But Apple does appear to be happy with people buying third party external drives that do not match its carefully designed products. External drives that are necessary because Apple does not have a mid sized mid range expandable Mac.
Apple can't have it both ways. If its designs are so important that the monitor must match then it needs to admit that the design is important enough to have an XMac so that its designs aren't hidden behind non matching external drives.
It's not whether the monitor matches that matters to Apple - it's whether they get the profit for selling you a display. If you buy an iMac, that's automatic.
External drives are still only really necessary, for the average user, for Time Machine (or other backup schemes). There isn't enough profit in external hard drives for Apple to care about them, and their aesthetics aren't something Apple is likely to care too much about. That said, a number of manufacturers have designed external hard drives and enclosures specifically to match the Mac 'look' - pretty much anything aluminum will do the trick, and Apple sells several in their retail stores.
It's not whether the monitor matches that matters to Apple - it's whether they get the profit for selling you a display. If you buy an iMac, that's automatic.
The question in my mind is which generates more profit a Mac Mini or an iMac. It isn't all that clear which generates more cash per sale.
Quote:
External drives are still only really necessary, for the average user, for Time Machine (or other backup schemes).
Nope! A lot of Mac users have externals simply because they don't have enough internal storage.
Quote:
There isn't enough profit in external hard drives for Apple to care about them, and their aesthetics aren't something Apple is likely to care too much about. That said, a number of manufacturers have designed external hard drives and enclosures specifically to match the Mac 'look' - pretty much anything aluminum will do the trick, and Apple sells several in their retail stores.
Yes and those drives are used in several sways. In the context of this thread I'm not sure what that has to do with the lack of interest in the iMac. I really think Apple does care but they can only launch so many products at a time. Further all hardware needs to be ready to go along with software. Thunderbolt is a clear indicator of a larger than normal update. They will have to rev the motherboard in a major way. Also I'm thinking and discrete GPU will have to be on the mother board as the TB switch needs the Display port lines.
However Apple goes about solving the DP/TB issues will make for interesting iMac discussions in the future. Sandy Bridge alone will not do for an iMac.
The question in my mind is which generates more profit a Mac Mini or an iMac. It isn't all that clear which generates more cash per sale.
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Nope! A lot of Mac users have externals simply because they don't have enough internal storage.
'A lot', in this context, amounts to maybe 5% of the market, especially when we're talking about new purchases. People who bought 2-3 years ago may be bumping up against internal capacity, but some of them are going to decide to just get a new computer and hand the current one down, sell it, or trade it in. The new user, whoever it is, may not need as much storage as the old user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Yes and those drives are used in several sways. In the context of this thread I'm not sure what that has to do with the lack of interest in the iMac.
Not much - I was merely rebutting MacTac's argument that Apple needed to either sell their own external drives or release an Xmac to satisfy their own 'design über alles' ethos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
However Apple goes about solving the DP/TB issues will make for interesting iMac discussions in the future. Sandy Bridge alone will not do for an iMac.
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
Not so sure about the display mark-up. The 21" may be overpriced, but I looked for a 27" LED display on Newegg the other day and Apple's cinema display was actually good value compared to the others. Keep in mind the 2560x1440 resolution.
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
This I'm not sure about at all. The Mini is basically a Mac Book or old 13" MBP without a screen and keyboard. The price right now is really high considering.
Quote:
'A lot', in this context, amounts to maybe 5% of the market, especially when we're talking about new purchases. People who bought 2-3 years ago may be bumping up against internal capacity, but some of them are going to decide to just get a new computer and hand the current one down, sell it, or trade it in. The new user, whoever it is, may not need as much storage as the old user.
Nah I'd have to say the number is a lot larger than that, even a modest iTunes collection can quickly outstrip the capacity of the drives Apple supplies in its machines. Especially when it isn't all that difficult to use up a 100GB just installing user software these days.
Quote:
Not much - I was merely rebutting MacTac's argument that Apple needed to either sell their own external drives or release an Xmac to satisfy their own 'design über alles' ethos.
On that, I think we can agree
I just took a peak at some info on the new Xeons. In turbo Mode the single core speed of the SB based Xeon will hit almost 4GHz. That is interesting in and of itself as it might indicate a faster GPU is possible in the desktop variants. Still I find ti interesting to speculate about how Apple will support discrete GPU's on future machines with DP/TB ports. It looks like the days of plug in video cards is quickly coming to an end.
