Hate to say it, but that’s probably the reason. And you know what they’re going to do, don’t you? They’re not going to give us six Thunderbolt 3+USB C ports like they do now with USB A and Thunderbolt 2. No, no. They’ll just lop off two of them and give us four ports, max.
One of the problems with earlier version of the TB silicon was that the die was large; i.e., very expensive relative to USB. At the same time, there are cheaper dual port TB 3 devices becoming available, so in theory, there could be more accessories that would be able to daisy chain.
At the same time, TB 3 will support up to 100 W; It would be difficult to imagine that their would be two TB 3 ports at 100 W, and 4 USB 3.1 Type C ports at 100 W, all maximums of their respective specs.
Somewhere in there, the designers of these products are going to have to make compromises in numbers, type, and output power of each port.
I personally would be surprised if the Mac Book Air, if it survives as a product, would get more than one TB 3 port, which is USB Type C, while I would expect that the Mac Book Pro will get at least two TB 3 ports, i.e., the ability to add dual 4k screens, which would themselves have to be dual TB 3 devices. Each of those ports can have a USB 3.1 protocol as well.
That's it, two TB 3 ports, that support USB 3.1, and probably the headphone jack, though I can also see a Lightning port added to the Mac Book, and Mac Book Pro.
I can build an 8 Core Monster PC with 32 GB of RAM and nvidia GTX 980 video card for about $2500. Compared that to an 8 core Mac Pro that sells for $5899. And that Monster PC is internally expandable and has a processor that is one-year newer. The Mac Pro has two GPU's, but it's a near worthless implementation (like a fusion drive), as they are slower, non-upgradable, and required OpenCL enhanced software (hard stuff to find) to make use of the extra processor.
You're ugly Alienware monster still uses Windows.
%95 percent of what you posted here is BS. I can break down everything you said and how you're exaggerating or talking out of your *** but I'm sleepy and I'll let others hand it to you.
In before he attempts a lame taunt to try to get me to hand his a** to him.
I am very disappointed. A retina 4K display with anemic graphics and a slow hard drive is not going to cut it.
The fusion drive pairs a very slow 5400 rpm hard drive with a small SSD. We have these same fusion drives in our iMacs where I work, and they are often slow.
The integrated graphics will barely drive the 4K screen for light browsing. It will certainly not be capable of any kind of pro or midlevel video editing, design, gaming, etc.
Same old 16 GBs of RAM. This is fine for now, but will be inadequate in a few years for work that requires having four or five hungry programs to be open at the same time.
Bottom line, the internal specs on this new 21.5 inch 4K iMac are grossly inadequate now and will get worse as computing power demands increase within a few years. Macs last many years, but this one will be slow from day one and obsolete within two years.
This is a no buy.
I so wanted to get a new 21.5 inch iMac to replace my 2010 iMac. But my 2010 iMac has a 7200 RPM one TB hard drive, 16 GBs of Ram, a fast enough processor, and a discrete graphics card. It works fine. I will keep my current iMac for another year until Apple updates the 21.5 inch iMac to include internal specs to support its 4K display.
I don't have enough room for a 27 inch iMac, and so that is not an option.
I am a bit in shock as well.
A 1TB Fusion Drive only has 24GB of Flash storage. A 2TB Fusion Drive has 128GB of Flash Storage. Compare this with the mac mini, its 1TB Fusion Drive upgrade has 128GB of Flash Storage.
What to do? What to do? 27 inch is just way too big. Perhaps I should hold out for a 23 inch Skylake iMac? I do not get Apple's logic that a smaller screen means less pro features.
The update brings the 21.5-inch iMac in line with its larger 27-inch brethren, which debuted with a 5K Retina display one year ago. Apple most recently refreshed its smaller iMac lineup in June of last year.
%95 percent of what you posted here is BS. I can break down everything you said and how you're exaggerating or talking out of your *** but I'm sleepy and I'll let others hand it to you.
In before he attempts a lame taunt to try to get me to hand his a** to him.
