Apple 'likely' to launch low-cost iMac soon, Retina MacBook Air still on track for 2014 debut

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 123
    irun262irun262 Posts: 121member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    What hardware features? Apple can pick and choose what sort of hardware features to incorporate into their SoC. They can also leave out much that isn't relevant anymore. That frankly is Intels big problem, they spend a lot of transistors on backwards compatibility for features that don't mean much today.

    I highly disagree. Compatabikity with all previous x86 software is a huge feature. I can currently run ANY OSX or Windows program on my MBA. If that changes, I'm moving back to Windows (no choice there). I'd love to stay with OSX but if the MBA goes ARM, I'm gone

    From your perspective, Intel made a mistake, 'wasting those transistors' on backwards compatibility. Those transistors will keep me buying their product for many years to come (unless ARM can emulate x86 code faster, in real time, than an Intel chip can run in).

    I use some software that is over 10 years old. It will never get recompiled.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 123
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    irun262 wrote: »
    I can currently run ANY OSX or Windows program on my MBA. If that changes, I'm moving back to Windows (no choice there). I'd love to stay with OSX but if the MBA goes ARM, I'm gone.

    So your only options are an Intel-based MacBook Air or a WinPC? You wouldn't consider an Intel-based MBP?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 123
    irun262irun262 Posts: 121member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So your only options are an Intel-based MacBook Air or a WinPC? You wouldn't consider an Intel-based MBP?

    Actually, you somehow quoted me yet attributed it to the other person.

    I would if I wanted the 13" MBA model. I use the 11" MBA instead because it is so much more portable. That is why I am especially excited about the rumored new 12" (assuming it is Broadwell).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 123
    mactacmactac Posts: 321member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Get over it.




    Why?

     

    Isn't the mini basically a laptop without a screen?

    So why not an iMac without a screen?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 123
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

    Isn't the mini basically a laptop without a screen?

    So why not an iMac without a screen?


     

    Because if you can’t comprehend after 18 years of Apple explicitly refusing to make the product you want that they will never make the product you want, you don’t deserve yet another explanation for why no one cares anymore.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 123
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

     



    Why?

     

    Isn't the mini basically a laptop without a screen?

    So why not an iMac without a screen?


     

    What is your point? The bottom imac ships with integrated graphics and a slower cpu than the quad minis. Calling it a notebook is pointless. You should be able to outline your desires in terms of performance/features/price. Otherwise you're merely arguing semantics.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 123
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mactac wrote: »

    Why?

    Isn't the mini basically a laptop without a screen?
    So why not an iMac without a screen?

    The Mac mini is your iMac without a screen. Remember that Apple used mostly notebook-grade components for most of the iMac's existence. If you want anything more powerful that is headless queue up for a Mac Pro. I doubt Apple is gong to build a 3rd low-volume, headless desktop PC.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 123
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    The Mac mini is your iMac without a screen.

     

    iMac uses desktop chips now while the Mini still uses laptop ones.

     

    Unless you mean ‘your’ as in actually his, in which case yes. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    irun262 wrote: »
    I highly disagree. Compatabikity with all previous x86 software is a huge feature.
    For you it is. At work it is important to me also. However at home I don't care. I fact I can think of nothing at the moment that would keep me on Intel. As long as the platform is open and I can run brew as a package manager I'm all set.
    I can currently run ANY OSX or Windows program on my MBA. If that changes, I'm moving back to Windows (no choice there). I'd love to stay with OSX but if the MBA goes ARM, I'm gone
    Then the platform isn't for you. The fact is through smart phones and iPads people have discovered that they don't need i86 compatibility.
    From your perspective, Intel made a mistake, 'wasting those transistors' on backwards compatibility. Those transistors will keep me buying their product for many years to come (unless ARM can emulate x86 code faster, in real time, than an Intel chip can run in).
    It puts Intel In a tough position when it comes to power management and design flexibility. Much of that old functionality could be emulated these days. Just consider all the addressing modes Intel has to support.
    I use some software that is over 10 years old. It will never get recompiled.

    Believe me I understand this completely as I'm in a similar position at work. However you are mistaken to believe that Intel, along with MS can keep thing compatible forever. I've experienced more that a couple of cases where hardware or operating systems upgrades have madesoftware obsolete. That is the software becomes non functional due to upgrades. The reality is you are on borrowed time with this old software. In some cases we have had to replace entire systems because the manufacture refuses to upgrade software, doesn't exist anymore or specific hardware can no longer be purchased.

    So don't misunderstand me I understand your issues completely but sometimes you need to bite the bullet. Further not every system Apple makes needs to be built for you and your needs. As it is I see Apple keeping Air and introducing an alternative platform loosely derived from iOS systems.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Because if you can’t comprehend after 18 years of Apple explicitly refusing to make the product you want that they will never make the product you want, you don’t deserve yet another explanation for why no one cares anymore.

    The problem is the desktop market is in a wreck as it is. As such Apple has two choices really, drop the Mini or try to revamp in a way that spurs sales.