Not so sure about the display mark-up. The 21" may be overpriced, but I looked for a 27" LED display on Newegg the other day and Apple's cinema display was actually good value compared to the others. Keep in mind the 2560x1440 resolution.
That is what I'm thinking, high quality panels are expensive these days. Then you have the issue of assembly costs and support parts. The new Mini really looks like it was overhauled to support mass production.
That is what I'm thinking, high quality panels are expensive these days. Then you have the issue of assembly costs and support parts. The new Mini really looks like it was overhauled to support mass production.
Of course the 27" displays are expensive, and Apple's Cinema Display is priced competitively, but that doesn't mean they aren't making money on them, just that everybody is making a similar profit on the display.
Apple probably makes $100-200 more on the base iMac than on the mini, and once you buy an iMac, you are more likely to keep buying them when you upgrade, since you no longer have a separate monitor involved in your upgrade decision. You're likely go up a screen size to feel like you are really getting an upgrade (and prices have come down since you bought your last iMac, so it feels like you're getting a great deal).
Also, I think you're overestimating the size of the average user's data. Most users don't have dozens of movies in their iTunes library (like I do), or hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs, or a bunch of TV shows. My sister is a much more typical user - she has lots of family photos, some video, and some music, but her user folder is around 50GB. She was close to filling her old mini (with a 100GB drive), but the new mini's 320GB has about 250GB free. The friend I sold my unibody aluminum MacBook to thought it was overkill when I installed a 500GB drive for her, since even her mammoth music collection and decent-sized iPhoto library were only around 130GB.
Even the least-savvy user on this forum is more knowledgeable than the average computer user, given that they're actually interested in discussing their computer use on some level. Most people aren't - they just want a computer that works, and does the things they want to do with no drama. They don't have mountains of data - just a bunch of JPEGs from their digital camera, maybe some video, and a selection of their favorite songs from iTunes (and maybe a few ripped CDs, though even that is becoming rarer with every passing day). They don't rip DVDs. They don't shoot RAW photos. They don't have hours and hours of HD video. The don't use Adobe Creative Suite. Their data volumes are nowhere near what you think they are - you, your tech-savvy friends, and I are major outliers.
I just took a peak at some info on the new Xeons. In turbo Mode the single core speed of the SB based Xeon will hit almost 4GHz. That is interesting in and of itself as it might indicate a faster GPU is possible in the desktop variants.
Some of the low-end models (E3-1200 series-pdf) will have different/better graphics than the mobile or desktop K-series SB cpus (P3000). But those are not the ones that will go in the MP (Xeon E5-2400/2600 series, late 2011), they are very similar to the desktop Core i5/i7-2000 series, with the addition of 4x PCIe lanes (useful for TB) and ECC RAM support. Pricing has yet to be revealed.
My twisted mind would use those workstation cpus in the iMacs: a 95W model with just integrated graphics, and the 80W with dedicated graphics (even in the 21.5" model). The current 21.5" iMac uses a 73W cpu and 59/64W dedicated gpus, that's up to 137W total, so a 80W cpu + 50/55W dedicated gpu is not impossible. With, of course, a miniDP/TB port.
$1499 21.5" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6570 (5?W) or similar
$1699 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6670 (63W) or similar
$1999 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.40GHz Xeon E3-1270 (80W) + ATI HD 6750 (86W) or similar
I wouldn't even bother with other cpu options, but an optional 128/256GB SSD blade on ALL models would be nice.
FWIW, I can't wait to see the full specs/prices of the future Xeon E5-2400/2600 series...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Still I find ti interesting to speculate about how Apple will support discrete GPU's on future machines with DP/TB ports. It looks like the days of plug in video cards is quickly coming to an end.
I suppose you're talking about the MP (or the likes;-). That one is easy: basic dedicated but on (the mother) board graphics with (hopefully) 2 TB controllers/ports for dual-display and up to 8x PCIe bandwidth. If you need better/different gpus -? PCIe cards (sans TB) different icon.
The amount of people in here that are talking about "cloud computing" and wanting it to take over all data storage and getting rid of CD/DVD/Bluray drives scares me. Cloud computing is never going to happen. Its not safe (look at Google's recent "lol we lost a couple hundred thousand peoples email"), privacy issues (other people able to look at all your precious data and those naughty photos you took), and bandwidth issues (which is a major concern now seeing that almost all major ISP's here in the states are imposing bandwidth caps now, let alone Europe's and Canada's ridiculously small caps).
