15 New Messages
Digest #9084
Messages
Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:43 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> I thought the Retina's flash memory was soldered-innot standard replaceable
> SSD format (hard-drive shape).
> Otto
And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not soldered.
We're both wrong. see here:
<http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing-MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Display-Mid-2012-SSD/9706/1 >
> SSD format (hard-drive shape).
> Otto
And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not soldered.
We're both wrong. see here:
<http://www.ifixit.
Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:09 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael King" prudencehalliwell507
Ram is soldered in the Flash Drive plug in like Ram but it is held in place
with a screw and that is it.
Mike
Here the link to OWC and there drive
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Aura_Pro_Retina_2012
On 8/24/12 11:42 AM, "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>> I thought the Retina's flash memory was soldered-innot standard replaceable
>> SSD format (hard-drive shape).
>> Otto
>
> And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not
> soldered.
>
> We're both wrong. see here:
> <http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing-MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Display-Mid
> -2012-SSD/9706/1>
>
>
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
with a screw and that is it.
Mike
Here the link to OWC and there drive
http://eshop.
On 8/24/12 11:42 AM, "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>> I thought the Retina's flash memory was soldered-innot standard replaceable
>> SSD format (hard-drive shape).
>> Otto
>
> And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not
> soldered.
>
> We're both wrong. see here:
> <http://www.ifixit.
> -2012-SSD/9706/
>
>
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:17 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
On 24 August 2012 17:42, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
> And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not
> soldered.
>
> We're both wrong. see here:
> <
> http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing-MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Display-Mid-2012-SSD/9706/1
> >
>
Yes, so it seems, but someone (?) told us otherwise when the Retina was
launched.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> And I thought it was more permanently attached than a hard drive, but not
> soldered.
>
> We're both wrong. see here:
> <
> http://www.ifixit.
> >
>
Yes, so it seems, but someone (?) told us otherwise when the Retina was
launched.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:27 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Randy B. Singer" randybrucesinger
On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:26 PM, hflaxman001@
> Is this so with any.consumer device?
Yes. It is anti-competitive to force users to get their repairs done only by the OEM.
As for the person who said that the laws vary from state to state; that's only true for statutory laws. The law that I cited is part of the common law, and I'd be very surprised if it is different in any state.
____________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattor
____________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:31 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael King" prudencehalliwell507
Yes iFix it first said it was the most unrepairable everything was glued or
soldered in. The Leo Laporte repeated that. Now iFix it is the one that came
out that the drive could be replaced. Think they should held off saying that
until they fully checked it out.
Mike
On 8/24/12 12:16 PM, "Otto Nikolaus" <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com > wrote:
>
> Yes, so it seems, but someone (?) told us otherwise when the Retina was
> launched.
>
> Otto
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
soldered in. The Leo Laporte repeated that. Now iFix it is the one that came
out that the drive could be replaced. Think they should held off saying that
until they fully checked it out.
Mike
On 8/24/12 12:16 PM, "Otto Nikolaus" <otto.nikolaus@
>
> Yes, so it seems, but someone (?) told us otherwise when the Retina was
> launched.
>
> Otto
Michael King
2.3GHz Quad Core i7 15 inch MacBook Pro (Retina)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
As is often the case with such legal questions, these are hypotheticals that will never be tested. A exchange of words or two, maybe a letter, or a call to the BBB. Someone concedes or gives up, because it's not worth the effort.
If you think Apple should honor the warranty, make your case. No one's going to court. No one will even pull out the warranty docs. You know how none of us actually reads the warranty fine print. Well, frankly, neither do they.
Cheers,
tod
P.S. Actually, I actually do sometimes read the fine print, but that's mostly because I find it amusing in a kind of frightening way. It's purely academic though.
On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:26 PM, hflaxman001@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Is this so with any.consumer device?
>
> Yes. It is anti-competitive to force users to get their repairs done only by the OEM.
>
> As for the person who said that the laws vary from state to state; that's only true for statutory laws. The law that I cited is part of the common law, and I'd be very surprised if it is different in any state.
