Apple prepping mobile devices at the cost of Macs?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/03/...HardMac.com%29



Basically, it appears that in their spread into the realm of phones and iPads and iPods, major new versions of which are supposedly in the works, Macs are being neglected.



The solution? Well, a knee-jerk response would be that Apple needs to hire more engineers and programmers, but simply adding more people to the workforce won't make their productivity scale linearly.



I'm disappointed, as I would really appreciate new Macbook Pros and Mac Pros with 'modern' (read: designed and manufactured in the last year, like 5xxx radeons, not that ghetto Gefore 9xxx crap) graphics cards. Until such a Mac comes out, I will be pulled more and more towards an $800 Hackintosh for my Maya/3D needs. There's an App called Zeus that just came out that flashes stock-ish graphics cards to Mac-friendly EFI roms.



Of course, even then, I'll have to wait for a Mac to come out with a 5xxx radeon, so that there is even a ROM to flash into a PC card.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/03/...HardMac.com%29



    ....



    I'm disappointed, as I would really appreciate new Macbook Pros and Mac Pros ...



    As someone who bought a top-of-the-line 17" MacBook Pro in 2009 saw the line updated before the year was out, I cannot disagree more. BTW, my MBP is now paid for. Since I bought my machine, Apple added LED monitors with screen sizes up to 27" to the iMac line. I recently considered getting my Power Mac G5 a new baby brother. However, when I spec'ed the current Mac Pros, I was astounded by their prices. Apple's top-of-the-line towers may be 14 times faster than my old reliable G5 at home, but they are also substantially more expensive than was the last G5 I purchased back in 2005.



    It is all good and fine to wank-off to spec sheets. However, the bottomline is the bottomline. Apple's current line of Mac Pros will do everything that you need and much, much more. Heck, I'd bet dollars to donuts that an iMac is more computer than members of this forum need. I'd dollars to Lifesavers that an iMac is as much as most members can afford.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    solareinsolarein Posts: 143member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    As someone who bought a top-of-the-line 17" MacBook Pro in 2009 saw the line updated before the year was out, I cannot disagree more. BTW, my MBP is now paid for. Since I bought my machine, Apple added LED monitors with screen sizes up to 27" to the iMac line. I recently considered getting my Power Mac G5 a new baby brother. However, when I spec'ed the current Mac Pros, I was astounded by their prices. Apple's top-of-the-line towers may be 14 times faster than my old reliable G5 at home, but they are also substantially more expensive than was the last G5 I purchased back in 2005.



    It is all good and fine to wank-off to spec sheets. However, the bottomline is the bottomline. Apple's current line of Mac Pros will do everything that you need and much, much more. Heck, I'd bet dollars to donuts that an iMac is more computer than members of this forum need. I'd dollars to Lifesavers that an iMac is as much as most members can afford.



    But you don't buy computers just to fulfill current need. You also have to project into the future and think about how long it'll still be able to do what you want to do. Software does demand more power over time, and the more powerful the system is when you purchase it the longer it'll fulfill your needs.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Our Mac Pro (dual Xeon 2.6) that we bought in 2006 refurbished is still the fastest machine we own.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    It is all good and fine to wank-off to spec sheets. However, the bottomline is the bottomline. Apple's current line of Mac Pros will do everything that you need and much, much more.



  • Reply 4 of 13
    The topic is that Apple appears to be neglecting the Mac lineup due to overstretched resources with iDevices, not how last year's computers are apparently adequate for tomorrow's needs(?)



    Incidentally, given the price of the Mac Pro (and MBP, for that matter), I'm amazed there are people satisfied with older-than-current generation hardware being sold at premium prices.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    But you don't buy computers just to fulfill current need. You also have to project into the future and think about how long it'll still be able to do what you want to do. Software does demand more power over time, and the more powerful the system is when you purchase it the longer it'll fulfill your needs.



    The following figures are fictional abstracts... but serve to show that "buying the most powerful machine available" is not necessarily the most economical way of getting long life from a computer.





