Whatever happens though blaming Apple makes no sense at all.
I can't blame Apple for something they haven't done
They may well choose to not implement it in the other models tho, to let MacPro sales gain some traction.
I wouldn't even blame them for that decision
I really hope that Intel can produce the numbers across the board and Apple does include it in all models ASAP !
Better ?
That would be great for everybody.
As to the TB chassis makers Would you not think that maybe they need to involve the video card makers?
Nah, it's Apple OS support that lacking. To the system it should look like a video card in a PCIe 3.0 x2 slot
Quote:
And just how would that even be possible? This isn't something people will carry around with their laptops.
Docking stations. A lot of laptops primarily move from office to home and back again.
Quote:
What really saddens me is the number of people that buy into the GPU over TB idea having now idea about how it impacts performance. Nor do they seem to be willing to look at the economics of this approach. The fact is anybody can hand pick a set of "tests" to prove that something works but totally ignore how it works. Apple may very well decide to support GPU's over TB in the future but I doubt it would be for something like playing games.
Dude, if TB greatly impact GPU performance that really kills the meme that Mac Pro expansion via TB is just like PCIe slots only you get more of them.
For playing games TB2 is fast enough (as long as you aren't also pumping display data across as well). But for OpenCL and CUDA that you want that PCIe bandwidth for memory transfers.
The Mini is limited by the total wattage that the chassis can support. It doesn't have a GPU because there is little advantage to having one considering the power limitations of the platform. In fact Intel has come so far with their GPU's that i can see Apple dropping discrete GPU's from some other products. The only real way for the Mini to support a discreet GPU would be to up the power capacity or cut power usage elsewhere.
The easy way is to put the power brick back on the outside. That reduces thermals and allows you to provide more power. I know some folks will consider that sacreligious but it's also handy if you want to run your mini on DC power...
Quote:
As for the 21" iMac, have you considered the possibility that poor design played a part in the lack of access to the memory slots? Mind you, you are talking to the guy that would never recommend a iMac to anybody because of the lack of serviceability which has gotten worst in the last round of machines.
Lol. Do you believe that Jony couldn't find a way to provide memory slots? Come on...the lack of serviceability is not an accident either.
Quote:
You claim this is all about upsell yet have proven nothing to me. Rather I see people moving to different products or otherwise not putting up with Apples limitations on hardware.
What? You want a smoking gun memo from Cook to Jony or something?
Quote:
CPU benchmarks don't often tell the whole story. The fact is most Mac Pros have a lot more CPU's to keep an owner productive. Beyond that for most Mini users the GPU is a very important factor in the feel of the hardware even when not running games.
The Mini has a GPU, it is integrated into the Intel chip. The fact is we are crossing that line where the average user is better off with an integrated GPU. It is really just a question of Apple starting to leverage the GPU and Heterogeneous computing.
It's pretty funny in the space of two paragraphs you can say the GPU is a very important factor so you can't compare the Mac Pro to the Mini and then say we are crossing the line to where an iGPU in the mini is adequate.
First, not all pro users need GPU power. Second, if Apple is starting to leverage GPU and heterogeneous computing then the GPU becomes more important to the average user and not less.
Quote:
In any event I have a hard time grasping why anybody would look to the distant past to justify todays hardware. I currently own a 2008 MBP and honestly guys I would expect that what ever computer I buy next to be at least twice as fast as that machine. Likewise I would expect that Mac Pro users want a machine that is much faster than their previous machine and in most cases faster than anything else in Apples line up. You don't buy hardware to meet the performance spec of 5 year old hardware, you buy based on what is currently available and that meets your needs.
Because for a heterogeneous distributing computing environment (aka render farm) having three $800 mac minis may be more advantageous than one $2500 Mac Pro or iMac.
The primary deficiency is in GPU. According to Notebook check the HD5000 when thermally limited is on par with the 7650M which has similar 3D performance with the 6630M.
"Overall, the HD 5000 is thus just behind the AMD Radeon HD 7660G and at the level of a dedicated Radeon HD 7650M. Current games (as of 2013) will run fluently in low to medium-low settings."
I can't blame Apple for something they haven't done
They may well choose to not implement it in the other models tho, to let MacPro sales gain some traction.