If you could have...you would have. Nothing I said is BS. You CAN build a better high-end PC for nearly half the price of a Mac Pro (I know...I have done it.) And you go back to the days where your hardware is upgradable and internally expandable. Yes...you must run Windows 10. It's not quite as good as OS X, but it does have redeeming qualities that OS X does not. Performant OpenGL drivers are at the top of my list here - and really where the Mac Pro, despite having two graphics cards, is a waste unless your software is well written to benefit from OpenCL - and there is very little software that is. Bottom line is that Time Cook's Apple is nerf-ing the Mac. The Mac Pro is not a desirable device for the money...it's simply not. Pro users will get more performance and a better overall ownership experience with a high-end DIY PC. Not too mention most of the PC parts come standard with a 3 year warranty, while Apple is hopelessly determined to make three year warranties an Up-Charge. It's quite sad...and quite pathetic...Tim Cook needs to defer Mac Product decisions to someone (...ANYONE...) else...he just doesn't "get" the Mac.
Good for you. You don’t have a clue what the Mac Pro is or what it can do compared to that.
Get the best of both worlds and buy a Mac Pro with a 980, like me.
Hard drives were invented in the ‘60s. That’s more than a decade ago.
The notion, of course, you’re just inventing off the top of your head.
HDDs were common in computers through the 2000's. Here, halfway though the second decade of the 21st century, SSD's are widely deployed enough to consider them common. I consider them the Grim Reaper for the HDD, at least in personal computing devices.
So when do we get the quad-core i7 as a BTO option for the Mini ??
Not until the mini is redesigned (so don't hold your breath). As I understand it the quad-core i7 uses a different socket which would necessitate a different motherboard. As opposed to previous generations CPU where they all used the same socket. So it's not a simple drop-in replacement to get a quad i7. Not sure if the next gen Intel CPUs have the same "problem", but if so Apple isn't likely to create two different mini motherboards so you still won't be able to get what you are looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpcutter
In response to Tim Cook's Apple.It is great if you like toys...like the Apple Watch, iPad and the iPhone. These mobile devices make Tim's world. The entire computer line up is in disarray. Partial updates within the Macbook, MBA and MBP lines. Each notebook has different processors from one another. Macbook has a core M processor, The MBA and the 13" MBP has the 5th generation i5 and i7 chips but dual core. The 15" MBP has i5 and i7 chips but quad core. We are told that the Macbook is the future because of the single USB-C port. Oh really, then why the 27 inch iMac with the new Skyline chips not embrace this technology. TB3 can be included because they have the same port configuration. The iMac line up is really an array of disorganization. You basically have 3 different models of the iMac. There are 2 - 21.5 inch models without Retina, another 21.5 inch model with Retina and 3 models of the 27" inch with Retina. The 21.5 inch models has the Broadwell processors and the 27 inch has the new Skylake processors. No changes in the ports. Why??? This is a great mystery to me. It appears that this upgrade is one to quiet Apple's critics about doing minimal support to the computer line. This is a shame.
Without trying to be inflammatory, I do agree with some of this. Apple has always been the master of the upsell. Offering a somewhat bare-bones option at the lowest price point and then offering more reasonable options in its middle and upper tiers. You can look at this in two ways...Apple trying to keep a low-price option in the lineup in order to get market share with the price-sensitive consumers, or Apple screwing their customers by offering poor options at the low price points and forcing you to buy the more expensive models. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But I do feel the Mac lineup is a bit of a mess right now. More so than at any time since Steve Jobs returned. There are some great machines in the lineup, but as a whole, the lineup is starting to feel like a hodgepodge of options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay
I find it interesting that no one seems to have mentioned that these new models support 25% beyond sRGB screens; kind of a big deal, as are the new keyboard, magic tablet, and magic mouse, all of which contribute to making the new iMacs significantly better.
Here I will probably rile some feathers...who cares? But seriously, for the people these machines are targeted at, do they care? Would they even notice? Apple has always used high-quality screens, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. For the small number of folks doing color critical work, yes it's a big deal. But for the vast majority of users it's probably not much more than a marketing spec to lure them in.
How much more do those screens cost to get that spec? Could that expense be used for something else, such as making the SSD or Fusion drive standard across the line? My personal feeling is that this is another example of Apple's fixation on appearances, whether it be software or in this case hardware. Form over function. Graphic design vs UI design. Make it look pretty even if that means hiding useful UI controls.
This isn't necessarily bad, depending on who your target audience is. But it is going to irritate a subset of users, who would prefer more options to better fit their needs or the ability to set up their work environment the way they want to, not the way Apple feels it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Has it ever crossed your mind that the iMac line is not targeted at you? The iMac was never made for you and will never be.