CD/DVD/Bluray drives are not going to be disappearing anytime soon. At the end of the day, they are cheap, versatile, and easy storage medium that can be mass produced in vast numbers. There still used by millions and are still valuable, even more so now with bandwidth caps appearing all over the place.
Even though SSD are fast, there ridiculously expensive for the amount of storage you get, and out of reach by majority of people because of their cost, simply because most people, even if they have the money, don't find it as a great investment. Just to get a decent, 256gb SSD your looking between $500 - $600, compared to $80 for a WD black 7200 rpm 1tb HDD, or even a WD 10000 rpm 600gb drive for $250. There's a reason why regular HDD sell drastically more than SSD. Their performance still doesn't justify the price tag unless you have money to burn. Its the reason why the industry as yet to fully implant SSD into every computer. They will be "optional" and targeted at the enthusiast who have money to burn for a very long time.
The google incident was pretty isolated. Tabloids making it out to be a lot more than it was.
The optical drive is, and should be on its way out (at least for Apple). There are so many alternatives that the average consumer very rarely uses it anyways. For a company that is obsessed with thinning down devices, I can't see the optical drive staying around much longer. It takes up way too much space. There will always be external drives for people who want them.
Of course the 27" displays are expensive, and Apple's Cinema Display is priced competitively, but that doesn't mean they aren't making money on them, just that everybody is making a similar profit on the display.
Apple probably makes $100-200 more on the base iMac than on the mini, and once you buy an iMac, you are more likely to keep buying them when you upgrade, since you no longer have a separate monitor involved in your upgrade decision. You're likely go up a screen size to feel like you are really getting an upgrade (and prices have come down since you bought your last iMac, so it feels like you're getting a great deal).
Maybe, maybe not! I just see a lot more hardware going into an iMac while a Mini is the most feature free PC one can buy.
Quote:
Also, I think you're overestimating the size of the average user's data. Most users don't have dozens of movies in their iTunes library (like I do), or hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs, or a bunch of TV shows. My sister is a much more typical user - she has lots of family photos, some video, and some music, but her user folder is around 50GB. She was close to filling her old mini (with a 100GB drive), but the new mini's 320GB has about 250GB free. The friend I sold my unibody aluminum MacBook to thought it was overkill when I installed a 500GB drive for her, since even her mammoth music collection and decent-sized iPhoto library were only around 130GB.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
Quote:
Even the least-savvy user on this forum is more knowledgeable than the average computer user, given that they're actually interested in discussing their computer use on some level. Most people aren't - they just want a computer that works, and does the things they want to do with no drama.
Nope not at all. First you are giving members of this forum ore credit than the deserve. Yes there are some here that know the difference between RAM and ROM but honestly most people here are illiterate as far as computers go. Mind you that is not a bad thing. Beyond that many geeks want nothing to do with AppleInsider. In any event your point just doesn't pan out, the forum isn't any richer than the rest of the world when in comes computer savvy.
Quote:
They don't have mountains of data - just a bunch of JPEGs from their digital camera, maybe some video, and a selection of their favorite songs from iTunes (and maybe a few ripped CDs, though even that is becoming rarer with every passing day). They don't rip DVDs. They don't shoot RAW photos. They don't have hours and hours of HD video. The don't use Adobe Creative Suite. Their data volumes are nowhere near what you think they are - you, your tech-savvy friends, and I are major outliers.
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
That doesn't imply everybody out there has that problem but the point is these are not geeks by any stretch. Just because many can get by with 64GB doesn't mean everybody can. You mention photography, which is a good example as I'm willing to bet that only a few professional photographers even bother to read this forum and would suggest that even fewer amateurs do. Of those that don't read this forum, their disk space demands will vary widely as each person has different interests and different storage habits. So it doesn't pay to group people into tight little niches because we don't fit easily into niches.
Some of the low-end models will have different/better graphics than the mobile or desktop K-series SB cpus (P3000). But those are not the ones that will go in the MP (Xeon E5-2400/2600 series, late 2011), they are very similar to the desktop Core i5/i7-2000 series, with the addition of 4x PCIe lanes (useful for TB) and ECC RAM support. Pricing has yet to be revealed.
