or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Cook: US-built Mac will be refreshed version of existing product
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cook: US-built Mac will be refreshed version of existing product - Page 5

post #161 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So the Mac Mini is 'stale', is that it? lol.gif

 

The xMac crowd's argument can be summed up thus: "We want something new from Apple. Now give us the same computer everyone else has been selling for the last thirty years!"

I wouldn't consider myself part of the xMac crowd, but if you've kept up with Wizard's prior more detailed descriptions, he hasn't really described that at all. I think the topic has come up so many times all of us glance over details in the discussion. Everyone else ships notebooks. If I cut a description of the macbook pro down to a parts list as you and Lemon have done here, it would sound the same way, more of the same.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

 

I can do just as well with Pixelmator...or for comic art?  Even better with Manga Studio.  Between those two, pretty much covered with an iMac.  For far, far cheaper than my original 'Power Mac' and Adobe suite purchase.

 

It pleases me greatly that you mentioned Manga Studio. I always thought that was such a cool program. Adobe is weird. They price things like photoshop based on an extreme range of professional markets, yet the tools that are added and refined do not always reflect the price. Legacy bugs hold out release after release. It's ridiculous. They finally improved upon some of the brushes with CS6. Prior to that the sampling had been absolute ass for years. The way it sampled gave me a lot of kinds in long brush strokes when drawing much of the time, yet I couldn't replicate that in other drawing programs or on paper.  The other annoyance was the way pressure sensitivity was handled. It's still ridiculously limited when it comes to the 32 bit toolset. You can't just retouch things out of hdr panos the same way as you would with a fixed point image. This makes cleanup much more tedious (you've mentioned lightwave, obviously you know what spherical hdris are used for).

post #162 of 214
I think the xMac crowd such as wizard just want a good discrete graphics card and not have to buy an all-in-one machine.
post #163 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Hard if hearing are we. What is significantly different about the Mini or the Mac Pro especially over. He last few years.
A refresh is not a new product nor is it an attempt to redefine the platforms.
So, Ford makes more money selling trucks, that doesn't mean they should ignore every other platform. The fact is Apples hardware, in part because of OS/X, is the only upbeat news in a market that is down hard.

So Apple has to reinvent the wheel in every release? Frak, the next Mac I buy better have a frigging robot with lasers as an attachment. That'll be better than a cable to keep it secure.

Who said Apple was ignoring the Mac? OS X is updated every year and the macs just for refreshed!
post #164 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I think the xMac crowd such as wizard just want a good discrete graphics card and not have to buy an all-in-one machine.

That is part of it though I believe the need for a discrete GPU card will go away soon. In fact at some point an integrated GPU with unified memory access will be an excellent performer once software catches up. It will be interesting to see if Apple will have Mac OS/X updated to support unified memory access this year.

The other parts of the equation are expandability and serviceability. The ability to get to the disk or solid stte memory module is a huge factor and should not involve a shop full of tools. Expandability includes RAM, drive bays and a slot or two. None of these features should take more than a few seconds to exploit. In other words if I need to add a drive the cover pops off and everything is laid out plainly for quick access. The same thing goes for RAM.

Oh and possibly most important don't squander the potential for performance to some ill advised marketing strategy. The Mini is a nice machine and all but its thermal limitations simply means that you can never realize top end performance in the box.
post #165 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

So Apple has to reinvent the wheel in every release?
Did anybody say that? The problem is when you look at the Mini or the Mac Pro there is nothing innovative in these boxes any more. The Pro now has gone for years with zip and the Mini only gets an update to what ever is the low performance solution for this round of processors.
Quote:
Frak, the next Mac I buy better have a frigging robot with lasers as an attachment. That'll be better than a cable to keep it secure.
At least it will be more secure than the owner.
Quote:
Who said Apple was ignoring the Mac?
It is pretty obvious that the desktop line has been ignored.
Quote:
OS X is updated every year and the macs just for refreshed!
So? I mean really OS / X supports the laptops too. I'd just like to see the same innovation that has made the AIRs a great success be put into the Mini or for that matter an XMac.
post #166 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is part of it though I believe the need for a discrete GPU card will go away soon. In fact at some point an integrated GPU with unified memory access will be an excellent performer once software catches up. It will be interesting to see if Apple will have Mac OS/X updated to support unified memory access this year.

So you think Apple will not use a discrete card in any machine? As long as nVidia and AMD keep making high end cards, I hope Apple puts them in at least one machine. Maybe the need for so-called "low end" cards will go away though I hope high end cards stick around.
post #167 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


So you think Apple will not use a discrete card in any machine? As long as nVidia and AMD keep making high end cards, I hope Apple puts them in at least one machine. Maybe the need for so-called "low end" cards will go away though I hope high end cards stick around.


The low end is typically the first to lose such things, as we've already seen in smaller notebooks and the mini. At the same time Apple has gone for higher end cards in the last few imac generations than they did prior to that. In terms of high end cards in general, development costs are basically subsidized by the low end cards.

post #168 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

[...] Oh and possibly most important don't squander the potential for performance to some ill advised marketing strategy. The Mini is a nice machine and all but its thermal limitations simply means that you can never realize top end performance in the box.

