You truly are from a different universe if you did not realize Steve was at war with Adobe which makes further comment redundant.

Out.

Did you really have to quote that whole thing? How about trimming it to the relevant single paragraph?

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.

 

 

You really should look at shipping dates and volumes. Dell and HP have announced their machines based on these cpus over the past few days, but even they are not shipping yet. 

 

 

While I don't have any way of confirming this, I'm really not expecting a full Ivy Bridge E lineup assuming that haswell development isn't pushed way back as well.

 

 

There have been suggestions that Ivy Bridge E next year would bump the core count. I'm not sure if Sandy Bridge E is really lacking much in the way of features relative to consumer Ivy. I wouldn't be surprised if they scrap it or offer a very limited release. It's likely that you'd see it work in the same board design, so you might see something if Haswell development is still far out at that point. I have to wonder when they will catch up there.  It doesn't surprise me to see Xeons ship later in a given year than some of the mainstream cpus, but seeing them pushed this far out is strange. I don't recall them announcing hardware at WWDC in recent years.

 

 

 

Not sure if I'm missing something here, but consumer Haswell will be out long before the correct socket type for the mac pro.

 

 

You really have led a sheltered life.

Ordinarily I would have "trimmed", but this disjointed post places everything in context in my view. Sorry.

 

 

 

Never mind.... Decided I dont want one...

 

Then enlighten me as you seem to have a perspective that doesn't jive with my perception of reality. I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple or Steve had warlike intentions with respect to Adobe. They may not have agreed on certain things but that is not a justification for saying they where at war.

Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors are now in stock at Newegg, topping out at 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo boost).  No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet.  So the stage is set for new iMacs at any rate.   I would imagine mobile processors should be along by summer.

 

They aren't out until next year.

 

 

To be precise, some Ivy Bridge Xeon chips have already been announced, I'm just not sure exactly when they will be available (to OEMs or general public), but before the summer for sure. Those are the Xeon E3-1200 v2 series and they have similar specs as the Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors with similar prices. The fact is: they would be good cpus for the iMacs, because many models don't have integrated gpus (lower TDP, lower cost) and all iMacs offer dedicated ones.

 

Model	Cores	Threads	Frequency	Turbo Frequency	L3 cache	TDP	Price
Xeon E3-1220 v2	4	4	3.1 GHz	3.5 GHz	8 MB	69 Watt	$189
Xeon E3-1220L v2	2	4	2.3 GHz	3.5 GHz	3 MB	17 Watt	$189
Xeon E3-1225 v2	4	4	3.2 GHz	3.6 GHz	8 MB	77 Watt	$209
Xeon E3-1230 v2	4	8	3.3 GHz	3.7 GHz	8 MB	69 Watt	$215
Xeon E3-1240 v2	4	8	3.4 GHz	3.8 GHz	8 MB	69 Watt	$250
Xeon E3-1245 v2	4	8	3.4 GHz	3.8 GHz	8 MB	77 Watt	$266
Xeon E3-1265L v2	4	8	2.5 GHz	3.5 GHz	8 MB	45 Watt	$294
Xeon E3-1270 v2	4	8	3.5 GHz	3.9 GHz	8 MB	69 Watt	$328
Xeon E3-1275 v2	4	8	3.5 GHz	3.9 GHz	8 MB	77 Watt	$339
Xeon E3-1280 v2	4	8	3.6 GHz	4.0 GHz	8 MB	69 Watt	$612
Xeon E3-1290 v2	4	8	3.7 GHz	4.1 GHz	8 MB	87 Watt	$884

 

Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.

 

 

You have practically no chance of seeing Xeon types in the imac, but you might see i5/i7 equivalents to some of these. Xeon types typically require a slightly different board design, but the underlying hardware is mostly the same. The ones in the mac pro are a different socket type though. Assuming they stay with similar margins, the top imac will use something in the $300 ish range like the 1270. Obviously I can't predict Apple, but I'm just projecting from what they've done in the past. I can tell you it's not the cpu that keeps me away from an imac. The cpu in the top one would most likely meet my needs for a couple years. The rest of the design is terrible in many ways.

