Originally Posted by polymnia
Yes, I'm sure that your investment in two storage devices and manually splitting the OS & Apps from the data files is a MUCH better engineering effort than Apple has come up with. I'm so glad you were able to take the time out of your busy day of designing & engineering storage architecture to comment on this item.
I've always suspected I could do a better job than Apple if I would just pop down to Micro Center & buy a couple ESATA enclosures with some 7200RPM drives. You have inspired me to action! Thank You!!!
That's an Operating System specific update. BFD. The Hardware is just a hybrid drive albeit now a full size 128GB SSD [And I'm sure a low to mid-entry OEM performer] on top of a 1TB or 3TB drive. I'm all for it, until the SSD starts failing and you're DOA with unlike the boring Disk based drives that warn you ahead of time with sector errors and noise.
I'm sure a 3rd party app monitoring drive performance will come out for $50 to jack up the consumer on that one. Or Apple could have it built-in, who knows.
Apple is just making it easy to have all user accounts symlinked to their traditional disc based drive. Not rocket science.
The fact you're stuck with a 5400 RPM disc drive [no fusion unless BTO] for $1499 means a thinner design to house a newer CPU/GPU minus DVD drive and lower cost to them for the Panel implementation [Yes the new tech is less expensive for Apple and as a stock holder that's good news] but I'm not seeing the WOW under the hood.
All the WOW under the Hood is Extra which isn't much unless you hit the 27 in top end BTO.
Beautiful exterior, though she's getting anorexic but the guts aren't blowing me away.
I'd rather wait for the Mac Pro if and when Intel can manage Xeons for their current and soon-to-be 1 year off Ivy Bridge model.
3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) with 6MB L3 cache
Configurable to 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz).
By the time one is configured for this we're at the Mac Pro pricing with not multi-GPGPU solution, half the RAM, less Power in the system, and zero expansion for storage other than an external T-Bolt RAID option that is effin' expensive [baseline an additional $1150+].
Call me critical, but besides the evolving sexy look I'm not blown away with the guts, especially when it comes to heavy computing.
If Apple doesn't exceed the GPGPU of the iMac for the Mac Pro they might as well cancel the line. After all, these are Mobile GPGPUs were discussing. Since Apple presently has a hard-on for Nvidia [and we know how that changes] this has to be the baseline for the Mac Pro:
Anything less is an insult.
The same company that doesn't even advertise for OpenCL and Apple is using them. That is pathetic. Nvidia's OpenCL stack is now behind Intel's for completeness. Pathetic.
Then again, a year from now Apple most likely will jump back to AMD on their GPGPUs and cripple them by using the low end prior year option calling for people to demand they return to Nvidia.
Show us the Mac Pro that can lead a Workstation market or get out of it completely.