I wouldn't even blame them for that decision
If the rational is to allow the Mac Pro to get more traction via TB then I'd have to say Apple would be nuts with that reasoning. I see volume as key here, originally TB 2 wasn't scheduled to ship until 2014 so Apple is apparently pushing hard for this. So if anything does limit TB 2 to the Mac Pro it is likely to be volume.
I really hope that Intel can produce the numbers across the board and Apple does include it in all models ASAP !
It would be a fantastic move forward.
Better ?
That would be great for everybody.
Yes it would. It would be great if they did a partial to the MBP and left the Mini and iMac till 2014.
Nah, it's Apple OS support that lacking. To the system it should look like a video card in a PCIe 3.0 x2 slot
Which wold be drivers that the video card companies cold write.
Docking stations. A lot of laptops primarily move from office to home and back again.
There are all sorts of problems with putting the GPU far from the CPU. All designs of the last few years have evolved around the GPU being as close to the CPU as possible with the eventual evolution being full heterogeneous computing. The off board GPU idea is essentially moving the GPU in the wrong direction.
Dude, if TB greatly impact GPU performance that really kills the meme that Mac Pro expansion via TB is just like PCIe slots only you get more of them.
The two are hardly related, there are few card that load the PCI Express bus as much as GPU card do. With the increasing explosion in data related to high resolution displays, GPU computing and the like the bandwidth requirements are likely to increase not decrease.
For playing games TB2 is fast enough (as long as you aren't also pumping display data across as well).
Some people will tell you that intel integrated graphics are good enough for gaming. The fact is the requirements for games vary widely. Beyond that this whole discussion revolves around taking the word of the guy that cobbled this solution together. What does good enough mean to him? Has he really stressed the solution with high performance games with all goodies enabled.
But for OpenCL and CUDA that you want that PCIe bandwidth for memory transfers.
Even here bandwidth demand is highly variable. Some codes will run very effectively on a GPU over a slow interface.
The easy way is to put the power brick back on the outside. That reduces thermals and allows you to provide more power. I know some folks will consider that sacreligious but it's also handy if you want to run your mini on DC power...
Actually I was a bit disappointed when the Mini went to an internal power supply a few years back.
Lol. Do you believe that Jony couldn't find a way to provide memory slots? Come on...the lack of serviceability is not an accident either.
The thing here is that Apples laptops are easy to service to the extent that they can be serviced. So why make the desktops a pain in the ass?
What? You want a smoking gun memo from Cook to Jony or something?
I do believe that some design decision could use a public explanation.
It's pretty funny in the space of two paragraphs you can say the GPU is a very important factor so you can't compare the Mac Pro to the Mini and then say we are crossing the line to where an iGPU in the mini is adequate.
I don't see it as funny at all. The two machines service entirely different markets. Looking at the Mini the Intel GPUs are getting to the point that many/most users will find the performance acceptable. Haswell is a big leap forward in this respect. The next process shrink ought to do even more for the platform. Mind you these statements are in the context of the customer that is looking at the Mini as a solution to his problems. The Mac Pro serves an entirely different market where it is likely we will never see enough performance out of the GPU.
First, not all pro users need GPU power. Second, if Apple is starting to leverage GPU and heterogeneous computing then the GPU becomes more important to the average user and not less.
I don't see how this conflicts with anything I've said. The fact is that heterogeneous computing means that you have to have a substantially higher performing discrete solution to provide a meaningful advantage over the integrated solutions.
Because for a heterogeneous distributing computing environment (aka render farm) having three $800 mac minis may be more advantageous than one $2500 Mac Pro or iMac.
In the end building a render farm is all about economics. That means hardware that works well with the code base you have to work with.
The primary deficiency is in GPU. According to Notebook check the HD5000 when thermally limited is on par with the 7650M which has similar 3D performance with the 6630M.
"Overall, the HD 5000 is thus just behind the AMD Radeon HD 7660G and at the level of a dedicated Radeon HD 7650M. Current games (as of 2013) will run fluently in low to medium-low settings."
The thing here is that Apples laptops are easy to service to the extent that they can be serviced. So why make the desktops a pain in the ass?