I would never approach zero with regards to the potential of XEON chips in iMacs. Considering the state of the desktop line up I wouldn't look to the past. The desktop lime up has becomes extremely stagnant and is in dire need of an overhaul.
Many many ways. I'm with you on this score, the IMac really needs an overhaul that addresses many of the more common concerns. Even then the concept sucks more than an overhaul could ever completely correct.

I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine. That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro. The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh?  Such as?  Apple have 'X-Mac' type machines.  The 'Pro' waaaay too much.  The 'Mini' wayyyyy too little.  (Though the Ivy Bridge is set to make the little guy even more 'impressive.'  Perhaps you'll buy one of them.  You can swap the ram...and uhm...bit tricky to get to the HDs...I hear.)  But yes.  No 'Cube'/tower/smaller Pro' model in the middle.  That's where the iMac is camped.  Which offers mid to high range power with a screen included...good value to me.  Better so than the Mini or Pro.

 

 

 

 

AIO concepts 'suck.'  (No more so than the original Mac?  The iMac's spiritual precursor)  How so?  The iPad is a great AIO.  (Looks like Apple didn't have to make a 'net book' with 'keyboard' afterall.  Oh.  They did.  It was the Air. ;)  Apple...bless 'em.  Always doing what they 'think' and not what we 'think.' :D  (Most of the machines Apple makes are AIO.  Aka.  They sell millions of those beloved laptops of yours...and no small amount of iMacs.  So, having actually owned an AIO I can testify that it doesn't suck unless you have a rigid view of what it takes to actually get some work done vs swapping out HDs all the time.)

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with hoping.  (But you've been hoping for that machine for the last ten years.  Where is it?)  But your 'wisdom' certainly isn't Apples.  And it's been that way since the iMac and the 'Blue and White' tower 'moved on up....and they tried to put the Cube in it's place.  And, sure enough, it backfired.  Badly implemented perhaps.  But years later the power between laptops and 'desktops' has narrowed.  Revolutionary(?) makeovers to the desktop line have stalled (though, you could argue, where do they go from a little box with alot of power, the best AIO and the out of date honking 12 core beast with a timeless but 'irrelevant' to the average consumer design?) and Apple are chasing down miniaturisation in it's iOS devices.  Apple appear to be going with the greater numbers.  'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs.  (Hmmm.  Quite.  But the huge premiums, the expensive smart covers, giving 45 Billion to shareholders and charging £2045 for a quad core suggest that isn't entirely true.  Still, the iPad entry model is very affordable.)

 

Apple's only 'easy access' machine is something that costs over £2000.  (It wasn't always this way...that price used to be just over £1000 for the old 'Blue and White.')  Now?  If you can add some ram and add a HD with a 'plug' count yourself lucky.  'Tinker fetish' boxes look like going the way of the dinosaurs.  I'd say look for Macs to become more 'iPad' like as we move forward.  (Not meeting your needs five years later?  Give it your gran and buy a new one...)

 

 

 

That used to be the battle ground held by the old 'Blue and White' tower.  Now it's the iMac.  That's Apple's 'middle ground.'  You don't have to like it of course.  Which it seems you don't.  The current iMac is wayyyy more powerful than the old 'Blue and White' tower.  Odd to say such a thing?  Not really, the iMac design merely foretells the design direction Apple is going with their machines in general.  And as you've previously mentioned, expect computer power to become 'more' SoC based over time.  How long before an SSD drive is standard...and Apple drops the optical...and puts in a retina screen....a touch screen (as hinted at in some patents...) further iOS amalgamation...and...whatcha got?  A giant iPad.

 

The iMac is only going to get more powerful going forwards.  Despite a luke warm performance bump with Ivy Bridge, the 7790m GPU (if Apple has it in the top end iMac) only makes the iMac middle to top end even more appealing.  If Apple go 'Retina' (HiDPI) in the next year or so and include SSD drives as standard the iMac only becomes a more appealing viewpoint.  Less desktop clutter, more power vs a nest of wires.  Not power absolute at any cost.  But who'd have thought we'd have the power in the iPad ten years ago?  Anyone?

