I'd gladly swap a pointlessly thinner iMac for a desktop GPU…
For that you'd need something the size of a box Steve can't believe you'd put up with on the desktop:
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance. The 7970 is listed as being just 40% faster than the 7970M:
This is unlikely, and "desktop GPU" has become an issue of semantics in the top model. The 6970m pushes out around 100W. For a decent desktop gnu, you would need to at least double the power which must be dissipated.
That I didn't know. By 'decent' do you mean 'a performance improvement over the aforementioned chip'?
Originally Posted by Marvin
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance.
Is there not as big a push anymore into GPGPU as there was just a few years ago? Not that OS X takes advantage of it yet, anyway.
Absolutely - every iMac anyone has owned has either melted or at least caught fire within the first 3 months of ownership. Fact.
Or is it the case that people have been using iMacs just fine for years on end without any problems even under heavy load?
For that you'd need something the size of a box Steve can't believe you'd put up with on the desktop:
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance. The 7970 is listed as being just 40% faster than the 7970M:
I didn't say caught fire. You're a very silly person. I mean the idea does amuse me, but almost every imac I've ever seen has developed problems within its second year, and the use of non standard drives to track temperatures should give you some indication that the thermals are pretty tight. Beyond that consumer devices aren't all manufactured perfectly. These are mass market components, so you need to allow for some amount of manufacturing deficiency in the design. Your numbers are also off. The 7970 can draw more than 250W at peak load. In both power source and consumption, these numbers are often fuzzy. Stated tdp doesn't mean it will never go beyond that. The numbers used by power supplies don't fully account for efficiency, so figuring out what should work is not always simple arithmetic. Typically if someone was custom building, they'd go for a slightly beefier power supply to be safe.
The latest report is apparently that DRAM prices will go down in the third quarter of this year. I wonder if Apple will delay the mini based on this or lower cost on BTO options.
The latest report is apparently that DRAM prices will go down in the third quarter of this year. I wonder if Apple will delay the mini based on this or lower cost on BTO options.
Aren't we in the third quarter of this year?
I'd love to see a Mac Mini that starts at $499 again…
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. The Mini will be quietly updated because there's nothing to mention.
It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about. They packed WWDC full of things and I expect we'll see that in future events.
The iPhone plus iOS 6 can fill an event but the iMac couldn't - it's pretty much a case of 'here it is, thanks for coming' so they have to tack it onto something else.
WELL SINCE THERE'S Slight chances of the iMac and Mac Mini being ready before the iPhone event I suggest that later next year there will be an event where both the iMac and Mac Mini are updated alongside iOS Devices like the iPod Touch (gets more ram, in cell touch screens, new gorilla glass 2, new screen size, new Dock, and a larger memory capacity)... or they'll keep the same screen size but add more ram and memory) and as I've mentioned before there will be some screen antiglare issues fixed and it will be thinner without the dvd drives and soldered memory modules inside the iMac and the Cinema Displays.
But if I'm wrong maybe they'll make smaller iMac Models with retina screens. Fingers crossed. I want to play super realistic games on it like the Macbook Pro with Retina display.
They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.
I'm of the opinion that form should follow function. Placement like that would have some weird effects on board design. If anything I wish phone charging/docking would take on a unified standard.
If anything I think Apple is working on a wireless charger with built in Bluetooth or Wifi that syncs the iDevices by placing it on top of a pad like square rectangle. If they're smart about it, maybe well see an iPhone without a dock next year. It's too late already... and if they're smarter they'll build the charger on top of the Mac Mini.
Very sad if true. I suspect they re waiting on some technology for the iMac in the mistaken opinion that delivering a new Mini before a new iMac is a bad idea. The problem is I'm not one to even consider the iMac as it is currently designed so I see no harm to sales. Like the other poster I see Apple as extremely mis guided in dragging out such revisions.
That being said maybe the Mini is dead as a model. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the updated iMac came with an XMac instead of a new Mini. XMac being a platform that delivers credible midrange performance and doesn't suffer from the Minis design limitations.
I imagine the iMac/Mac Mini update will be that "second keynote", but that's only if the iMac gets a FULL redesign. It wouldn't need one otherwise.
Tying the Mini update to the iMac update is just asinine even if I suspect you are right. This is especially the case when the Mini is so outdated. I just went out and purchased a 3TB drive with USB 3 support, so there is no way I'm going to buy a desktop that can't support that drive. This drag out of releases has to be killing sales, it happens to the laptops and the situation is only worst with the desktops.