You've been saying that my point about how the product line is deliberately designed for the upsell is full of shit and yet you have no credible alternative reason.
It's a pain in the ass so you buy the 27" instead unless you are of the opinion that the exact same folks that design the laptops can't figure out how to add a small door on the BACK of an even larger computer that hardly anyone ever sees.
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent. We know that the latter is untrue. What does that tell you?
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent.
Or Jony and his team thought the buyer of that particular model is more concerned about a pretty, uninterrupted panel surface with no unsightly panel than in RAM upgrades.
Or adding a door would drive up the cost or complicate the manufacturing process for the smaller chassis.
Or some other explanation we haven't considered.
Overall the iMac strikes me as an exercise in bad choices -- so space constrained that a fast hard drive will burn up, and sealed up, preventing access to the most commonly failed part -- but we'll probably never know WHY Jony went weird.
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent. We know that the latter is untrue. What does that tell you?
I would say they just considered it a very low priority. Look at all of the Macs. You'll find that Apple hates visible seams. It doesn't have to be deliberate to be a very low design priority.
You've been saying that my point about how the product line is deliberately designed for the upsell is full of shit and yet you have no credible alternative reason.
Repeating the same theme over and over doesn't create truth either. You say it is all about upsell and I see that as bull crap. The fact is the three machines in Apple desktop line up serve different markets, needs or desires. The person that would be happy with a Mini will not be shopping for a Mac Pro. People that don't like unserviceable all in ones won't be looking at the iMac at all. You want to believe that the iMac is attractive enough to pull the users of these other machines in, that might happen for some but most users are rather attached to their platform of preference.
Maybe instead of believing me you should consider some of the threads here where Mini users wait patiently for computer updates even after new iMacs are reveals. Or vice versa, iMac owners have been willing to wait months for a new machine with the updated Mini already on the market. For the most part you don't see owners jumping from one platform to the other.
I just think you grossly overestimate the upsell potential of the iMac over the Mini.
It's a pain in the ass so you buy the 27" instead unless you are of the opinion that the exact same folks that design the laptops can't figure out how to add a small door on the BACK of an even larger computer that hardly anyone ever sees.
This is really the crux of the problem, we really don't know what Apples issue is here. Do they really want to look people out of the machine or is a simple mechanical design issue. If it was a lock out issue then why have their laptops retained easy serviceability, even the Mini is relativly easy to service.
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent. We know that the latter is untrue. What does that tell you?
Well obviously it is a deliberate design decision, however that doesn't imply that your explanation as to why is correct. The alternative explanations have been covered already, but I'm sure there are reasons that have been missed in the forums.
A little perspective here, I would expect that soon we will see Mac Desktops with the RAM soldered onto the motherboard. There won't even be a daughter card. The reason is pretty simple, the high speed ram specs of the future demand it. It could be suggested that Apple is prepping us for the day when such hardware is common. However for secondary storage you still have two problems to deal with.
One problem is that people outgrow secondary storage capacity often well before the machine is too old to upgrade. The second problem is that SSDs are still wear items and magnetic drives have known failure modes. Since this is likely to remain an issue well into the future why make something that is guaranteed to fail so inaccessible on the new iMacs? It is enough to put people off the iMac completely.
Or Jony and his team thought the buyer of that particular model is more concerned about a pretty, uninterrupted panel surface with no unsightly panel than in RAM upgrades.
Or adding a door would drive up the cost or complicate the manufacturing process for the smaller chassis.
Or some other explanation we haven't considered.
There are many reasons, only Apple really knows.
Overall the iMac strikes me as an exercise in bad choices -- so space constrained that a fast hard drive will burn up, and sealed up, preventing access to the most commonly failed part -- but we'll probably never know WHY Jony went weird.
It is a terrible choice for people that expect to keep the machine for any length of time. This so bugs me that I never recommend an iMac to people looking for computer purchasing support. In the iMacs the thermal problems are such that the disk is a special order item, so not only is it hard to get to you can't source parts through mainstream suppliers. It is like three strikes and you are out.
I have heard all sorts of inane suggestions regarding an external raid...like stick in a drawer or somewhere out of sight.