>
> ___________________________________________
> Randy B. Singer
> Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
>
> Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
> http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
> ___________________________________________
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you think Apple should honor the warranty, make your case. No one's going to court. No one will even pull out the warranty docs. You know how none of us actually reads the warranty fine print. Well, frankly, neither do they.
Cheers,
tod
P.S. Actually, I actually do sometimes read the fine print, but that's mostly because I find it amusing in a kind of frightening way. It's purely academic though.
On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 7:26 PM, hflaxman001@
>
> > Is this so with any.consumer device?
>
> Yes. It is anti-competitive to force users to get their repairs done only by the OEM.
>
> As for the person who said that the laws vary from state to state; that's only true for statutory laws. The law that I cited is part of the common law, and I'd be very surprised if it is different in any state.
>
> ____________
> Randy B. Singer
> Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
>
> Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
> http://www.macattor
> ____________
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:43 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Randy B. Singer" randybrucesinger
On Aug 24, 2012, at 2:27 PM, T Hopkins wrote:
> As is often the case with such legal questions, these are hypotheticals that will never be tested. A exchange of words or two, maybe a letter, or a call to the BBB. Someone concedes or gives up, because it's not worth the effort.
>
> If you think Apple should honor the warranty, make your case. No one's going to court. No one will even pull out the warranty docs. You know how none of us actually reads the warranty fine print. Well, frankly, neither do they.
Yes, I can 100% guaranty you that Apple does read the warranty very carefully, fine print and all. In fact, they have a team of attorneys who work for them in-house on their Cupertino campus to do exactly that.
That's because a class action lawsuit against them would be very expensive. And incurring such a suit would be a PR disaster for Apple for such a clear-cut matter.
These cases may rarely make it to the point were there is a lawsuit filed, but they often make it to the point where someone comes to an attorney such as myself, and I write a letter threatening a lawsuit (or maybe just stating our case, with the the filing of a suit implied). That's one of the quickest and most effective ways to get satisfaction. I've done this countless times.
(By the way, the BBB is an organization comprised of the businesses themselves. They really have no teeth.)
____________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattor
____________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
10.5 was offered on the usual terms, i.e., those that applied to all
previous versions of OS X.
10.6 was Intel-only, of course, so I don't know what the "hole" might be
for G4/5 owners: 10.5 was the end of the line and anything later is equally
unusable.
In my case (G4 Macs), I bought the 10.5 Mac Box Set (10.5 + iWork + iLife)
when 10.6 was confirmed as Intel-only. This turned out to be even better
than I thought at the time, as it still allows me to run the latest version
of iTunes, a factor if you have an iPhone and want to keep up with iOS
versions.
At the time I tried to stress what a good deal the 10.5 Box Set was and met
with surprisingly little response.
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:52, T Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncarr.com > wrote:
>
> Leopard is a different problem. There is a very big "hole" between
> Leopard and Lion consisting of most of the G5 systems out there and some of
> G4's I believe. And by "hole" I mean these systems CAN run Leopard, but
> Leopard was never offered on reasonable terms to these owners so they
> didn't upgrade. And then it was pulled from the market completely.
>
> By the way, the first Intel owners are also in a similar hole because
> Apple excluded them from the SL deal.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
previous versions of OS X.
10.6 was Intel-only, of course, so I don't know what the "hole" might be
for G4/5 owners: 10.5 was the end of the line and anything later is equally
unusable.
In my case (G4 Macs), I bought the 10.5 Mac Box Set (10.5 + iWork + iLife)
when 10.6 was confirmed as Intel-only. This turned out to be even better
than I thought at the time, as it still allows me to run the latest version
of iTunes, a factor if you have an iPhone and want to keep up with iOS
versions.
At the time I tried to stress what a good deal the 10.5 Box Set was and met
with surprisingly little response.
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:52, T Hopkins <hoplist@hillmanncar
>
> Leopard is a different problem. There is a very big "hole" between
> Leopard and Lion consisting of most of the G5 systems out there and some of
> G4's I believe. And by "hole" I mean these systems CAN run Leopard, but
> Leopard was never offered on reasonable terms to these owners so they
> didn't upgrade. And then it was pulled from the market completely.