 

I'm looking at my mini right now, and wondering what impact it would have on my life if it were an inch higher or a couple inches bigger across. The answer is: none.

 

Then I thought about whether its appearance was an influence on my purchasing decision. Again, nope. I bought the old style too, and the decision was based on having something smaller and less expensive than the tower for less demanding tasks. It could have been the size of a toaster and I still would have bought it.

 

Obviously there are benefits to smaller size -- less material, lighter shipping demands, easier placement -- BUT, as you say, when the push to make it smaller starts interfering with usefulness, one has to question the designer's priorities.

post #169 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

[...] It is pretty obvious that the desktop line has been ignored.

 

I don't agree with you there. They thoroughly user-proofed the iMac just six month ago. lol.gif

 

As much as I hate the move to gluing things together to save a few pointless millimetres, you gotta give Apple credit for the display and new drive technology in the last revision. Those developments were just overshadowed by the fact that some models continue to use ridiculously slow drives that your corner computer store doesn't even carry anymore that are all but impossible for the user to replace.

post #170 of 214
That isn't what I was saying, at least not what I was trying to say. 😜😜

You have to understand that Dave was thinking about himself in these posts. To put it another way, we are not far away from the point where integrated GPUs, even Intels, will be good enough for Dave. I'm not sure if Haswell is the point where this becomes true or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

So you think Apple will not use a discrete card in any machine? As long as nVidia and AMD keep making high end cards, I hope Apple puts them in at least one machine.
I suspect that this will not be an issue for you for some time. What is good enough for me today will probably be rather pathetic looking on a machine with a very high resolution display.
Quote:
Maybe the need for so-called "low end" cards will go away though I hope high end cards stick around.

The writing is on the wall. Both AMD and NVidia saw this coming thus the shift to APUs. If one waits for the next manufacturing node to hit manufactures will be able to double the size of the Integrated GPU. So if Haswell doesn't do it we probably only need to wait a year or two. I use double loosely here because in many cases the integrated GPU is already larger than anything else in the chip and in some cases everything else. The i86 complex in these SoC will soon become nothing more than another functional block in support of the GPU.
post #171 of 214
I actually like the Mini in some sense, if you think of it as a small compute module that doesn't burn lots of watts. Some seem to think that my desire for an XMac means I hate the Mini. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I'm looking at my mini right now, and wondering what impact it would have on my life if it were an inch higher or a couple inches bigger across. The answer is: none.
I'm actually seeing instrumentation makers building the Mini into machines. These guys would likely be frustrated by a change in the Minis size. Me, as long as it sits nicely on a book shelf I wouldn't complain.
Quote:
Then I thought about whether its appearance was an influence on my purchasing decision. Again, nope. I bought the old style too, and the decision was based on having something smaller and less expensive than the tower for less demanding tasks. It could have been the size of a toaster and I still would have bought it.
What is frustrating is the huge gulf between the Mini and the Mac Pro. It is almost a $2000 difference and for many the Mac Pro simply isn't the right machine.
Quote:
Obviously there are benefits to smaller size -- less material, lighter shipping demands, easier placement -- BUT, as you say, when the push to make it smaller starts interfering with usefulness, one has to question the designer's priorities.

Apple probably was looking long term when the last spin was done to the Mini. That is they had the expectation that 5 years down the road the Mini would be a very powerful machine. Each generation of parts allows Apple to clean up the design a little bit more. That is great for the Mini as it has been vastly improved over the last few years. However you still can't put a top performing chip in the machine simply due to the power limitation. I don't see Intel giving up on desktop processors in the 45 to 85 watt range anytime soon so the Mini eliminates a whole class of performance potential. This is one of the reasons that the hope for an XMac doesn't die with me, we mis out on a whole range of performance between the Mini and the Mac Pro.
post #172 of 214
Quote:
The problem is when you look at the Mini or the Mac Pro there is nothing innovative in these boxes any more. 

 

And there never was. Aside from early adoption of USB, Apple's FW, and now USB2, Thunderbolt, etc. Apple's hardware innovations were mostly about what to leave out, not about what to have that's different than the competition. There was a time in distant past, when there was such a thing as a CPU war, but that was lost a long time ago when it was clear that the three partners in the PPC CPU development had fundamentally different design goals.

 

For all intents and purposes, Apple's hardware was for a long time a commodity PC, albeit with better workmanship, cleaner design, better component quality than low-end PC offerings, and less clutter. That's exactly what they were, and that's exactly what they are now.

 

Apple's innovation was always in the software. Apple can sell commodity hardware at a premium price because of industrial design and superior software. That's pretty much true for all the devices Apple sells, and that's why all the people are wrong who say Apple isn't innovating.

 

Except for these once-a-decade events when a new class of devices is introduced (personal computer, portable music player, touch-screen mobile computing devices), all Apple innovation is and has been about software. The iPhone is an iPod-Touch with built-in mobile radio, but it's essentially the same basic pocket computer. Just like it once was an option to get laptops with or without WiFi card, or laptops with or without optical drive. The iPad is a big iPod touch, or a big iPhone (depending if it has the mobile radio in it or not).