These are obviously made for mainstream consumers not some code writing nerd.
Is now the time to bring up the fabled mid-range headless Mac? LOL You are correct in that the iMac is not targeted to the person you were responding to. But that leaves the question...if he needs a Mac for work, which Mac is appropriate for him? I think the answer is "none." The mini is [relatively] under-powered, especially without the quad i7 option. The Mac Pro is far too expensive unless you are doing the type of work it was specifically designed for. The iMac is the mid-range option, but (to me) places too much emphasis on the screen and not enough of the rest of the system. Personally, I'd much rather be able to purchase my own screen suited to my needs and still be able to pair with with an iMac-class computer that I can configure to my specific needs as well.
But we also need to recall that Apple dropped the word "computer" from the company name many years ago. Apple is no longer a computer company. They are a consumer electronics company.
So when do we get the quad-core i7 as a BTO option for the Mini ??
Not until the mini is redesigned (so don't hold your breath). As I understand it the quad-core i7 uses a different socket which would necessitate a different motherboard. As opposed to previous generations CPU where they all used the same socket. So it's not a simple drop-in replacement to get a quad i7. Not sure if the next gen Intel CPUs have the same "problem", but if so Apple isn't likely to create two different mini motherboards so you still won't be able to get what you are looking for.
Hhmmm. Looking just now at the specs, the base new iMac has quad-core i5 whereas the Mini is only dual-core. So I guess that the quad i7 has the same connection (no actual "socket" though).
Would be nice if the Minis went all-quad (i5 or i7) wouldn't it !
If you could have...you would have. Nothing I said is BS. You CAN build a better high-end PC for nearly half the price of a Mac Pro (I know...I have done it.) And you go back to the days where your hardware is upgradable and internally expandable. Yes...you must run Windows 10. It's not quite as good as OS X, but it does have redeeming qualities that OS X does not. Performant OpenGL drivers are at the top of my list here - and really where the Mac Pro, despite having two graphics cards, is a waste unless your software is well written to benefit from OpenCL - and there is very little software that is. Bottom line is that Time Cook's Apple is nerf-ing the Mac. The Mac Pro is not a desirable device for the money...it's simply not. Pro users will get more performance and a better overall ownership experience with a high-end DIY PC. Not too mention most of the PC parts come standard with a 3 year warranty, while Apple is hopelessly determined to make three year warranties an Up-Charge. It's quite sad...and quite pathetic...Tim Cook needs to defer Mac Product decisions to someone (...ANYONE...) else...he just doesn't "get" the Mac.
Again, based on your posts, why would you even be interested in the iMac, or any Mac, at all? You seem to be happy to discuss its limitations.
As I stated earlier, you don't really need another Mac; you need to find another job that is Windows 10 centric. Do that, no more Mac, no more OS X and bliss awaits!!
I consider them the Grim Reaper for the HDD, at least in personal computing devices.
Totally. I’m all for solid state. HDDs can’t get much bigger than 7 TB per disk, and after that they’re stuck. I don’t think we know the SSD limit yet.
But they’re still tiny and they’re still expensive. I’m 100% against 5400 RPM drives and will never buy them or be suckered into them again (FRIGGING WESTERN DIGITAL DOESN’T REPORT ITS SPEEDS ANYMORE), and the next drive I buy will be an SSD (my first)... but they’re still too tiny and they’re still too expensive.
The next thing I buy will have to be over 2TB, so I have a while to wait.
Again, based on your posts, why would you even be interested in the iMac, or any Mac, at all? You seem to be happy to discuss its limitations.
As I stated earlier, you don't really need another Mac; you need to find another job that is Windows 10 centric. Do that, no more Mac, no more OS X and bliss awaits!!
There is nothing wrong with my job - I love my job. Developing iOS application on the Mac isn't painful, developing Mac applications isn't painful. Having to buy Apple products is painful and increasingly without an upside. In this new iMac line-up, there is not a single standard configuration (SKU) that I would purchase. And, once I start the build-to-order process, the up-charging is relentless. Want a hyper-threading i7 CPU? Want a Fusion Drive or SSD? Want a better GPU? Want a GPU with 4GB VRAM? Want a three year warranty? All of these are a separate upcharge.
