I guess this is as good a place as any for technology to plateau. Does everyone else agree to give up on making new things?
I think you misunderstood his post. He's not saying for tech not to advance, he's just saying the dimensions on a desktop doesn't need to be thinner. Width and height matter, not depth.
Can you tell us why and how a thinner desktop (and I'm not referring to the MacPro) would be advantageous?
Sure it can - but not using copper, it needs the fiber based implementation*
And - lo and behold - the Apple gear with TB ports are optical ready ... http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/13/optical-cables-for-thunderbolt-coming-in-2012/
But thats irrelevant. The iMac is an All-in-one device. The display is not connected by a TB port, it is wired into the mobo. For everyone else ... wait for the upgrade to fibre TB cable later this year.
* I am trying to find the link that showed the speed of the fibre vs copper TB, but can now only find info suggesting that fibre will allow greater cable runs.
Fiber in and of itself only offers the possibility of faster speeds, it doesn't speed up the port on its own! The electronics has to be fast enough to offer up that additional speed and it would need a way of knowing that the optical cable is attached. From what I can see all references to optical cables for today's TB ports indicte their primary advantage is long distance connections.
So we would need TB 2 to drive those high resolution displays. Or another solution, that works in conjunction with the limited bandwidth. There are more thana couple of possible solutions to that bandwidth problem.
I guess this is as good a place as any for technology to plateau. Does everyone else agree to give up on making new things?
Thinnest isn't the only technology that can or should go into a new IMc. The reality is iMacs plateaued years ago when Apple stopped innovating with the machine and set eyes upon laptops.
However some of the arguements or concerns here with regard to iMac thickness are bogus. Number one is that it doesn't matter how hot the case gets as long as it doesn't injure people. What matters is how hot the chips get inside, that can only be determined by measuring their temperatures. Many chips provide such temperature measuring functionality inside so it is fairly easy to determine if the iMac is actually overheating. Also overheating should lead to throttling of the CPU clock. If this happens a lot on the iMac then we have a problem but I've yet to see reports that this actually happens often.
As a side note you can always find an optimal workload that will thermally stress a chip and cause a bit of throttling. You should not see this though throughout a work day where a variety of tasks are accomplished.
In the end even though I see the complaints of hot iMacs as bogus I do not think the focus on the thickness of the iMac is the right view. The iMac is in grave need of an overhaul to address a number of issues. It could end up thinner and address those issues at the same time but the focus of design efforts should not be thinnest specifically but rather the goal should bea better iMac.
Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another? Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature. Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean? It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop. I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple likes big bezels.
Right. And we've never seen them change their mind on anything, ever.
I realize the res required to call a 21.5 or 27" display "retina" at the greater viewing distance of a large-screen desktop is lower than for a 15" rMBP - but given the yield problems and supply limits on the screen for that new machine, Apple might still experience "issues" in getting enough high-quality panels - which would still be pretty bleeding edge if not the bloodiest segment - at a cost that won't knock up the iMac's price.
Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).
On the other hand, Cook promised to pretty much remake the company's lines in 2012 (tho' he's deferred the Pro's makeover into the next year already), and I don't know if Ivy Bridge, double the base RAM (please!), USB 3.0 and available (or standard) SSD drives qualify as any more than a refresh. So who knows (outside of some at Apple)?
Also, Apple doesn't go crazy with BTO options - and last I knew - there was a utility that would let you use the ODD on another computer on your home of biz net as if it were the ODD on your MBA. Meaning that if there's NOT a new iMac form factor this year, I'd expect iMac ODD's to survive one more year - mitigating the need for multi-Mac deployments to fret over ODD capability.
Or they might at most offer a choice of a second storage drive where the ODD now goes in the options - which would be spinning platter if the default's SSD and vice-versa is the default drive's a spinner. However the chassis has an ODD slot, and Johnny Ive would lose sleep over "a slot to nowhere," lolz.....
Anyway, once there IS a real makeover, I'd be shocked to see an ODD in the new machine.
Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another?
Of course. I seriously lug my Mac Pro far more places than I probably should. That's completely and utterly meaningless, and I would NEVER in my wildest dreams wish to sacrifice performance to for it to be more portable.
I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.
And I would argue that's nowhere near a valid argument.
Right. And we've never seen them change their mind on anything, ever.
Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another? Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature. Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean? It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop. I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.
I would argue that we have AIO desktops because many people, who didn't necessarily need the performance of a standalone tower, preferred not to see the mess of wires running between the various components (tower & monitor) of a conventional PC configuration. In my opinion, I don't think portability had much to do with it. It's not like the typical household reorganizes where their home office or desk is each year and then thanks their lucky stars that modern AIOs are reasonably portable. Whatever portability AIOs have is the result of the form factor and the flat panel monitor and the significant reduction in both size and weight that occurred. I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.
Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).
When has Apple ever bumped the price when introducing Retina screens? iPhone? Nope. iPod? Nope. iPad? Nope. MBP? Nope. Why would you expect one for the iMac when all the evidence suggests otherwise?
And before you say the RMBPs are more expensive, take a cMBP and swap in the SSDs that Apple offers, now compare the price to the RMBP. What do you notice? It is the same or more expensive, and has lower specs on RAM, VRAM, screen tech, and has cheaper speakers. Enough with this nonsense about Retina screens costing more. Apple has historically always absorbed the cost.
And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.
I appreciate your laying out some reasons for thinness on a desk top. I don't think anyone here would disagree that thinner looks cool, which really is your main point. The problem that I, Rob5, and others have is whether the compromises made for thinness in the new MBP, where there are additional compelling advantages in terms of weight and portability - are too high a price for improved aesthetics. I'm going to need at least one CD/DVD burner in the house for some time and it may as well be thrown in the iMac. Don't need it in my iPad or Air or other portable. Since I'll keep the desktop around awhile, I'd also not like to have to take it in or have to mail it to Apple to get an upgrade or replacement for RAM or SSD. Because if you don't have an apple store nearby, you're stuck. You likely can't replace RAM/drives yourself, and the local shops reportedly will have a hard time servicing the thinner MBPs and probably your thinner iMac. In summary, don't make me give up useful stuff like internal speakers, optical drives, and the option for user/local shop serviceable RAM/drives for thinness.
Why give those functions up to hang it on a wall - Really? How will you swivel it up or down or move it in or out for different viewers? That's reduced functionality that is also, by the way, wholly inconsistent with your other dubious goal of increased portability. As someone else noted, that's not much of an advantage for a desktop. I like reducing the footprint, which really isn't all that big, but couldn't that could be done without making it thinner - So while I'm all for improved aesthetics that comes with thinness, I'm on the side of maintaining or increasing function. If the larger screen size of an iMac as compared to MBPs make it possible accommodate continued repairability and function noted above and still be thinner, I'm all for it.
I am sure the case will be much thinner due to being able to use thinner panels and their new fan design of asymmetrical fans to keep the product quiet that they are using on the MacBookPro Retina.
I wonder when they'll drop the MacMini. That's due for a Ivy Bridge processor, USB 3, upgrade.
I hope that Apple does offer the next iMac with a 27" Retina display. I've been waiting a while for a new Mac (I was holding out for an truly updated Mac Pro), but have decided the iMac will suffice. I'd hate to be tempted to hold off until 2013 for a Retina 27" iMac. So my advice to Apple; Push! Stretch! Push the envelope and be truly ahead of the pack!
I think when you look at the hardware requirements to drive the iMac display in retina resolution the MBP really is pushing the envelope of the nvidia and/or the 4000. Apple will more than likely have to go to a video card that uses desktop video chips or dual chips and DDR5+ memory dedicated for that huge amout of storage it takes to display the rendered screen. Heat then becomes a real factor for the AIOs and they are tipping the scales with a scorch-o-matic in my current iMac
( Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac12,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 3.4 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 8 GB
)
and that gets toasty enough after a couple hours use that it is very uncomfortable to place your hand on the top and grip it.
Looks to me like Apple may have to use a desktop chip to handle the video just because of the vast number of actual pixels (3 to 4 times more than current 5.1 million on MBP). This is a departure from using laptop chips int AIO Mac's.
the next generation iMac will have a retina display, proprietary solid state storage, soldered ram, and no optical drive, and be super thin. also just like the MacBook Pro, they will keep the old ones around for the weak.
What is the point of having a DESKTOP machine be super slim? Do you really need to save another 5mm of desk space? Desktops are all about power and storage, they're work horses. Everything else is completely irrelevant.
That's an Apple SSD. Their margins don't count. And do the 2.5" SSDs get speeds comparable to the card-based ones? I can't find anywhere that says anything about those on Apple's site.
To mount on a wall.
Reduce size of footprint.
May lead to reduced bezel thickness.
Increased portability.
Improved aesthetics.
And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.
How does thinnest itself improve aesthetics?
Making the iMac thinner just to be thinner is a dead end path, very few are buying an iMac now because it is thin. Rather what we need is a redesigned iMac that is an example of Apple innovating on the desktop again.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
I guess this is as good a place as any for technology to plateau. Does everyone else agree to give up on making new things?
I think you misunderstood his post. He's not saying for tech not to advance, he's just saying the dimensions on a desktop doesn't need to be thinner. Width and height matter, not depth.
Can you tell us why and how a thinner desktop (and I'm not referring to the MacPro) would be advantageous?
