Connect with us

How To?

Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Max Review: Hail to the King – PetaPixel

Published

on


It is extremely difficult to come into a review of the new MacBook Pro with a truly neutral mindset. The original M1 was just so darned impressive that a follow-up naturally has enormous shoes to fill. Somehow, not only does the MacBook Pro powered by M1 Max meet expectations, it exceeds them: this computer is a marvel.
When talking about the MacBook Pro, everything sounds like hyperbole. “This changes everything,” or “the fastest ever,” or “I’ve never been so impressed.” None of that sounds grounded or real, but it’s really hard to argue with the data and user experience. In the last week-plus of full-time daily use and hours of benchmarking, the numbers don’t lie: this is the fastest and most impressive laptop we have ever tested and it smokes every single possible competitor in nearly every category, even the already impressive original M1.
You certainly pay a price for it: the machine we tested was nearly the highest-end model Apple makes: the 16-inch MacBook Pro with the M1 Max processor, 64 gigabytes of RAM, and four terabytes of SSD storage; the only way to spend more would be to increase the storage capacity further. To enjoy what we reviewed here, you’re going to have to be willing to part with $4,700. If you want to match the performance but save a bit, you can do that by dropping internal storage down to 1 terabyte, which brings the price down to $3,700 — a choice we recommend should you decide this computer is for you. Cutting the memory in half shaves that price down to $3,500.
That is a lot to drop on any computer, regardless of class, but it’s not the worst. We gave the HP ZBook Studio G8 grief for its extreme price, and rightly so: that computer is even more expensive if we are looking at 1 TB capacities and the best performance to match with the M1 Max.
But like we what we said of that machine in our review is the same here: it’s not like the asking price isn’t worth it.
When holding the new MacBook Pro in hand, long-time Apple computer fans will notice that it has a lot more in common with the older models of the early 2010s than it does with the more recent TouchBar models. The edges are rounded much softer, the computer itself much thicker, and the overall heft far more noticeable — not to mention there are a lot more ports to be found on the sides of this device.
When I held it up to my first-generation MacBook Pro with TouchBar, my wife thought that the old model was an Air compared to this new model, the difference is that substantial. Honestly, I’m glad the MacBook Pro has its heft back. There is a lot to like about a thin and light machine, but the tradeoffs that Apple made to get me there with its older machines, to me, aren’t worth what the new MacBook Pro brings to the table.
So while you could say that bringing back the port selection is a return to form for professionals, you can also say the computer itself literally returns to a form we haven’t seen for nearly a decade. To that, I say, “Welcome back.”
Regarding port selection, the MacBook Pro has almost everything a photographer could find themselves looking for. Aside from three Thunderbolt 4 ports, it also brings back the full-size HDMI port, the SD card reader, and MagSafe. It also has an upgraded 3.5mm headphone jack with support or high-impedance headphones.

When not using headphones, I was really impressed with the quality of the speakers on the MacBook Pro. The additional size of the chassis over is being fully utilized here because the fullness of audio is really pleasant. Gone are the days of thin-sounding, “tinny” music in a laptop, as both midtones and bass are well represented. I actually forgot to plug in my full-size speakers on one occasion and didn’t realize the audio was coming through my laptop until halfway through a YouTube video, that’s how good they are.
For those who, for some reason, thought Apple was going to only pack a UHS-I SD card reader into its professional laptop line, I hate to disappoint you: it is indeed UHS-II. Some might complain that it should be UHS-III as other PC laptops in its segment offer, and while I agree this would have been nice, the actual real-world use cases of UHS-III are slim. Very few UHS-III SD cards exist, few if any current camera supports UHS-III (I believe it’s none, but I could be wrong), and the market is moving towards CFexpress (no, SDexpress is not going to take off, stop pretending it will). Basically, it would have been a nice specification to have that a vast majority of MacBook Pro users would never find a need for.

The other somewhat disappointing note on the ports is that the HDMI port is not HDMI 2.1, but rather the older HDMI 2.0 specification, which means that the MacBook Pro can’t support 120Hz output through HDMI (though you certainly can through Thunderbolt). Apple very likely intended the HDMI port to be used to connect to televisions or presentation screens in office meeting rooms, so while the lack of HDMI 2.1 is disappointing, just like the UHS-III card reader, its exclusion is not likely to actually affect its users.
MagSafe is back, and the dedicated charging port is one of two ways to power the MacBook Pro — you can still power it through USB-C as before if you want to. The MacBook Pro supports fast charging specifically with the included power brick and MagSafe cable and can charge to 50% power in about 30 minutes. With the 16-inch variant that we tested, that is the only method that supports fast charging, but there are a total of five fast-charging options available for the 14-inch version.

