Blue Ray vs DVD? In terms of quality. We'll see if Sony and Nintendo make the same miscalculation they appear to have with their portable devices with the consoles. As far as Epic are concerned. More of the same. PC gaming towers? More of the same. To me, it doesn't look 'that' much better than Arkham on a PS3. It's a svelte layer better. We'll see if that's enough to drive PS4 sales higher than PS3 sales (if a PS4 makes it to market...) If that turns out to be the case. M$ seem commited to the tackle and will hoover up any potential PS4 buyers and I don't see Nintendo competing in the console arms race. They look vulnerable to me too.
Sony. Nintendo have got caught in the same traditional bear trap. Their hardly offering the same paradigm shift that an iPad 3 is offering to the living room...the multimedia house. ...and the synergy between iCloud, the Mac, the ATV, the iOS devices hasn't even really hit critical mass yet in my view. *(Looks towards the iOS influence in Mountain Lion.) I tried to surf the web on the PS3. It sucks. Give me an iPad3, ATV3, a, iPhone5, Ivy Bridge Macs and any decent TV and that's an eco system for the 21st Century. Compared to that, a PS4 doesn't hold the same interest for me as the PS3 did before it's release.
The iPad is having an effect on portability. Yes. Whether this will extend to consoles? I think it will. But to what degree. There's no chance of the iPad quite having that level of next gen Unreal quality engine inside two years. But 'Rogue' powered under a retina screen airplayed to a 50 inch 1080p tv? Yes. And for most, many people, casual gamers. That may well be 'good enough' to waste a bit of their time. As the PSP found relative to the 3DS...it's not always about 'sheer' muscle (as the PS3 and X360 found vs the Wii.) It's about what else you bring to the party. I don't think the consoles will be killed in one final fatal blow. But I can see the iPad lead Apple ecosystem having an impact...in a similar manner that iOS has had on Sony and Nintendo's portable lunch. Even Howard Stringer's replacement has noted that simply dropping powerful hardware into the market place is no longer 'good enough.'
For hardcores? They'll want their ATi latest 7000 series GPU. For a 'traditional' console buyer. A 720 at Argo Christmas time. For the same price I think an iPad 3 and ATV will give me a whole lot more. And I'll making a killer saving on software vs over priced Console games. (Not that gaming is my thing these days.)
In the era of the 'casual' gamer? Apple's superior distribution model has seen them stumble into a defacto leadership position in games. Though they seem largely ambivalent to me. The developer community is running with it.
I'll be interested to see when the PS4/720 hits (as I looked forward to seeing the tech' demos of the PS3 last time...) but in the meatime, the iPad 3 is on the move. Near vertically.
I think that DOES have implications for the living room.
ie. An iPad 3, ATV big screen tv with cheap games on the app store? Or a console with pricey games?
A rogue powered iPad 4 for all the family vs a PS4 for Johnny with expensive games a limited eco system.
Many may get both.
But with the iPad 3 offering retina screen that gives you full HD about right now and the next gen consoles miles off...that gives the iPad 3 a head start. Current gen soles seem to run at 720 now. The iPad is bringing in Blue Ray quality...greater than imminently care of a new Atv3 to stream onto your 50 inch Panasonic! And I'd vouch Apple is gearing the iTunes store up for hi-def. Add in the 'Rogue' powered iPad 4 next year and you have even more power at retina quality before the next gen console war fires a single shot. Meanwhile, what are M£, Sony and Nin' doing?
The x-Mac seems obvious. So why don't Apple want to build one? It makes them more like PC Towers. They're moving away from that.
It's like the classic side on Dell tower vs iMac picture. Wires. Not wires. And that was years ago.
And yet Apple making things smaller and smaller and removing internal devices force Apple users to purchase external devices and deal with wires. That is why an XMac with a little bit of internal expansion room that isn't near as big as the Mac Pro makes so much sense.
And yet Apple making things smaller and smaller and removing internal devices force Apple users to purchase external devices and deal with wires. That is why an XMac with a little bit of internal expansion room that isn't near as big as the Mac Pro makes so much sense.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine. In fact with the advent of SoC technology which Ivy Bridge closely approximates you can drastically shrink a PC.
Look at another way, the Mini is a good example of what can be done with todays much higher integration devices but is a bad example for other reasons. Those are mostly serviceability and configurability issues. Take the concept of the Mini, scale it up to use faster processors and allow for more RAM expansion, easy access disk / SSD bays, a respectable GPU and a slot or two, you are then well on your way to an XMac. The reality is the tower architecture of the pass isn't really optimal for deliver or computing hardware in the future. There is to much space dedicated to legacy components that where left behind years ago by Apple.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine. In fact with the advent of SoC technology which Ivy Bridge closely approximates you can drastically shrink a PC.