Anyway, they'd be fools to let a holiday quarter go without updated desktops…
Yes, I agree here but have you noticed just how quiet the rumor mill is with anything desktop related? We have had nothing of value rumored about a new Mini nor iMac so you would have to think they are a ways off.
In the case of the Mini or whatever replaces it, as noted by the poster above you, all the tech is there for such a desktop. So repeating the obvious; where the hell is the Mini? It is extremely frustrating to see such behavior on Apples part. I want to believe there is a reasonable explanation, like they are still on allocation from Intel, but I don't see that as a problem right now as processor sales are in decline.
I'd hate to think Apple needs a management shake up already but the place has been overwhelmed with real stupid decisions relative to the desktop lately.
That I didn't know. By 'decent' do you mean 'a performance improvement over the aforementioned chip'?
Power usage in GPUs is a moving target. The big problem with iMac, if it goes retina, is avoiding a graphics related performance regression. Frankly I'm not sure how they will deal with this in an iMac, one can hope that modern GPUs would be cool enough at the performance point required. At this point though I think that is too much to hope for.
Is there not as big a push anymore into GPGPU as there was just a few years ago?
OpenCL is one of Apples great successes frankly it is a bit of a surprise to me but it is heavily adopted. The problem here is that people really don't understand GPGPU computing, GPGPU computing only works for a class of problems that can exploit the parallel nature of a GPU, so the benefits are limited to those problems that mesh well with a GPU architecture.
Not that OS X takes advantage of it yet, anyway.
Now you have frustrated me even more with this statement as OS X does make use of GPU computing and has apparently significantly expanded upon its use in Mountain Lion. I know for certain that visually my 2008 MBP is snappier than it was before the Mountain Lion update.
Is there not as big a push anymore into GPGPU as there was just a few years ago? Not that OS X takes advantage of it yet, anyway.
I think there is a push towards heterogeneous computing but GPUs in their current form aren't ideal as they don't share memory. The ideal is to have them on the same chip, which obviously requires an IGP. Some people disagree with this but I don't feel that raw performnce is an issue any more. A desktop GPU offering 40% more performance just doesn't matter when it means significantly compromising the entire form factor. As the CEO of AMD said, every laptop on the planet has enough processing power, meaning the performance race is over. The focus now is design.
I want to play super realistic games on it like the Macbook Pro with Retina display.
I don't think the resolution matters much for games, or at least games with fully dynamic content. It's more for print quality with static content because printed pages are made at a higher resolution than standard screens. With dynamic games, you get motion blur and anti-aliasing to help the visuals. It doesn't hurt of course and it allows you to disable anti-aliasing but smooth gameplay is more important.
The desktop, as Wizard oft laments, has been stagnating for a good while now.
Apple have really taken their eye of the ball re: desktops.
The Mac Pro tower is beyond an expensive joke with the last 'hhahahahahahahh' 'update' a face losing disaster (even Apple had to take down the 'new' p*ss take sign off the 'ahahhahaahahhahha' 'update.'
You can get quad core towers with 2 gig GPUs and 8 gigs of ram with 3 TB HDs with the 'bag of hurt' blue ray for £800 ish. That's £1200 cheaper than Apple's tower p*ss take. I guess Aloooooooominum must be really expensive at the moment...
Lenovo now have a 27 inch 'iMac' (made from Alu?), quad core i7, 8 gigs of ram, bigger HD and a gpu with 2 gigs of Vram (i think...) for £1500 in a PC world sale right now. Actually, I think it's a bit cheaper than that. In fact, I think it's slimmer than the current iMac design...(which is getting on a bit...)
There are cheap towers, with 20+ monitor, bigger HDs, more ram better GPUs than the current mini at far less than £550 or whatever Apple is charging for a box without a monitor or P8ss take, a keyboard or mouse.
That's Apple's train wreck of a desktop line.
It's Air, it's Pro, it's iPad, it's iPhone.
Their desktops are overpriced, out of date, out of spec and out of update.
It's not like Ivy and the workstation processors, cheap ram, cheap gpu, cheap HD, cheap components aren't there. (Apple have greater supply side than when they only sold 1 million cpus per quarter. They now sell 4-5 million Macs per quarter. Desktop components are dirty dirt cheap. Yet Apple still wants to nickle and dime you for a keyboard with a Mini. Yeeeeeeesh. Apple's desktops cost wayyyy more than they did in the PPC days.)