 

So Apple sells three device classes: personal computers in a variety of form factors, "traditional" portable music players, touch-screen mobile computers. Traditional portable music players will slowly go away or become a niche product, because the touch-screen mobile computers can do it better.

 

So Apple really, in all of its corporate history, only had three major hardware classes (plus their accessories, such as printers, AppleTV, etc.). The rest is software. And all the pundits who scream how Apple stopped innovating are the ones who swallowed Apple's marketing lines hook-line-and-sinker, because these people actually believe that the iPod touch, the iPhone, and the iPad are different products, when in fact they are just different form factors of the same product. 

 

Apple's genius is in marketing (e.g. disrupting the stranglehold carriers had on handset manufacturers), and in software innovation.

And of course, there are diminishing returns: the innovation from CLI computing to GUI computing was huge, but ever since, it has been refining that concept; still, the difference between the original Mac and e.g. OS X 10.8 is big.

Same with touch screen devices and their OS. The big innovation was bringing them to market, now it's evolution.

 

To expect that Apple "revolutionizes" a new market every few years is bogus. Apple didn't do it in the past, and they won't do it in the future. They may well break open new markets once every decade or so, and that's still more than anyone else does. And in the mean time, they keep innovating in evolutionary steps, and just like evolution: mostly to the better, but sometimes to the worse.

 

I'm sure once the Ives' designed GUI shows up, as is rumored, it will get a lot of protesting and whining from the same people who now constantly clamor for novelty. I'll withhold judgement, because it could be better than Snow Leopard, or worse than Lion. Or it could be tolerable like Mountain Lion (which with a few third party additions like Total Spaces) is actually quite nice, even the Server version makes progress again in the right direction after the total Lion-Server disaster....


Edited by rcfa - 5/26/13 at 5:32pm
post #173 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
And there never was.


Oh, come off it.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #174 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
And there never was.


Oh, come off it.

 

No, no need to. Apple had good industrial design, and there's some innovation there, e.g. moving the keyboards on laptops to the back, such as to create a wrist rest, and things like that. That continues, as the iteration to newer versions of laptops and iMacs shows. But in terms of computing, it's not like Apple ever had this "oh my god!" hardware if you disregard the nice, clean case, and the better workmanship. Apple did, and I mentioned that, things like FireWire and now Thunderbolt, adopted USB before most others, was the first to toss floppies and now optical drives. And again, I mentioned that. But that's not what people talk about. They'd consider it innovation if it would have 8x the frame rates in Doom than any other offering, or who knows what they expect other than what Apple is doing, because they always look at the hardware.

Apple's hardware is nicely designed, reliable, but mostly boring from a purely hardware point of view. How clear that fact is, is shown by the reality that one can run Windows on a Mac, or turn a regular PC into a Hackintosh. Real innovation on the hardware side would cause massive incompatibilities. But who cares?

 

The innovation was in the software, and that's what counts.

post #175 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
…it's not like Apple ever had this "oh my god!" hardware if you disregard the nice, clean case, and the better workmanship.

 

Come. Off. It.


Apple's hardware is nicely designed, reliable, but mostly boring from a purely hardware point of view.

 

No, it's not! My stars.


Real innovation…


Hackintoshing is "innovation"? Not in any sane plane of existence.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #176 of 214
Quote:

Real innovation…


Hackintoshing is "innovation"? Not in any sane plane of existence.

 

Would you stop misquoting me? I cited Hackintoshs as an example why Apple hardware is NOT innovative in a fundamental way, because if it were, the OS wouldn't be able to run on a run-off-the-mill PC.

 

And you have yet to cite one example in which Apple *hardware* was fundamentally innovative, aside from the things that I mentioned that I consider refinements of industry standard hardware.

Apple has innovated tons of things, but it was always on the software side. GUIs: are software, WYSIWYG: is software, ColorSync, Typography, etc. etc.: software. 

 

Heck, even tablet computing has been around for a long time before Apple, and again it was their software that was the really innovative aspect. The hardware is good, the design is great, but all that are evolutionary changes from what the industry has been doing.

post #177 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
…Apple hardware is NOT innovative in a fundamental way, because if it were, the OS wouldn't be able to run on a run-off-the-mill PC.

 

That's just so completely wrong.


And you have yet to cite one example in which Apple *hardware* was fundamentally innovative, aside from the things that I mentioned that I consider refinements of industry standard hardware.

 

There's that phrase, "I consider", where you get to magically dismiss anything I might bring up under your own super secret criteria.


Apple has innovated tons of things, but it was always on the software side.

 

Always, huh. Take a gander at any hardware they've ever made, maybe.

 

Stop blinding yourself to whatever you've decided isn't the case.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #178 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
…Apple hardware is NOT innovative in a fundamental way, because if it were, the OS wouldn't be able to run on a run-off-the-mill PC.

 

That's just so completely wrong.

 

And you still haven't cited an example. It seem's you're chicken about that, because if you would bring an example, one could have a real discussion as to why that does or doesn't qualify for fundamental innovation; looks like you're afraid to have that discussion.

Point being, if there had been such a fundamental innovation, it would be just as obvious as saying: "Desktop publishing", GUI, etc. which did shake things up and changed entire industries.

post #179 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
And you still haven't cited an example. It seem's you're chicken about that…

 

Actually read my post, please.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #180 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
And you still haven't cited an example. It seem's you're chicken about that…

 

Actually read my post, please.

