Haswell-powered iMacs could hit in late Aug., followed by new MacBook Pros in mid-Sept.

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 140
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    WWDC for the new Mac mini? I didn't hear that. September does seem accurate though.
  • Reply 62 of 140
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Lately it has been hard to tell what Apple will do. The fire sale prices on MBPs right now have me wondering if updates are coming earlier than I thought. It also has me concerned that the retinas aren't selling as well as some hoped for. I suspect that after the early adopter nut cases purchased their machines the rest of the buying public said no thank you to the sticker price in the retinas.


     


    That seems like a slightly exaggerated description. I think initial pricing was set to curb the demand from early adopters. Later yields may have outpaced pent up demand to a degree, but I doubt the majority of their sales are skewed in favor of $2k+ models. Iris pro options would add some  value to the 13" models, but they don't seem to be available on dual core chips.


     


     


    Quote:




    In any event as to the Mini, it really frustrates me that they can't see that platform as a stand alone solution. Most Mini customers have zero interest in the iMac so waiting for an iMac update is just non sense. So hopefully Apple is waiting for Intels chips coming in September. If the Mini debuts after these chips are released with a run of the mill Haswell that could have been had last month it will be another what the F$&@k moment.



    Sometimes I'm not sure if Apple realizes that their marketing does more harm to the brand then good



     


    Their margins are probably higher on the imacs, but I don't know that many people find themselves considering an imac vs a mini. It might come up on a mac forum, but I question the likelihood of a typical customer asking such a thing. Most are probably looking to walk out of the store with something that works in its entirety. I don't see them adding iris pro to the mini, simply due to cpu cost. It would be kind of dumb if they go with just that in the 15", as there are faster options today. The mini and 13" are the things that need it, yet it's not available in dual core models. I'm not sure why that is the case. It seems like overall dual core machines would be the ones that most commonly use integrated gpus over discrete graphics. It's not even so much of a hangup on discrete itself. I would like to see mobile graphics performance closer to desktop versions from a couple years ago. Battery life becomes more interesting at a point where you don't have to carry the charger to use it for the day. Below that it's nice, but not nice enough to make a massive difference to me.


     


    I don't mean it needs to be usable for 10 hours under the worst possible conditions. I mean after accounting for some amount of battery wear, say a year or two, I would still want to be able to use it without having to consider remaining battery life.

  • Reply 63 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    winter wrote: »
    Personally I like all the ports in the back. I hope they do not get rid of the Ethernet port and use Thunderbolt to Ethernet though it may happen if it gets thinner.

    There are probably three good reasons for front access to USB ports.
    1. it just works better for a lot of keyboard installations.
    2. a place to plug in your camera or multi card reader without hunting for the port.
    3. a place to plug in your USB storage stick in case you need to trader data from work or someplace else.

    The big thing with most of these is easy access to the ports for an installed machine.

    As for Ethernet it isn't going anywhere fast. Wired networking is so much better for a desktop that it isn't even a joke to suggest removing Ethernet. In fact it is a mandatory port for desktop installations.
  • Reply 64 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Bingo. The only thing I could have seen is the new AirPort aesthetic, like you said. But they'd have to have a reason.
    I can see a few positives with respect to the AirPort chassis. One is likely better cooling at a lower cost. Another is the ability to split components of the machine between front and rear boards, a power supply and a connector board. Use the new blade SSDs for storage and you end up with one compact but high performance (relative) machine. Considering how far intel intends to go with integration at 14 nm, we cold have one hell of a machine in that little box in a couple of years.
    Oh, you know that's never happening. :lol:
    We can only hope. Sadly Apple isn't too smart at times with its designs. Think about it, Macs are know as graphics machines and computers that support photographers well. Yet there isn't an Apple made desktop that a photographer can walk up to and plug a camera in without hunting on the back side.
    It could do with two Thunderbolt, though. Every Mac should get at least four eventually. "Why, when a keyboard and mouse would never need that throughput?" Never mind that we won't be using either in a few years: physical size on the computer. You can fit three Thunderbolt on the logic board in the space of two USB.
    The more TB ports and the higher their performance the more interesting the Mini becomes. Given TB 2 it would be able to leverage the same advance peripherals as the Mac Pro. Even one TB 2 port would make for a very interesting Mini though I agree two would be a far better implementation for the next Mini.