 

 

 

*shrugs.  There's more likelihood of an ARM processor to make some thing like the ATV a powerful little box that you can...wait a second...  (The ATV, the 'mini' Mac Mini...)

 

Being less obtuse (or merely reading from Apple's current line up...) the one chance of the 'Cube' headless 'Blue and White' Tower cross hybrid swap out access box you're after...is a mere shrinkage of the Pro.  Given the opportunity to create a paradigm shift, Apple gave us the Atv little black box.  Wayyyy smaller than the previous Atv.

 

If we're lucky, such a 'Pro' or Mac (as I like to think of it...) will have access to ram, HDs and Gpus.  ...ram, check.  We can buy that.  HDs.  Check.  We can buy those.  GPUs?  Er.....no third party market.  Oh...

 

Xeon Cube 'workstations.'  Or a 'slim line' tower.  Or an iMac 'Z'.  Or a mere continuation as we are.  Place yer bets.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

 

 

 

That makes a lot of sense. I would not be surprised though if the entry level 21" iMac comes just with IGP.

 

 

Mmmm...I'm going to guess not.  You still want the base iMac to be better than the base mini in pretty much every aspect.

 

Is it me or is 21.5" just kinda small these days.  I wish the 24" was still in the line up somewhere.

I agree.  24 inch should be the new entry.

 

What happened to it, anyhow?

 

I think the 21 inch entry iMac should be a couple of hundred cheaper too.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

They've done it before. The iMac I'm typing this from has the NVIDIA 9400 IGP. Same as what was in the mini at that time.  The IGP becomes a tool to upsell to the $1200 iMac

Edited by backtomac - 4/30/12 at 12:13pm

 

 

I hope not, but it's a possibility. I'd rather see it with a Xeon E3-12x5 v2 (P3000 with 12 EU) than with a Core i5-3xx0 with HD 2500 graphics (6 EU).

Core i5-3450 (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.10 GHz, HD 2500) - $184

Core i7-3770K (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.50 GHz. HD 4000) - $332 -

 

Apple would need to "spend" $225 to get decent integrated graphics with a desktop cpu, and only $209 to get decent integrated graphics with a Xeon E3-1225 v2 cpu, and while the Core i5 is slightly faster (3.4 vs 3.2), the Xeon has more cache at a lower cost. In any case, I'd rather "spend" $189 on the 3.1GHz Xeon E3-1220 v2 and up to $36 on a dedicated gpu.

 

 

 

 

The same can be said for their other machines. The  imac looks like it'll just be a bit ahead of the macbook pros in cpu power. GPU and ram capacity still provide differentiation. As I suggested, the thunderbolt display increased the popularity of a laptop plugged into a larger display. It needed an easy connection and a few features to be practical, but it obviously works for many people. The hard drive thing annoys me, as Apple charges several hundred dollars to change a drive, and the 3.5" drive requires a proprietary part. They also chose a nice display panel and implemented it poorly.

I don't like having to take it to Apple for that. I don't think the display implementation is good enough. It takes up a fair amount of desktop real estate at 27", so it's problematic trying to use that as a secondary screen. The display itself can't be adjusted for height. Thunderbolt is still fairly limiting in terms of available hardware. Anyway.... most people aren't very smart on their purchases. It's easy to buy something and not realize that something is an issue until later. Swapping a drive would be a common thing there. I've also seen way too many long term display issues  with those things. It's always purple corners, excessive backlight degradation, etc. It's not unaffordable for me. It's just expensive enough that I find compromise to be unappealing.

Some see it as a good value but I don't. The problem is if I wanted an integrated all in one on the desktop I'd buy a laptop. The reality is I did buy a laptop and part of the reason was that Apple offered nothing in the way of a desktop that was acceptable. You accept certain limitation when buying a laptop in trade for portability, that is understood. The problem is many of us don't find such limitations acceptable in a desktop. I spent many years in front of a Mac Plus and learned the hard way that yep all in ones suck for desktop machines. It was a hard learned lesson because the Mac Plus want cheap at the time. I like to think I learn from my mistakes, so the current iMac gets rejected immediately as a desktop machine. Yes it is!!! Best computer I own. However it is seen as a portable device that is also almost disposable. Like a laptop you settle for limitations that you wouldn't settle for on a desktop machine. I'm not dead set against all in ones. The problem with the iMac is that it gives up to much to be passable for what I consider to be a reasonable desktop. Some of us would like to use Mac in more situations where flexibility and configurability is important.

