two, Four, Six, Eight! Time to Transubstantiate!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 16:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <J6SdnWQNufcQP4bFnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #96400 |
On 2016-11-02 21:38, Lewis wrote: > In message <DJ6dnRXeR5DJ84fFnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@giganews.com> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >> On 2016-11-01 22:49, Lewis wrote: >>> In message <YeWdnaJWrN4-lYTFnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> >>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>> Just don't call it a "Pro". >>> >>> This will come as a shock to you, but you are not the arbiter of what is >>> and is not "Pro". > >> I can call it what I like. > > No, only Apple gets to decide what to call it since it is their product, > you don't have to like it, but you don't get to say "don't call it Pro". > >> The MBP as configured is a high powered MBA. It lacks all that is >> needed for the power user. > > Can the MBA drive 2 5K displays? And still have two Thunderbolt 3 ports > left? No, it cannot. Not even close. I meant in the sense of I/O and memory. And I'll call it whatever I like and there's really little other than petulant replies that you can do about it. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web