 

I did, let me quote:

 

Quote:
That's just so completely wrong. There's that phrase, "I consider", where you get to magically dismiss anything I might bring up under your own super secret criteria. Always, huh. Take a gander at any hardware they've ever made, maybe. Stop blinding yourself to whatever you've decided isn't the case.

 

Hardly a list of any innovation, much less of fundamental innovations, as if "any hardware they've ever made" were fundamentally innovative.

 

I think you don't understand what "fundamentally innovative" means. "Fundamentally innovative" are things that are game changers. The new iMac is hardly a "game changer" compared to the old iMac, for example. It's an evolutionary improvement, with an industry standard PC at the core of its computing engine, with evolutionary changes in packaging, industrial design, and manufacturing. The world of computing is not upended by this *device*, or for that matter any Mac.

Just like a Mercedes may be better than a Ford, a new Mercedes isn't a "game changer" in the automotive industry. The new Tesla may qualify; but Apple's computers are Mercedes to the PC world's Fords, but they are no Teslas.

 

Here what might be a Tesla: a 128-core 64-bit ARM base Mac that despite being 10-times the speed of a typical high-end PC uses only half as much power.

Or a machine with 64TB of DRAM-speed carbon-nanotube storage with an architecture that makes no differentiation between "internal" and "external" memory.

Or a Mac with a quantum-computing module, or a holographic parallel laser light computing engine, or ...

 

Waiting for intel's next chip generation and then updating the machines with what can be done with the same chips that everyone else uses is not game changing, it's evolutionary.

 

You may note that Apple doesn't use other people's software to drive its products, because in software they can innovate. Maybe given Apple's cash piles and power, they may actually start to truly innovate at a hardware level. Maybe they will buy up Nantero and dump a couple of billions into research there, then own the key patents and leave everyone in the dust, maybe they are working on some super-secret technology that will leapfrog intel and the rest of the industry by several generations of innovation... 

...but so far, this hasn't happened, not in hardware. It did happen, in software, multiple times.

 

It's OK to be an Apple fan, but that would require to properly assess the company's strengths and weaknesses.

post #181 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
Hardly a list of any innovation…

 

It's blindingly obvious that you didn't even bother reading it. That's funnier than it is sad, luckily, but it's embarrassing for you either way.


"Fundamentally innovative" are things that are game changers. 

 

Ah, so like moving the keyboard back in the body and giving people a palm rest. How about the click-wheel on the iPod? And claiming the iPhone and iPad were neither fundamentally innovative nor game changers is laughable at best. Maybe putting the entire computer behind the screen? What about a cooling system on a workstation computer that allows it to operate completely silent at idle and under 50db under load? Oh! How about a professional laptop under three quarters of an inch think? Maybe it was being able to make the world's first 17" laptop barely over an inch. Pushing wireless standards across their entire computer lineup before anyone else to promote the vastly accelerated adoption of 802.11? How about all the engineering that goes into every single revision of every computer they make to keep it not only up to their already elevated standards, but to make them stand out unquestionably as being the best in each of their respective classes?

 

So I say again: Come off it. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, either because you're willfully ignoring history or refusing to learn about it before claiming "desires". 

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #182 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
Hardly a list of any innovation…

 

It's blindingly obvious that you didn't even bother reading it. That's funnier than it is sad, luckily, but it's embarrassing for you either way.

 

Embarrassing for you is, that you keep making statements without supplying what you pretend to have supplied.

You were probably still wetting your diapers when I was already doing my thesis work on a NeXT cube...

...so don't tell me about knowing what's disruptive and what isn't, or what the history of the platform is or not.

 

The NeXT system was disruptive, it was so disruptive that Apple is still largely sailing on the fundamentals laid down back then, it was so disruptive that the majority of the people think "the internet" is the WWW that was invented on the cube. I still have the original web browser somewhere...

 

And, just because you act like a moderator around here doesn't make your posts less troll-like.

 

"Fundamentally innovative" are things that are game changers. 

 

Ah, so like moving the keyboard back in the body and giving people a palm rest. How about the click-wheel on the iPod? And claiming the iPhone and iPad were neither fundamentally innovative nor game changers is laughable at best. Maybe putting the entire computer behind the screen? What about a cooling system on a workstation computer that allows it to operate completely silent at idle and under 50db under load? Oh! How about a professional laptop under three quarters of an inch think? Maybe it was being able to make the world's first 17" laptop barely over an inch. Pushing wireless standards across their entire computer lineup before anyone else to promote the vastly accelerated adoption of 802.11? How about all the engineering that goes into every single revision of every computer they make to keep it not only up to their already elevated standards, but to make them stand out unquestionably as being the best in each of their respective classes?

 

So I say again: Come off it. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, either because you're willfully ignoring history or refusing to learn about it before claiming "desires". 

 

I have no desires. I look at things fairly objectively, unlike you, who dismiss anything that doesn't wreak of fan-boy-stench. Funny thing is, I've been with the platform longer than just about anyone except for a few people inside NeXT, started working with what's the basis of OS X and iOS when it was called NeXTSTEP 0.8; went to dev camp, so I could buy one of these machines because they weren't even available to the general public at that time.