Given that the mouse and keyboard are bluetooth and you're running TB to the monitor anyway sticking an iMac out of sight is just as credible as those suggestions.
But many folks have space for 2 monitors. The iMac display can be used for email and palettes if nothing else.
I really should log in more often so I can reply.
If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved.
And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
I really should log in more often so I can reply. If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved. And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Phil, I have to agree with the other comment. I had a desk, that was DEFINITELY not from Ikea and while I might be able to squeeze too 27inch monitors there wouldn't be any room for anything else. it was a fairly expensive desk. Two 20inchers, sure, but it would have no room for anything else and I would like to have a nice desk tamp as well. If you stick two 27 inch monitors it will definitely limit what choices you have or don't have for a table lamp I like those lamps that can swing in many positions and they need clearance and a fairly big radius.
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Not until my current job have I been provided a desk that could handle a single 27" display with ease.
Google "japan office" and look at some of the images. More often than not, tons of tiny desks are bunched together. Even a 15" notebook can seem huge on some.
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Not mine. No room for a big desk, and even if there was, there's so much other stuff on it that there's no way I could make two monitors fit. Well, unless it was a REALLY big desk. But to warrant a desk that big I suspect I'd be doing a job that wouldn't require two monitors. I'd have people to do my monitor viewing for me.
I really should log in more often so I can reply.If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved.And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
Yes, which is why I said "many folks" as opposed to "everyone". The f**king point is that the iMac is a more than capable machine and there's not one thing listed so far that the new Mac Pro can do that the same generation iMac cannot. The only thing I can even vaguely think of is run 6 monitors at once.
It can do it faster than the iMac but unlike the old Mac Pro there's nothing you can point to (LIKE SLOTS) that the Mac Pro has and the iMac doesn't.
That's ignoring the fact that the monitor on the 27" iMac is actually a fairly decent one and most folks, even most pros, can use it perfectly fine and adding that 2nd monitor is only for those pros that actually need better.
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Phil, I have to agree with the other comment. I had a desk, that was DEFINITELY not from Ikea and while I might be able to squeeze too 27inch monitors there wouldn't be any room for anything else. it was a fairly expensive desk. Two 20inchers, sure, but it would have no room for anything else and I would like to have a nice desk tamp as well. If you stick two 27 inch monitors it will definitely limit what choices you have or don't have for a table lamp I like those lamps that can swing in many positions and they need clearance and a fairly big radius.
Really? I would've expected desks in the US would be even larger than what I see here in Europe. But ok, including a lamp will of course require an even wider desk.
The TB Display is 25.7 inches (65 cm) in width. My desk at home is 150cm with a single 30" on it; 69cm in width, so a 2nd one will fit. But ok, EOL'D, and indeed hardly any room for a lamp.
Comments
I can't blame Apple for something they haven't done
They may well choose to not implement it in the other models tho, to let MacPro sales gain some traction.
I wouldn't even blame them for that decision
I really hope that Intel can produce the numbers across the board and Apple does include it in all models ASAP !
Better ?
That would be great for everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to the TB chassis makers Would you not think that maybe they need to involve the video card makers?
Nah, it's Apple OS support that lacking. To the system it should look like a video card in a PCIe 3.0 x2 slot
Quote:
And just how would that even be possible? This isn't something people will carry around with their laptops.
Docking stations. A lot of laptops primarily move from office to home and back again.
Quote:
What really saddens me is the number of people that buy into the GPU over TB idea having now idea about how it impacts performance. Nor do they seem to be willing to look at the economics of this approach. The fact is anybody can hand pick a set of "tests" to prove that something works but totally ignore how it works. Apple may very well decide to support GPU's over TB in the future but I doubt it would be for something like playing games.
Dude, if TB greatly impact GPU performance that really kills the meme that Mac Pro expansion via TB is just like PCIe slots only you get more of them.
For playing games TB2 is fast enough (as long as you aren't also pumping display data across as well). But for OpenCL and CUDA that you want that PCIe bandwidth for memory transfers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The Mini is limited by the total wattage that the chassis can support. It doesn't have a GPU because there is little advantage to having one considering the power limitations of the platform. In fact Intel has come so far with their GPU's that i can see Apple dropping discrete GPU's from some other products. The only real way for the Mini to support a discreet GPU would be to up the power capacity or cut power usage elsewhere.