Fiber in and of itself only offers the possibility of faster speeds, it doesn't speed up the port on its own! The electronics has to be fast enough to offer up that additional speed and it would need a way of knowing that the optical cable is attached. From what I can see all references to optical cables for today's TB ports indicte their primary advantage is long distance connections.
So we would need TB 2 to drive those high resolution displays. Or another solution, that works in conjunction with the limited bandwidth. There are more thana couple of possible solutions to that bandwidth problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkerkay
Can you tell us why and how a thinner desktop (and I'm not referring to the MacPro) would be advantageous?
To mount on a wall.
Reduce size of footprint.
May lead to reduced bezel thickness.
Increased portability.
Improved aesthetics.
And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.
Thinnest isn't the only technology that can or should go into a new IMc. The reality is iMacs plateaued years ago when Apple stopped innovating with the machine and set eyes upon laptops.
However some of the arguements or concerns here with regard to iMac thickness are bogus. Number one is that it doesn't matter how hot the case gets as long as it doesn't injure people. What matters is how hot the chips get inside, that can only be determined by measuring their temperatures. Many chips provide such temperature measuring functionality inside so it is fairly easy to determine if the iMac is actually overheating. Also overheating should lead to throttling of the CPU clock. If this happens a lot on the iMac then we have a problem but I've yet to see reports that this actually happens often.
As a side note you can always find an optimal workload that will thermally stress a chip and cause a bit of throttling. You should not see this though throughout a work day where a variety of tasks are accomplished.
In the end even though I see the complaints of hot iMacs as bogus I do not think the focus on the thickness of the iMac is the right view. The iMac is in grave need of an overhaul to address a number of issues. It could end up thinner and address those issues at the same time but the focus of design efforts should not be thinnest specifically but rather the goal should bea better iMac.
It's a desktop. This is completely meaningless.
Apple likes big bezels.
Hopefully with matte display, at least as an option, even if more expensive. It is a health and productivity issue.
Both are nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's a desktop. This is completely meaningless.
Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another? Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature. Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean? It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop. I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple likes big bezels.
Right. And we've never seen them change their mind on anything, ever.
I realize the res required to call a 21.5 or 27" display "retina" at the greater viewing distance of a large-screen desktop is lower than for a 15" rMBP - but given the yield problems and supply limits on the screen for that new machine, Apple might still experience "issues" in getting enough high-quality panels - which would still be pretty bleeding edge if not the bloodiest segment - at a cost that won't knock up the iMac's price.
Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).
On the other hand, Cook promised to pretty much remake the company's lines in 2012 (tho' he's deferred the Pro's makeover into the next year already), and I don't know if Ivy Bridge, double the base RAM (please!), USB 3.0 and available (or standard) SSD drives qualify as any more than a refresh. So who knows (outside of some at Apple)?
Also, Apple doesn't go crazy with BTO options - and last I knew - there was a utility that would let you use the ODD on another computer on your home of biz net as if it were the ODD on your MBA. Meaning that if there's NOT a new iMac form factor this year, I'd expect iMac ODD's to survive one more year - mitigating the need for multi-Mac deployments to fret over ODD capability.
Or they might at most offer a choice of a second storage drive where the ODD now goes in the options - which would be spinning platter if the default's SSD and vice-versa is the default drive's a spinner. However the chassis has an ODD slot, and Johnny Ive would lose sleep over "a slot to nowhere," lolz.....
Anyway, once there IS a real makeover, I'd be shocked to see an ODD in the new machine.
Of course. I seriously lug my Mac Pro far more places than I probably should. That's completely and utterly meaningless, and I would NEVER in my wildest dreams wish to sacrifice performance to for it to be more portable.
And I would argue that's nowhere near a valid argument.
Given that they've just moved to large bezels…
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
Have you never had to move a desktop from one location to another? Just because it's primary feature isn't portability, that doesn't mean that portability isn't a feature. Consumers like AIO desktops because they get rid of all the cables, but what does that mean? It means a portable desktop that doesn't cross the line and become a laptop. I would argue that we have AIO desktops specifically because portability is a significant feature.
I would argue that we have AIO desktops because many people, who didn't necessarily need the performance of a standalone tower, preferred not to see the mess of wires running between the various components (tower & monitor) of a conventional PC configuration. In my opinion, I don't think portability had much to do with it. It's not like the typical household reorganizes where their home office or desk is each year and then thanks their lucky stars that modern AIOs are reasonably portable. Whatever portability AIOs have is the result of the form factor and the flat panel monitor and the significant reduction in both size and weight that occurred. I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Price increases are never a good idea in a declining market segment (and I'm referring to desktops overall, not to Apple's absolute sales growth in all segments including healthy iMac sales, i.e., the market may be growing, but "truck" sales aren't keeping up with the overall market where all the real growth has moved to cars and bikes).