Bottom line: Every standard configuration (SKU) in this iMac line up is a different level of 'suck' - with the more expensive ones merely 'sucking less'.
The Mac Pro suffers a similar fate but for different reasons: Non-Upgradable (except for RAM), Older CPU technology, dubious dual GPU design with little or no actual software support, external expansion with cabling horror, all for pricing that starts at $2999. Apple doesn't want to make the desktop product I want to buy. I'm seriously thinking about getting a Mac Mini, but they probably won't update that product for another year...if history is any guide. Until then...what do I do? I'm not getting another job....
There is nothing wrong with my job - I love my job. Developing iOS application on the Mac isn't painful, developing Mac applications isn't painful. Having to buy Apple products is painful and increasingly without an upside. In this new iMac line-up, there is not a single standard configuration (SKU) that I would purchase. And, once I start the build-to-order process, the up-charging is relentless. Want a hyper-threading i7 CPU? Want a Fusion Drive or SSD? Want a better GPU? Want a GPU with 4GB VRAM? Want a three year warranty? All of these are a separate upcharge.
Bottom line: Every standard configuration (SKU) in this iMac line up is a different level of 'suck' - with the more expensive ones merely 'sucking less'.
The Mac Pro suffers a similar fate but for different reasons: Non-Upgradable (except for RAM), Older CPU technology, dubious dual GPU design with little or no actual software support, external expansion with cabling horror, all for pricing that starts at $2999. Apple doesn't want to make the desktop product I want to buy. I'm seriously thinking about getting a Mac Mini, but they probably won't update that product for another year...if history is any guide. Until then...what do I do? I'm not getting another job....
None of that is going to change, and frankly, the added resale value at the end is likely very high.
Why isn't the business you work for pay for it, or you as an independent contractor can write it off anyway.
I agree that the Mac Pro needs an upgrade, but it won't see one until TB 3 and a compatible Xeon processor. CUDA is giving way to OpenCL and Vulcan anyway, which ARM does/will support, and in the long term, CUDA is just too proprietary.
I get it when it refers to CPU and GPU, but there’s no excuse with RAM and storage.
Surely its the same as the 16 GB iPhone "controversy." They simply want to up-sell and since the screen costs more in the 27 in the first place they extend that further.
Comments
Hate to say it, but that’s probably the reason. And you know what they’re going to do, don’t you? They’re not going to give us six Thunderbolt 3+USB C ports like they do now with USB A and Thunderbolt 2. No, no. They’ll just lop off two of them and give us four ports, max.
One of the problems with earlier version of the TB silicon was that the die was large; i.e., very expensive relative to USB. At the same time, there are cheaper dual port TB 3 devices becoming available, so in theory, there could be more accessories that would be able to daisy chain.
At the same time, TB 3 will support up to 100 W; It would be difficult to imagine that their would be two TB 3 ports at 100 W, and 4 USB 3.1 Type C ports at 100 W, all maximums of their respective specs.
Somewhere in there, the designers of these products are going to have to make compromises in numbers, type, and output power of each port.
I personally would be surprised if the Mac Book Air, if it survives as a product, would get more than one TB 3 port, which is USB Type C, while I would expect that the Mac Book Pro will get at least two TB 3 ports, i.e., the ability to add dual 4k screens, which would themselves have to be dual TB 3 devices. Each of those ports can have a USB 3.1 protocol as well.
That's it, two TB 3 ports, that support USB 3.1, and probably the headphone jack, though I can also see a Lightning port added to the Mac Book, and Mac Book Pro.
You're ugly Alienware monster still uses Windows.
%95 percent of what you posted here is BS. I can break down everything you said and how you're exaggerating or talking out of your *** but I'm sleepy and I'll let others hand it to you.
In before he attempts a lame taunt to try to get me to hand his a** to him.
What, prey tell,
Isn't this the sequel to "Eat, Pray, Love" that everyone is talking about?
I am very disappointed. A retina 4K display with anemic graphics and a slow hard drive is not going to cut it.
The fusion drive pairs a very slow 5400 rpm hard drive with a small SSD. We have these same fusion drives in our iMacs where I work, and they are often slow.
The integrated graphics will barely drive the 4K screen for light browsing. It will certainly not be capable of any kind of pro or midlevel video editing, design, gaming, etc.