The easy way is to put the power brick back on the outside. That reduces thermals and allows you to provide more power. I know some folks will consider that sacreligious but it's also handy if you want to run your mini on DC power...
Quote:
As for the 21" iMac, have you considered the possibility that poor design played a part in the lack of access to the memory slots? Mind you, you are talking to the guy that would never recommend a iMac to anybody because of the lack of serviceability which has gotten worst in the last round of machines.
Lol. Do you believe that Jony couldn't find a way to provide memory slots? Come on...the lack of serviceability is not an accident either.
Quote:
You claim this is all about upsell yet have proven nothing to me. Rather I see people moving to different products or otherwise not putting up with Apples limitations on hardware.
What? You want a smoking gun memo from Cook to Jony or something?
Quote:
CPU benchmarks don't often tell the whole story. The fact is most Mac Pros have a lot more CPU's to keep an owner productive. Beyond that for most Mini users the GPU is a very important factor in the feel of the hardware even when not running games.
The Mini has a GPU, it is integrated into the Intel chip. The fact is we are crossing that line where the average user is better off with an integrated GPU. It is really just a question of Apple starting to leverage the GPU and Heterogeneous computing.
It's pretty funny in the space of two paragraphs you can say the GPU is a very important factor so you can't compare the Mac Pro to the Mini and then say we are crossing the line to where an iGPU in the mini is adequate.
First, not all pro users need GPU power. Second, if Apple is starting to leverage GPU and heterogeneous computing then the GPU becomes more important to the average user and not less.
Quote:
In any event I have a hard time grasping why anybody would look to the distant past to justify todays hardware. I currently own a 2008 MBP and honestly guys I would expect that what ever computer I buy next to be at least twice as fast as that machine. Likewise I would expect that Mac Pro users want a machine that is much faster than their previous machine and in most cases faster than anything else in Apples line up. You don't buy hardware to meet the performance spec of 5 year old hardware, you buy based on what is currently available and that meets your needs.
Because for a heterogeneous distributing computing environment (aka render farm) having three $800 mac minis may be more advantageous than one $2500 Mac Pro or iMac.
The primary deficiency is in GPU. According to Notebook check the HD5000 when thermally limited is on par with the 7650M which has similar 3D performance with the 6630M.
"Overall, the HD 5000 is thus just behind the AMD Radeon HD 7660G and at the level of a dedicated Radeon HD 7650M. Current games (as of 2013) will run fluently in low to medium-low settings."
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-5000.91978.0.html
"The 3D performance is similar to the Radeon HD 6630M, depending on the core clock (mostly 500 MHz). "
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7650M.70632.0.html
Eh.
Yes it would. It would be great if they did a partial to the MBP and left the Mini and iMac till 2014.
Even here bandwidth demand is highly variable. Some codes will run very effectively on a GPU over a slow interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The thing here is that Apples laptops are easy to service to the extent that they can be serviced. So why make the desktops a pain in the ass?
You've been saying that my point about how the product line is deliberately designed for the upsell is full of shit and yet you have no credible alternative reason.
It's a pain in the ass so you buy the 27" instead unless you are of the opinion that the exact same folks that design the laptops can't figure out how to add a small door on the BACK of an even larger computer that hardly anyone ever sees.
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent. We know that the latter is untrue. What does that tell you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent.
Or Jony and his team thought the buyer of that particular model is more concerned about a pretty, uninterrupted panel surface with no unsightly panel than in RAM upgrades.
Or adding a door would drive up the cost or complicate the manufacturing process for the smaller chassis.
Or some other explanation we haven't considered.
Overall the iMac strikes me as an exercise in bad choices -- so space constrained that a fast hard drive will burn up, and sealed up, preventing access to the most commonly failed part -- but we'll probably never know WHY Jony went weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent. We know that the latter is untrue. What does that tell you?
I would say they just considered it a very low priority. Look at all of the Macs. You'll find that Apple hates visible seams. It doesn't have to be deliberate to be a very low design priority.