My twisted mind would use those workstation cpus in the iMacs: a 95W model with just integrated graphics, and the 80W with dedicated graphics (even in the 21.5" model).
Nothing twisted about it at all.
Quote:
The current 21.5" iMac uses a 73W cpu and 59/64W dedicated gpus, that's up to 137W total, so a 80W cpu + 50/55W dedicated gpu is not impossible. With, of course, a miniDP/TB port.
This should highlight to people just how awesome Sandy Bridge is. For those that can wait it is the reason I suggest waiting for the tech to come to Macs. The performance of these machines should be outstanding. That is before we even consider a new dedicated GPU, Thunderbolt or whatever else may get stuffed into the new machines.
$1499 21.5" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6570 (5?W) or similar
$1699 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6670 (63W) or similar
$1999 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.40GHz Xeon E3-1270 (80W) + ATI HD 6750 (86W) or similar
I wouldn't even bother with other cpu options, but an optional 128/256GB SSD blade on ALL models would be nice.
We are of like minds here. These would yield extremely fast machines.
Quote:
FWIW, I can't wait to see the full specs/prices of the future Xeon E5-2400/2600 series...
Yes that will be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see base clock speeds close to 4GHz.
Quote:
I suppose you're talking about the MP (or the likes;-). That one is easy: basic dedicated but on (the mother) board graphics with (hopefully) 2 TB controllers/ports for dual-display and up to 8x PCIe bandwidth. If you need better/different gpus -? PCIe cards (sans TB) different icon.
Well event the iMac has video on a separate card. Well it did have I've not looked inside one in awhile. Mind you this isn't just an Apple issue, I wonder how Intel and the motherboard makers will approach supporting Thunderbolt.
AS to TB ports I need to read up more on the standard but I wonder if they have to support video in every receptacle. For some uses even two TB ports won't be enough. It is actually puzzling what Apple/Intel's intentions are here. For what it does (what we know now) the TB controller chip appears to be massive, which makes me wonder just how many channels the controller can handle.
The amount of people in here that are talking about "cloud computing" and wanting it to take over all data storage and getting rid of CD/DVD/Bluray drives scares me. Cloud computing is never going to happen. Its not safe (look at Google's recent "lol we lost a couple hundred thousand peoples email"), privacy issues (other people able to look at all your precious data and those naughty photos you took), and bandwidth issues (which is a major concern now seeing that almost all major ISP's here in the states are imposing bandwidth caps now, let alone Europe's and Canada's ridiculously small caps).
The idea of a cloud computing environment is interesting buy the reality of the situation really sucks. AS you point out there are multiple negatives. however you mis one important one, it is seldom always available.
Apple can deal with the always available issue but they can deal with some of the others by buying up AT&T. It doesn't have to be Apple either as I'm certain even HP, MS and others see the carriers as a big impediment to future growth.
Quote:
CD/DVD/Bluray drives are not going to be disappearing anytime soon. At the end of the day, they are cheap, versatile, and easy storage medium that can be mass produced in vast numbers. There still used by millions and are still valuable, even more so now with bandwidth caps appearing all over the place.
Yep! I seldom use my drive but there is no denying that CD's are often the cheapest way to a movie. Ripped to you HD disk the quality is just as good and often better than digital downloads.
Quote:
Even though SSD are fast, there ridiculously expensive for the amount of storage you get, and out of reach by majority of people because of their cost, simply because most people, even if they have the money, don't find it as a great investment. Just to get a decent, 256gb SSD your looking between $500 - $600, compared to $80 for a WD black 7200 rpm 1tb HDD, or even a WD 10000 rpm 600gb drive for $250. There's a reason why regular HDD sell drastically more than SSD. Their performance still doesn't justify the price tag unless you have money to burn. Its the reason why the industry as yet to fully implant SSD into every computer. They will be "optional" and targeted at the enthusiast who have money to burn for a very long time.
Mac Book AIRs? SSD's are like every other technology out there, you need to weigh the plus and minuses and then make a buying decision. However the important thing here is that SSD's don't have to be the only solution in a Mac. Apples Blade SSD technology can really make for a much snappier Mac and can be easily coupled with a regular hard disk in an iMac or even a Mini.