As to swapping out hard drive I'm glad to hear that you never have had the need to change one. The problem with the iMac is that these sort of service activities are far more difficult than they should be. Frankly the iMac looks pretty pathetic in this regards when judged against Apples MBPs. Frankly the machine just displays a contempt for competent users. Back in the days of the Cube I was running Linux boxes and no Apple hardware at all. At the time everything Apple had was price grossly out of line. We aren't talking a modest Apple tax but rather a royal fleecing.

When the Cube debuted I couldnt grasp how they could justify the price on that little box. Sadly I kinda liked the overall idea though it suffered from a couple of common Steve Jobs flaws, sometimes ones vision can be too narrow. The Cube was screwed up in the same way the first AIRs were, to much design over function combined with an extremely high price considering the functionality delivered. It is interesting that they could save the AIRs but not the Cube.

Maybe the AIRs are a sign that Apple can combine good design and functionality into a really useful box. Apple is a different company now then back when Steve rescued it from bankruptcy. They can afford to go in different directions with hardware. More so the need to maximize profits on every little piece of hardware isn't as strong as it once was. Thus we have really dandy and cost effective things like the iPad. If you look at the new AIRs I'm beginning to believe that Apple has the ability to deliver more cost effective hardware. More importantly I believe they can deliver new technology in ways that no other company can.

Believing that there is no reason for people not to have high expectations from Apple when it comes to desktop hardware. They have the capability, it is the will that is in question. on the desktop all I'm really asking for is a Mini, Middi and Maxi line up. The iMac is none of these by the way. Apple has the Mini covered. The Middi is in reality the XMac, that is a desktop box with Midrange performance. The Maxi is currently the Pro though that will likely be replaced. You do realize that you make yourself look like an idiot when you refer to these machines as "tinker fetish boxes"! People look to boxes like the long for XMac and the Mac Pro because they solve real problems and are often the economical path. The problem isn't five year down the road. Rather the problem is an immediate one at purchase times. It is a huge problem if I have to spend a couple of grand to have a box from Apple I can stick a couple of disk drives into. And before you even say anything, NO buying external drives is not the answer. Nope don't like it at all!!! You keep saying that almost like a broken record (remember those) but it depends upon how you measure power. An iMac is a terrible platform if power means multiple drives, your choice of monitors, I/O slots or simply an accessible platform.

Sometimes I think you must be an Apple employee the way you try to sell the iMac. Especially to people that find the platform to be a bad value. Yep, integrated technology certainly enables smaller boxes. This is one of the reasons I beleive that an XMac would be very doable. A great deal of performance can be put in a small box these days. Unfortunately the Mini is just to small to realize the performance we want to see out of a desktop box. Actually I'm hoping to see SSDs standard across the desktop line up. In each model they would function as boot and app drives. I don't really think Apple wants to give up on the Mac market. However all OS's evolve over time. Te fact that some want to turn the evolution of an OS into a negative is perplexing. Such evolution is only a problem if Useful features go missing. So? Really what difference does a more powerful IMac make. By definition it is a very limited machine and always will be. Think about it the Mini gets more powerful every year but it hardly holds a candle to the performance of a top end machine. I'm sitting here with my iPad responding to this very post and I'm more pleased with my iPad 3 every day. It is not however a Mac nor can I use it in the way I use my Mac. More so my MBP is by no means powerful enough for the things I do with it. Even before the bugs in Lion it was succumbing to they way I wanted to use it. Personally I have to reject the idea that computers will be fast enough anytime soon. IPad is great when relaxing and single tasking but on a Mac it is still easy to multitask a machine into molasses. Sometimes I see AppleTV as a perfect example that Apple can still be stupid at times. Why they haven't opened up that platform to apps is beyond me. There are so many applications for such a little box that it boggles the mind that no one at Apple grasps this.
Actually the idea of a Zeno Cube workstation isn't a bad idea if Apple can control pricing. the main reason I'm hot for XMac, a midrange Mac, is to have a package with reasonable capability at less than $2000. Actually a fair bit less.

