Quote from: _MT_ on May 29, 2021, 11:01:39
There is some logic to it. And we can only speculate whether their particular decisions are based on proper market research or not. It's a side effect of offering only fixed configurations. And soldering almost everything down makes it more difficult to offer free configurability.

I do understand that, though I think they use it as an excuse more than it being a true issue. Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the complexity of it all, but it seems to me that even with a few dozen variations (Intel v AMD, 3 v 5 v 7, 8GB v 16GB, etc), they could make some of each, simply making more of the more common/desired ones, and replenish the stock of each configuration as it dwindles. I suspect most people would even be fine with an extra week or two wait if that's what it meant in order to be able to get the config they want. I see no reason companies, especially large ones like Dell and HP, couldn't do this. I truly believe it's just that they choose not to, in order to push higher specs and, therefore, pull more money out of their customers.

...Aaaaand we're back to conspiracy theories. Boy oh boy, that was what, like a full week without your insane rambling?
HELD BACK ON PURPOSE! THE STAB IN THE BACK! IT'S ALL CONNECTED! INTEL = 666 = THE BEAST!
You guys regress faster than Alzheimer's patients, I swear.

Quote from: vertigo on May 28, 2021, 23:36:45
I just don't understand laptop manufacturers' insistence on these arbitrary, senseless restrictions. I mean, I guess I do, because they want to force consumers to pay more, but they have to realize it's just going to drive people away...

There is some logic to it. And we can only speculate whether their particular decisions are based on proper market research or not. It's a side effect of offering only fixed configurations. And soldering almost everything down makes it more difficult to offer free configurability.

Consider the Surface Book. I like the basic idea, I like that they do offer a 15" version (I like big tablets), but I don't need a dGPU. The only benefit for me is that I would be able to use CUDA. I'm not going to play games on it. I don't like the price and I don't like the battery life in tablet form. It makes iPad Pro look like a steal. I wish Apple made a bigger tablet and a base like the Book (the challenge is getting the thing balanced without it getting too heavy which is why, I think, Apple went for the cantilever design).

One thing I find annoying with SL4 are chassis restrictions. 13" Ryzen units are only available in platinum Alcantara while the top Intel and AMD 15" units are only available in black metal. It has plenty of other weaknesses but it's annoying. I wouldn't choose either one of those options. Although, who knows, perhaps the black would grow on me.

Monopolists helping monopolists, I guess. Not that I needed another reason to avoid MS products. I just don't understand laptop manufacturers' insistence on these arbitrary, senseless restrictions. I mean, I guess I do, because they want to force consumers to pay more, but they have to realize it's just going to drive people away, so any potential gain by screwing consumers is going to be negated by the loss of sales, not to mention the resentment of those that do spend more money and/or get something they don't want just to get what they need. Laptops won't live up to their full potential as a market segment as long as manufacturers keep playing these games.

Are you saying that it scores more like 600 in CB R15 when unplugged? That's ridiculous. Even for the first run? I don't understand why you insist on publishing benchmarks taken when a laptop is powered from an outlet. That might make sense for big workstations or gaming notebooks. But not for ultrabooks.

Looks like Microsoft killed Intel themself when base model with AMD has more performance per dollar and removing Thunderbolt support.