Heck, have even the full sets of printed documentation of it in the bookshelf starting at 0.8 going all the way up. So I don't need some kids like you teach me about the history of it all, I lived actually through it, and didn't read about it second hand on some fan sites.

 

What you don't get is that industrial design and computing are two different things. E.g. moving the keyboard didn't change computing, it changes ergonomics, packaging, look and feel. That's not computing, that's ID.

 

Here are some computing changes:

FPUs, DMA, protected memory, real multi-tasking, multi-processing, multi-user, sandboxing, vector processing, virtual memory, RAID, modern file systems (e.g. ZFS), etc. and some of these are pure software innovations. 

Many of these things Mac OS X has, and most of these were already there in NeXTSTEP/Mach-BSD before Apple took over, and none of them are NeXT/Apple inventions, either, although NeXT can take credit of bringing many of them first to personal computing. e.g. Vector processing was achieved with a DSP chip on the NeXT, later mainstreamed by instruction set additions in the PPC and x86 chips, and further pushed with GPU based processing, which (pendulum swings back) is again starting to be integrated into the main CPU as time marches on. So when Apple boasts about GCD, it's an evolutionary change, with the true novelty being OpenCL, which is a software technology. That doesn't mean GCD is useless or not innovative, but it's evolutionary not revolutionary, and it's software.

 

It's the software that makes the difference. Apple knows it, I know it, you pretend not to know it.

post #183 of 214
Blindingly obvious someone didn't write their thesis on the topic of personhood.
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
post #184 of 214
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

What you don't get is that industrial design and computing are two different things. E.g. moving the keyboard didn't change computing, it changes ergonomics, packaging, look and feel. That's not computing, that's ID.

 

Like effing clockwork. 1oyvey.gif


There's that phrase, "I consider", where you get to magically dismiss anything I might bring up under your own super secret criteria.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #185 of 214

When the iPad came out I was excited about it. I played with one and that enthusiasm faded. I still liked it but the interface wasn't impressive enough for me to buy one. Since I'm not wealthy enough to just plop down money for the next expensive toy to come out I must consider the best bang for my buck.

 

The latest versions of OSX aren't impressive to me. They definitely are better than the Windows 7&8 OSs but not more impressive than Open SUSE or Ubuntu. I'm still using 10.5.8 because low and behold it just works great. I'm getting to the point where I must upgrade or my internet browsing will be limited. It's no fault of the machine that Chrome, Safari, and to some degree Firefox won't function optimally because certain things aren't being updated for my version. My hardware isn't compatible with anything above 10.6. So I'm considering getting a new machine.

 

It is because of my need to update the Mac Book that I've looked at the other OSs. This look has shown me that I don't need OSX. I like it but don't need it. I am a person that Apple will lose if their prices and hardware aren't competitive. It was a bit daunting to consider switching away from XP because it was all I knew. Once I made the switch life got better. Now that I know all that is entailed in switching from one OS to another, moving to Linux isn't daunting at all, especially since professional movie editing software is now available on Linux, and it's free!

 

I agree that Apple's real forte is in software. It is their software that draws people to the platform. It was my frustration with Windows that got me to switch. Linux software is the most innovative anywhere. It isn't always polished and pretty but it is definitely cutting edge. Not all software innovation comes from Apple. There are thousands of Linux developers out there doing great things.

 

Ubuntu and others are just as intuitive and easy to use as OSX once everything is set up. I find Ubuntu quicker than OSX in many tasks.

 

When I go to buy my next machine I intend to see what Apple has to offer. If I can get better for less from HP or another company they will get my business. Apple is in the running but their slowness to incorporate the newest chips really lessens the chances that they will earn my money.

post #186 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

...

The NeXT system was disruptive, it was so disruptive that Apple is still largely sailing on the fundamentals laid down back then, it was so disruptive that the majority of the people think "the internet" is the WWW that was invented on the cube. I still have the original web browser somewhere...

Next was so disruptive that it failed to sell and the Next box was abandoned.

Why is it expected for only Apple to reinvent everything. What are these other companies doing? Absofrikking nothing.
post #187 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

[...] Apple is in the running but their slowness to incorporate the newest chips really lessens the chances that they will earn my money.

 

Your expressions of personal preference are perfectly valid. Your sensitivity to price is reasonable. I don't understand the comment above, though. Apple dragged their feet painfully with USB3, but I can't think of another case in which they've been slow to adopt "the newest chips." Can you describe what you're referring to?

post #188 of 214
Your comments are very interesting to say the least. I have some counterpoints that I hope you will consider before buying new hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

