Tim Cook: Apple's product pipeline is 'chock full' of 'incredible stuff'

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 145

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  


     


    In any event I agree that storage demand does grow rapidly.  This is one of the reasons I want an XMac.   That is easy access to internal storage bays to expand storage to cover media and other files.      The reality is many of us end up needing a storage upgrade before the machine itself needs an upgrade.   Like you I say no to external drives as a primary storage devices.    That is the place for backup devices.   



    Totally agree on the need for an xMac, for the very reason you stated.


     


    As far as internal drive backups, I've always used an internal drive in my Mac Pro for Time Machine, but I consider my "true" backups to be the disk images of various drives and data on my external drives.  Another way to look at it is, hourly backups on an internal drive, but daily or weekly backups on an external drive.

  • Reply 62 of 145
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    This "xMac" that several of you seem to want, give me some dimensions of (height, width, volume) and what are the specs?
  • Reply 63 of 145


    There are many "xMac" mini tower i7 offerings on the PC side, for example the HP Z220 which can be configured with a quad core i7 for a reasonable price.  That review I linked is for the small form factor version, there is also a larger version that can handle full sized PCIe cards.  If Apple did something like this, they would undoubtedly neuter it with a form factor limited to lo pro PCIe cards, assuming the Mac Pro isn't EOLed.


     


    Remove the ODD from the HP Z220 and put some effort into the design, and the resulting Apple version would be even smaller, cooler, and yes, thinner.  Add a couple mini-PCIe blade type SSD slots and it would flat-out rock.  

  • Reply 64 of 145
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post


    There are many "xMac" mini tower i7 offerings on the PC side, for example the HP Z220 which can be configured with a quad core i7 for a reasonable price.  That review I linked is for the small form factor version, there is also a larger version that can handle full sized PCIe cards.  If Apple did something like this, they would undoubtedly neuter it with a form factor limited to lo pro PCIe cards, assuming the Mac Pro isn't EOLed.


     


    Remove the ODD from the HP Z220 and put some effort into the design, and the resulting Apple version would be even smaller, cooler, and yes, thinner.  Add a couple mini-PCIe blade type SSD slots and it would flat-out rock.  



    These low end workstations don't typically carry the margins of the others, which is one reason I think Apple would be hesitant. HP needs them as some workloads aren't growing as fast. This gives them things like gpus with workstation drivers without the same price points. They also seem to be quite into the Z1. Configured the way I'd want to use it, that thing makes a mac pro look cheap.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I suspect your needs reflect those of many of us!    However do yourself a favor your first level of backup ought to be in a separate box.     You can't realistically call an extra disk inside your PC a backup disk.  


     


    In any event I agree that storage demand does grow rapidly.  This is one of the reasons I want an XMac.   That is easy access to internal storage bays to expand storage to cover media and other files.      The reality is many of us end up needing a storage upgrade before the machine itself needs an upgrade.   Like you I say no to external drives as a primary storage devices.    That is the place for backup devices.   



    He mentioned it just being hourly backups. It's really just something to guard against basic drive failure.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


     


    Yes. The new 27" iMac actually works quite well for most pros if you're willing to write off the 1TB hard drive within and connect it to a TB based RAID setup.


     


    You have a large screen, upgradable memory slots, good graphics, up-to-date IO options and expandable/swappable hard drive options via TB.


    It's a pity to waste a good 1TB drive like that, but it's better than having to haul your work machine to the Apple Store and leave it for 5 days if the drive fails.


     


    If the Mac Pro update isn't a good value, this is probably the setup I'm going with.





    Part of my problem is that bundling everything tends to restrict you to what is offered. I mentioned this with the imac. The 27" is the one with really good specs (about as good as you can get in an 1155 socket). If I was buying one I'd probably wait for refurbished stock to appear. Actually I'd probably wait out the first generation as I tend to do that unless a new machine is absolutely necessary at that time. The graphics options aren't bad. The only way to get 2GB of video memory is to go for one of the higher end configurations, so I'd end up with that. The display is basically leveraged in there. It's made to sit on top of your desk. It takes up a lot of horizontal space. It's too big for a secondary display, but I've still had better results with third party displays. Storage options are still a little limited. If I see some really good thunderbolt JBOD enclosures and the displays improve a bit, I'd probably test one of the near top spec ones. If a mini was available with a beefy gpu and more thunderbolt options appeared, I'd go with that. When it gets to a commitment of several thousand dollars to work out bulk storage, graphics, display setup, and everything to make it work, any kind of compromise is somewhat unattractive.

  • Reply 65 of 145
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Winter View Post



    This "xMac" that several of you seem to want, give me some dimensions of (height, width, volume) and what are the specs?




    http://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmacminiserver.html


     


    Hehe..

  • Reply 66 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member


    I've always looked at Time Machine as something other than a backup solution.   Yeah it effectively backs up your work but it also keeps around revs that you normally wouldn't want.   Time Machine sorta functions like a combo of a source code management system and a backup system.  