On the note of MagSafe, the cable is now a woven type, which is great to see. It feels like the high-quality fabric woven charging cables I’ve been buying from third-party manufacturers for years because they were always better than what Apple was producing. That doesn’t appear to be the case anymore.
The new MacBook Pro uses what Apple calls Liquid Retina XDR, which is the company’s implementation of mini LED technology. This means that the 16-inch laptop has 7.7 million pixels and offers sustained brightness of 1,000 nits and a peak brightness of 1,600 nits. That also means a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1. It features 10,216 mini LEDs arranged in 2,554 zones. For reference, the iPad Pro with M1 features 10,000 mini LEDs arranged into 2,596 zones, and the Pro Display XDR has just 576 zones. More zones mean better contrast, better blacks, and less visible halo around bright objects.
That brightness is outstanding for viewing HDR content and also means that during the day, you’ll very likely have no trouble seeing anything on the screen as it can compete with seriously bright ambient light. The display also refreshes at up to a fast 120Hz, though with ProMotion it varies depending on the content on screen. You can lock the refresh rate of between 48 and 60Hz, but Apple doesn’t allow you to lock it to 120Hz.
Resolution-wise, the MacBook Pro does not quite offer a 4K display, but 3,456 x 2,234 pixels. For reference, true 4K would require 3,840 x 2,160 in widescreen (the MacBook is a bit taller than that as you can see), and seeing a computer this expensive come up short of true 4K is a bit disappointing on paper. In practice, I never noticed. The display has enough resolution and is stunningly beautiful and bright. If you found yourself wanting the excellent display from the latest iPad Pro on a computer, Apple delivers that nearly identically here.

It boasts almost 99% of P3 coverage with a maximum Delta E of less than one. The only thing we noticed was that in contrast with the iPad Pro, the white point wasn’t quite right (Delta E of 3).
One last thing to talk about is the camera notch, which some have said is obtrusive and others say doesn’t bother them. I’m in the latter camp. If you’re looking for the notch, you will of course see it, and those who pack the taskbar with tons of icons will probably run into an issue of them disappearing behind the notch (which I agree is bad design). But I, and I think most users, will end up forgetting the notch is there at all. It usually just resides in the space on screen I don’t use anyway and it doesn’t affect my viewing of widescreen content since that area goes black anyhow. In short, I feel like the notch conversation is overblown.
The keyboard, which over the last decade has been a sore spot for Apple, is marvelous. I have been using the iMac Pro keyboard for a few years now and really grew accustomed to it, but I think I prefer the one on the MacBook Pro. It took me about an hour to get used to, but after that, it typed like a dream. Having TouchID in the upper right-hand corner is nice and is super responsive.

One of the problems some people have with Apple keyboards is that they can be loud, even the nicer ones like the dedicated iMac keyboards (but especially the early butterfly keyboards). The MacBook Pro types softly and quietly, and it’s really just a joy to use.
The Force Touch-enabled trackpad is nice, responsive, and pretty perfectly sized: not too big, and not too small. I’m not a big trackpack guy (give me a mouse any day), so I’m probably not the best suited to evaluate its performance, but I found it to be inoffensive and perfectly serviceable.
I want to take a moment to briefly talk about the speed of the SSD, because it is absurdly fast. The PCIE 4.0 SSD blasts through the ceiling of previous benchmarks, boasting sustained 6,626 MB/s write speeds and 5,841 MB/s read speeds:

To put those numbers in perspective, the latest Mac Mini has an average of 3,100 MB/s write and 2,880 MB/s read speeds, and the Razer Blade 15 Advanced (which is one of the few computers we have tested that also supports PCIE 4.0) only clocks in 4,321 MB/s read and 5,211 MB/s write speeds.
Basically, editors should consider using external storage only for backups and storage, since the speeds of working directly off the MacBook Pro’s internal SSD are going to be tough to beat.
This computer is noticeably heavy, likely due to the considerable hardware inside, including the giant battery: it is a massive 100 watt-hours.
With that big battery, Apple rates the 16-inch MacBook Pro as capable of lasting up to 14 hours for casual web browsing and 21 hours of watching content through Apple TV.
In testing, we found that those numbers were largely accurate, and through mixed use I got anywhere from between 10 and 12 hours. Overall, I had no issues with battery life when using it on those kinds of lightweight tasks throughout a full day without needing to worry about recharging it. For intensive work like photo editing, it’s not quite as long-lasting and I was able to get between five and six hours before needing to plug back in.

I ran an additional test where I connected the MacBook pro to a 4K 120Hz monitor (as seen in the header image above) which asks the graphics cores in the M1 Max to work hard constantly (I also kept the integrated display at maximum brightness the entire time as well), during which I also performed a variety of tasks ranging from video editing, photo editing, and internet browsing. At no point did I have any less than ten Chrome tabs open and either Photoshop or Premiere were being actively used or open in the background. Under that strain, the laptop lasted just about exactly five hours before warning me that I had 10% power remaining and should plug it back in.
Those numbers are very impressive to me, and while I think the M1 Max isn’t quite as efficient as the original M1 is, it still is capable of barely drawing any power unless it absolutely needs it, and when asked to go all-out, still manages to give outstanding performance for much longer than I expected. I am happy to exchange the power of this machine for slightly less efficiency.
And oh, what power.
Before I get into our raw photo editing numbers, I want to first share an experience I had with the M1 Max MacBook Pro that is more on the video end. I’ve been daily driving a 2015-era iMac that boasts a 4Ghz quad-core Intel Core i7 and 32 gigabytes of RAM since I bought it in 2016. It is by no means a slow machine, and I’ve been happily working on it for years now and edited hundreds of videos for clients when I operated my video production business in San Francisco.
But as video files have gotten larger, my old reliable has started to show her age. It can’t even play back one 4K ProRes HQ file at one-quarter resolution in Premiere Pro without stuttering down to less than one frame per second.

