or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's 'Core M' chip announcement suggests Broadwell-based MacBook Pros won't arrive until 2015
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's 'Core M' chip announcement suggests Broadwell-based MacBook Pros won't arrive until 2015 - Page 2

post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post
 
Bye Bye!

Spoken like a joven who thinks an iPad is the only computing device anyone would ever need. You have a lot to learn about enterprise computing lad. When you grow up, perhaps you'll discover there is a world beyond jerking off to porn.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #42 of 51
Intel needs to keep the PC relavent and cool or they will see their revenue and profits fall. They simply can't sell a chip, in a tablet, on such thin margins and as much as they make fat margins on servers the volume is simply not enough. Apple will continue to use Intel, on Macintosh, because the switching costs do not outweigh the advantages. Most of Intel's efforts lately have focused on core-density and power management. Clock speed is still important, but somewhat secondary...
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

There's a Mac called the iMac which fits between the Mini and the Pro; Apple have been selling it for a few years, now.

Did you miss the part about "Upgradeable GPU" PCIe slot?

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2639+Teardown/17828

Even when Apple uses a desktop CPU part, they still use a Laptop GPU. Do you see how much space is just heatsink?

There are literately three and a half tiers of computers that need to exist:
1. Server/Workstation, which defining feature is ECC memory and replaceable PCIe parts and RAM
2. Desktop, defining feature is that it can be replaced every 7 years or upgraded every 2 years with a new video card and/or cpu + RAM.
3. Laptops, which are meant to last 7 years, but not be upgraded beyond RAM.
3.5 Tablet/UltraBook, which are meant to last 3 years and be thrown out when their batteries quit holding a charge. Entire point being battery life at the expense of everything else.

None of these replace each other. Apple doesn't offer the first two, rather all Apple offers are laptop class parts. The iPad included. The Mac Pro is really more of a "MacMini portable Workstation"

The performance gap between the iPad and the MacBook Air is not really that large for the price. http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-air-vs-macbook-air-2014/31940/ , so when people start suggesting Apple is going to put their own ARM parts in MacBooks, I still shake my head and laugh. This would be counterproductive since Intel still has at least one more die shrink up their sleeve. Until there is a point where Apple can produce a A series chip at the same die size, Apple has no reason to even consider it.

The PowerPC vs x86 problem was one of those things where the entire computer industry didn't see where the puck was going. Everyone kept yelling that the x86 ISA was dead, time to find something else. Once everyone hit 3Ghz it was like "oh dude, we can't keep going higher without burning holes in the motherboard." That's when Intel woke up and started building multi-core parts... which is the same time Apple switched over (Jan 2006, same with the Core Solo/Core Duo parts.)

Where everyone is going to get burned in the next 5 years is the SSD's produced this year on TLC processes will burn out. Die shrinks for NAND flash actually result in shorter life spans. So factor this into the MacMini, Mac Pro and Macbook Pro designs. Most of the current MacMini is the space for the hard drive. Remove that with a SSD and the MacMini could be half as tall. Or they could re-style it like the Mac Pro and it would be the size of a coffee mug.
post #44 of 51

Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables. 

 

If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate. They simply don't have to corporate value systems in place that supports killing their current cash cow to jump onto the next generation. They'd rather ride their cash cow until its dead. Until the cow actually dies everything they're doing seems to make good business sense. There's a reason why DEC, Sun, SGI, etc., didn't become dominant PC players even though they dominated the mini computer market. It wasn't because they didn't know how to build damn fast computers or didn't understand the technology or didn't understand the emerging market. These were not dumb companies led by idiots. They had some of the best and brightest minds and business people - and they crashed and burned. One recurring characteristic of companies that end up going the way of the Dodo and DEC is an attempt to hybridize the old with the new. They just can't bring themselves to let the old cash cow go. Does it work? Rarely if ever, and it only delays the inevitable. 

 

Another recurring pattern is the disruptor starting out as inferior in performance to the disrupted. Early PCs were hobby toys compared to mainframes and minis. Did that matter? There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.

 

Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side. 

post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post
 

 

 

Intel  is going to be history, the writing is on the wall.

We are all history... some just take longer to decompose. 

post #46 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post
 

Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables. 

 

If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate.

 

There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.

 

Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side. 

err... most computer spending is going into the cloud.  not to the desktop.  

 

Where I agree with you.   CISC mainframes was supplanted by RISC super minis which was supplanted by x86 'frames'    ARM will have its day in the sun, and then something else that can do mesh computing.

 

Where I disagree:  endpoint computing is really all about UX.  Almost no-one will be running a business on a chrome book, and no one will have  _THEIR_ database wholly on the device they carry, or have on their desk.   These are VT52s, XTerms, 327x devices, nothing more.  Yes, they are computers, but they are not standalone; their value drops to near zero when the cord/wireless is cut.   And at a certain point, it's less about raw compute speed than functionality (A faster mac mini is great, but wait, what I really want is support for 4 4K monitors... speed may be needed to support it, but it's not really a 'business requirement')

 

Intel has a lot of challenges, and to them, like microsoft, they had a hard time trying to specialize into one of 2 competing markets.   You can't take technology which started on the desktop and has been marching towards both the data center and the wristwatch and win in either domain.  

 

Apple learned that in OSes, and has to come to a tactical decision point for what chipset to use for desktops and mobile devices.  Strategically, it doesn't matter: intel, Aseries, or abacuses: Apple's long term viability is about getting people to pay apple for a better way to do integrate into the digital world.  Tactically, they do know that the more effective the chip is in delivering value (price/performance/power/size envelope), the more advantage it brings, but it only is a means of delivering the value... it isn't the value.

 

But back to agreeing... unless you continually reinvent yourself, (e.g. IBM), you only survive one wave of the technology surf.

post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

What we need...is a Mac mini based off of this. Yes...were still bitching about this in case anyone is wondering.


No we do not.  The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.

 

But we absolutely do need a new mini.  I've got ancient servers that I'm barely keeping alive, waiting on a new, more powerful mini to replace them.

post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.

I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post
 


No we do not.  The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.

 

But we absolutely do need a new mini.  I've got ancient servers that I'm barely keeping alive, waiting on a new, more powerful mini to replace them.


It may be a desktop Mac, but its always gotten a mobile CPU. I can all but guarantee you that it will never have a desktop class CPU inside it. If you want more power, get an iMac. 

 

I think you're better off just getting whats available for Mac mini servers right now. Otherwise, you're going to be disappointed. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.

This is probably why we have waited so long for the Mini update. Apple most likely saw a huge opportunity in Broadwell to make the Mini a much more powerful machine while keeping the form factor or even shrinking it a bit. As it is it isn't the mobile chip that breaks the Mini but rather the expansion capability and the lackluster Intel GPU's Broadwell appear to be able to deal with the GPU issue and it may have also been a better solution for the TB interface, so more pain over the long wait for Broadwell. The only other expansion issue is the internal drive storage where much could be done to fix the access issues to make servicing those drives more friendly. It is hard to be serious about a machine marketed as a server that has drives as difficult to get to as the Mini. Lastly they really need to keep the two drive bays and add a slot for a blade SSD solution which would really make for a very versatile Mini.

In a nut shel Intel has really f,ed up this year.
post #51 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.



In a nut shel Intel has really f,ed up this year.

 

hav eyo ube enr ead ing too muc hee cum min gsl ate ly?

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's 'Core M' chip announcement suggests Broadwell-based MacBook Pros won't arrive until 2015