Look at another way, the Mini is a good example of what can be done with todays much higher integration devices but is a bad example for other reasons. Those are mostly serviceability and configurability issues. Take the concept of the Mini, scale it up to use faster processors and allow for more RAM expansion, easy access disk / SSD bays, a respectable GPU and a slot or two, you are then well on your way to an XMac. The reality is the tower architecture of the pass isn't really optimal for deliver or computing hardware in the future. There is to much space dedicated to legacy components that where left behind years ago by Apple.
This is something I didn't understand with Apple. They scaled the mini down in its last design revision rather than beefing up the components. I tend to wonder if they simply didn't see a lot of growth opportunity there. I'm not debating whether or not it is there, but more their opinion on the matter.
This is something I didn't understand with Apple. They scaled the mini down in its last design revision rather than beefing up the components. I tend to wonder if they simply didn't see a lot of growth opportunity there. I'm not debating whether or not it is there, but more their opinion on the matter.
The Mini is one of those devices I admire but can't currently justify for my own use. As to the last design they might have went in that direction looking 5 years into the future. Even a few months from now Ivy Bridge will have a significant impact on the Mini. Apple will be able to pack a great deal of capability into that little box.
The problem is what it is capable of is very much fixed at the time of purchase, even memory upgrades are limited. Considering everything they have done with the AIR I have to say I'm currently underwhelmed with the Mini's design. The little box would be a great place to expand the use of blade SSD's and in conjunction with magnetic drives would make for a nice machine.
Every time a new rev to the Mini comes out I look at it with a bit of desire but are usually put off by a good reading of the specs. One thing I'm certain of is that the Mini could be a lot more than what it is for the price considering what they can do with the AIR. Again it comes around to Apple shooting themselves in the foot with respect to the desktop lineup. They simply don't delver the goods the way they do with the laptops. Frankly there won't be any growth with the Mini nor any other Apple desktop if it is pretty obvious that you actually get much more with the laptop machines. I really don't get this as the desktops ought to be a snap to manufacture and design.
One thing I'm certain of is that the Mini could be a lot more than what it is for the price considering what they can do with the AIR. Again it comes around to Apple shooting themselves in the foot with respect to the desktop lineup. They simply don't delver the goods the way they do with the laptops. Frankly there won't be any growth with the Mini nor any other Apple desktop if it is pretty obvious that you actually get much more with the laptop machines. I really don't get this as the desktops ought to be a snap to manufacture and design.
Bleh relative to the 21.5" imac, they don't give you much for the price of the mini. The starting price has gone up over time, and it still lacks a keyboard and mouse. The "server" isn't truly appropriate for server type use in that it can heat up not to the point of overheating but beyond intended thermal spec for a machine that is to be run more than 8 hours a day.
I'm not even sure about the laptops at times. While satisfaction rates seem to be high, I've seen way too many problems with them. Whenever it's more than a couple years old, I see weird uneven display aging. In more than one of my own, I've heard what sounds like bad fan bearings when the fans speed up (and yes I blow it out at times, but it's quite annoying to do so properly). I wish I could find a reliable study on failure/repair rates. Every one of them published has suggested that Apple does not reign supreme in reliability, but at the same time these are generally biased studies even if their conclusions are remarkably similar. The Square Trade warranty study one showed a pretty absurd repair rate among certain macbook pro 15" models, but again I don't know that I'd trust it fully (nor would I trust one sponsored by Apple, neither is much of a neutral party here).
Apple doesn't seem to pay a lot of attention to any product where they don't see massive growth potential. It could have a loyal following and ship a very respectable number of units, but being dwarfed by the iphone or ipad means it gets limited attention. This makes less sense to me given the size of the company and their controlling nature over things like supply chains. I'd like to see them put that level of effort into their more mature products and not cheap out on stuff that the ordinary consumer may not notice or understand just because they can.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine.
A single socket, 64 GB of RAM and two 16 lane slots that could hold two of the larger Fermi cards.
Would be a perfect machine for all but the most extreme. Throw third 4x slot between the two video cards and space 'em so all can be used. Give me two internal hard drive positions and two externally accessible (optical).
They could probably do it rather easily in a IIci sized box.
iMac is OK, but graphics options suck. And are fixed. Not that Apple has that many graphics card choices (as was pointed out earlier in the thread) - but at least there *are* options through the efforts of netkas.org...