>
> By the way, the first Intel owners are also in a similar hole because
> Apple excluded them from the SL deal.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:56 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Really? Can you name one?
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:57, hflaxman001@yahoo.com <hflaxman001@yahoo.com >wrote:
> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow
> Leopard.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:57, hflaxman001@
> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow
> Leopard.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"hflaxman001@yahoo.com" harry.flaxman
My mistake. It was 10.7 that excluded the Core Duo machines, not 10.6.
H
--- Original Message ---
From: "Otto Nikolaus" <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
Sent: August 24, 2012 12:56 PM
To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [macsupport] Re: mac os question
Really? Can you name one?
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:57, hflaxman001@yahoo.com <hflaxman001@yahoo.com >wrote:
> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow
> Leopard
H
--- Original Message ---
From: "Otto Nikolaus" <otto.nikolaus@
Sent: August 24, 2012 12:56 PM
To: macsupportcentral@
Subject: Re: [macsupport] Re: mac os question
Really? Can you name one?
Otto
On 24 August 2012 13:57, hflaxman001@
> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow
> Leopard
Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:35 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow Leopard.
>
> Really? Can you name one?
> Otto
Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
> Really? Can you name one?
> Otto
Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:39 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"hflaxman001@yahoo.com" harry.flaxman
Yup, it was Lion where the exusions began.
H
--- Original Message ---
From: "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com>
Sent: August 24, 2012 4:35 PM
To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [macsupport] mac os question
>> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow Leopard.
>
> Really? Can you name one?
> Otto
Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
H
--- Original Message ---
From: "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com>
Sent: August 24, 2012 4:35 PM
To: macsupportcentral@
Subject: Re: [macsupport] mac os question
>> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow Leopard.
>
> Really? Can you name one?
> Otto
Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:19 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Yes, for Intels. There were exclusions before that for PPCs.
Otto
On 24 August 2012 21:39, hflaxman001@yahoo.com <hflaxman001@yahoo.com >wrote:
> Yup, it was Lion where the exusions began.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Otto
On 24 August 2012 21:39, hflaxman001@
> Yup, it was Lion where the exusions began.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:32 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
Lion requires 64-bit machines. The Core Duos are 32-bit. But since they can apparently be hacked to 64-bit, maybe they can actually run Lion. Probably an academic question. ;)
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
On Aug 24, 2012, at 4:39 PM, hflaxman001@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yup, it was Lion where the exusions began.
>
> H
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com>
> Sent: August 24, 2012 4:35 PM
> To: macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] mac os question
>
> >> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow Leopard.
> >
> > Really? Can you name one?
> > Otto
>
> Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-
On Aug 24, 2012, at 4:39 PM, hflaxman001@
> Yup, it was Lion where the exusions began.
>
> H
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: "Jim Saklad" <jimdoc@me.com>
> Sent: August 24, 2012 4:35 PM
> To: macsupportcentral@
> Subject: Re: [macsupport] mac os question
>
> >> As I recall, many initial Intel machines, CoreDuo based, cannot run Snow Leopard.
> >
> > Really? Can you name one?
> > Otto
>
> Every Intel machine listed in MacTracker is apparently capable of running Snow Leopard.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
On Aug 24, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Otto Nikolaus wrote:
> so I don't know what the "hole" might be
> for G4/5 owners
I am referring to the gap between what these owners have (Tiger) and what their machines could do if they had access to Leopard. With Lion gone, there is now a hole between what these Tiger machines can do, and what they COULD do, if Apple was still selling Leopard.
Okay, so it's not the best choice of words. ;)
Cheers,
tod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> so I don't know what the "hole" might be
> for G4/5 owners
I am referring to the gap between what these owners have (Tiger) and what their machines could do if they had access to Leopard. With Lion gone, there is now a hole between what these Tiger machines can do, and what they COULD do, if Apple was still selling Leopard.
Okay, so it's not the best choice of words. ;)
Cheers,
tod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