    As to caring I'm pretty sure Apple cares about all product sales even if they don't publicly pay attention to those sales. One way Apple can address sales is to merge some of the Minis functionality with an AppleTV like device. However to dismiss the idea of a more general overhaul of the Mini is unfortunate as the new chips release schedules enable all sorts of possibilities for an entirely different Mac platform to replace the Mini.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 123
    jcm722jcm722 Posts: 40member

    In my case, it is either a refreshed mini or a Windows 8 machine. Poor eyesight. I have no choice. I want OS X and its speech ability. Foolish to purchase an iMac and an extra monitor.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 123
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    For you it is. At work it is important to me also. However at home I don't care. I fact I can think of nothing at the moment that would keep me on Intel. As long as the platform is open and I can run brew as a package manager I'm all set.

     

    Lol...like your need for brew is more mainstream than the need for x86 apps.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    nht wrote: »
    Lol...like your need for brew is more mainstream than the need for x86 apps.

    For some it might be. I like the ability to install apps like InkScape through home brew instead of using the packages at the InkScape homepage. Granted there aren't a lot of user apps on the HomeBrew site and even fewer GUI based ones but I find HomeBrew to be the most convient to way to keep my machine up to date.

    This also highlights why I said the system needs to be open. These days it is easy for people to install alternative software on the Mac. In fact Apple encourages it via XCode and the very high compatibility CLang has with GCC. Without the current ease of installing and running software that we see on current Mac systems an ARM based laptop would be of little value to me. Further I would want to be able to run my own scripts and programs.

    In any event I wanted to point out that I86 compatibility isn't the big draw for the consumer market it use to be. It really is a different world. In the commercial world sometimes stupidity still has its day. I still maintain systems supported with DOS based apps. It isn't something I like but I'm not the manager making the decisions in this facility. At home where I do make the decisions it really doesn't matter if a laptop has an ARM based processor or not. Ideally I will get better performance than is seen in my old MBP but that is almost a given these days.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 123
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    For you it is. At work it is important to me also. However at home I don't care. I fact I can think of nothing at the moment that would keep me on Intel. As long as the platform is open and I can run brew as a package manager I'm all set.

     

    I just really really like the nerd factor behind this part of the post.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 123
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member

    I REALLY want to see a new mini soon, if Apple doesn't come out with a new XServe.  I've got some older servers that need to be replaced, the new Mac "Pro" is completely inappropriate (I don't need dual video cards in a server, I need redundant boot storage, and I don't like that being external.  And a server shaped like a trash can is just stupid.)  An iMac is a great workstation, and I'd love to see lower cost iMacs, spreadsheet jockeys, lawyers, legal secretaries, and medical assistants don't need a lot of power these days.  I really couldn't care less about a retina screen, and thin does diddly for me once you get as thin as the first flat panel iMacs.  But I need new servers, boxes I can stack up in racks in the equipment closet.  Low power consumption is GREAT for servers, it cuts cooling costs.  I'd prefer easier to replace hard drives, hot swappable would be even better.

     

    It's getting to the point where I'm going to have to start building Hackintoshes just for the server room, and I really don't want to have to do that.  But Apple doesn't seem to want to give me a choice.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 123
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    I really hate to say this but I see zero chance that XServe will come back. I'm not even sure the coming Mini or its replacement will be suitable for server duty.
    darkvader wrote: »
    I REALLY want to see a new mini soon, if Apple doesn't come out with a new XServe.  I've got some older servers that need to be replaced, the new Mac "Pro" is completely inappropriate (I don't need dual video cards in a server, I need redundant boot storage, and I don't like that being external.  And a server shaped like a trash can is just stupid.)
    I can't imagine the current Mac Pro passing for a server. However I can see a model being slightly revised to make a fairly decent server. You do that by deleting a video card and using that space for an SSD card or even several SSD cards. With an external RAIDed controller it ought to be very functional and low cost.
      An iMac is a great workstation, and I'd love to see lower cost iMacs, spreadsheet jockeys, lawyers, legal secretaries, and medical assistants don't need a lot of power these days.  I really couldn't care less about a retina screen, and thin does diddly for me once you get as thin as the first flat panel iMacs.  But I need new servers, boxes I can stack up in racks in the equipment closet.  Low power consumption is GREAT for servers, it cuts cooling costs.  I'd prefer easier to replace hard drives, hot swappable would be even better.
    I don't see that happening as an Apple product.
    It's getting to the point where I'm going to have to start building Hackintoshes just for the server room, and I really don't want to have to do that.  But Apple doesn't seem to want to give me a choice.

    Where you can move to BSD or Linux. Write Tim Cook about the need for a more versatile server like product. For the most part I think you are out of luck running Mac OS server into the future. Is see the Mini as a server as a bit oF a joke
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 123
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    I wonder what's next for the iMac. It can't get much thinner. It can't get much bigger. They can throw a SSD drive in them to make them a little thinner, but then what?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 123
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

    I wonder what's next for the iMac. It can't get much thinner. It can't get much bigger. They can throw a SSD drive in them to make them a little thinner, but then what?

     

    Multitouch.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 123
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I think there are now 5 or 6.

    I gotta wonder who is paying whom for all this exposure.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 123
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    If priced right, I will pick up this lower cost iMac. I would prefer a mini though.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.