When the iPad came out I was excited about it. I played with one and that enthusiasm faded. I still liked it but the interface wasn't impressive enough for me to buy one. Since I'm not wealthy enough to just plop down money for the next expensive toy to come out I must consider the best bang for my buck.
This is interesting because I find the iPad to be one of the most innovative and useful devices out there right now. It takes care of a good portion of my portable needs better than a laptop. And it just gets better. More importantly it has caused me to extend the life of my laptop beyond what I might have in the past.
Quote:
The latest versions of OSX aren't impressive to me. They definitely are better than the Windows 7&8 OSs but not more impressive than Open SUSE or Ubuntu.
The trouble with Linux is that it looks good on the surface, lots of flash and twinkle but it just isn't that usable in user space. I came to the Mac in 2008 and had years of Linux experience prior to that so I have a good feel for the OS, thus I can say OS/X is a far better user experience. I've kept up to date too running Linux on a VM and it will leaves a lot to be desired and takes a lot of user involvement to keep running.
Quote:
I'm still using 10.5.8 because low and behold it just works great. I'm getting to the point where I must upgrade or my internet browsing will be limited. It's no fault of the machine that Chrome, Safari, and to some degree Firefox won't function optimally because certain things aren't being updated for my version. My hardware isn't compatible with anything above 10.6. So I'm considering getting a new machine.
The ugly part of Linux is the need to update your entire installation every six months or so. The problem is this, if you want the latest tech you end up needing new libs and such and often end up with issues with compatibility. In a nut shell unless you are willing to stick with a distro with long term support you end up with multiple cycles of updates of OS re installations.
Quote:
It is because of my need to update the Mac Book that I've looked at the other OSs. This look has shown me that I don't need OSX. I like it but don't need it.
To look at this in a finer way nobody needs a computer.
Quote:
I am a person that Apple will lose if their prices and hardware aren't competitive. It was a bit daunting to consider switching away from XP because it was all I knew. Once I made the switch life got better. Now that I know all that is entailed in switching from one OS to another, moving to Linux isn't daunting at all, especially since professional movie editing software is now available on Linux, and it's free!
Apples laptops are not bad values at all. It is the desktop line up that sucks monkey balls.

Beyond all of that you really should consider the modern concept of a Virtual Machine (VM). Just make sure you have an HD that is large enough at the time of purchase to support a couple of VM images beyond you Mac Install. Given that you buy a Mac with enough RAM to support the VMs you won't even notice a performance hit. Technically there might be some performance regressions but it is a given that the machine will be much faster than your old hardware. I'm actually puzzled by the fact that more people don't take advantage of VMs. Lets face it there will always be apps on other platforms that are just better for a certain use, there is no getting around that, but there is no reason today to buy hardware to specifically support those operating systems. In a nut shell the operating systems just become another app running in a window in Mac OS/X.
Quote:
I agree that Apple's real forte is in software. It is their software that draws people to the platform. It was my frustration with Windows that got me to switch. Linux software is the most innovative anywhere. It isn't always polished and pretty but it is definitely cutting edge. Not all software innovation comes from Apple. There are thousands of Linux developers out there doing great things.
Not really! Think about this some of those innovative Linux developers also develop for Mac OS/X. If you tend to focus on specific niches I'm certain that you will find examples where developers are more innovative on either platform. However as a blanket statement your point here isn't valid.

As a side note don't forget that under the hood Mac OS/X is UNIX. As such your selection of UNIX/LINUX type software is only a repository away. HomeBrew is one example of a great repository of free software for the Mac.
Quote:
Ubuntu and others are just as intuitive and easy to use as OSX once everything is set up. I find Ubuntu quicker than OSX in many tasks.
You will spend countless hours though trying to keep a Linux install working. I've done multiple OS updates on my Mac now and hardly ever have compatibility issues with existing apps. No need to wipe the disk or rummaging through apps to find what is broken. Just try installing the latest distro release on top of an existing Linux install and see what happens. Since 2008 I've installed every Apple OS update without the need to start over, you can't do that with Linux.

Frankly with Linux if you do want the latest in innovation you have to be willing to install the operating system fresh with each release you are interested in. I've yet to see a Linux distro where this isn't the case.
Quote:
When I go to buy my next machine I intend to see what Apple has to offer. If I can get better for less from HP or another company they will get my business. Apple is in the running but their slowness to incorporate the newest chips really lessens the chances that they will earn my money.
I really don't understand this concept about the chips. Apples laptops are very advanced in their price range. The technology incorporated is generally bleeding edge. Some features such as their batteries are worth any additional expense you may pay. You often end up paying for that bottom of the barrel hardware through frequent battery replacements. You can ignore the battery issue but then you really have to consider the rest of the hardware, you don't really see sound competition for the Mac Book AIRs for example.

There are lots of good reasons to look at other hardware and operating systems so don't get me wrong there as I still have operational Linux systems at home. But when it comes to a machine that I as a user will interact with often, that is as a personal PC, it is hard to beat Mac OS/X. It is just more reliable and trouble free. So I'm not trying to dissuade you from Linux, just that this is not a logical OR problem. You can benefit from Linux as you needed it right on your new Mac.

By the way your comments about chips is important also as Apple does use the more advanced Intel CPUs with good support for VMs. It does make a difference as some processors have only marginal support for VMs and performance will suffer. Remember though that performance is relative as you new Mac is likely to be several times faster than what. You have now. It is a factor in bottom end hardware from other manufactures selling discounted laptops.
post #189 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yeah. You can't refute anything I said and you can't establish any credibility for your ridiculous assertions that you know how to build computers better than Apple, so you resort to simple name calling.

Please go away and come back only if you come up with something intelligent to say.