In contrast, the new MacBook Pro with M1 Max was able to play four 4K ProRes HQ clips on top of each other at original resolution without dropping a single frame.
Watching this laptop basically yawn at me in boredom with a task that would straight up crash my iMac still drops my jaw.
That in mind, it should come as no surprise that the M1 Max MacBook Pro absolutely shreds through photo editing tasks and is far and away the best laptop we have ever tested across almost every category.
As is the case with all our recent laptop reviews, the numbers below represent the same tests run on a host of systems, specifically the 13-inch Intel-based MacBook Pro, the Razer Blade 14, the ASUS Zephyrus G14, the Razer Blade 15 Advanced, the HP Zbook Studio G8, and the 2021 M1 iMac (which has identical performance to the M1 MacBook Pro and the M1 Mac Mini).
These tests consist of importing 110 61-megapixel Sony Alpha 7R IV and 150 100-megapixel PhaseOne XF RAW files, generating 1:1 (Lightroom Classic) or 2560px (Capture One Pro) previews, applying a custom-made preset with heavy global edits, and then exporting those same files as 100% JPEGs and 16-bit TIFFs.
Across the board, the M1 Max MacBook Pro beats all comers. During imports, the M1 Max squeaks out a win over the Razer Blade 15 and the HP Zbook Studio G8 by a scant few seconds, but that’s as close as it gets. M1 Max exports JPEGs at a pace that is at least three minutes faster than its closest competitors and exports TIFFs even faster.



Capture One Pro is a bit of a head-scratcher in a couple of cases which leads us to believe there might be a bug present, as the M1 Max and M1 both perform poorly when it comes to imports of specifically the PhaseOne XF files, but both are also slower than non-Apple silicon computers with Sony files. We can’t be sure, but we think there is an issue with how Capture One handles hardware acceleration when it generates previews. The software does much better with NVIDIA and Intel or AMD than with any M-series processor. There isn’t really any reason why this should be happening, which is why we think it’s a bug. We’ll reach out to Capture One and report back should anything come of it.
Update: Capture One has confirmed that it is aware of this issue. “When it comes to overall preview generation performance (i.e., the overall time to generate previews for X images), we are aware of the issue, looking into it, and we cannot say anything on which improvements will be made and when,” a company representative tells PetaPixel. The company does note that the design of the application does not necessitate waiting for all previews to be generated, however, since they will generate in the background.
As we have mentioned in our other reviews, Lightroom does not use any sort of GPU acceleration during import or export and instead relies on the performance of the CPU and RAM. Capture One, on the other hand, does take advantage of the GPU. Both the HP Zbook and the Razer Blade 15 both post wins over the M1 Max in Capture One on the Sony files (and everyone beats out the speed of the PhaseOne file import, hence our belief in a bug), but once those files are edited, the M1 Max once again takes front and center: it exports both JPEGs and TIFFs remarkably quickly. Specifically with exporting Alpha 7R IV 16-bit TIFFs, the sub-two-minute time is barely enough for me to run downstairs and refill my water bottle.



As always, our final test is running the Puget Systems’ industry-standard PugetBench benchmark.
PugetBench assigns an Overall and four Category scores after timing a wide variety of tasks ranging from the basics like loading, saving, and resizing a large .psd, to GPU-accelerated filters like Smart Sharpen and Field Blur, to heavily RAM-dependent tasks like Photo Merge. As we have in the past, we ran version 0.8 of this particular benchmark, because it was the last version to include a Photo Merge test, a feature we find particular value in given our focus on photography.
Overall, the M1 Max MacBook Pro demolishes the competition and posts a stunning 1242.1 overall score, which is more than 200 points higher than the next closest competitor in the Razer Blade 15 or the M1 iMac. Broken down by category, the M1 Max wins across the board.


Looking at the data, there is currently no contest: the M1 Max MacBook Pro is far and away the most powerful laptop money can buy. Outside of what we are fairly certain is a bug with file imports in Capture One, the M1 Max bests every laptop we have tested.
What’s even more impressive is how the MacBook Pro doesn’t care if it’s plugged into wall power or not and hardly made a sound during any of our tests. This is in contrast to the Razer Blade 15 which needs to be plugged in to get the most out of the GPU; on battery alone, performance takes a nosedive.

If you paid close attention, you could hear the MacBook Pro fans come on during the particularly heavy workloads, but even when they did, they were very quiet. Overall, it runs basically silently through normal photo editing operation and won’t make a peep during simple tasks like watching shows or browsing the internet. While using it outside of benchmarking, I cannot recall a time I heard it make any sound outside of the quiet clicks of my fingers on the keyboard. The chassis can get a bit warm, but nothing extreme, and is quick to cool back down.
From a pure performance standpoint, this is the most impressive computer we have ever tested. I feel like we just said that when the M1 originally launched, and yet Apple one-upped themselves again.
Professional photographers and filmmakers who grew up using Apple products that just worked great for creator-focused tasks have felt let down in recent years by Apple’s design choices in the MacBook Pro series. The company spent years focusing on form factor and design over function, and the “pro” in the product’s name felt less and less apt.
Not anymore. The MacBook Pro with M1 Max looks, feels, and operates like a real professional machine, and it dominates the competition because of it. Apple never explicitly apologized to creatives for the what it did to the MacBook Pro line, but using the new M1 Max-equipped machine feels like I can hear the company telling me, “I’m sorry, let’s make it right.”
While you have to give up the ultra-thin form factor of previous MacBook Pros, I feel like the tradeoff we’re seeing on computing power, silent operation, and additional port selection is well worth it. This computer is almost flawless, and the niggles about the slightly lower than 4K resolution and lack of HDMI 2.1 feel extremely insignificant in the face of everything else this computer is capable of. From the perspective of a working professional, it is everything they would ever need and more. So much more.