Same old 16 GBs of RAM. This is fine for now, but will be inadequate in a few years for work that requires having four or five hungry programs to be open at the same time.
Bottom line, the internal specs on this new 21.5 inch 4K iMac are grossly inadequate now and will get worse as computing power demands increase within a few years. Macs last many years, but this one will be slow from day one and obsolete within two years.
This is a no buy.
I so wanted to get a new 21.5 inch iMac to replace my 2010 iMac. But my 2010 iMac has a 7200 RPM one TB hard drive, 16 GBs of Ram, a fast enough processor, and a discrete graphics card. It works fine. I will keep my current iMac for another year until Apple updates the 21.5 inch iMac to include internal specs to support its 4K display.
I don't have enough room for a 27 inch iMac, and so that is not an option.
I am a bit in shock as well.
A 1TB Fusion Drive only has 24GB of Flash storage. A 2TB Fusion Drive has 128GB of Flash Storage. Compare this with the mac mini, its 1TB Fusion Drive upgrade has 128GB of Flash Storage.
What to do? What to do? 27 inch is just way too big. Perhaps I should hold out for a 23 inch Skylake iMac? I do not get Apple's logic that a smaller screen means less pro features.
Broadwell <> Skylake. Just saying...
Perhaps I should hold out for a 23 inch Skylake iMac?
You’ll be holding out forever.
I get it when it refers to CPU and GPU, but there’s no excuse with RAM and storage.
You're ugly Alienware monster still uses Windows.
%95 percent of what you posted here is BS. I can break down everything you said and how you're exaggerating or talking out of your *** but I'm sleepy and I'll let others hand it to you.
In before he attempts a lame taunt to try to get me to hand his a** to him.
If you could have...you would have. Nothing I said is BS. You CAN build a better high-end PC for nearly half the price of a Mac Pro (I know...I have done it.) And you go back to the days where your hardware is upgradable and internally expandable. Yes...you must run Windows 10. It's not quite as good as OS X, but it does have redeeming qualities that OS X does not. Performant OpenGL drivers are at the top of my list here - and really where the Mac Pro, despite having two graphics cards, is a waste unless your software is well written to benefit from OpenCL - and there is very little software that is. Bottom line is that Time Cook's Apple is nerf-ing the Mac. The Mac Pro is not a desirable device for the money...it's simply not. Pro users will get more performance and a better overall ownership experience with a high-end DIY PC. Not too mention most of the PC parts come standard with a 3 year warranty, while Apple is hopelessly determined to make three year warranties an Up-Charge. It's quite sad...and quite pathetic...Tim Cook needs to defer Mac Product decisions to someone (...ANYONE...) else...he just doesn't "get" the Mac.
Good for you. You don’t have a clue what the Mac Pro is or what it can do compared to that.
Get the best of both worlds and buy a Mac Pro with a 980, like me.
Hard drives were invented in the ‘60s. That’s more than a decade ago.
The notion, of course, you’re just inventing off the top of your head.
HDDs were common in computers through the 2000's. Here, halfway though the second decade of the 21st century, SSD's are widely deployed enough to consider them common. I consider them the Grim Reaper for the HDD, at least in personal computing devices.
So when do we get the quad-core i7 as a BTO option for the Mini ??
Not until the mini is redesigned (so don't hold your breath). As I understand it the quad-core i7 uses a different socket which would necessitate a different motherboard. As opposed to previous generations CPU where they all used the same socket. So it's not a simple drop-in replacement to get a quad i7. Not sure if the next gen Intel CPUs have the same "problem", but if so Apple isn't likely to create two different mini motherboards so you still won't be able to get what you are looking for.
In response to Tim Cook's Apple.It is great if you like toys...like the Apple Watch, iPad and the iPhone. These mobile devices make Tim's world. The entire computer line up is in disarray. Partial updates within the Macbook, MBA and MBP lines. Each notebook has different processors from one another. Macbook has a core M processor, The MBA and the 13" MBP has the 5th generation i5 and i7 chips but dual core. The 15" MBP has i5 and i7 chips but quad core. We are told that the Macbook is the future because of the single USB-C port. Oh really, then why the 27 inch iMac with the new Skyline chips not embrace this technology. TB3 can be included because they have the same port configuration. The iMac line up is really an array of disorganization. You basically have 3 different models of the iMac. There are 2 - 21.5 inch models without Retina, another 21.5 inch model with Retina and 3 models of the 27" inch with Retina. The 21.5 inch models has the Broadwell processors and the 27 inch has the new Skylake processors. No changes in the ports. Why??? This is a great mystery to me. It appears that this upgrade is one to quiet Apple's critics about doing minimal support to the computer line. This is a shame.