    As a side note, this is how I see TB 2 becoming a big win for Apple. It means high end hardware can connect to anything in the Mac line up. Need to do some field work, grab a laptop and your device of choice and go at it. Need to record some data far away from your main computer, grab a Mini and some networking cable and greatly reduce your wiring complexity. I know many are still negative with respect to TB but you really need to reboot your mine and think different. It is a new way of doing things and can end up better than the old ways.
  • Reply 65 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »
    That seems like a slightly exaggerated description. I think initial pricing was set to curb the demand from early adopters. Later yields may have outpaced pent up demand to a degree, but I doubt the majority of their sales are skewed in favor of $2k+ models. Iris pro options would add some  value to the 13" models, but they don't seem to be available on dual core chips.
    Not today but maybe after September 1st. See this page:
    http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Mobile_CPU_releases_(2013).html and this:
    http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Desktop_CPU_releases_(2013).html

    The reality is September is when the vast majority of the Haswell line launches. There is atleast one mobile chip in the line up that is dual core with Intel 5100 graphics. That is good but apple might even be able to manage a quad core keeping power draw reasonable.

    Obviously this is all unreleased hardware at this point.


    Their margins are probably higher on the imacs, but I don't know that many people find themselves considering an imac vs a mini.
    Exactly two different products for two different markets.
    It might come up on a mac forum, but I question the likelihood of a typical customer asking such a thing. Most are probably looking to walk out of the store with something that works in its entirety. I don't see them adding iris pro to the mini, simply due to cpu cost.
    Maybe not pro due to cost but also heat. However Iris in the 5100 variant would make for a nice Mini. They have chips that go as low as 28 watts for a 2 core model. This chip would actually be ideal in the 13" MBP. I still think Apple needs to up the power budget in the Mini to support a quad core with sme variant of Iris graphics.
    It would be kind of dumb if they go with just that in the 15", as there are faster options today. The mini and 13" are the things that need it, yet it's not available in dual core models. I'm not sure why that is the case.
    Not available today. This is why I've been saying that September is the likely launch month of many new Apple products. Intel really blows out the Haswell line up in September. They have many chips coming some of them optimal for Apples line up. If Apple waits a bit onager formTB 2 chips I wouldn't be surprised either. I have no idea when the TB 2 chips are scheduled to start shipping though.
    It seems like overall dual core machines would be the ones that most commonly use integrated gpus over discrete graphics.
    Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.
    It's not even so much of a hangup on discrete itself. I would like to see mobile graphics performance closer to desktop versions from a couple years ago. Battery life becomes more interesting at a point where you don't have to carry the charger to use it for the day. Below that it's nice, but not nice enough to make a massive difference to me.
    It really does look like Hasweel will deliver that sort of performance all by itself which will be great for the Mini and the 13" MBP. I'm still not convinced that Haswell has the chops to power a MBP the way it should be powered though.
    I don't mean it needs to be usable for 10 hours under the worst possible conditions. I mean after accounting for some amount of battery wear, say a year or two, I would still want to be able to use it without having to consider remaining battery life.

    Honestly that is what the AIRs are for. I'd rather see Apple introduce a 15" MBP that remains focused on performance. Certainly some battery life improvements are in order but that should not come at the expense of raw performance increases over last years models. Right now I still believe that the 15" MBP needs a discrete GPU to help deliver that raw performance increase.

    In any event I can't help but get excited about September even if a laptop is out of reach.
  • Reply 66 of 140

    Quote:


    Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.

     




     


    Six core chips.  Hmm.  That sounds nice.  With the improvements in GPU the iMac has been seeing in the last few years...and a possible '4k' screen at some point next year (?) it adds up to a potential kick ass iMac...especially with the new PCIe SSD?


     


    I'd just love a retina screen on the iMac.  Add six core, SSD as standard (boo for paying for Fusion as extra...) and another bone crunching GPU on the top end...and I'd be looking at it.


     


    Whether you like AIO design of the iMac...or not...what Apple are packing into to it's thinness is pretty darn impressive.




    Lemon Bon Bon.

  • Reply 67 of 140
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    Hexacore CPU and an powerful GPU for the future iMac? Sounds good to me.
  • Reply 68 of 140
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post







    Actually quad cores do integrated GPUs nicely too. The really inspteresting thing is that Intel will introduce six core chips with no GPU. This will make for an interesting iMac if Apple were to use them.

     


     


    I don't have a lot of arguments with the post, but you made a common mistake here. The 6 core from that link lists a 2011 socket. It's Ivy Bridge E, not Haswell. The two aren't even pin compatible. It would drift into territory where the imac would require a second logic board design just to support that cpu option. It's more likely that you'll see the Xeon variant of that cpu appear in the mac pro. Before anyone says it, the 1600s Xeons typically cost the same amount as their i7 counterparts.