To be honest, the M1 Max MacBook Pro might be the best computer you can buy, but most photographers don’t need this kind of computing power, especially for the cost. It becomes a conversation of value, and Apple’s original M1, while slower, offers more value for more people, I think. The original M1 is still plenty outstanding, and the 13-inch MacBook Pro powered by the original M1 is still an excellent buy: 16 gigabytes of unified memory and 512GB of SSD storage costs, $1,700 — a substantial discount over what the M1 Max laptop will cost.
If you’re looking beyond Apple, PetaPixel recently published recommendations for the best laptops for photographers, and the Dell XPS 15 and HP ZBook Studio G8 are both excellent options that are listed there. As you might have noticed from our benchmark tests above, the Razer Blade 15 Advanced is also a solid machine that can hang with both the M1 and M1 Max MacBook Pros in most performance benchmarks and has the fastest internal SSD of the PC group.
Yes, if your work demands the best performance. If you already own an M1-equipped Apple computer, I don’t know that you should shell out the cash for the upgrade. But if you’ve been hanging on to an older Intel-based MacBook Pro and it’s long since shown its age, I’m confident that the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M1 Max will put a smile on your face.
Copyright © 2021 PetaPixel

source

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

How To?

Browsers based on Chromium will no longer allow users to delete default search engines from the settings – Ghacks Technology News