Maybe the AMD CEO is onto something with 'laptops' are powerful enough.
Apple's current 'best Mac' is without a doubt, the stunning Retina Macbook Pro.
Played with one today in PC World. I thought I wanted a 27 inch iMac until I played with one of these babies. Going back to the resolution of the iMac 27 incher after the Retina Pro Macbook is a downer.
The Retina Mac is stunningly razor sharp. Awesome stuff. I don't know the resolution on it. Maybe I don't care. It's so crisp.
Oh for an iMac with a crisp retina.
Even a 24 inch retina vs a normal 27 incher? I'd be happy with a 24 inch retina after seeing the Macbook Pro. I'm no laptop fan...but the 15 Retina was awesome on web browsing...photos...
Like Marv' says, for game play...you drop the resolution somewhat...and get your FPS. I did notice 'some' beach balling in the finder.
Otherwise?
I won't buy another Mac desktop until it's retina.
I suspect many others may do likewise.
I await the next iMac and 'Pro' with great interest.
I think Apple needs to give their entire desktop line a re-think. The imac is Apple's current flag ship...but it's not a cure all for all consumers. But I'd sell my...aha...well...not my soul, but maybe Wizard's soul for a 24 inch retina iMac with hot swap SSD drive and hot swap MxM gpu Radeon 8000 class capability...and...uhm....uh....a sex core i7...and...8 gigs of ram standard...and...no...no...I'm good for now.
Yes, I agree here but have you noticed just how quiet the rumor mill is with anything desktop related? We have had nothing of value rumored about a new Mini nor iMac so you would have to think they are a ways off.
I think that's just because we already know what is happening.
ODD gets dropped, case gets a little thinner, hardware gets updated. We already know the hardware they're both getting because we can match up the TDPs of current chips to new ones.
If the iMac was getting a full redesign, we would have heard that at about the same time we started hearing "guarantees" again of the iPad mini. So it'll just be the usual update. The only real variable is if they can manage to surprise us with retina displays.
I'd hate to think Apple needs a management shake up already but the place has been overwhelmed with real stupid decisions relative to the desktop lately.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Now you have frustrated me even more with this statement as OS X does make use of GPU computing and has apparently significantly expanded upon its use in Mountain Lion. I know for certain that visually my 2008 MBP is snappier than it was before the Mountain Lion update.
Okay, but can that really be attributed to GPGPU? And is yours pre or post unibody?
Originally Posted by Marvin
The focus now is design.
I hope they start to kick the legs out from underneath the gFLOP/w ratio.
The issue with pricing reminds me of the days when the original Mac was introduced and the several years following when ever Mac was grossly over priced. The technology lag just makes the high prices look much worst.
Frankly a simple Mini upgrade doesn't even require Ivy's input. All you really need is an internal mother board upgrade. Get a little radical and you would put in a bigger power supply, stronger fan and give us ten or 15 watts better performance.
and the workstation processors, cheap ram, cheap gpu, cheap HD, cheap components aren't there.
The only thing that might be an issue is that Apple is on allocation for Ivy Bridge processors. In the case of an issue like this I try to find reason for objectionable behavior and this is about the only thing I can come up with. A remote second is that the Mini is dead about to be reborn as a new model, but even that isn't a justification to keep customers on old hardware.
(Apple have greater supply side than when they only sold 1 million cpus per quarter. They now sell 4-5 million Macs per quarter. Desktop components are dirty dirt cheap.
Well yeah desktop components are but Apple doesn't use a lot of desktop components. This is one reason why the Mini appears to be more expensive relative to other desktops. Honestly though the processor isn't the issue with the apparent expense it is the utter lack of a reasonable amount of RAM, storage space and other short comings that make the Mini look expensive.
Yet Apple still wants to nickle and dime you for a keyboard with a Mini. Yeeeeeeesh. Apple's desktops cost wayyyy more than they did in the PPC days.)
Well this can be argued. PPC was a dirt bag of a processor with extremely poor integer performance. The machines where extremely expensive at the time, I know that back then I couldn't justify PPC hardware at all. Those where my deep into Linux years.