     


     


    Quote:


    Honestly that is what the AIRs are for. I'd rather see Apple introduce a 15" MBP that remains focused on performance. Certainly some battery life improvements are in order but that should not come at the expense of raw performance increases over last years models. Right now I still believe that the 15" MBP needs a discrete GPU to help deliver that raw performance increase.



    In any event I can't help but get excited about September even if a laptop is out of reach.



    I wouldn't limit it quite that far. It worked in the Air, so they started to focus on thinned out profiles with large batteries in the other lines too. That is basically how we ended up with the rmbp models. The Air in my opinion could use a better display. I don't mean in terms of resolution, more viewing angles and native gamma.

  • Reply 69 of 140
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 369member
    It will be interesting to see how well the upcoming Haswell-based rMBP compares to this

    http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/18/dell-precision-m3800-workstation-leak/
  • Reply 70 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Very impressive! Mind you my biggest problem with the iMac is access to and upgradability of the RAM and the secondary storage. I'd be inclined to go with an iMac if Apple addressed these issues.
    Six core chips.  Hmm.  That sounds nice.  With the improvements in GPU the iMac has been seeing in the last few years...and a possible '4k' screen at some point next year (?) it adds up to a potential kick ass iMac...especially with the new PCIe SSD?
    PCIe SSDs have to ne in the future iMac simply die to the fact that they put so much performance into their low end laptop. In fact the iMac would look rather pathetic running a conventional drive next to an aIR.
    I'd just love a retina screen on the iMac.  Add six core, SSD as standard (boo for paying for Fusion as extra...) and another bone crunching GPU on the top end...and I'd be looking at it.
    With SSDs on PC Cards, if they had any sense they would make those cards accessible from the out side without a major tear down.
    Whether you like AIO design of the iMac...or not...what Apple are packing into to it's thinness is pretty darn impressive.


    Lemon Bon Bon.

    Well it is the process shrinks really letting Apple do all of this. Just imagine when 3D circuitry can be applied to a CPU chip.
  • Reply 71 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    winter wrote: »
    Hexacore CPU and an powerful GPU for the future iMac? Sounds good to me.

    Well all dreams that aren't nightmares are good experiences. Often dreams lead to little.
  • Reply 72 of 140


    The Macbook Pro line is getting more and more disappointing. The gap between the hardware available outside the Mac OS universe has grown


    to mammoth proportions, not that this matters to students writing papers or surfing the net. It does matter to audio visual pros who would love a really high powered 17" with all the bells and state of the art whistles. Come on Apple, can't you guys have a division to support the pros who depend on you for a living?

  • Reply 73 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    The Macbook Pro line is getting more and more disappointing. The gap between the hardware available outside the Mac OS universe has grown
    to mammoth proportions, not that this matters to students writing papers or surfing the net. It does matter to audio visual pros who would love a really high powered 17" with all the bells and state of the art whistles. Come on Apple, can't you guys have a division to support the pros who depend on you for a living?

    Obviously not. I'm not sure what possessed them to nix the 17" MBP but terrible sales are likely the reason. Like it or not whinny professionals do little for Apples bottom line and actually cause more trouble than they are worth as customers. Just look at the whining around FCPx.

    As for supporting pros isn't that a two way street? Seriously every single improvement Apple has made to its hardware and software lines has been meet with ridicule and disdane from the so called pro community. You look at the noise created by the new Mac Pro and all you see on line is a bunch of noisy so called pros dissing the New Mac Pro at every turn. They do this while obviously not understanding the technology behind the product nor the general direction of technology in the industry. Would any company want such people as any part of their customer base? Especially if the hardware to support that customer base hardly makes any money at all?

    There may be good reason for people to want a 17" MBP. Apple may even have a replacement in the wings, but would it be good business to release such a machine when it will be panned by the very pros it is built for? Especially when said pros won't buy enough machines to pay for development costs.

    As for depending on anybody or any company for a living that is just foolish.
  • Reply 74 of 140


    I love my early 2012 MBP 17" ! Its a great machine. All the guys I work with have one as well. Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17" . There is no doubt there is pent up demand for some new equivalent. As for being criticized for expressing our hopes and needs to Apple, that may be the dumbest comment ever. 

  • Reply 75 of 140

    Quote:

    Oricosts.



    As for depending on anybody or any company for a living that is just foolish.


    WoW. That is delusional. 

  • Reply 76 of 140
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    The MBPro 17 inch is to big to carry around and it is also clumsy to.That is why Apple dumped it.