Published

on

Most web browsers ship with a bunch of different search engines that you may switch to, if you are not a fan of the default option. In addition to changing the provider, you may delete the default search engines from the list. But it appears that Chromium based browsers no longer allow you to do it.Browsers based on Chromium 97 no longer allow users to delete default search engines This change does not affect the option to set your default engine, you just won’t be able to the preloaded providers. That’s not necessarily a bad thing per se.
A reddit user reported that Microsoft Edge has removed the ability to remove default search engines from the settings. While it is true, another user pointed out that it is not a change in Edge, but in all Chromium-based browsers. Some users says that this only affects the Windows version of the browsers, and that the Linux variants have the option.Google Chrome no delete button for search enginesAccording to a commit on the open-source project’s page, the proposal to remove the delete button was made in October 2021. The developers felt that deleting the search engines was too easy, and that it was a bad thing because it would not be easy for users to add them back, as it is not possible to set the search provider for suggestions, new tag page and other specialized URLs. Following a small discussion which concluded that deleting a search provider could cause more problems than it would break, the change was approved a day later when Chromium 97 was released.Opera browser - delete default search enginesChrome 97 was released about ten days ago, and it became the first Chromium-based browser that removed the delete button from the Manage Search Engines page. Microsoft, Opera and Brave have followed suit in removing said option from their respective browsers.Brave browser - delete default search enginesAs of now, only Vivaldi, which is still based on Chromium 96, has the option to delete the default search engines. When the browser gets updated to the code based on Chromium 97, it will likely not allow users to remove the search providers. Firefox and Waterfox do not prevent users from deleting the built-in search options either.Microsoft edge browser - delete default search enginesChromium-based browsers will continue to allow the user to edit the keywords but not the URLs.Google Chrome - edit search engine keywordYou can still add custom search providers if you want to, and this allows you to edit the search parameters.Google chrome - add search engine customI think this change may not affect most users. It is a precautionary measure that could end up protecting the user in the event a malware tries to delete the default search engine, or hijack it. That said, if a malicious extension, toolbar or website, manages to use the add search engine option to inject a harmful search provider in the browser, and set it as the default provider, it wouldn’t be stopped, would it? That is likely a very rare scenario, one that can easily be prevented by using an ad-blocker like uBlock Origin, avoiding illegal websites, and good old common sense of not clicking links randomly.
I will admit that I find it surprising that the removal of a simple feature in Chromium’s source code impacts every browser that uses it as the base, do they have a choice? This does give Google an advantage over the competition. This got me wondering about what could happen when Google decides to kill support for v2 add-ons, and forces extensions to use Manifest V3. Will it impact other browsers in the same way? I mean, if there is no webRequest API that can be used, what could they possibly do except to rely on their own built-in ad-blockers?
What do you think? Should browsers allow you to delete the default search engines?
Welcome back to Firefox 🙂
You can’t delete search engines in FF – only hide them. And they also removed the option to add one manually some time ago.
download source code and make the that you want
Jony, the source code of chromium can also be downloaded and do the same. So what you are talking about? If a chromium fork wants to add the code to their fork to delete search engines they can. But they don’t seem to care about this to add it. Well, let’s wait for Vivaldi, they may care about it.
@Neutrino: in Librewolf, a FF fork, you can remove search engines.
You can remove search engines in Firefox by clicking the ‘Remove’ button under the list. You can still add OpenSearch-compatible search engines (through a icon with plus-sign showing up under the address bar, a bit convoluted). Adding search engines entirely manually and from scratch requires the use of an add-on, but still possible.
I have the button “remove”
No. FF 96: I can remove and leave only my own custom ones (added manually).
@Gavin B
As if, lol. Grab a dictionary and look up the word “desperate”, my man. Firefox is a lost cause and an inability to remove search engines (Why would I even do this?) won’t change that.
https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html
Yeah, but more desperate or deep down drowning with bunch of crap for one coward browser…
Oh my! What will your life revolve around when Firefox is gone? /s
Things we should consider:
Is there any browser topic that Iron Heart does not troll?
Does it make him feel good or think he has accomplished anything when he does?
Has any of his “technical” information ever convinced anyone of anything at anytime?
Dear Mr. Troll Heart, you may desire and indeed feel compelled to respond, but please know that I will not take the time to read your response as I will not come back to this particular thread.
When Google stops needing Firefox and stops paying them to give all their user data to them, Firefox will shut down and you will be coming to Chromium. 🙂
Nope 🙂
Why do you care what happens to Firefox or what browser we use?
Why do we care what your opinion is?
Why do you want to share something that adds little value?
Don’t think it much matters. Bing (it’s called an accelerator, wtf?) could never be deleted from IE. Search providers deleted from FF still remain in about:config and there’s an easy switch in Settings to restore all the defaults.
Having Amazon, Wikipedia, ebay, etc., as default search providers is bizarre unless you use a particular browser for only those sites.
Not being able to delete a browser’s built-in search engine doesn’t appear to me as problematic, as long as you can disable them and add new ones. Firefox itself doesn’t allow to delete them (even if you do it the dirty way — right from the search.json.mozlz4 file — they’re reinstalled on Firefox start). Personally I’ve added 36 search engines to Firefox and disabled all the native ones. No idea if Chromium-based browsers allow the user to install external search engines…
EDIT : “Firefox itself doesn’t allow to delete them (even if you do it the dirty way — right from the search.json.mozlz4 file — they’re reinstalled on Firefox start).”
In fact the user can “delete” them in that they won’t appear in the browser’s search engines’ list, but in fact they’re only hidden and still appear in ‘about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox’. No big deal if your ennemy being out of sight is enough without requiring him to be out of life, lol. This is semantics. All we may want is our engines and native ones out of the way, if applicable. Moreover I haven’t digged the exact search url content of FF’s built-in engines but let’s not forget that a search url can include more than the required search query…
They will be added back (enabled back) after next browser update.
I’m testing the newest Vivaldi snapshot based on chromium 98 (98.0.4758.50) the option to remove search engines is still present and working as expected.
Which makes sense, since Vivaldi doesn’t rely on the Chromium UI for this purpose.
Yeah, another lame disinformation post. Latest Vivaldi snapshot based on 98.x can remove search engines. More like circushacksnews…
Just curious whether Brave Version 1.34.80 (Chromium: 97.0.4692.71 (Official Build) (64-bit)) have changed that, and yes there’s no possibility under settings to change that anymore, the URL is greyed out for the preinstalled search engines.
Hopefully there’s no way to exploit this.
FF is my primary browser and Vivaldi Snapshot (v98) is my default chromium browser. Vivaldi is showing a “Delete” option in the settings but I suspect that it doesn’t really remove the search engine but instead just hides it. Reason being… I also see a “Restore Defaults” button.
Either way, as long as I don’t have to see search engines that I don’t use I’ll be happy.
@Richard Allen
This is the behavior of all browsers in reality, I think. Both Blink- and Gecko-based. The search engines are hidden, not deleted.
Firefox is the only browser (imho) that allows to recover all deleted default browsers. :]
For Chrome I don’t know but for Firefox it’s been like that since long time ago.
If you check the profile folder, the files are still there.
Opera hasn’t allowed you to remove the default search engine since version 15.
Isn’t one of the biggest advantages of an Open Source Software – to change everything you want?
How come that Brave and the others should follow suit and not be able to disregard the change?
Please, explain to the dummy 😛
@Neutrino
> How come that Brave and the others should follow suit and not be able to disregard the change?
Explain why anyone would need to reverse this? The search engines are sitting there rather passively, if you are not actively using them, you need not care about the options offered.
>change everything you want.
Why should they bother? Every non ChromeZilla browser these days is just a wrapper around Chromium – they attach their additional bells and whistles and use whatever Google updates every couple of weeks. Changing the core means more maintenance headache for them and it’s not like Google will ever accept upstream patches.
@Iron Heart
> Explain why anyone would need to reverse this? The search engines are sitting there rather passively, if you are not actively using them, you need not care about the options offered.
If they are not being used, why do they need to still be there and not uninstalled? seems pointless to have something installed if not using it, and if a user chooses to delete them, it should be deleted and not simply hidden.