Without trying to be inflammatory, I do agree with some of this. Apple has always been the master of the upsell. Offering a somewhat bare-bones option at the lowest price point and then offering more reasonable options in its middle and upper tiers. You can look at this in two ways...Apple trying to keep a low-price option in the lineup in order to get market share with the price-sensitive consumers, or Apple screwing their customers by offering poor options at the low price points and forcing you to buy the more expensive models. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But I do feel the Mac lineup is a bit of a mess right now. More so than at any time since Steve Jobs returned. There are some great machines in the lineup, but as a whole, the lineup is starting to feel like a hodgepodge of options.
I find it interesting that no one seems to have mentioned that these new models support 25% beyond sRGB screens; kind of a big deal, as are the new keyboard, magic tablet, and magic mouse, all of which contribute to making the new iMacs significantly better.
Here I will probably rile some feathers...who cares? But seriously, for the people these machines are targeted at, do they care? Would they even notice? Apple has always used high-quality screens, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. For the small number of folks doing color critical work, yes it's a big deal. But for the vast majority of users it's probably not much more than a marketing spec to lure them in.
How much more do those screens cost to get that spec? Could that expense be used for something else, such as making the SSD or Fusion drive standard across the line? My personal feeling is that this is another example of Apple's fixation on appearances, whether it be software or in this case hardware. Form over function. Graphic design vs UI design. Make it look pretty even if that means hiding useful UI controls.
This isn't necessarily bad, depending on who your target audience is. But it is going to irritate a subset of users, who would prefer more options to better fit their needs or the ability to set up their work environment the way they want to, not the way Apple feels it should be.
Has it ever crossed your mind that the iMac line is not targeted at you? The iMac was never made for you and will never be.
These are obviously made for mainstream consumers not some code writing nerd.
Is now the time to bring up the fabled mid-range headless Mac? LOL You are correct in that the iMac is not targeted to the person you were responding to. But that leaves the question...if he needs a Mac for work, which Mac is appropriate for him? I think the answer is "none." The mini is [relatively] under-powered, especially without the quad i7 option. The Mac Pro is far too expensive unless you are doing the type of work it was specifically designed for. The iMac is the mid-range option, but (to me) places too much emphasis on the screen and not enough of the rest of the system. Personally, I'd much rather be able to purchase my own screen suited to my needs and still be able to pair with with an iMac-class computer that I can configure to my specific needs as well.
But we also need to recall that Apple dropped the word "computer" from the company name many years ago. Apple is no longer a computer company. They are a consumer electronics company.
So when do we get the quad-core i7 as a BTO option for the Mini ??
Not until the mini is redesigned (so don't hold your breath). As I understand it the quad-core i7 uses a different socket which would necessitate a different motherboard. As opposed to previous generations CPU where they all used the same socket. So it's not a simple drop-in replacement to get a quad i7. Not sure if the next gen Intel CPUs have the same "problem", but if so Apple isn't likely to create two different mini motherboards so you still won't be able to get what you are looking for.
Hhmmm. Looking just now at the specs, the base new iMac has quad-core i5 whereas the Mini is only dual-core. So I guess that the quad i7 has the same connection (no actual "socket" though).
Would be nice if the Minis went all-quad (i5 or i7) wouldn't it !
If you could have...you would have. Nothing I said is BS. You CAN build a better high-end PC for nearly half the price of a Mac Pro (I know...I have done it.) And you go back to the days where your hardware is upgradable and internally expandable. Yes...you must run Windows 10. It's not quite as good as OS X, but it does have redeeming qualities that OS X does not. Performant OpenGL drivers are at the top of my list here - and really where the Mac Pro, despite having two graphics cards, is a waste unless your software is well written to benefit from OpenCL - and there is very little software that is. Bottom line is that Time Cook's Apple is nerf-ing the Mac. The Mac Pro is not a desirable device for the money...it's simply not. Pro users will get more performance and a better overall ownership experience with a high-end DIY PC. Not too mention most of the PC parts come standard with a 3 year warranty, while Apple is hopelessly determined to make three year warranties an Up-Charge. It's quite sad...and quite pathetic...Tim Cook needs to defer Mac Product decisions to someone (...ANYONE...) else...he just doesn't "get" the Mac.