 

I have trouble making my exchanges with you beneficial to anyone, but I let my frustration get the better of me in my response to you. My remarks were vulgar and had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I apologize to you and anyone else reading the group for that.

 

My exasperation doesn't excuse my response. In the future I'll just bow out rather than hurling insults.

post #190 of 214

Wizard69 I understand many of your points. Virtual machines are a good idea on a fast computer.

 

I started off wanting a Mini. Apple took so long to update it that I gave up and bought a Mac Book. I plug it into an external monitor. For a while I used a dual screen mode. Eventually I just enjoyed one larger new screen.

 

As far as the iPads. I don't really need to be mobile with my computer thus having a touch interface on the go wasn't very compelling. My next machine will probably be a laptop because I will be living on the road in an RV in a year or so. It will be easier to hide it when I'm away from the vehicle or I can take it with me.

 

Open SUSE 12.3 has now begun an ongoing update cycle. It will update forever. Ubuntu has started that too.

 

My usage of computers is mostly for entertainment but I also make movies and presentations. I really want a computer with better graphics than the all-in-one graphics from Intel. My old computer with them just stinks at rendering images quickly. I won't ever be making feature films but putting together video advertisements for clients is more fun when I don't have to sit around waiting for frames to catch up with what I want to do next as I scroll through a video.

 

In the past, and even now, Apple has been stingy with the discrete graphics chips. HP and others aren't so stingy at the same and even lower price points. Windows is irrelevant to me. I keep Vista around for Netflix just in case my Mac Book breaks. That is it. There is a Silverlight installation for Ubuntu that works but I haven't installed it.  Eventually I will.

 

I don't want to buy a Mac Pro or an iMac, especially since Apple is putting 5400 rpm drives into iMacs. If I weren't planning to be in an RV all of the time I would really prefer a tower of some type that was much more capable than a Mini. The Mini's hardware is really much more expensive than the competition's. If you argue that the software of OSX has more standard features than Windows then it is a valid argument. When compared to Linux it isn't. If one can forgo iTunes then there really isn't a need to have Windows or OSX. Libre Office is catching up to Office. If one doesn't need the fancy features then Libre Office is enough. I'm in that boat.

 

Apple hardware needs to grab me and say; "This is the best thing for your needs at the best price." So do HP and the others.

post #191 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

...I will be living on the road in an RV in a year or so. It will be easier to hide it when I'm away from the vehicle or I can take it with me.

Hence your username?
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
Android seems to be an illiterate product, as they only have numbers to show for.
Reply
post #192 of 214
Lots of interesting points here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Wizard69 I understand many of your points. Virtual machines are a good idea on a fast computer.
Which you would have if you buy something modern. Whatever you do though wait for Haswell.
Quote:
I started off wanting a Mini. Apple took so long to update it that I gave up and bought a Mac Book. I plug it into an external monitor. For a while I used a dual screen mode. Eventually I just enjoyed one larger new screen.
Yeah I understand, Apples line up forced me into a MBP in 2008. Note though that the Mini has come a long way since we purchased our machines.
Quote:
As far as the iPads. I don't really need to be mobile with my computer thus having a touch interface on the go wasn't very compelling. My next machine will probably be a laptop because I will be living on the road in an RV in a year or so. It will be easier to hide it when I'm away from the vehicle or I can take it with me.
If you will be on the road, maps on the iPad are worth every cent. In fact I prefer the iPad by a very wide margin for travel. It may suck for bulk text entry but you can get keyboards for long E-Mails and such.
Quote:
Open SUSE 12.3 has now begun an ongoing update cycle. It will update forever. Ubuntu has started that too.
It will be interesting to see how that works out. In the past compatibility issues with libraries and other updates always resulted in breaking apps
Quote:
My usage of computers is mostly for entertainment but I also make movies and presentations. I really want a computer with better graphics than the all-in-one graphics from Intel.
Just realize that Intel GPUs have come a long ways. Even so I wouldn't consider anything less than Haswell and I would expect Apple to fix their drivers so OpenCL works on the GPU.
Quote:
My old computer with them just stinks at rendering images quickly. I won't ever be making feature films but putting together video advertisements for clients is more fun when I don't have to sit around waiting for frames to catch up with what I want to do next as I scroll through a video.
The problem here is that not all software even bothers to use the GPU, many apps just use the CPU. Note however that the latest Intel GPUs have vastly improved instructions related to such processing. I would not worry about the GPU until you know that your software leverages the GPU.
Quote:
In the past, and even now, Apple has been stingy with the discrete graphics chips.
Yes they have, you will get no argument from me over this one. At least now machines with discrete GPUs come with the amount of VRAM recommended by many app vendors.
Quote:
HP and others aren't so stingy at the same and even lower price points. Windows is irrelevant to me. I keep Vista around for Netflix just in case my Mac Book breaks. That is it. There is a Silverlight installation for Ubuntu that works but I haven't installed it.  Eventually I will.
Personally I'd stay away from Windows.
Quote:
I don't want to buy a Mac Pro or an iMac, especially since Apple is putting 5400 rpm drives into iMacs.
Spindle speed means little these days.
Quote:
If I weren't planning to be in an RV all of the time I would really prefer a tower of some type that was much more capable than a Mini. The Mini's hardware is really much more expensive than the competition's.
The Mini is basically a laptop in a box, it is very capable if you can live within its limits. The Mini is somewhat expensive but it is also a low power box unlike most towers and as such is excellent for in an RV. In fact if you search the net I believe you will find many examples of Minis implemented in autos, RV's and even boats. Its low power nature is amendable to off grid use.
Quote:
If you argue that the software of OSX has more standard features than Windows then it is a valid argument. When compared to Linux it isn't. If one can forgo iTunes then there really isn't a need to have Windows or OSX. Libre Office is catching up to Office. If one doesn't need the fancy features then Libre Office is enough. I'm in that boat.
This I have to reject. Using apps written for OS/X is far smoother than the choices available on Linux. Further cross platform apps are basically exactly the same.
Quote:
Apple hardware needs to grab me and say; "This is the best thing for your needs at the best price." So do HP and the others.
Frankly I think you are being foolish as the best thing is seldom offered at the best price. If you want cheap, Linux on three generations old hardware is certainly the way to go. When Haswell comes out though you won't see huge difference in hardware prices.