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post


    Totally agree on the need for an xMac, for the very reason you stated.


     


    As far as internal drive backups, I've always used an internal drive in my Mac Pro for Time Machine, but I consider my "true" backups to be the disk images of various drives and data on my external drives.  Another way to look at it is, hourly backups on an internal drive, but daily or weekly backups on an external drive.


  • Reply 67 of 145
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    I've always looked at Time Machine as something other than a backup solution.   Yeah it effectively backs up your work but it also keeps around revs that you normally wouldn't want.   Time Machine sorta functions like a combo of a source code management system and a backup system.  

    I think it's supposed to work as a version management for all files, at least the ability to rewind as many versions as it can store on disc. It's a bit rudimentary at that. I found that even changing ownership & permissions of a file, Time Machine decides it has to store a whole new file. So changing permissions on a file heirarchy can fill your time machine pretty quickly.
  • Reply 68 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member


    Version management is probably a better description.    It certainly doesn't do what would be considered a backup.


     


    My problem with time Machine is that it is less than ideal if you are running on an older Apple laptop.   Troublesome would be the word.   One cable docking probably goes a long way to resolving that issue.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    I think it's supposed to work as a version management for all files, at least the ability to rewind as many versions as it can store on disc. It's a bit rudimentary at that. I found that even changing ownership & permissions of a file, Time Machine decides it has to store a whole new file. So changing permissions on a file heirarchy can fill your time machine pretty quickly.

  • Reply 69 of 145
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Version management is probably a better description.    It certainly doesn't do what would be considered a backup.

    It's a bit hard to pin down. It is a backup system though, it's just not a disk clone. You restore it from the most recent point.
  • Reply 70 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member


    True but you don't normally associate having a every possible version of a file as part of a back up.   


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    It's a bit hard to pin down. It is a backup system though, it's just not a disk clone. You restore it from the most recent point.

  • Reply 71 of 145
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    True but you don't normally associate having a every possible version of a file as part of a back up.

    What's your claim again? The way you write that, I'd call that more than a backup, what you think of as a backup is just a subset of the feature.
  • Reply 72 of 145
    mactacmactac Posts: 315member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Winter View Post



    This "xMac" that several of you seem to want, give me some dimensions of (height, width, volume) and what are the specs?


    The xMac begins with an easy to open case. No putty knives, no suctions cups, nothing that you would find in a automotive body shop in order to get inside.


    Then it has some internal expansion. Meaning it even if it comes well equipped there is still room for one more device than the factory offers. My own needs would have it include the users choice of installing an internal ODD. And of course it does not have a built in screen. Processors would not be workstation horsepower but components would be desktop parts and not more expensive laptop parts. Many want the ability to install one PCI card.


     


    For me something with the footprint of the previous generation Mac mini but 6, 8, 10 inches tall would be great. I would even include iPod and iPhone charging docks on top if it were up to me. I know my family is forever forgetting where they leave their chargers for their iPhones.


     


    Basically we want a decent consumer/prosumer desktop computer from Apple that offers choice and ease of use.


     


    I always find the questions of size and specs for the xMac an odd question. No two people will ever agree but that is true of every product, even the ones Apple does make. If the iMac didn't exist no one would agree on what it should be. We just know we want something that offers monitor choice which means the iMac doesn't cut it, expansion room which means the mini doesn't cut it but we don't need the massive horsepower and size of the Mac Pro.

  • Reply 73 of 145
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    The xMac should also have 32 GB of RAM I take it right? Now are you going to make a model with a good graphics card like the ultimate iMac?
  • Reply 74 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member
    winter wrote: »
    The xMac should also have 32 GB of RAM I take it right?
    Base configuration no! Fully expanded it should handle 64GB.

    Now are you going to make a model with a good graphics card like the ultimate iMac?
    If you have a model with PCI slots it should be possible to put a card in the 70 to 100 watt range in the machine. Supporting cards much larger than that leads to a number of problems in a compact case. The real goal here is good 3D, video decode and OpenCL performance. Note I said good not bleeding edge. Remember the goal here is an inexpensive but expandable desktop computer.

    Walk it isn't a requirement that the card be slotted in, as far as I'm concerned the GPU can be soldered in. Oh one more thing 70-100 watts is a lot these says. Since performance per watt is a moving target it might be possible to lower that power range with a 50% decease in power. Remember our goals here with the GPU is to avoid the intel problem. That is poor drivers, terrible 3D, crappy video, and their lack of OpenCL maturity.
  • Reply 75 of 145


    The only thing I can buy is the iPadmini. If Apple releases a new iphone and if it's a major upgrade I'll try to sell my 5 to buy it. Other than that Aint nobody got money for new stuff ! :P

  • Reply 76 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member
    mactac wrote: »
    The xMac begins with an easy to open case. No putty knives, no suctions cups, nothing that you would find in a automotive body shop in order to get inside.
    I'm not concerned about tools to a certain extent, I have no compassion for people with no tools around the house.
    Then it has some internal expansion. Meaning it even if it comes well equipped there is still room for one more device than the factory offers. My own needs would have it include the users choice of installing an internal ODD. And of course it does not have a built in screen. Processors would not be workstation horsepower but components would be desktop parts and not more expensive laptop parts. Many want the ability to install one PCI card.
    Yep I agree for the most part except for the slot count. There the minimal should be two slots.