The idea here is affordable capability at a reasonable price. To that end I wouldn't object to an AMD Trimty or Bulldozer based box either. It isn't anyone feature I'm after but rather a collection of features that more advanced users can leverage.

Hmm.  If you typed that response on an iPad.  Well done.  (Rather thee than me, though.)

 

 

 

The world and his dog are going Laptop/iPads.  The new desktop or sofatop from what I've seen of people using them.  People just aren't sitting at their desks as much as they used to.  They don't have to with...lap...tops and iPads.  What limitation is there in the iMac bar the lack of access?  

 

What kind of work are you doing, Wizard. :)

 

 

 

By your definition it's a limited machine.  It has a huge monitor, a decent cpu, decent ram expansion, thunderbolt and with the recent model...decent graphics at last.  I don't find it limiting at all.  It just doesn't have the 'tinker fetish' holes that you need.  What kind of work are you doing on your laptop, Wizard? :)  

 

('So?'  The more powerful the iMac becomes the more irrelevant your 'hot swap hot shop' argument becomes.  The iMac is hoovering low end Mac Pro sales and has been for some time.  Of the '50%' of buyers new to the Mac platform many are clearly happy with the limitations of the laptops and iMacs Apple provides.  Few are buying the Pro it seems.  The iMac.  It's the flagship Apple desktop.  It has been since the Bondi saved Apple's ass.  Apple likes making their closed boxes and selling Apple Care and charging vast amounts of HD replacements.  It's like their ram gig.  'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs.  

 

 

You've waited almost ten years by the sounds of it for this 'X-Mac.'  Who is more the fool?  The fool who waits ten years and buys a laptop or iMac instead or the fool who waits another ten years for an X-Mac that will likely never come?  What kind of work are you doing with your laptop, Wizard?  

 

As for 'limiting.'  All computers have the limits.  :)  Especially Apples.  Limits on choice.  That's what they do.  You either buy into it or sit frustrated.  It didn't hurt me going from a tower to an AIO.  (What work are you doing, Wizard?)  It's ironic that you want an X-Mac.  You're using a portable AIO.  Two if you include the iPad.  It's quite a schism you've got going there.  Just buy an iMac, Wizard, opt for an internet SSD and plug in an external HD.  You can plug it in and out all day.  Waaaay easier than getting your screw driver box out. :))

 

 

 

 

So 'stupid' they're raking it in.  Billions upon billions...  Apple clearly goes to their own beat...not yours.  I'm sure the Apple TV will reveal itself in the fullness of Apple's own sweet time... ;)

 

 

 

 

Depends on what you mean by fast enough.  Nothing is instantaneous at the moment.  Obvious.  But traditionally 'slow' things like the internet, games, video, content creation, rendering 3d have got faster.  I suppose if you're a 'creative' worker it's never fast enough...if you're 'loafing' on a computer most of those iPad 9 out of ten things we use our computer for are fast enough.  (Thinks about browsing, email, word processing...casual gaming...)  I find the iPad a more responsive computer than my iMac in some ways.  eg browsing.

 

 

 

 

If.  If it means multiple drives?  If it means a choice of monitors.  If it means I/O slots.  If it means your idea of an 'accessible' platform.  I can add HDs to an iMac.  More if I had a recent iMac. :)  They're very accessible too.  They're plug and play on the outside.  Waaaayyyy easier than the screwdriver, Wizard.  (Sometimes I think you must be iMac lover in denial because all you do is beat up on the desktop iMac while carrying around a portable iMac...sorry, laptop? :)  Especially to people who find the platform good value.  See?  It makes as much sense.)