Beyond that, in an RV everything needs to be small. It is sort of like a boat, people start out with lots of large stuff and quickly distill stuff down to the minimal. That is why you see so many nude sailors in the Caribbean. The reality is you don't need lots of stuff to survive on the road and certainly not a lot of big stuff. .
post #193 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Spindle speed means little these days.

 

Why not? What's changed? Isn't slow still slow?

 

Apple using 5400 rpm drives is one of those things that just mystifies me. The difference in price to step up to 7200 is SOOO minuscule that it doesn't seem worth risking tarnish on the "premium" brand.

 

And they're so arbitrary about it. A 7200 rpm drive is not available in the mini, even as a BTO option, but it is in the mini server. I don't get it.

post #194 of 214

Apple is cutting corners by doing this .Installing a 5400HD instead of the bigger one.They have to make a profit.
 

post #195 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Apple is cutting corners by doing this .Installing a 5400HD instead of the bigger one.They have to make a profit.
 

 

5400 rpm drives use less power, and likely spin up more faster. So in a desktop that spends a lot of time idling and with the drive spun down, and where there's mostly access to individual files, where lots of random access patterns are not too common, a 5400rpm drive makes sense.

 

OTOH, on a server, where databases run, where multiple clients access various resources simultaneously and where the drive rarely spins down, minimizing access latency is more important, hence 7200rpm drives are more meaningful.

 

If you're thinking green, then you have to figure out that e.g. saving 0.5W in a few million computers hour after hour, day after day, really ads up to a big amount of energy for essentially rather minimal loss of performance.

post #196 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Why not? What's changed? Isn't slow still slow?
Of course slow is still slow. But slow is also relative. Today's drives pack data much tighter on the platter so you get much higher raw transfer rates on those slow disks. Combine that with a cache on the drive the results aren't as bad as in the past.
Quote:
Apple using 5400 rpm drives is one of those things that just mystifies me. The difference in price to step up to 7200 is SOOO minuscule that it doesn't seem worth risking tarnish on the "premium" brand.
On the other hand the slower drives are far more reliable which puts a shine on the Apple name. They also operate at a lower heat level. Premium for many means reliable not tweaky.
Quote:
And they're so arbitrary about it. A 7200 rpm drive is not available in the mini, even as a BTO option, but it is in the mini server. I don't get it.

Over the years since I got my 2008 MBP, I've just gotten more and more frustrated with how brain dead Apples marketing is. Every time you think they will do the right thing they go in the opposite direction. At times the BTO options just scream stupidity. I mean really if I'm going to pay extra for something I will want to get the good stuff. On the iMac though I suspect thermal issues are a key reason for those slow drives.

So yeah in most cases I don't get their BTO options at all. Lots of expensive options with little justification.
post #197 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Of course slow is still slow. But slow is also relative. Today's drives pack data much tighter on the platter so you get much higher raw transfer rates on those slow disks. Combine that with a cache on the drive the results aren't as bad as in the past.
On the other hand the slower drives are far more reliable which puts a shine on the Apple name. They also operate at a lower heat level. Premium for many means reliable not tweaky.

 

Gotcha.

 

BTW, I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was genuinely interested.

post #198 of 214

This makes a lot of sense.
 

post #199 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Gotcha.

BTW, I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was genuinely interested.

Really I didn't take it as a challenge. Well expect for an opportunity to explain things better.
post #200 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Because you want a computer that Apple has absolutely no intention of making.

 

No, obviously Apple doesn't care.

 

We aren't talking about me here. We are talking about the other three members of my family that gave up on Apple and switched to Windows.

They weren't asking for the type of computer I want.

Apple lost them. Why?

 

You can cut me down all you want but I'm not the one that has left. I still use a Mac.

 

If Apple doesn't care about losing 75% of a family to Windows it's no skin off my back. But you have to wonder why people that buy and use iPods and iPhones don't buy computers from Apple. Something about the equation doesn't add up. As a business I would think Apple would want to sell as much of everything it makes. So why isn't it?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Cook: US-built Mac will be refreshed version of existing product