I mean what is the point of any browser not allowing them to be removed and deleted? In my opinion if a user removes them, then begone! So tired of the big machine dictating the narrative for which all other browsers follow or suffer their wrath. Google, Chromium, Firefox for that matter, should not babysit the ignorant by making the browser idiot proof. The browsers should break so that the idiots that toggle or mess up a setting or remove something, has to fix their mistake. The coddling approach is exactly why this type of crap happens.
It had to whip a storm up in somebody’s teacup!
The main issue is we can still install whatever search engine we prefer, set whichever we prefer as default and the browser retains our preferences between restarts and updates.
Nothing is “installed” … They’re just strings that define a url and search parameters for that URL that you can enable or disable in the settings. They’re functionally no different than any other settings. You can calm down
My issue right now is that their is a bug in my computer after downloading a McAffee protection software where if I close out Chrome or shut down my computer, when I reopen Chrome the default browser is Yahoo. Which is arguably the most annoying thing to ever happen to me on a computer.
I have no idea how to fix it now because I have Yahoo and Safe Yahoo (McAffee) within my default browsers and i cant delete them. This happened to me on a different computer but i didnt connect the dots that it was through the McAffee software. This sucks lol
According to https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1263679#c10 the delete function will return in Chromium 98 or 99…
I’m looking for a hack or methodology to remove all but the default search engines I desire. As a professional who’s cleaned up too many computers from secondary click bate provided by unwanted search engines, I prefer to protect users by giving them freedom to remove search engines they do not desire. While I can look around and find the underlying structure, I would be greatful if someone else has already located where the code placing these items is stored. My secondary alternative will be move clients to alternatives, but would prefer to resolve this.
Nice information. Anyway Edge does not allow to delete them. By the way, Mozilla Team please add Ecosia to default search engines. Thanks @Ashwin! :]
Point of order, Mr Chairman: Opera has never allowed the removal of its default search engines, even before this update. In fact, you can’t actually change the default search engine beyond Opera’s preapproved list…
You could in the old Presto-based Opera
> Opera has never allowed the removal of its default search engines, even before this update. In fact, you can’t actually change the default search engine beyond Opera’s preinstalled list…
Confirm this. Opera does not allow you to delete a search engine, or change to a custom one (only one of the “default” (pre-installed) ones, and they almost all have a built-in tracking tag so that Opera gets money from “clicks” and they can track the ‘clicks’ of Opera users).
This situation has been going on for years, I believe that since the transition to blink (in the original Opera Presto change and delete was certainly possible).
This is one of those changes Microsoft begged daddy Google to implement for them for their browser’s sake.
“Following a small discussion which concluded that deleting a search provider could cause more problems than it would break, the change was approved a day later when Chromium 97 was released.” >>> If so, then just add a button to recover them all like Firefox, you clever people! :]
Soon you won’t be able to make any changes in any browsers. I feel sorry for future generations that rely on technology.
You * [Editor: removed, please stay polite] are missing the point.
Ashwin is pointing out that the browsers based on Chromium lack the mental acumen and programming expertise to make changes in the Blink browser engine (Google, of course, can do it, but Google is the driving force in forcing Manifest v. 3 to all Chromium based browsers, to protect their advertising revenue business, so Chrome will have Manifest v. 3 in January 2023).
Despite all the lies by the makers of the Chromium clones (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.), when Chromium deprecates Manifest v. 2 in January 2023, the Chrome clones (Vivaldi, Brave, etc.) don’t have programmers with the ability to restore Manifest v. 2; therefore all Blink based browsers (Chrome, Vivaldi, Opera, Brave, etc.) will eventually use Manifest v. 3.
After January 2023, the Chromium clones (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.) will try to base their browsers on the last version of Chromium that supports Manifest v. 2, but eventually, due to not being able to patch all the security holes, they will be forced to update to the latest version of Blink that only supports Manifest v. 3.
Chromium clones (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.), can only program on top the Blink engine, they are not able to make changes in the Blink browser engine (Google could fork the Webkit engine, because they have alot of $200,000+ a year programmers and tons of money, while Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc. don’t have the programmers or the money).
The programming done by the Chromium clones (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.) are trivial, like putting lipstick on a pig. The Chromium clones (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc.) will be the Waterfoxes/Pale Moons of Chromium, ROTFLMAO!
* [Editor: removed, stay polite]
So much nonsense. The Chromium clone devs are not trying to keep Manifest v2 alive; instead their main USP is to include a built-in adblocker (with varying levels of effectiveness and success) that does not rely on the extension framework. Opera, Vivaldi and Brave all have an adblocker in place right now.
A couple of points:
1. The last time I looked (just now), Blink was licenced as both BSD and LGPLv2.1 – both being free software licences. Having established that, I fail to understand how “they are not able to make changes in the Blink browser engine” when they have access to the Blink source code.
2. Are you able to furnish this readership with the evidence to back up your claim that Brave for example, does not have the programmers or the money to hack the Blink source code to meet their requirements?
Because a browser engine is a massively complex piece of code and they are not doing a hard fork like Pale Moon did of Firefox. They are simply using the latest Chromium build put out by Google directly. If they made any changes to that source, they will have to maintain it themselves with every future update to Chromium and they don’t want to do that. Google too unlike other open source projects, isn’t interested(for obvious reasons) in accepting their modifications as upstream patches to directly incorporate them into Chromium for future use.
Why doesn’t everybody just choose their preferred search engine, create a bookmark for it, then click on that bookmark when you want to do a search? If that’s too much work for you, try creating your own browser. Good grief.
Its a bit like If user can’t remove a search engine from their sight, chances are one day user will use it to just check them out. Afterall how many are going to create a custom Google search engine with URL instead of just use built-in one. Marketing strategy as always from Google.
Vivaldi will not have code updated to Chromium 97. Vivaldi is following Extended channel. LOL! Next Vivaldi 5.1 based on Chromium 98.x can delete default search engines!!
Another disinformation post on Vivaldi browser…!!
Evil corpos doing oss. What could possible go wrong.
This is a perfect example of why it’s a really bad idea to base a
browser on Chromium. Google has control of the features and code.
‘Nuff said.
Ok, fine. Now give us the ability to turn off the “change default search engine” popup suggestion that our 80 year old parents just click ‘ok’ on without reading the prompt.
I really don’t see the problem. You can still choose the default search engine you want, it’s not like they’re saying you’re no longer allowed to change it. Just means search engines you choose not to use will still be in the list, and you’d have to be very ‘anti’ a search engine to get in a huff over the inability to remove it as a choice.
The decision to remove the ability to delete default search engines in itself is not that big of a deal. But the danger is if users accept it without putting up a fight, what is the next step? Eventually making it more and more difficult to choose your own search engine…
Well, Opera doesn’t even let you put a custom search engine as default. so there can be worst things than not being able to remove Google or Ecosia or garbage like that.
I have to guess Brave Team will add the setting back if people want it, but I don’t see it a problem to have it living there in settings, I only not type :g and I will not remember I have google in my search engine list.
I’ve never deleted a search engine, not sure what the point of that would be. You don’t have to use them, just set your preferred search to the default and you never have to see the others again. So really, who cares?
Absolutely agree 100% Squiggy… a lot of fuss about nothing.
People use this feature as a method to bypass search engine hijacking. It is also necessary for people who would like to manage the link used by the so called default search engines. But from what I saw on the development thread this feature will be restored in chromium 98 or 99.
Ridiculous! I am not a programmer; just a user. I think that removing the delete option is a detriment. Now, any one of those other unwanted search engines can take over my search events at any given time. I do not like them! I only like Chrome/Google! The onus is now on my to constantly monitor my default search engine, As I said, ridiculous!
If a search engine WAS able to change your default without your consent, they wouldn’t need to be in the list to start with…
“Now, any one of those other unwanted search engines can take over my search events at any given time.”
Uh, I’ve never heard that search engines were programmed to do such a thing.
“I only like Chrome/Google!”
I hardly know where to begin. Other than, Google is evil, arrogant, and a bully, and its products are spy machines and advertising machines, I’ll say just: “What the helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll?”
Vivaldi announced yesterday that they hold the line with default search and will continue to give the choice to remove default search engines. See Twitter @vivaldibrowser
I am glad that I am still using Firefox.