 

Seriously.  Thanks for the reply.  Interesting points of view.  Not all ones I share, naturally.  But I guess we have to admit Apple isn't perfect and that not all want to be users fit into Apple's neat product matrix.

 

 

Er.  It's an idea, Wizard.  A nice idea.  But.  Merely that.  We have no X-Mac.  We have the iMac.  It doesn't look like we'll have the X-Mac.  So keep hoping.  (We have the iMac in the meantime.  It's been that way since the iMac moved into the Blue and White's territory.  I can't see Apple suddenly dropping their biggest selling desktop to do Cube II/pseudo PC tower thingy.)  So yes, the Pro morphing into a Cube workstation is your best bet.  But...Apple...control pricing?  Like they did on the Pro?  With the original Cube?  Or the price hiked iMac?  Or Mini?  We can only hope.  As for AMD in a Mac?  Never say never.  But as much chance of that as an X-Mac.  Affordability and AMD based Mac?  Apple would just pocket the difference.  They're a premium seller.

 

So, Wizard, what kind of work do you do on your laptop?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Exactly.  Apple is giving users 'most' of what they want (and not the Dave's what they want.)  It's working.  They're raking it in.  Who'd a thunk they'd be joshing with HP for the top spot?  Apple don't make mainstream tinker boxes anymore (did they ever?)  The one you're after costs you an arm and leg...and is over kill.  Ergo it's low sales.  But that's Apple for you.  We know they're not perfect, bless 'em. ;)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

PS.  I have my collection of vinyls intact, thank you. ;)

Why?  Because you say so?  We need a bit more to go on than that.

 

Why? :)  (Do you live in a tiny apartment?  Don't you like external drives?  What's up with an internal SDD drive and one external drive.  How many drives are you after?)

 

What sort of work are you doing?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Yeah, but you have a laptop...and I don't like those at all!!! :P

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

So you're saying by the time Haswell comes around next year...the Mini still won't have enough performance for you?  What kind of work do you do?

 

I disagree with your premise.  Computers will get smaller.  Their performance will increase.  They'll hoover up jobs that traditionally 'big tinker boxes' used to do.

 

By the way, what work do you do on your laptop that requires constant access to internal HDs or such vast computing power?

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Not because I say so but because you say so.   You might be thinking WHAT? but one issue is the same as what you claim for the iMac.   That is the nice clean installation with no rats nest of cables.   It goes deeper than that though as internal drive installations are far more reliable.   Further everything in one box makes for easy transport.   Besides external drives are needed for backup.

 

As for drives right now I need   2 TB of storage beyond the system drive.   That actually isn't a lot these days, but ideally the data would be spread across a couple of drives.   A big one for iTunes, a smaller one for storage of virtual machines, source code, documentation and the like.   

 

Actually it would be really nice to have a main drive (SSD) big enough to hold all of the virtual machine files, simply for the speed but that would get expensive fast.

You see this is the thing, I do like my laptop and can accept the compromises there because of the offered up portability.    Desktops don't need to be portable, they do need to be adaptable though.   As to the next machine, whenever that might happen, it could very well be another laptop.   The only current option for me in the desktop realm is the Mini, that doesn't currently cut the mustard.   They might be able to refactor the Mini into something more acceptable but for as long as the Mini has been around Apple has castrated it, to make sure it is the lowest performance machine they have.   I don't hold out a lot of hope for the next round of Minis so it is either hope for a XMac or consider another MBP and put up with the short comings.

Honestly I think you mis understand what I'm saying.   Sure the Mini will get more powerful every year, that is well understood.    The problem is that it is always the lowest performance Mac you can buy and thus is not a good long term purchase.   So even when Haswell arrives, the Mini will still be a relatively low performance machine relative to the other Haswell implementations   

 

As to hovering up jobs it isn't that simple as software demands better hardware every year.   Even something like Xcode from Apple, which is nothing more than a fact IDE, has become a resource hog.   Thus my focus on at least 4 cores, in any machine I update to.  Yes  a SSD and lots of RAM will help but in the end cores and the performance of those cores makes a big difference.

