Macbook Pro (2016) Disappointment Pushes Some Apple Loyalis

Funny you say that, I don't have a plan yet but if I do end up making the switch it will probably be for a Thinkpad too. My current machine will last me a few more years anyway, but I'm really not loving the direction Apple is going. Steve is definitely spinning in his grave right now.

Just another mindless anti-Apple troll who has no idea what he's talking about. The original Powerbook, iBook, TiPowerBook, aluminum Powerbook, the original uni-body Macbook Pros, ect were all insanely ahead of their time in almost every way possible (hardware design, IO, BTO options, ect).

>No you aren't reading, I've covered exactly what I mean in the comment and given examples of good open source software. Oh, I'm reading - I just disagree. >There is the major issues like not supporting Lab and CMYK colour spaces From GIMP directly: "Better support for CMYK has been on our roadmap for a long time. However this project has certain prerequisites such as the complete port of GIMP to GEGL. The idea, how we want to make this work, was introduced by user interaction architect Peter Sikking at Libre Graphics Meeting 2009 and later — in his two-part article in his company's blog: 1, 2. Please take some time to read up on that. It's worth mentioning that currently CMYK is considered by us a low-priority project. Here's why. Things like non-destructive editing are required by pretty much all users — photographers, designers, desktop publishing engineers, and even scientists. At the same time, CMYK is required only by a small subset of our user base. We prioritize our work accordingly. Note that should a new developer join the team to specifically work on CMYK-related features, we will do our best to help him/her to complete this project and get it to our users as soon as possible." So it's on the agenda - but it's a small section of their userbase that needs that functionality - so it's not as *major* as you think it is. >clunkiness of the type tool It's not *that* bad. It's not *as* good, but for what it's needed for it does the job that Photoshop does. Puts text on the image and gives you an easy way to change it to your requirements. It can take some getting used to because it's *different*, but it works. > how pasting a selection doesn't create a new layer, but rather a "pasted selection" You mean like the 'Paste As' menu which gives you the option to paste it as a new layer? >how clicking inside the window will bring up the last used tool You're not just using keyboard shortcuts to get to the tools you need anyway? Is it *that* much of a hassle, especially when keyboard shortcuts are so simple? This is a *really* trivial annoyance to say something as broad as you did. I dunno - you haven't brought up any *really* good examples that aren't easily addressed (even by GIMP devs themselves) or solved by keyboard shortcuts. Again, I'm reading (and understanding) what you're saying - but I disagree with your broad, sweeping, mostly inaccurate statement.

My next phone will probably be the OnePlus Four when and if that comes out. I just cannot justify paying upwards of £750 for a phone that has less internal storage than what I currently have, and a complete lack of external flash memory support. I would have waited for my OnePlus One to die out, then bought an iPhone 7, but a lack of headphone jack is a deal breaker. I for one like wired headphones, and cannot justify paying an extortionate amount for a wireless pair that would probably be less comfortable than a decent pair of Sennheisers.

Open Source advocates are often railing about how Open Source software is just as powerful as Closed Source hardware. How the Open Source release has "the vast majority of features" from the proprietary equivalent. So maybe somebody comes along and points out it's shortcomings. Maybe you mention that it has no CMYK support, doesn't have any sort of non-destructive editing capability, a lot of filter operations cause loss of bit depth, the paintbrush is a scaled raster bitmap, using large brushes has incredibly poor performance, No particular control over brush modifiers, dealing with gradients is unintuitive nonsense, Filters only let you see a preview at 100% zoom, half-assed filters like a completely unusable Lens Flare, presumably added as joke, Filters apply to the image, and not to individual layers, Many filters lack any sort of customization (as with Lens Flare), "Lighting Effects" is unintuitive, and entirely unusable. And then all of a sudden it's something like "it's free, and doesn't have the funding, of course it isn't as good.". Well, Then people should *stop saying it*! it's that easy. Represent the capabilities of the product accurately and don't hold it up as a "Photoshop alternative" and get all annoyed when people compare it to Photoshop. At best, It's a Photoshop alternative for people who didn't need Photoshop to begin with.

Exactly. As I mentioned in another comment, I use Photoshop as part of making a living for myself. There's no way I could go without it. There's not a chance I could do what I do with GIMP. Even if I could, there's no way it'll be as time efficient. In my eye's, GIMP is a upgrade to Windows Paint.

The Precision has ECC ram, Xeon processors, and better graphics cards optional. If you want to run 400 VMs, it's king. It's also twice the price. I can't speak for the HP. If you need a pretty good laptop (which blows away the new rMBP) and have $1500, buy the P50. r/thinkpad decribes it as "Thinkpad 600" durable, which is sort of the holy grail of laptop construction.