Please click on the following link to open the newsletter signup page: Ghacks Newsletter Sign up
Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers.

source

Continue Reading

How To?

What's the best investment for a child's future? – MarketWatch

Published

on

Financial stress ranked No. 1 on the American Psychological Association’s annual Stress in America survey this year. It has held this position every year since 2007 when the survey began.
It’s natural for parents to want to shield their children from some of this stress by investing money toward their future. However, the best strategies for investing in your child’s future might seem unclear. 
Undoubtedly, these questions pose serious concerns for parents looking to help their children overcome financial stress.
Read: This is the most innovative financial literacy program in the U.S.
Before you start
When it comes to investing, the rule is usually that the sooner you invest, the better. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you should start investing for your child the day they are born.
Before pursuing investing for kids, you should have emergency savings set aside and confidence in your retirement funds. 
In retirement, you absolutely need to have affordable housing, food and other necessities. If you can’t, it will be a burden to you as well as your child. It’s similar to how you need to put on your own oxygen mask before you assist someone else.
Help yourself first and then you’ll find yourself in a better position to aid others. 
Paying for your child’s college or getting them started saving for retirement is ideal, but not as high of a priority. Get yourself to a place where you can “max out” your 401(k), especially if you work for a company that matches part of your contributions.
Financial advisers commonly say once you’re able to contribute 15% of your income toward retirement, that’s when you should start investing for your child. 
This percentage might vary depending on your investment history. If you’ve worked toward your retirement since a teenager and have already saved a significant amount, this percentage might be lower. People who got a late start saving for retirement and want to catch up may need a higher percentage. 
Read: 5 investment lessons that can make your working teen wealthy
Invest for your child’s education account (529 Plan)
When you start to invest for your child’s future, begin with a tax-advantaged savings account. A 529 savings account acts as one of your best options.
These plans can cover expenses related to K-12 tuition if you plan to send your child to a private school, cover college tuition costs and even other vocational education options. 
These accounts accumulate funds on an after-tax basis with gains untaxed if used for qualified higher education expenses.
You don’t need to use the money at any one specific college, but can use it at any of the nationwide qualified colleges.
A 529 college savings plan works similarly to a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA in that you invest your post-tax contributions in mutual funds, target-date funds or other investments. 
Once your child begins college, money from the account can go toward eligible expenses, typically including tuition, computers, books, supplies, and housing (if the student enrolls at least half-time).
Room and board can’t exceed the “cost of attendance” figures colleges provide. Distributions can also go toward repaying federal and private student loans, including ones you refinance.
If you withdraw money for nonqualified expenses, the earnings portion becomes subject to ordinary income taxes as well as a 10% tax penalty. You can waive this penalty if the beneficiary attends a U.S. Military Academy, earns a tax-free scholarship, dies, or becomes disabled. The earnings would still be subject to tax, however. 
Suppose your child doesn’t attend college. In that situation, you can switch the beneficiary to another qualifying family member, have yourself become the beneficiary and further your own education, use it for K-12 tuition (up to $10,000), or use the money to repay student loans (up to $10,000). 
Funds can also roll over to a 529 ABLE account, which acts as a savings account for people with disabilities. If you have a willingness to pay the penalty and taxes, you can always withdraw your money for any reason.
Plans usually have minimum initial contribution requirements. After that, you can make automatic money deposits, contribute lump sums, or both.
Read: Why you should plan to leave money to your kids
Invest for your child’s future retirement
Helping your child start to save for retirement can put them at a significant advantage later in life.
If your teenager has a job like a lifeguard, fast food worker or cashier, you can open a custodial IRA in their name and invest.
A custodial account is a financial account maintained by an adult for another person, such as your child. 
You would manage your teenager’s account until they reach the age of majority, which is either 18 or 21, depending on your state. These accounts transfer ownership and you can set them up to manage their own investments.
With the custodial IRA, you can open a traditional or Roth IRA. In either account type, select the best investments and watch the returns compound over time.
Opening and contributing to a child’s custodial IRA requires them to earn taxable income. Sadly, allowances don’t count and you can’t contribute more than what they make each year.
Keep in mind that even if contributions don’t seem large, contributing regularly over long enough periods can result in a significant impact to their bottom line. These contributions add up and grow through returns earned over time.
Because your child likely falls in a low tax bracket on their earnings, it usually makes sense to open a custodial Roth IRA to lock in low tax rates now and have their contributions grow tax-free for many decades to come.
Invest for your child’s future expenses
You can also save for your child’s future expenses without a specific plan for how those funds should be used. Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) accounts and Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts are two beneficial types of custodial accounts that let teenagers invest.
UTMA and UGMA accounts come controlled by the custodian until the minor reaches the age of majority in their state of residence. 
Unearned investment income in these accounts has the tax advantage of only facing taxes at the child’s rate. For example, a child under age 19 wouldn’t pay taxes on the first $1,100 and only 10% for the next $1,100. After that, money falls under the guardian’s marginal tax rate. 
With these accounts, you don’t have to limit your contributions to the amount of money your child makes. No contribution limits exist, though anything over $15,000 each year (or $30,000 for a married couple) requires minding the federal gift tax rules.
Best investment in your child’s future
Having money doesn’t necessarily mean you have the skills for handling it. Therefore, it remains essential that you help your child develop good money habits and financial literacy so they know how to save and manage money.
This can mean controlling money from an early age to build comfort with money decisions, learning how to manage it with a piggy bank and eventually a bank account and debit card for kids, and eventually how to invest money on their own.
Make sure your child understands topics such as compound interest, investment diversification, and tax-advantaged savings vehicles. You can impart your personal knowledge, buy them financial literacy books, and encourage them to take financial courses in school.
However, nothing comes as useful as giving them some control over their money. They will make mistakes, but that will always represent an important part of learning. Invest in their future by giving teens and young adults the tools they need to succeed.
Riley Adams is a CPA and the author of the Young and the Invested website, which focuses on financial independence and investing.
Power of attorney can help loved ones make big decisions when you can’t