Today the hardware line up at Apple is highly mixed as far as value goes. When released the iMac is often a good deal if you can stomach the design and it's shortcomings. The problem is the obvious dragging out of updates for the iMac really makes the computer a poor value a year down the road. Ignoring the importance of USB 3 and other hardware advances just makes the machine look ancient and highly over priced.
Desktops.
Hubris comes to mind.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'd like to think that Apple has something up it's collective sleeve and is about ready to release ground breaking new hardware across the desktop line up. That is new concepts for the iMac, Mini and Pro. Sadly history here isn't on our side. Instead we have been getting absolutely terrible updates that in some cases are an insult to potential customers (Mac Pro users). The iMac has become a technical disaster with its need for special hardware that frankly isn't accessible anyways. The Min is a great concept except for the fact that it is severely castrated just to make the iMac look good.
Taken all together this highlights a massive disdain for Apples customers. It is like they really don't give a damn and simply offer a take it or leave it attitude that amounts to flipping the customer base a finger. I mean really the hardware line up hasn't changed or really improved in years now, even Ford updates it's F150 once in awhile. To add to the misery desktop users have to look at all the innovation going on in the laptop lineup. This all extremely frustrating when you see it happening and Apple sits with billions in the bank. In the end the desktop line up is stagnet and too limited in models to generate strong interest thus the lagging sales.
I think that's just because we already know what is happening.
If that was so, I don't think you would be hearing the universal frustration expressed in this thread.
ODD gets dropped, case gets a little thinner, hardware gets updated. We already know the hardware they're both getting because we can match up the TDPs of current chips to new ones.
The processors are only part of the concern with the lack of updates.
If the iMac was getting a full redesign, we would have heard that at about the same time we started hearing "guarantees" again of the iPad mini. So it'll just be the usual update. The only real variable is if they can manage to surprise us with retina displays.
The same old update really isn't going to cut it. At least not in an iMac which is strongly showing its age and dysfunctional design. Retina is almost a given, it is addressing the design failures in the iMac that I'm wondering about. The reality is that retina won't get me to buy a new iMac if they can't demonstrate a remarkable refactoring of the machine. By that I mean addressing the heat issues and the reliance on special parts.
Agreed.
Okay, but can that really be attributed to GPGPU? And is yours pre or post unibody?
Sadly pre-unibody! It needs work and I'm not thrilled about tearing it apart.
By the way I was using otool to look for libraries linking to OpenCL yesterday and had trouble finding any. This surprised me, so I'm not as sure as I was with previous Mac OS releases where one of the graphics libs did link to OpenCL. That could be me and the use of otool, I didn't spend a lot of time on it.
As to the current behavior of Mountain Lion on the old MBP it does seem snappier graphically. The dock is very snappy compared to how it behaved with Lion. Scrolling is far nicer too. I attribute this to improved use of the GPU based on the graphics nature of the problem and indications in Apples developer related forums of increased use of GPU acceleration. Maybe I can look into this later.
I hope they start to kick the legs out from underneath the gFLOP/w ratio.
If that was so, I don't think you would be hearing the universal frustration expressed in this thread.
Really? Eh. At any rate, I'm also hoping for "sooner rather than later" on that. I'm mystified myself as to why they haven't already if there wasn't going to be some big upheaval.
Sadly pre-unibody! It needs work and I'm not thrilled about tearing it apart.
Oh! I've found the same to be true on mine (same series), so I guess I'm just flat out wrong about GPGPU benefits. I've not paid much attention to that field recently.
As to the iMac, it seems to me that they'll only be using more special parts than ever before. Dropping the ODD would hopefully give us the option of two HDDs+SSD or three SSDs, but I'm not getting my hopes up. And don't be surprised at all if they try to get away with soldered RAM on the new one.
Comments
Absolutely - every iMac anyone has owned has either melted or at least caught fire within the first 3 months of ownership. Fact.
Or is it the case that people have been using iMacs just fine for years on end without any problems even under heavy load?
For that you'd need something the size of a box Steve can't believe you'd put up with on the desktop:
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance. The 7970 is listed as being just 40% faster than the 7970M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html
7970 = 250W, 7970M = 100W, iMac PSU = 310W
Originally Posted by hmm
This is unlikely, and "desktop GPU" has become an issue of semantics in the top model. The 6970m pushes out around 100W. For a decent desktop gnu, you would need to at least double the power which must be dissipated.
That I didn't know. By 'decent' do you mean 'a performance improvement over the aforementioned chip'?
Originally Posted by Marvin
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance.