    Absolute top-of-the-line components... causes the computer to cost $4000, but it will last you for 4 years. So you end up getting a computer for $1000/year.





    Buying "last years" tech at a significant savings (say for $2000) gets you a computer that will last you for 2 years. Again, you get a computer for $1000/year.



    But now, after two years, you get a NEW "last years tech" computer for the next two years... and it will be more powerful than the original "top of the line" computer was... so by the end of the 4 years, you have spent the same $$, but have a more powerful system on your desk.





    (Like I said... I used nice round numbers and fictional products/prices to simply demonstrate a point... just because the "latest and greatest" is best for YOUR needs, doesn't mean it's the best possible scenario for everyone.) I can only imagine how much Apple would charge for an iMac that actually used cutting-edge components all around!!
  • Reply 6 of 13
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solarein View Post


    But you don't buy computers just to fulfill current need. You also have to project into the future and think about how long it'll still be able to do what you want to do. Software does demand more power over time, and the more powerful the system is when you purchase it the longer it'll fulfill your needs.



    I think we've reached the point, however, where software has a ways to go to catch up with hardware. There's only so many types of things you can do on a computer, and while we're not really inventing new, processor intensive tasks, hardware specs are relentlessly improved, nonetheless.



    It used to be true that "software does demand more power over time", but where is this happening today? The only major increase in necessary processing power over the last few years I can think of is editing HD video, and even then the machine you buy today can likely do that fairly well. Is a 10% increase in processing transition speeds really going to be an issue a few years from now, of the sort that would make you say "Damn! I wish that MacBook Pro I bought had had slightly better specs!"



    I'm writing this on a four year old MacBook Pro, which I use to do all kinds of things. It doesn't come remotely close to "not fulfilling my needs", nor is there any software that I wish to run that I can't. The only difference between this machine and one with the best available specs when I got it would be some minor speed ups in things like Motion and FCP.



    Now, if I were running a video production facility, then I'd probably care. But for the vast majority of users, the idea of "future proofing" doesn't really mean anything.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    bbwibbwi Posts: 812member
    Lets point out that the Mac Pro is not a computer for the "vast majority". So, any argument that refers to that group belongs on another thread. The Mac Pros run server grade hardware such as the HDs, the processors, the memory, MB, Fiber NICs, RAID... etc.



    If you're using Maya then today's technology can literally save you hours of render time per year as compared to yesterdays technology



    If you're really that bent about the upgrade prospects... may I suggest you cost out your options in cloud computing via Amazon, Microsoft Azure, IBM (soon), or the Mac cloud guys at DiscCloud. You'll always have the fastest computer on the block
  • Reply 8 of 13
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bbwi View Post


    If you're using Maya then today's technology can literally save you hours of render time per year as compared to yesterdays



    Hours per year? You work about 2000 hours a year. So how much of that do you save?
  • Reply 9 of 13
    bbwibbwi Posts: 812member
    Actually, scratch DiscCloud they're only x86
  • Reply 10 of 13
    bbwibbwi Posts: 812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by synp View Post


    Hours per year? You work about 2000 hours a year. So how much of that do you save?



    Actually, his computer works longer shifts. When its rendering it consumes all resources to the point where you need a second computer... or, if you're rendering the latest greatest scifi movie... a little longer
  • Reply 11 of 13
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:



    That is far more speculative than I'm use to from Hardmac. Worst activities at Apple don't seem to support this at all.

    For example yes 10.6.3 is taking its time. On the other hand there has been a huge amount of effort put into it. Testing has been on going for months. That sounds bad but one has to look at what they are working on, Graphics drivers, Quicktime, OpenGL and a host of other things that are demanding. It is not like they are spending time on simple app fixes.

    Quote:



    Basically, it appears that in their spread into the realm of phones and iPads and iPods, major new versions of which are supposedly in the works, Macs are being neglected.



    Again where is the beef in this statement? For example the most rational processor for a Mac Pro update only came out yesterday. The Mac Books aren't really that out of date and though I would have likes to have seen an update by now it isn't a huge concern yet.