Again, based on your posts, why would you even be interested in the iMac, or any Mac, at all? You seem to be happy to discuss its limitations.
As I stated earlier, you don't really need another Mac; you need to find another job that is Windows 10 centric. Do that, no more Mac, no more OS X and bliss awaits!!
Totally. I’m all for solid state. HDDs can’t get much bigger than 7 TB per disk, and after that they’re stuck. I don’t think we know the SSD limit yet.
But they’re still tiny and they’re still expensive. I’m 100% against 5400 RPM drives and will never buy them or be suckered into them again (FRIGGING WESTERN DIGITAL DOESN’T REPORT ITS SPEEDS ANYMORE), and the next drive I buy will be an SSD (my first)... but they’re still too tiny and they’re still too expensive.
The next thing I buy will have to be over 2TB, so I have a while to wait.
Again, based on your posts, why would you even be interested in the iMac, or any Mac, at all? You seem to be happy to discuss its limitations.
As I stated earlier, you don't really need another Mac; you need to find another job that is Windows 10 centric. Do that, no more Mac, no more OS X and bliss awaits!!
There is nothing wrong with my job - I love my job. Developing iOS application on the Mac isn't painful, developing Mac applications isn't painful. Having to buy Apple products is painful and increasingly without an upside. In this new iMac line-up, there is not a single standard configuration (SKU) that I would purchase. And, once I start the build-to-order process, the up-charging is relentless. Want a hyper-threading i7 CPU? Want a Fusion Drive or SSD? Want a better GPU? Want a GPU with 4GB VRAM? Want a three year warranty? All of these are a separate upcharge.
Bottom line: Every standard configuration (SKU) in this iMac line up is a different level of 'suck' - with the more expensive ones merely 'sucking less'.
The Mac Pro suffers a similar fate but for different reasons: Non-Upgradable (except for RAM), Older CPU technology, dubious dual GPU design with little or no actual software support, external expansion with cabling horror, all for pricing that starts at $2999. Apple doesn't want to make the desktop product I want to buy. I'm seriously thinking about getting a Mac Mini, but they probably won't update that product for another year...if history is any guide. Until then...what do I do? I'm not getting another job....
There is nothing wrong with my job - I love my job. Developing iOS application on the Mac isn't painful, developing Mac applications isn't painful. Having to buy Apple products is painful and increasingly without an upside. In this new iMac line-up, there is not a single standard configuration (SKU) that I would purchase. And, once I start the build-to-order process, the up-charging is relentless. Want a hyper-threading i7 CPU? Want a Fusion Drive or SSD? Want a better GPU? Want a GPU with 4GB VRAM? Want a three year warranty? All of these are a separate upcharge.
Bottom line: Every standard configuration (SKU) in this iMac line up is a different level of 'suck' - with the more expensive ones merely 'sucking less'.
The Mac Pro suffers a similar fate but for different reasons: Non-Upgradable (except for RAM), Older CPU technology, dubious dual GPU design with little or no actual software support, external expansion with cabling horror, all for pricing that starts at $2999. Apple doesn't want to make the desktop product I want to buy. I'm seriously thinking about getting a Mac Mini, but they probably won't update that product for another year...if history is any guide. Until then...what do I do? I'm not getting another job....
None of that is going to change, and frankly, the added resale value at the end is likely very high.
Why isn't the business you work for pay for it, or you as an independent contractor can write it off anyway.
I agree that the Mac Pro needs an upgrade, but it won't see one until TB 3 and a compatible Xeon processor. CUDA is giving way to OpenCL and Vulcan anyway, which ARM does/will support, and in the long term, CUDA is just too proprietary.
I get it when it refers to CPU and GPU, but there’s no excuse with RAM and storage.
Surely its the same as the 16 GB iPhone "controversy." They simply want to up-sell and since the screen costs more in the 27 in the first place they extend that further.