Is there not as big a push anymore into GPGPU as there was just a few years ago? Not that OS X takes advantage of it yet, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Absolutely - every iMac anyone has owned has either melted or at least caught fire within the first 3 months of ownership. Fact.
Or is it the case that people have been using iMacs just fine for years on end without any problems even under heavy load?
For that you'd need something the size of a box Steve can't believe you'd put up with on the desktop:
You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance. The 7970 is listed as being just 40% faster than the 7970M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html
7970 = 250W, 7970M = 100W, iMac PSU = 310W
I didn't say caught fire. You're a very silly person. I mean the idea does amuse me, but almost every imac I've ever seen has developed problems within its second year, and the use of non standard drives to track temperatures should give you some indication that the thermals are pretty tight. Beyond that consumer devices aren't all manufactured perfectly. These are mass market components, so you need to allow for some amount of manufacturing deficiency in the design. Your numbers are also off. The 7970 can draw more than 250W at peak load. In both power source and consumption, these numbers are often fuzzy. Stated tdp doesn't mean it will never go beyond that. The numbers used by power supplies don't fully account for efficiency, so figuring out what should work is not always simple arithmetic. Typically if someone was custom building, they'd go for a slightly beefier power supply to be safe.
Originally Posted by Winter
The latest report is apparently that DRAM prices will go down in the third quarter of this year. I wonder if Apple will delay the mini based on this or lower cost on BTO options.
Aren't we in the third quarter of this year?
I'd love to see a Mac Mini that starts at $499 again…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. The Mini will be quietly updated because there's nothing to mention.
It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about. They packed WWDC full of things and I expect we'll see that in future events.
The iPhone plus iOS 6 can fill an event but the iMac couldn't - it's pretty much a case of 'here it is, thanks for coming' so they have to tack it onto something else.
WELL SINCE THERE'S Slight chances of the iMac and Mac Mini being ready before the iPhone event I suggest that later next year there will be an event where both the iMac and Mac Mini are updated alongside iOS Devices like the iPod Touch (gets more ram, in cell touch screens, new gorilla glass 2, new screen size, new Dock, and a larger memory capacity)... or they'll keep the same screen size but add more ram and memory) and as I've mentioned before there will be some screen antiglare issues fixed and it will be thinner without the dvd drives and soldered memory modules inside the iMac and the Cinema Displays.
But if I'm wrong maybe they'll make smaller iMac Models with retina screens. Fingers crossed. I want to play super realistic games on it like the Macbook Pro with Retina display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.
I'm of the opinion that form should follow function. Placement like that would have some weird effects on board design. If anything I wish phone charging/docking would take on a unified standard.
If anything I think Apple is working on a wireless charger with built in Bluetooth or Wifi that syncs the iDevices by placing it on top of a pad like square rectangle. If they're smart about it, maybe well see an iPhone without a dock next year. It's too late already... and if they're smarter they'll build the charger on top of the Mac Mini.
That being said maybe the Mini is dead as a model. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the updated iMac came with an XMac instead of a new Mini. XMac being a platform that delivers credible midrange performance and doesn't suffer from the Minis design limitations. Tying the Mini update to the iMac update is just asinine even if I suspect you are right. This is especially the case when the Mini is so outdated. I just went out and purchased a 3TB drive with USB 3 support, so there is no way I'm going to buy a desktop that can't support that drive. This drag out of releases has to be killing sales, it happens to the laptops and the situation is only worst with the desktops.
Yes, I agree here but have you noticed just how quiet the rumor mill is with anything desktop related? We have had nothing of value rumored about a new Mini nor iMac so you would have to think they are a ways off.
In the case of the Mini or whatever replaces it, as noted by the poster above you, all the tech is there for such a desktop. So repeating the obvious; where the hell is the Mini? It is extremely frustrating to see such behavior on Apples part. I want to believe there is a reasonable explanation, like they are still on allocation from Intel, but I don't see that as a problem right now as processor sales are in decline.
I'd hate to think Apple needs a management shake up already but the place has been overwhelmed with real stupid decisions relative to the desktop lately.
Yes although we still have September.
I think there is a push towards heterogeneous computing but GPUs in their current form aren't ideal as they don't share memory. The ideal is to have them on the same chip, which obviously requires an IGP. Some people disagree with this but I don't feel that raw performnce is an issue any more. A desktop GPU offering 40% more performance just doesn't matter when it means significantly compromising the entire form factor. As the CEO of AMD said, every laptop on the planet has enough processing power, meaning the performance race is over. The focus now is design.