    Quote:



    The solution? Well, a knee-jerk response would be that Apple needs to hire more engineers and programmers, but simply adding more people to the workforce won't make their productivity scale linearly.



    Apple is and has been hiring. Heck they purchased whole companies just to get their engineers and have done so more than once.



    In any event we simply don't know what the hold up is. For example the real hold up on the Mac Pros could be a Light Peak implementation or a USB 3 implementation. If it is USB 3 that would mean Apple would have to go with a third party support chip as Intel has slipped the USB 3 schedule. Plus you have a host of other possible issues to contend with. This of course is speculation too but the point is we don't know what is going on with the slow delivery of new hardware.



    For example there was rumors that Apple rejected Intels integrated chip set for laptops. This could mean that Apple is working with Intel on a custom solution or that they simply went with AMD. Again speculation and rumors.



    The better approach is to rely on a bit of maturity and realize that Apple needs competitive hardware as much as you would like to see it. You can rest assured that they are working on the new hardware and hopefully are determined to innovate and bring truly leading edge hardware to the market.

    Quote:



    I'm disappointed, as I would really appreciate new Macbook Pros and Mac Pros with 'modern' (read: designed and manufactured in the last year, like 5xxx radeons, not that ghetto Gefore 9xxx crap) graphics cards. Until such a Mac comes out, I will be pulled more and more towards an $800 Hackintosh for my Maya/3D needs. There's an App called Zeus that just came out that flashes stock-ish graphics cards to Mac-friendly EFI roms.



    Look either wait or get your hackintosh but please don't start threads whining about machines from Apple that everybody knows are coming. Just get over your self importance and needy ways, the new stuff will come when it is ready.

    Quote:



    Of course, even then, I'll have to wait for a Mac to come out with a 5xxx radeon, so that there is even a ROM to flash into a PC card.



    You see my point. It is like you come on here to just fine excuses to whine. Everybody here wants to see new hardware from Apple, that is pretty much what a rumors site is all about. I would have to say though that the vast majority of us want Apple to deliver quality hardware that works correctly out of the box.



    In any event I don't see the problem in the way hardmac is implying. Almost all companies get a bit carried away when they introduce new products. Launches are demanding so I would expect many people at Apple to be focused on these launches when they happen. But that happens with every new product, the iPad isn't an exception here.



    This is now based on what I know about Apple. The real time to evaluate this is after the products do debut. If they are not up to expectations then there actually may be a problem at Apple. Right now though I'd rather hope that the delays will be because we are about to see a major revision to Apples hardware line up maybe with some break through technology.



    Dave
  • Reply 12 of 13
    I thought apple switched to intel chips because the G5 development reach an impasse and secondly to maintain parity with the pc. Mac pros aside, the lineup looks dated and overpriced compared to the i5 and i7 on new pcs. This shouldn't be the case. The i5 and i7 imacs are only available at the extreme high end. Core2 Duo looks antiquated and premium pricing burnishes apple image as out of touch with reality. i5 and i7 pcs are available to all at the low end. Macs have always played second fiddle to ipods, iphones and now the ipad. The mac is slowly withering away. When the ipad reaches critical mass, the mac is finished. Sad really.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy View Post


    I thought apple switched to intel chips because the G5 development reach an impasse and secondly to maintain parity with the pc. ....



    You can think anything you want, but those are not the reasons gave for making the switch to Intel. Apple's stated reasons for switching to Intel were as follows:
    • Intel had made a breakthrough in manufacturing that allowed its processors to run much cooler than previously possible. My MacBook Pro runs substantially cooler than my PowerBook G3 (Pismo) and cooler than any PowerBook G4 ever dreamed of. The G5 was so hot that it required liquid cooling and was not a viable basis for a laptop.

    • Intel cooler chips would allow Apple to create and build new products that would not have been possible using PPC processors.

    • Apple would also take advantage of Intel's economies of scale and vast inventory of processors and buy what it needed from Intel's catalog.

    • Intel would work closely with Apple to develop new products.

    • IBM refused Apple's request to develop future PPC processors that could be viable candidates for personal computers.

Sign In or Register to comment.