When has Apple ever bumped the price when introducing Retina screens? iPhone? Nope. iPod? Nope. iPad? Nope. MBP? Nope. Why would you expect one for the iMac when all the evidence suggests otherwise?
And before you say the RMBPs are more expensive, take a cMBP and swap in the SSDs that Apple offers, now compare the price to the RMBP. What do you notice? It is the same or more expensive, and has lower specs on RAM, VRAM, screen tech, and has cheaper speakers. Enough with this nonsense about Retina screens costing more. Apple has historically always absorbed the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009
To mount on a wall.
Reduce size of footprint.
May lead to reduced bezel thickness.
Increased portability.
Improved aesthetics.
And I honestly feel that improved aesthetics is itself enough of an advantage to pursue a thinner device.
I appreciate your laying out some reasons for thinness on a desk top. I don't think anyone here would disagree that thinner looks cool, which really is your main point. The problem that I, Rob5, and others have is whether the compromises made for thinness in the new MBP, where there are additional compelling advantages in terms of weight and portability - are too high a price for improved aesthetics. I'm going to need at least one CD/DVD burner in the house for some time and it may as well be thrown in the iMac. Don't need it in my iPad or Air or other portable. Since I'll keep the desktop around awhile, I'd also not like to have to take it in or have to mail it to Apple to get an upgrade or replacement for RAM or SSD. Because if you don't have an apple store nearby, you're stuck. You likely can't replace RAM/drives yourself, and the local shops reportedly will have a hard time servicing the thinner MBPs and probably your thinner iMac. In summary, don't make me give up useful stuff like internal speakers, optical drives, and the option for user/local shop serviceable RAM/drives for thinness.
Why give those functions up to hang it on a wall - Really? How will you swivel it up or down or move it in or out for different viewers? That's reduced functionality that is also, by the way, wholly inconsistent with your other dubious goal of increased portability. As someone else noted, that's not much of an advantage for a desktop. I like reducing the footprint, which really isn't all that big, but couldn't that could be done without making it thinner - So while I'm all for improved aesthetics that comes with thinness, I'm on the side of maintaining or increasing function. If the larger screen size of an iMac as compared to MBPs make it possible accommodate continued repairability and function noted above and still be thinner, I'm all for it.
Yep. By $400. $300 if you consider the SSD.
I am sure the case will be much thinner due to being able to use thinner panels and their new fan design of asymmetrical fans to keep the product quiet that they are using on the MacBookPro Retina.
I wonder when they'll drop the MacMini. That's due for a Ivy Bridge processor, USB 3, upgrade.
I think when you look at the hardware requirements to drive the iMac display in retina resolution the MBP really is pushing the envelope of the nvidia and/or the 4000. Apple will more than likely have to go to a video card that uses desktop video chips or dual chips and DDR5+ memory dedicated for that huge amout of storage it takes to display the rendered screen. Heat then becomes a real factor for the AIOs and they are tipping the scales with a scorch-o-matic in my current iMac
( Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac12,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 3.4 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 8 GB
)
and that gets toasty enough after a couple hours use that it is very uncomfortable to place your hand on the top and grip it.
Looks to me like Apple may have to use a desktop chip to handle the video just because of the vast number of actual pixels (3 to 4 times more than current 5.1 million on MBP). This is a departure from using laptop chips int AIO Mac's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. By $400. $300 if you consider the SSD.
I'm not sure where you are looking but:
15-inch: 2.3 GHz
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
4GB 1600MHz memory
500GB 5400-rpm hard drive1
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 512MB of GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (7 hours)
Price: 1799$.
SSD Upgrade price: 500$
Total: 2299.
15-inch: 2.3 GHz Retina display
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage1
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (7 hours)2
Price: 2199$.
15-inch: 2.6 GHz
2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
750GB 5400-rpm hard drive1
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (7 hours)2
Price: 2199$.
SSD Upgrade price: 900$
Total: 3099.
15-inch: 2.6 GHz Retina display
2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
512GB flash storage1
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (7 hours)2
Price: 2799$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
the next generation iMac will have a retina display, proprietary solid state storage, soldered ram, and no optical drive, and be super thin. also just like the MacBook Pro, they will keep the old ones around for the weak.
What is the point of having a DESKTOP machine be super slim? Do you really need to save another 5mm of desk space? Desktops are all about power and storage, they're work horses. Everything else is completely irrelevant.
That's an Apple SSD. Their margins don't count. And do the 2.5" SSDs get speeds comparable to the card-based ones? I can't find anywhere that says anything about those on Apple's site.
How does thinnest itself improve aesthetics?
Making the iMac thinner just to be thinner is a dead end path, very few are buying an iMac now because it is thin. Rather what we need is a redesigned iMac that is an example of Apple innovating on the desktop again.