Every iMac I've ever seen hasn't so where does that leave us?
Total system power is not the GPU power.
No but it's a good estimate. If it was meaningless, they wouldn't bother.
I don't think the resolution matters much for games, or at least games with fully dynamic content. It's more for print quality with static content because printed pages are made at a higher resolution than standard screens. With dynamic games, you get motion blur and anti-aliasing to help the visuals. It doesn't hurt of course and it allows you to disable anti-aliasing but smooth gameplay is more important.
What are Apple waiting for?
Good question.
The desktop, as Wizard oft laments, has been stagnating for a good while now.
Apple have really taken their eye of the ball re: desktops.
The Mac Pro tower is beyond an expensive joke with the last 'hhahahahahahahh' 'update' a face losing disaster (even Apple had to take down the 'new' p*ss take sign off the 'ahahhahaahahhahha' 'update.'
You can get quad core towers with 2 gig GPUs and 8 gigs of ram with 3 TB HDs with the 'bag of hurt' blue ray for £800 ish. That's £1200 cheaper than Apple's tower p*ss take. I guess Aloooooooominum must be really expensive at the moment...
Lenovo now have a 27 inch 'iMac' (made from Alu?), quad core i7, 8 gigs of ram, bigger HD and a gpu with 2 gigs of Vram (i think...) for £1500 in a PC world sale right now. Actually, I think it's a bit cheaper than that. In fact, I think it's slimmer than the current iMac design...(which is getting on a bit...)
There are cheap towers, with 20+ monitor, bigger HDs, more ram better GPUs than the current mini at far less than £550 or whatever Apple is charging for a box without a monitor or P8ss take, a keyboard or mouse.
That's Apple's train wreck of a desktop line.
It's Air, it's Pro, it's iPad, it's iPhone.
Their desktops are overpriced, out of date, out of spec and out of update.
It's an indefensible joke.
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's not like Ivy and the workstation processors, cheap ram, cheap gpu, cheap HD, cheap components aren't there. (Apple have greater supply side than when they only sold 1 million cpus per quarter. They now sell 4-5 million Macs per quarter. Desktop components are dirty dirt cheap. Yet Apple still wants to nickle and dime you for a keyboard with a Mini. Yeeeeeeesh. Apple's desktops cost wayyyy more than they did in the PPC days.)
Desktops.
Hubris comes to mind.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Despite my rant at the desktop line...
Maybe the AMD CEO is onto something with 'laptops' are powerful enough.
Apple's current 'best Mac' is without a doubt, the stunning Retina Macbook Pro.
Played with one today in PC World. I thought I wanted a 27 inch iMac until I played with one of these babies. Going back to the resolution of the iMac 27 incher after the Retina Pro Macbook is a downer.
The Retina Mac is stunningly razor sharp. Awesome stuff. I don't know the resolution on it. Maybe I don't care. It's so crisp.
Oh for an iMac with a crisp retina.
Even a 24 inch retina vs a normal 27 incher? I'd be happy with a 24 inch retina after seeing the Macbook Pro. I'm no laptop fan...but the 15 Retina was awesome on web browsing...photos...
Like Marv' says, for game play...you drop the resolution somewhat...and get your FPS. I did notice 'some' beach balling in the finder.
Otherwise?
I won't buy another Mac desktop until it's retina.
I suspect many others may do likewise.
I await the next iMac and 'Pro' with great interest.
I think Apple needs to give their entire desktop line a re-think. The imac is Apple's current flag ship...but it's not a cure all for all consumers. But I'd sell my...aha...well...not my soul, but maybe Wizard's soul for a 24 inch retina iMac with hot swap SSD drive and hot swap MxM gpu Radeon 8000 class capability...and...uhm....uh....a sex core i7...and...8 gigs of ram standard...and...no...no...I'm good for now.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple have been caught up and passed on their desktop line.
They need to go back to square one in my view.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Yes, I agree here but have you noticed just how quiet the rumor mill is with anything desktop related? We have had nothing of value rumored about a new Mini nor iMac so you would have to think they are a ways off.
I think that's just because we already know what is happening.
ODD gets dropped, case gets a little thinner, hardware gets updated. We already know the hardware they're both getting because we can match up the TDPs of current chips to new ones.