Comments
Blue Ray vs DVD? In terms of quality. We'll see if Sony and Nintendo make the same miscalculation they appear to have with their portable devices with the consoles. As far as Epic are concerned. More of the same. PC gaming towers? More of the same. To me, it doesn't look 'that' much better than Arkham on a PS3. It's a svelte layer better. We'll see if that's enough to drive PS4 sales higher than PS3 sales (if a PS4 makes it to market...) If that turns out to be the case. M$ seem commited to the tackle and will hoover up any potential PS4 buyers and I don't see Nintendo competing in the console arms race. They look vulnerable to me too.
Sony. Nintendo have got caught in the same traditional bear trap. Their hardly offering the same paradigm shift that an iPad 3 is offering to the living room...the multimedia house. ...and the synergy between iCloud, the Mac, the ATV, the iOS devices hasn't even really hit critical mass yet in my view. *(Looks towards the iOS influence in Mountain Lion.) I tried to surf the web on the PS3. It sucks. Give me an iPad3, ATV3, a, iPhone5, Ivy Bridge Macs and any decent TV and that's an eco system for the 21st Century. Compared to that, a PS4 doesn't hold the same interest for me as the PS3 did before it's release.
The iPad is having an effect on portability. Yes. Whether this will extend to consoles? I think it will. But to what degree. There's no chance of the iPad quite having that level of next gen Unreal quality engine inside two years. But 'Rogue' powered under a retina screen airplayed to a 50 inch 1080p tv? Yes. And for most, many people, casual gamers. That may well be 'good enough' to waste a bit of their time. As the PSP found relative to the 3DS...it's not always about 'sheer' muscle (as the PS3 and X360 found vs the Wii.) It's about what else you bring to the party. I don't think the consoles will be killed in one final fatal blow. But I can see the iPad lead Apple ecosystem having an impact...in a similar manner that iOS has had on Sony and Nintendo's portable lunch. Even Howard Stringer's replacement has noted that simply dropping powerful hardware into the market place is no longer 'good enough.'
For hardcores? They'll want their ATi latest 7000 series GPU. For a 'traditional' console buyer. A 720 at Argo Christmas time. For the same price I think an iPad 3 and ATV will give me a whole lot more. And I'll making a killer saving on software vs over priced Console games. (Not that gaming is my thing these days.)
In the era of the 'casual' gamer? Apple's superior distribution model has seen them stumble into a defacto leadership position in games. Though they seem largely ambivalent to me. The developer community is running with it.
I'll be interested to see when the PS4/720 hits (as I looked forward to seeing the tech' demos of the PS3 last time...) but in the meatime, the iPad 3 is on the move. Near vertically.
I think that DOES have implications for the living room.
ie. An iPad 3, ATV big screen tv with cheap games on the app store? Or a console with pricey games?
A rogue powered iPad 4 for all the family vs a PS4 for Johnny with expensive games a limited eco system.
Many may get both.
But with the iPad 3 offering retina screen that gives you full HD about right now and the next gen consoles miles off...that gives the iPad 3 a head start. Current gen soles seem to run at 720 now. The iPad is bringing in Blue Ray quality...greater than imminently care of a new Atv3 to stream onto your 50 inch Panasonic! And I'd vouch Apple is gearing the iTunes store up for hi-def. Add in the 'Rogue' powered iPad 4 next year and you have even more power at retina quality before the next gen console war fires a single shot. Meanwhile, what are M£, Sony and Nin' doing?
Looks at the Vita and 3DS.
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The x-Mac seems obvious. So why don't Apple want to build one? It makes them more like PC Towers. They're moving away from that.
It's like the classic side on Dell tower vs iMac picture. Wires. Not wires. And that was years ago.
And yet Apple making things smaller and smaller and removing internal devices force Apple users to purchase external devices and deal with wires. That is why an XMac with a little bit of internal expansion room that isn't near as big as the Mac Pro makes so much sense.
And yet Apple making things smaller and smaller and removing internal devices force Apple users to purchase external devices and deal with wires. That is why an XMac with a little bit of internal expansion room that isn't near as big as the Mac Pro makes so much sense.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine. In fact with the advent of SoC technology which Ivy Bridge closely approximates you can drastically shrink a PC.
Look at another way, the Mini is a good example of what can be done with todays much higher integration devices but is a bad example for other reasons. Those are mostly serviceability and configurability issues. Take the concept of the Mini, scale it up to use faster processors and allow for more RAM expansion, easy access disk / SSD bays, a respectable GPU and a slot or two, you are then well on your way to an XMac. The reality is the tower architecture of the pass isn't really optimal for deliver or computing hardware in the future. There is to much space dedicated to legacy components that where left behind years ago by Apple.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine. In fact with the advent of SoC technology which Ivy Bridge closely approximates you can drastically shrink a PC.