For many the performance is worth it. The approach used on the AIRS make very lackluster hardware reasonably capable for many users. Are SSD's high priced, yes but then so are many of Apples computers. That doesn't stop people from retro fitting hardware with SSD's or creating hybrid systems. I was actually very surprised that the new MBP didn't have a couple of Blade SSD slots combined wit a normal disk slot as this is an excellent interim approach to high performance.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
That doesn't imply everybody out there has that problem but the point is these are not geeks by any stretch. Just because many can get by with 64GB doesn't mean everybody can. You mention photography, which is a good example as I'm willing to bet that only a few professional photographers even bother to read this forum and would suggest that even fewer amateurs do. Of those that don't read this forum, their disk space demands will vary widely as each person has different interests and different storage habits. So it doesn't pay to group people into tight little niches because we don't fit easily into niches.
This is so true. There is "no" average computer user when it comes to storage space. As they say, "there is nothing wrong with more space, it doesn't hurt." When it comes to disk space, this is so true. I know a family and they burn through disk space like no tomorrow. For some reason, they feel the need to make more than one copy of everything, and then litter them all over the place. When I was cleaning out their computer I was finding copies of photos they took in program files, just sitting there. Spreadsheet files in the photo folder and so on. They would make five copies of a single photo, document file, game installer, application installer, and so on. They saved every single thing they downloaded off the internet, and kept every program they had installed, even if they didn't use it anymore, or never had. There always running low on disk space. I have a friend who is the same way as well. He keeps everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Mac Book AIRs? SSD's are like every other technology out there, you need to weigh the plus and minuses and then make a buying decision. However the important thing here is that SSD's don't have to be the only solution in a Mac. Apples Blade SSD technology can really make for a much snappier Mac and can be easily coupled with a regular hard disk in an iMac or even a Mini.
For many the performance is worth it. The approach used on the AIRS make very lackluster hardware reasonably capable for many users. Are SSD's high priced, yes but then so are many of Apples computers. That doesn't stop people from retro fitting hardware with SSD's or creating hybrid systems. I was actually very surprised that the new MBP didn't have a couple of Blade SSD slots combined wit a normal disk slot as this is an excellent interim approach to high performance.
When I wrote about SSD, I meant that getting rid of $20 - $30 optical drives and replacing them with $600 - $700 SSD as standard isn't not worth it. For most people, even for quite a few enthusiast, it isn't worth the money yet. That's why I wrote that it will always be an option for enthusiast who need the decrease in boot times and faster write speeds. I have no problem with Apple making it an option, I personally like the fact that I can stick a SSD in my 27 inch iMac if I wanted to, but to replace the $30 at most optical drive with a $700 SSD as standard is kinda stupid.
When I wrote about SSD, I meant that getting rid of $20 - $30 optical drives and replacing them with $600 - $700 SSD as standard isn't not worth it.
In a case like this it may very well be worth it, as many see the optical as a waste of space. Especially considering your pricing is way off. A 120GB SSD can be had for around $250 dollars. That isn't bad and cheaper models are available. The point is if such a drive is made into a boot drive with your apps on it, the machine will perform much better.
Is a hybrid system like this a good value? Well that is up to the user. The Mac Book AIRs highlight just how useful solid state tech can be in portables. For many booting off a SSD would equal a new machine.
Quote:
For most people, even for quite a few enthusiast, it isn't worth the money yet. That's why I wrote that it will always be an option for enthusiast who need the decrease in boot times and faster write speeds. I have no problem with Apple making it an option, I personally like the fact that I can stick a SSD in my 27 inch iMac if I wanted to, but to replace the $30 at most optical drive with a $700 SSD as standard is kinda stupid.
Only from your perspective.
You jump to an iMac here but you also forget that one issue people have with the iMac is that it has zero room for disk expansion. In this scenario that drive location effectively becomes another drive bay. It could be a big payoff for some users.
Looking towards the future if Apple runs SATA 3 to the optical drive bay it would provide for a better match up to today's SSDs.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
There may not be an 'average user', but there is a bell curve distribution, and the current Mac models probably satisfy the storage needs over the next two years for the middle 80% of that curve. Other than the Airs and the marginalized MacBook, no model comes with less than 320GB, with the iMac only having as little as 500GB in the base model (the rest start at 1TB).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Nope not at all. First you are giving members of this forum ore credit than the deserve. Yes there are some here that know the difference between RAM and ROM but honestly most people here are illiterate as far as computers go. Mind you that is not a bad thing. Beyond that many geeks want nothing to do with AppleInsider. In any event your point just doesn't pan out, the forum isn't any richer than the rest of the world when in comes computer savvy.