     

  • Reply 77 of 140
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    Not really. The 17 inch MacBook Pro is something that I've been toting around for the last 4 1/2 years without a problem. The problem is when Apple introduced a new MacBook Pro 15 inch that has a resolution far greater than the 17 inch ever had & is going to cost more to make than the 17 inch, how do you still justify selling the 17 inch?
  • Reply 78 of 140
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,269moderator
    Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17".

    Estimates here say 50,000, which is 1/10th the volume of the 15" models:

    http://investorplace.com/2012/04/monday-apple-rumors-end-of-the-17-inch-macbook-pro/

    "KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo predicts that Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) will end production of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amid poor sales. Kuo said sales of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amounted to about 50,000 units during the first quarter of 2012, compared to 1.5 million of the 13-inch models and 500,000 for the 15-inch models. Kuo also estimated first-quarter MacBook Air sales at 1.1 million units, saying that Air sales have not been stronger because the available solid state drives don’t have enough capacity to entice consumers to buy them in larger numbers, MacRumors reports."

    Apple made a profit on every XServe too and those were expensive but without the sales volume, the resources spent don't make it worthwhile.
    dhagan4755 wrote:
    The problem is when Apple introduced a new MacBook Pro 15 inch that has a resolution far greater than the 17 inch ever had & is going to cost more to make than the 17 inch, how do you still justify selling the 17 inch?

    Yeah, the resolution difference is gone now, the performance spec was always the same so it just comes down to that extra 1.6" of display. Even if they made it 4K, which I don't think would be required for Retina quality, it would still run at the exact same scaled resolutions as the 15" so would have the same workspace, just physically scaled up a little. For that they have to source all new display panels, design all the internal layout, get new batteries, machine new cases and some of the 10% of the 15" sales volume will have already moved to the 15" rMBP so the potential market for a new one would be very small at a $2500+ starting point.

    If the inevitable price drop on the Retina models leaves a price point they want to fill and there's nothing else they can use then a 17" display is an option but the top 15" is still at $2799 so even a price drop will bring it down to $2499, which was the old 17" price. How many of the remaining market for the 17" would be willing to go to $2799 when the entry 15" with the same workspace could start at $1799? You wouldn't just be paying $1000 for 1.6" of display as you'd get the higher spec too but for people who only need the lower spec, it's a big price jump.
  • Reply 79 of 140
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Trajan Long View Post


    I love my early 2012 MBP 17" ! Its a great machine. All the guys I work with have one as well. Apple sold about 250,000 a quarter of these high end units at the end of their run, on which they made a profit on every one.  Several million were sold over the life of the 17" . There is no doubt there is pent up demand for some new equivalent. As for being criticized for expressing our hopes and needs to Apple, that may be the dumbest comment ever. 



    I'm a little skeptical about trying to determine 17" volume. It wasn't that long ago that total macs were under 1 million, and given that the bulk of the growth seems to be on the consumerish end, I am skeptical that the 17" maintained parity in growth with the other lines. As for supporting Apple, they have always been unpredictable. It can be very annoying at times, as OSX is a one vendor OS.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post







    If the inevitable price drop on the Retina models leaves a price point they want to fill and there's nothing else they can use then a 17" display is an option but the top 15" is still at $2799 so even a price drop will bring it down to $2499, which was the old 17" price. How many of the remaining market for the 17" would be willing to go to $2799 when the entry 15" with the same workspace could start at $1799? You wouldn't just be paying $1000 for 1.6" of display as you'd get the higher spec too but for people who only need the lower spec, it's a big price jump.


    I don't think they're that completely married to the old tiered structure. If they wanted to release a 17", the top 15" might be folded into cto options, or they would just spec the thing to the price point. You make it sound like no one at the company took a single math course past high school. As for display real estate, they can both feel cramped. If neither is enough, you just end up going as close as possible. Many of these guys probably plugged into larger displays while at their desks. Aside from that I still think 24" 16:10 is near perfect for most uses of a single display. There aren't many good ways to divide up space without overlap, which still leaves a use case for secondary displays as needed. 24" at that ratio allows for quick visual scanning without relegating large amounts of real estate to semi-peripheral vision. It's quick to navigate with a mouse or trackpad. 27" is decent too, even if it starts to present a slight increase in screen navigation time. The problem with notebooks is that they're all a compromise on screen area. People went to discussing resolution with the new ones, but much of the time that makes less of a difference in usability, even if it looks way way better.

  • Reply 80 of 140
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    So what graphics will the Haswell iMacs use? I am guessing the nVidia 700M series or will it be AMD this time around?
Sign In or Register to comment.