If the iMac was getting a full redesign, we would have heard that at about the same time we started hearing "guarantees" again of the iPad mini. So it'll just be the usual update. The only real variable is if they can manage to surprise us with retina displays.
I'd hate to think Apple needs a management shake up already but the place has been overwhelmed with real stupid decisions relative to the desktop lately.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Now you have frustrated me even more with this statement as OS X does make use of GPU computing and has apparently significantly expanded upon its use in Mountain Lion. I know for certain that visually my 2008 MBP is snappier than it was before the Mountain Lion update.
Okay, but can that really be attributed to GPGPU? And is yours pre or post unibody?
Originally Posted by Marvin
The focus now is design.
I hope they start to kick the legs out from underneath the gFLOP/w ratio.
Frankly a simple Mini upgrade doesn't even require Ivy's input. All you really need is an internal mother board upgrade. Get a little radical and you would put in a bigger power supply, stronger fan and give us ten or 15 watts better performance. The only thing that might be an issue is that Apple is on allocation for Ivy Bridge processors. In the case of an issue like this I try to find reason for objectionable behavior and this is about the only thing I can come up with. A remote second is that the Mini is dead about to be reborn as a new model, but even that isn't a justification to keep customers on old hardware. Well yeah desktop components are but Apple doesn't use a lot of desktop components. This is one reason why the Mini appears to be more expensive relative to other desktops. Honestly though the processor isn't the issue with the apparent expense it is the utter lack of a reasonable amount of RAM, storage space and other short comings that make the Mini look expensive. Well this can be argued. PPC was a dirt bag of a processor with extremely poor integer performance. The machines where extremely expensive at the time, I know that back then I couldn't justify PPC hardware at all. Those where my deep into Linux years.
Today the hardware line up at Apple is highly mixed as far as value goes. When released the iMac is often a good deal if you can stomach the design and it's shortcomings. The problem is the obvious dragging out of updates for the iMac really makes the computer a poor value a year down the road. Ignoring the importance of USB 3 and other hardware advances just makes the machine look ancient and highly over priced. I'd like to think that Apple has something up it's collective sleeve and is about ready to release ground breaking new hardware across the desktop line up. That is new concepts for the iMac, Mini and Pro. Sadly history here isn't on our side. Instead we have been getting absolutely terrible updates that in some cases are an insult to potential customers (Mac Pro users). The iMac has become a technical disaster with its need for special hardware that frankly isn't accessible anyways. The Min is a great concept except for the fact that it is severely castrated just to make the iMac look good.
Taken all together this highlights a massive disdain for Apples customers. It is like they really don't give a damn and simply offer a take it or leave it attitude that amounts to flipping the customer base a finger. I mean really the hardware line up hasn't changed or really improved in years now, even Ford updates it's F150 once in awhile. To add to the misery desktop users have to look at all the innovation going on in the laptop lineup. This all extremely frustrating when you see it happening and Apple sits with billions in the bank. In the end the desktop line up is stagnet and too limited in models to generate strong interest thus the lagging sales.
By the way I was using otool to look for libraries linking to OpenCL yesterday and had trouble finding any. This surprised me, so I'm not as sure as I was with previous Mac OS releases where one of the graphics libs did link to OpenCL. That could be me and the use of otool, I didn't spend a lot of time on it.
As to the current behavior of Mountain Lion on the old MBP it does seem snappier graphically. The dock is very snappy compared to how it behaved with Lion. Scrolling is far nicer too. I attribute this to improved use of the GPU based on the graphics nature of the problem and indications in Apples developer related forums of increased use of GPU acceleration. Maybe I can look into this later.
We will eventually get there.
Originally Posted by wizard69
If that was so, I don't think you would be hearing the universal frustration expressed in this thread.
Really? Eh. At any rate, I'm also hoping for "sooner rather than later" on that. I'm mystified myself as to why they haven't already if there wasn't going to be some big upheaval.
Sadly pre-unibody! It needs work and I'm not thrilled about tearing it apart.
Oh! I've found the same to be true on mine (same series), so I guess I'm just flat out wrong about GPGPU benefits. I've not paid much attention to that field recently.
As to the iMac, it seems to me that they'll only be using more special parts than ever before. Dropping the ODD would hopefully give us the option of two HDDs+SSD or three SSDs, but I'm not getting my hopes up. And don't be surprised at all if they try to get away with soldered RAM on the new one.