    For me something with the footprint of the previous generation Mac mini but 6, 8, 10 inches tall would be great. I would even include iPod and iPhone charging docks on top if it were up to me. I know my family is forever forgetting where they leave their chargers for their iPhones.
    I'd prefer a wider foot prints myself.
    Basically we want a decent consumer/prosumer desktop computer from Apple that offers choice and ease of use.
    Sometimes I wonder why that is hard to understand. We aren't asking for rocket science here.
    I always find the questions of size and specs for the xMac an odd question. No two people will ever agree but that is true of every product, even the ones Apple does make.
    It is an odd question. Frankly my mind changes constantly so being precise is fruitless.
    If the iMac didn't exist no one would agree on what it should be. We just know we want something that offers monitor choice which means the iMac doesn't cut it, expansion room which means the mini doesn't cut it but we don't need the massive horsepower and size of the Mac Pro.
    This fairly well sums it up. The difference here is that I'm driven by the need or perception of need, for better GPU support than Intel can provide. A good GPU can go a long way towards keeping a Mac viable for a long time after purchase. Easy access to drive bays is also important though in an ideal machine those bays would turn into PCI based card slots for solid state storage. Or maybe better yet a hybrid machine with both slots and bays for storage.
  • Reply 77 of 145
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    I'm not concerned about tools to a certain extent, I have no compassion for people with no tools around the house.


    He did say things like putty knives. Some people suggested the newest imac was glued shut. This seems to be the case with the 21.5" model. It is extremely silly to me, but I'm not buying one. I'm not sure whether the 27" is assembled that way, but these things shouldn't require more than a screwdriver. Tearing up adhesive isn't really fun.

  • Reply 78 of 145
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    He did say things like putty knives. Some people suggested the newest imac was glued shut. This seems to be the case with the 21.5" model. It is extremely silly to me, but I'm not buying one. I'm not sure whether the 27" is assembled that way, but these things shouldn't require more than a screwdriver. Tearing up adhesive isn't really fun.



    I have zero interest in buying an iMac at this time.    One reason is that accessibility issue.  I just find it disturbing that Apple goes so far out of its way to make iMacs difficult to service.  In a laptop there might be a significant gain for doing something that is difficult to access but design for a desktop machine shouldn't trump access.  Interestingly some of Apples laptops are easier to service than the iMac.    


     


    Interestingly I had to replace a headlight on my Chevy truck yesterday.   On most trucks I've owned this has been a snap, the Chevy was pathetic.   It is pretty obvious that the designers and engineers had zero consideration for servicing of a part that everybody knows will fail in time.  


     


    Now you look at an iMac and you think about access to the disk drive, an item with limited life span, and you really have to ask is Apple nuts.  Mind you it isn't that difficult to build in an access door or to use another approach to make access to that drive easy.  It just demonstrates a bit of arrogance and disrespect for the owners of Apple hardware.  


     


    Why the concern with disk drives?   Because I've owned a lot of hardware over the years and disk drives have always been an issue far more than any other component in a computer.   They fail out right, become flakey or simply become to small for the task at hand.   It would be a different story if Apple debuted a storage solution that could run ten years before a failure but the reality is one should consider themselves lucky if they get 3 years out of a drive.  

  • Reply 79 of 145
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post




    Why the concern with disk drives?   Because I've owned a lot of hardware over the years and disk drives have always been an issue far more than any other component in a computer.   They fail out right, become flakey or simply become to small for the task at hand.   It would be a different story if Apple debuted a storage solution that could run ten years before a failure but the reality is one should consider themselves lucky if they get 3 years out of a drive.  



     


    I've brought up the same point before regarding hard drives on many occasions. Some people have mentioned their own solutions such as thunderbolt external drives, but the best solution would be a lack of hostility towards servicing. I think the reason they're able to get away with this is that most people won't think of such things until they're impacted by a dead or flaky drive.

  • Reply 80 of 145
    mactacmactac Posts: 315member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Sometimes I wonder why that is hard to understand. We aren't asking for rocket science here.

     


     


    So many people think we want something magical. We don't. We just want something positioned between the iMac/mini and the Mac Pro. But we want it to offer a case and expansion that leans toward the Mac Pro side instead of the no expansion hard to get into side of the iMac/mini.

Sign In or Register to comment.