source

Continue Reading

How To?

Selling photographs as NFTs: a pro travel photographer gives his top tips – Digital Camera World

Published

on

Digital Camera World is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more
By , published
Marco Bottigelli explains how selling NFTs helped him find scarcity in an overly photographed world
”Photography still occupies a small niche in the NFT market space. In situations such as this, you must decide whether to remain a spectator waiting for the interest to increase, or invest your time and resources on being a pioneer of a movement. Thanks to the excess of free time resulting from the travel restrictions due to the pandemic, I decided to go for the latter. 
What are NFTs and can photographers make money from them? How I sell my photographs as NFTs
Overall, as a creator, I strongly believe a skill that should never be lacking is curiosity. Despite a decade of experience as a professional in commercial travel photography, I found pleasure in sitting back and learning something new from scratch. 
In the art market one of the main elements for defining the value of a work is scarcity, so the first paradigm I faced was how to make my photographs ”more unique”. I came up with the idea of going through a brand-new avenue; blending some of my favorite photos from recent years into surreal, evocative and intriguing composites, albeit with elements that are recognizable to an attentive audience. 
Part of a travel photographer’s job is based on finding the best viewpoint over a landscape or a city based on elements from the real world. In the same way, the freedom of art (or rather cryptoart) has unleashed my imagination in finding new viewpoints over recognizable landscapes, in much the same way I search for a better imaginary viewpoint in the wideness of the Metaverse. 
In May of last year my first series ‘Wanderlust’ was born – three works that project the observer through the subject on an iconic and dreamlike journey. Two of the three works were sold to collectors in the first two weeks of their publication. The third sold in November for 2ETH ($6,571).
Then, at the beginning of July I published my second series ‘Gondola Fairytales’, a two-piece epic tribute to the explorers, myth and legends from the history of Venice.”This article first appeared in Digital Photographer magazine
Marco Bottigelli is an acclaimed travel photographer and leader of international photography workshops spending his working life photographing some of the most beautiful locations in the World. With over ten years in the field, he finally turned a part-time job into a full-time travel photographer freelance career in 2015, focusing exclusively on producing high-end commercial travel images and accompanying customers across nearly every continent to experience the beauty and the challenging of the travel and landscape photography. He is the co-owner of clickalps.com, a Premium Travel Photo Agency based in Italy. Since 2021, he has been successfully selling his photographs as NFTs.
Get the best camera deals, reviews, product advice, competitions, unmissable photography news and more!
Thank you for signing up to Digital Camera World. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.
Digital Camera World is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

source

Continue Reading

Trending