You're completely ignoring the people who would never even think about coming to a Mac forum, for any reason. Most people treat their computer like they treat their car - benign neglect until it makes a funny noise, and then they take it to the mechanic (or Genius Bar). Once the problem is 'fixed', they probably don't know any more about what caused the problem than before it happened - they'll just go back to using the computer the same way they have for the last decade, regardless of whether there are new, better ways to do things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
No, I'm just fully aware that my storage needs put me WAY out on the far end of the bell curve. I thought you were in the same sort of situation, but it turns out that your machine is old enough that it came with a small hard drive, so of course you're running out of room. I think your viewpoint is colored by that, and your assumptions feel like they're from a 2009 perspective.
A lot has changed in storage in the last two years. Specifically, hard drive capacity per dollar has continued to grow, with 2.5" drive prices dropping particularly dramatically per GB. At the same time, storage needs for the average user have not been growing at the same pace. There are several reasons for this:
1) Music files are not growing appreciably - they're fundamentally small files, so people need to buy a LOT more music for it to keep pace with storage capacity growth.
2) Photos have stopped growing dramatically in size. The megapixel race has (mercifully) ended, after a few consecutive years of dramatic file size growth, but the last two years have seen photo size stabilize. People have to take a LOT more pictures for photos to stretch their storage needs.
3) Personal video is growing, but only for people who are shooting HD. On the other hand, the need for video storage for movies and TV shows may actually be dropping - streaming and rentals are becoming the default modes for video, so there's not as much need to store movies and other large video files on a permanent basis. Overall, I think this is a wash - a bit more space for personal video, but less for movies and TV.
Put all of that together, and the typical user's storage needs are not growing as fast as storage capacity (on a $/GB basis) continues to grow. Stock computer configurations come with about twice as much storage capacity as they did two years ago, but the typical user doesn't need twice as much storage.
I care about iMacs. I have one. Very serene machine.
SSDs? Very expensive. They'll be mainstream one day. Be nice to have one in the iMac. But given insane prices? Unless the prices are sane 'most' people will opt for HD drives. Not rocket science that.
But Apple are doing a relatively decent job of bringing solid state to the mainstream.
iMac?
Faster quad cores. Across the whole line. Better dedicated GPU...and a price cut.
The latter won't happen. Because people are still buying them at the current prices.
I'll probably get a 6-8 core version in about 2-3 years time...in a sale. When it's performance makes my Core 2 Duo model seem like night and day.
I care about iMacs. I have one. Very serene machine.
I don't have one at the moment, having purchased my MBP before the upswing in iOS device capability. It is very possible that I might go with a desktop machine the next time around and use iOS devices for my portable needs. I'm not sure if that means an iMac or a Mini though, I'd really like an XMac. Here XMac means a desktop with a discrete GPU and some sort of storage expansion capability.
Quote:
SSDs? Very expensive. They'll be mainstream one day. Be nice to have one in the iMac. But given insane prices? Unless the prices are sane 'most' people will opt for HD drives. Not rocket science that.
The prices really aren't that high to day, more expensive yes but not extremely so, at least not here in the USA. Storage capacity is low but that is where hybrid installations are justified.
I look at this like engines in automobiles or trucks. You can spend the extra dollars for the bigger engine if you can justify the expense to yourself. That justification could be power or durability. For many users the considerable difference in performance can put current SSDs in a positive light.
Quote:
But Apple are doing a relatively decent job of bringing solid state to the mainstream.
Yes in a very cost effective manner too. For many users the AIRs are an excellent value and demonstrate clearly the value of solid state tech.
Quote:
iMac?
Faster quad cores. Across the whole line. Better dedicated GPU...and a price cut.
One could only hope for a price cut but I suspect just the opposite. With Sandy Bridge we should see a very significant jump in performance, with the improved performance per clock and the potential for very high clock rates we should see the biggest performance jump in years.
Quote:
The latter won't happen. Because people are still buying them at the current prices.
Not only that Mac sales are extremely strong relative to the rest of the industry. So Apples only incentive to lower prices is to damage the competition. Knowing Apple we could actually see a price increase.
Quote:
I'll probably get a 6-8 core version in about 2-3 years time...in a sale. When it's performance makes my Core 2 Duo model seem like night and day.