 

As to what is happening on my laptop it varies a bit from one day to the next but I find it very easy to end up with the machine running at a crawl.   Yes I know new hardware and more RAM will do wonders but in talking to others trying to do the same thing it isn't a given solution.   

May I join in on the chess match between you two?

 

Ivy Bridge is on the road to something special though Haswell will define the 22nm process. Broadwell will set up the road for the 15nm process and it's successor will refine that.

 

I have to wonder though if Intel and Apple will remain or if Apple will look for the next transition. 

 

If you need a lot of space and no wires it's hard to beat a NAS.

 

If you need SPEED and a lot of space it's hard to beat eSATA or TB to a RAID.  Internal drive installations are not more reliable than an external hot swap raid 10 array from a reputable manufacturer.  And it's only one TB cable from the iMac to the RAID.  Hardly a rats nest.

 

As far as transportable goes with a xMac transportability isn't a top level design goal for a desktop or you'd stop bitching about AIOs.  Taking my 2 TB 2 drive RAID 1 array somewhere is FAR easier than lugging around any usefully sized monitor.  If I wanted to be mobile I'd have gotten a 2.5" drive RAID 1 enclosure.

 

XCode is not typically a CPU resource hog in my experience.  Moving to SSD will VASTLY improve performance vs a better CPU.  It's much more IO bound than compute bound.

 

As a developer I can tell you that while I can get by with a 15" MBP I would be FAR better off with 27" iMac if I didn't expect to develop on the road.

 

For the same $2199 I paid for a MBP you get:

 

3.4Ghz i7 vs 2.4Ghz i7

1TB 7200 RPM vs 750GB 5400 RPM

6970M vs 6770M radeon 

 

Once I factor in the cost of a 24" display ($350 24" IPS from Dell) and a keyboard and mouse ($140 for MM and Apple wireless) I'm looking at around $500 additional cost.  Enough to pick up a 256GB Vertex 4 SSD from Newegg ($329), 2x8GB sticks of RAM ($130) and some kind of cheapo FW800 enclosure for my original 1TB drive. 

 

I would have 1 FEWER wire than in the MBP as a desktop configuration and massively more power than what you've been putting up with because you don't like AIOs.

 

Unless you get paid to code on the go it's freaking insane to choose the MBP over the iMac.  In terms of real world performance that upgraded iMac blows the doors off the MBP for the same amount of money.  ESPECIALLY given you run VMs.  My OSX partition on my MBP is a mere 350GB or so (I have a large bootcamp partition)...not THAT much smaller than the 256GB SSD and I have several VMs parked on it.  I easily have a 100GB of junk cluttering my drive I could move off but am too lazy.

 

Just the two extra RAM slots on the iMac makes it far more future proof than almost any other thing.  The GPU is the second thing you want to max out for future proofing.  Another win for the iMac over the MBP.

 

You need to FIRST move up to a desktop and THEN complain it's too damn limited because you have so hosed yourself choosing a MBP over the iMac (without needing to be mobile for development) if you don't currently have 16GB RAM and a decent SSD in your MBP because of cost.  Event then the iMac will be still faster and have a bigger desktop display.

 

At $800 (for the one with the GPU) the mini can have a faster replacement cycle and less need to BE a long term purchase.

I am still very happy with my Mini though by the time Haswell comes out, I will be buying a new one. I want to play Diablo III though I don't think IB will be good enough. I could get an iMac but I would need to make room for it with my TV.

Although I am in the market for a Mac Pro; and have been a little afraid of an AIO; with all the if's, but's, maybe's, and I dont know's floating around I honestly dont know what I will do till we hear something for sure. So, THANKS! I needed to hear that! 

Seems like Apple might be holding off until WWDC after all. Everybody else is shipping Ivy Bridge:

Samsung:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wOcrGOAWQ8

Asus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7IYxTi2KMA

Sony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqOdmsOCa40

Dell launched their Sandy Bridge Xeon E5 line too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euyPs8BKkxs

I really hope Apple does more with SSD drives. The Ivy Bridge IGP seems to perform fairly well (25fps Battlefield 3 medium quality) so I expect to see it used a lot in the low-end:

http://pcper.com/reviews/Mobile/Intel-Core-i7-3720QM-Ivy-Bridge-Mobile-Review-Monster-Kill/Intel-HD-4000-Synthetic-an

They can overhaul the entire laptop line and finally let us know the fate of the Pro. Throw in Resolution Independence and there should be enough to talk about to keep the hour-long keynote interesting.