Maybe instead of believing me you should consider some of the threads here where Mini users wait patiently for computer updates even after new iMacs are reveals. Or vice versa, iMac owners have been willing to wait months for a new machine with the updated Mini already on the market. For the most part you don't see owners jumping from one platform to the other.
I just think you grossly overestimate the upsell potential of the iMac over the Mini. This is really the crux of the problem, we really don't know what Apples issue is here. Do they really want to look people out of the machine or is a simple mechanical design issue. If it was a lock out issue then why have their laptops retained easy serviceability, even the Mini is relativly easy to service.
Well obviously it is a deliberate design decision, however that doesn't imply that your explanation as to why is correct. The alternative explanations have been covered already, but I'm sure there are reasons that have been missed in the forums.
A little perspective here, I would expect that soon we will see Mac Desktops with the RAM soldered onto the motherboard. There won't even be a daughter card. The reason is pretty simple, the high speed ram specs of the future demand it. It could be suggested that Apple is prepping us for the day when such hardware is common. However for secondary storage you still have two problems to deal with.
One problem is that people outgrow secondary storage capacity often well before the machine is too old to upgrade. The second problem is that SSDs are still wear items and magnetic drives have known failure modes. Since this is likely to remain an issue well into the future why make something that is guaranteed to fail so inaccessible on the new iMacs? It is enough to put people off the iMac completely.
I have heard all sorts of inane suggestions regarding an external raid...like stick in a drawer or somewhere out of sight.
Given that the mouse and keyboard are bluetooth and you're running TB to the monitor anyway sticking an iMac out of sight is just as credible as those suggestions.
But many folks have space for 2 monitors. The iMac display can be used for email and palettes if nothing else.
I really should log in more often so I can reply.If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved.
And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Phil, I have to agree with the other comment. I had a desk, that was DEFINITELY not from Ikea and while I might be able to squeeze too 27inch monitors there wouldn't be any room for anything else. it was a fairly expensive desk. Two 20inchers, sure, but it would have no room for anything else and I would like to have a nice desk tamp as well. If you stick two 27 inch monitors it will definitely limit what choices you have or don't have for a table lamp I like those lamps that can swing in many positions and they need clearance and a fairly big radius.
Most desks have a lot more than a monitor sitting on them. Space usage is very workflow related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Not until my current job have I been provided a desk that could handle a single 27" display with ease.
Google "japan office" and look at some of the images. More often than not, tons of tiny desks are bunched together. Even a 15" notebook can seem huge on some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Not mine. No room for a big desk, and even if there was, there's so much other stuff on it that there's no way I could make two monitors fit. Well, unless it was a REALLY big desk. But to warrant a desk that big I suspect I'd be doing a job that wouldn't require two monitors. I'd have people to do my monitor viewing for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool
I really should log in more often so I can reply.If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved.And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
Yes, which is why I said "many folks" as opposed to "everyone". The f**king point is that the iMac is a more than capable machine and there's not one thing listed so far that the new Mac Pro can do that the same generation iMac cannot. The only thing I can even vaguely think of is run 6 monitors at once.
It can do it faster than the iMac but unlike the old Mac Pro there's nothing you can point to (LIKE SLOTS) that the Mac Pro has and the iMac doesn't.
That's ignoring the fact that the monitor on the 27" iMac is actually a fairly decent one and most folks, even most pros, can use it perfectly fine and adding that 2nd monitor is only for those pros that actually need better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Most desks have a lot more than a monitor sitting on them. Space usage is very workflow related.
Most users don't need a high end NEC or Eizo instead of the perfectly good IPS panel in the iMac either.
Really? I would've expected desks in the US would be even larger than what I see here in Europe. But ok, including a lamp will of course require an even wider desk.
The TB Display is 25.7 inches (65 cm) in width. My desk at home is 150cm with a single 30" on it; 69cm in width, so a 2nd one will fit. But ok, EOL'D, and indeed hardly any room for a lamp.
The iMac next to a TB Display looks stupid:
http://wpmu.org/thunderbolt-display-imac-height/
----
...of to look at some Japanese offices right now....