Look at another way, the Mini is a good example of what can be done with todays much higher integration devices but is a bad example for other reasons. Those are mostly serviceability and configurability issues. Take the concept of the Mini, scale it up to use faster processors and allow for more RAM expansion, easy access disk / SSD bays, a respectable GPU and a slot or two, you are then well on your way to an XMac. The reality is the tower architecture of the pass isn't really optimal for deliver or computing hardware in the future. There is to much space dedicated to legacy components that where left behind years ago by Apple.
This is something I didn't understand with Apple. They scaled the mini down in its last design revision rather than beefing up the components. I tend to wonder if they simply didn't see a lot of growth opportunity there. I'm not debating whether or not it is there, but more their opinion on the matter.
This is something I didn't understand with Apple. They scaled the mini down in its last design revision rather than beefing up the components. I tend to wonder if they simply didn't see a lot of growth opportunity there. I'm not debating whether or not it is there, but more their opinion on the matter.
The Mini is one of those devices I admire but can't currently justify for my own use. As to the last design they might have went in that direction looking 5 years into the future. Even a few months from now Ivy Bridge will have a significant impact on the Mini. Apple will be able to pack a great deal of capability into that little box.
The problem is what it is capable of is very much fixed at the time of purchase, even memory upgrades are limited. Considering everything they have done with the AIR I have to say I'm currently underwhelmed with the Mini's design. The little box would be a great place to expand the use of blade SSD's and in conjunction with magnetic drives would make for a nice machine.
Every time a new rev to the Mini comes out I look at it with a bit of desire but are usually put off by a good reading of the specs. One thing I'm certain of is that the Mini could be a lot more than what it is for the price considering what they can do with the AIR. Again it comes around to Apple shooting themselves in the foot with respect to the desktop lineup. They simply don't delver the goods the way they do with the laptops. Frankly there won't be any growth with the Mini nor any other Apple desktop if it is pretty obvious that you actually get much more with the laptop machines. I really don't get this as the desktops ought to be a snap to manufacture and design.
One thing I'm certain of is that the Mini could be a lot more than what it is for the price considering what they can do with the AIR. Again it comes around to Apple shooting themselves in the foot with respect to the desktop lineup. They simply don't delver the goods the way they do with the laptops. Frankly there won't be any growth with the Mini nor any other Apple desktop if it is pretty obvious that you actually get much more with the laptop machines. I really don't get this as the desktops ought to be a snap to manufacture and design.
Bleh relative to the 21.5" imac, they don't give you much for the price of the mini. The starting price has gone up over time, and it still lacks a keyboard and mouse. The "server" isn't truly appropriate for server type use in that it can heat up not to the point of overheating but beyond intended thermal spec for a machine that is to be run more than 8 hours a day.
I'm not even sure about the laptops at times. While satisfaction rates seem to be high, I've seen way too many problems with them. Whenever it's more than a couple years old, I see weird uneven display aging. In more than one of my own, I've heard what sounds like bad fan bearings when the fans speed up (and yes I blow it out at times, but it's quite annoying to do so properly). I wish I could find a reliable study on failure/repair rates. Every one of them published has suggested that Apple does not reign supreme in reliability, but at the same time these are generally biased studies even if their conclusions are remarkably similar. The Square Trade warranty study one showed a pretty absurd repair rate among certain macbook pro 15" models, but again I don't know that I'd trust it fully (nor would I trust one sponsored by Apple, neither is much of a neutral party here).
Apple doesn't seem to pay a lot of attention to any product where they don't see massive growth potential. It could have a loyal following and ship a very respectable number of units, but being dwarfed by the iphone or ipad means it gets limited attention. This makes less sense to me given the size of the company and their controlling nature over things like supply chains. I'd like to see them put that level of effort into their more mature products and not cheap out on stuff that the ordinary consumer may not notice or understand just because they can.
When everyday goes about dismissing XMac they do so in terms of a PC tower. This is not what XMac is or would be if realized in hardware. The PC tower is pretty much a dead end for the same reason the Mac Pro is, you just don't need all that space to make a decent high performance machine.
A single socket, 64 GB of RAM and two 16 lane slots that could hold two of the larger Fermi cards.
Would be a perfect machine for all but the most extreme. Throw third 4x slot between the two video cards and space 'em so all can be used. Give me two internal hard drive positions and two externally accessible (optical).
They could probably do it rather easily in a IIci sized box.
iMac is OK, but graphics options suck. And are fixed. Not that Apple has that many graphics card choices (as was pointed out earlier in the thread) - but at least there *are* options through the efforts of netkas.org...