Yeah, but what's the MO? What does Apple stand to gain by having Tim Cook be on stage, just after finishing the Mountain Lion preview and iOS 6 sneak peek, to say, "Oh, but there's one more thing: Available today, every model of Mac we sell has been updated."

I just don't get it. Split it up like they always have and they'll have two months of solid headlines.

WAIT A MINUET! I thought Ivy Bridge was supposed to run cooler with less power? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this is the case maybe I should get the Sandy Bridge machine that is out now if I decide to purchase the iMac? Since there already is sometimes a heat issue when the machine is pushed. what will happen with this hot box in there!?

WWDC is a high media exposure event, as was Macworld. There would always be hardware introductions at these, years ago. It changed when Apple got big enough that they didn't need to plan products around these events but the exposure is still there. It's worthwhile for an entirely revamped line to talk about why the changes are in place and remember, these are the first modified Mac models to be introduced with Cook as CEO.

Resolution Independence actually applies more to the Macbook and iMac line than any other product so I think it makes sense to launch them together.

Hmmm, it seems they used a different design to dissipate heat and haven't given a reply as to why they did this. It does draw less power under load but the temperatures are higher:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/16/

It seems the problem is voltage though so it mainly applies to over-clockers and Ivy Bridge can even be over-clocked while lowering the voltage:

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/ivy-bridge-is-a-hot-overclocker/028281

It shouldn't be any worse than Sandy Bridge at least, in the right setup. Intel hasn't said why they used this design and it might only have been used in the testing samples:

http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures

I wouldn't have expected this to be the case for the production run when they are shipping in ultra-books.

You know I've actually been thinking along that line. In fact just last week I was on the web researching options. That is an option but you know what frustrates me there is the total lack of backward compatibility with the new TB drives. As far as I know there is not a single TB capable raid enclosure with an alternative backwards compatible interface. So at this time it doesn't make sense to invest in a TB drive until I get new hardware. At this point I wouldn't care if the TB drive had an USB port, just as long as I knew I could move the RAID forward to a new computer sometime this year. That all depends upon how you use it and how screwed up Apple has XCode at the time. I know that an XCode revision sometime last year brought my machine to its knees. They fixed that thankfully.

As to being CPU bound vs I/O bound I actually believe it can have both issues depending upon what you are doing. I don't doubt that one bit. Between developer tools and documentation I can use up the real estate on both my internal and external monitors. Sometimes using an iPad as a documentation resource is advantageous also. I don't doubt one bit that the iMac is a good value especially for a developer. The problem is I personally put a lot of value on the feasablility of easy maintenance, independent monitors and support for internal drives in desk tops. Well if the iMac isn't an option your next choice is the Mini in the desktop realm. If you compare the Mini (from 2008) to then current MBP the MBP was a much better option. Things have changed a bit as the new Mini is a better machine than the 2008 model in that you can either go quad core or get a fair GPU and dual core. Ivy Bridge has the potential to make the Mini an even better option but I still fear that Apple will castrate it performance wise. frankly I'm expecting Apple to double SSD size this year and I'm hoping that they will become default on most models in the near future. Actually the descrete GPU in the MBP is why I went that way. It has been a smart move as more and more of the system gets GPU acceleration. So I would have to say the GPUs in the MBPs do help extend the machines life.
At this point a 2008 MBP is looking long in the tooth. Frankly I'm trying to force myself to keep the current hardware for another year. Interestingly I've had this MBP Longer than any other computer I've owned except for perhaps my old Mac Plus. That actually says something positive about the machine in general.

As to the iMac, I might be convinced if it goes through a decent overhaul that addresses my more pressing concerns. However the fact that Apple has progressively made the machine worst over the years is not encouraging. Worst in the sense of what I find objectionable about the machine. .