I honestly think the SB iMacs will have that sort of performance especially if your current iMac is more than a couple if years old. I've looked closely at the new MBPs and estimate that those machines are about 2.5 times the performance of my early 2008 MBP. That is only roughly as I suspect in some manners the new MBPs are a lot faster.
Unfortunately this is not the year for me to satisfy my techno lust.
Quote:
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm hoping you and the rest of the forum end up amazed when the new Macs come out. I just hope Apple doesn't try to pull off a lackluster update.
I'm not sure if that means an iMac or a Mini though, I'd really like an XMac. Here XMac means a desktop with a discrete GPU and some sort of storage expansion capability.
I wish you really were a wizard because I would like an XMac too.
Comments
But Apple does appear to be happy with people buying third party external drives that do not match its carefully designed products. External drives that are necessary because Apple does not have a mid sized mid range expandable Mac.
Apple can't have it both ways. If its designs are so important that the monitor must match then it needs to admit that the design is important enough to have an XMac so that its designs aren't hidden behind non matching external drives.
It's not whether the monitor matches that matters to Apple - it's whether they get the profit for selling you a display. If you buy an iMac, that's automatic.
External drives are still only really necessary, for the average user, for Time Machine (or other backup schemes). There isn't enough profit in external hard drives for Apple to care about them, and their aesthetics aren't something Apple is likely to care too much about. That said, a number of manufacturers have designed external hard drives and enclosures specifically to match the Mac 'look' - pretty much anything aluminum will do the trick, and Apple sells several in their retail stores.
It's not whether the monitor matches that matters to Apple - it's whether they get the profit for selling you a display. If you buy an iMac, that's automatic.
The question in my mind is which generates more profit a Mac Mini or an iMac. It isn't all that clear which generates more cash per sale.
External drives are still only really necessary, for the average user, for Time Machine (or other backup schemes).
Nope! A lot of Mac users have externals simply because they don't have enough internal storage.
There isn't enough profit in external hard drives for Apple to care about them, and their aesthetics aren't something Apple is likely to care too much about. That said, a number of manufacturers have designed external hard drives and enclosures specifically to match the Mac 'look' - pretty much anything aluminum will do the trick, and Apple sells several in their retail stores.
Yes and those drives are used in several sways. In the context of this thread I'm not sure what that has to do with the lack of interest in the iMac. I really think Apple does care but they can only launch so many products at a time. Further all hardware needs to be ready to go along with software. Thunderbolt is a clear indicator of a larger than normal update. They will have to rev the motherboard in a major way. Also I'm thinking and discrete GPU will have to be on the mother board as the TB switch needs the Display port lines.
However Apple goes about solving the DP/TB issues will make for interesting iMac discussions in the future. Sandy Bridge alone will not do for an iMac.
The question in my mind is which generates more profit a Mac Mini or an iMac. It isn't all that clear which generates more cash per sale.
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
Nope! A lot of Mac users have externals simply because they don't have enough internal storage.
'A lot', in this context, amounts to maybe 5% of the market, especially when we're talking about new purchases. People who bought 2-3 years ago may be bumping up against internal capacity, but some of them are going to decide to just get a new computer and hand the current one down, sell it, or trade it in. The new user, whoever it is, may not need as much storage as the old user.
Yes and those drives are used in several sways. In the context of this thread I'm not sure what that has to do with the lack of interest in the iMac.
Not much - I was merely rebutting MacTac's argument that Apple needed to either sell their own external drives or release an Xmac to satisfy their own 'design über alles' ethos.
However Apple goes about solving the DP/TB issues will make for interesting iMac discussions in the future. Sandy Bridge alone will not do for an iMac.
On that, I think we can agree
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
Not so sure about the display mark-up. The 21" may be overpriced, but I looked for a 27" LED display on Newegg the other day and Apple's cinema display was actually good value compared to the others. Keep in mind the 2560x1440 resolution.
The iMac, easily - even if the profit on the non-display portions of the machine are the same, they probably make $200-300 on the display.
This I'm not sure about at all. The Mini is basically a Mac Book or old 13" MBP without a screen and keyboard. The price right now is really high considering.
'A lot', in this context, amounts to maybe 5% of the market, especially when we're talking about new purchases. People who bought 2-3 years ago may be bumping up against internal capacity, but some of them are going to decide to just get a new computer and hand the current one down, sell it, or trade it in. The new user, whoever it is, may not need as much storage as the old user.
Nah I'd have to say the number is a lot larger than that, even a modest iTunes collection can quickly outstrip the capacity of the drives Apple supplies in its machines. Especially when it isn't all that difficult to use up a 100GB just installing user software these days.
Not much - I was merely rebutting MacTac's argument that Apple needed to either sell their own external drives or release an Xmac to satisfy their own 'design über alles' ethos.
On that, I think we can agree
I just took a peak at some info on the new Xeons. In turbo Mode the single core speed of the SB based Xeon will hit almost 4GHz. That is interesting in and of itself as it might indicate a faster GPU is possible in the desktop variants. Still I find ti interesting to speculate about how Apple will support discrete GPU's on future machines with DP/TB ports. It looks like the days of plug in video cards is quickly coming to an end.
Not so sure about the display mark-up. The 21" may be overpriced, but I looked for a 27" LED display on Newegg the other day and Apple's cinema display was actually good value compared to the others. Keep in mind the 2560x1440 resolution.
That is what I'm thinking, high quality panels are expensive these days. Then you have the issue of assembly costs and support parts. The new Mini really looks like it was overhauled to support mass production.
That is what I'm thinking, high quality panels are expensive these days. Then you have the issue of assembly costs and support parts. The new Mini really looks like it was overhauled to support mass production.
Of course the 27" displays are expensive, and Apple's Cinema Display is priced competitively, but that doesn't mean they aren't making money on them, just that everybody is making a similar profit on the display.
Apple probably makes $100-200 more on the base iMac than on the mini, and once you buy an iMac, you are more likely to keep buying them when you upgrade, since you no longer have a separate monitor involved in your upgrade decision. You're likely go up a screen size to feel like you are really getting an upgrade (and prices have come down since you bought your last iMac, so it feels like you're getting a great deal).
Also, I think you're overestimating the size of the average user's data. Most users don't have dozens of movies in their iTunes library (like I do), or hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs, or a bunch of TV shows. My sister is a much more typical user - she has lots of family photos, some video, and some music, but her user folder is around 50GB. She was close to filling her old mini (with a 100GB drive), but the new mini's 320GB has about 250GB free. The friend I sold my unibody aluminum MacBook to thought it was overkill when I installed a 500GB drive for her, since even her mammoth music collection and decent-sized iPhoto library were only around 130GB.
Even the least-savvy user on this forum is more knowledgeable than the average computer user, given that they're actually interested in discussing their computer use on some level. Most people aren't - they just want a computer that works, and does the things they want to do with no drama. They don't have mountains of data - just a bunch of JPEGs from their digital camera, maybe some video, and a selection of their favorite songs from iTunes (and maybe a few ripped CDs, though even that is becoming rarer with every passing day). They don't rip DVDs. They don't shoot RAW photos. They don't have hours and hours of HD video. The don't use Adobe Creative Suite. Their data volumes are nowhere near what you think they are - you, your tech-savvy friends, and I are major outliers.
I just took a peak at some info on the new Xeons. In turbo Mode the single core speed of the SB based Xeon will hit almost 4GHz. That is interesting in and of itself as it might indicate a faster GPU is possible in the desktop variants.
Some of the low-end models (E3-1200 series-pdf) will have different/better graphics than the mobile or desktop K-series SB cpus (P3000). But those are not the ones that will go in the MP (Xeon E5-2400/2600 series, late 2011), they are very similar to the desktop Core i5/i7-2000 series, with the addition of 4x PCIe lanes (useful for TB) and ECC RAM support. Pricing has yet to be revealed.
Xeon E3-1220 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1225 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 with P3000 graphics (95W)
Xeon E3-1270 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1275 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 with P3000 graphics (95W)
My twisted mind would use those workstation cpus in the iMacs: a 95W model with just integrated graphics, and the 80W with dedicated graphics (even in the 21.5" model). The current 21.5" iMac uses a 73W cpu and 59/64W dedicated gpus, that's up to 137W total, so a 80W cpu + 50/55W dedicated gpu is not impossible. With, of course, a miniDP/TB port.
$1199 21.5" iMac 4C/4T 3.10GHz Xeon E3-1225/P3000 (95W)
$1499 21.5" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6570 (5?W) or similar
$1699 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6670 (63W) or similar
$1999 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.40GHz Xeon E3-1270 (80W) + ATI HD 6750 (86W) or similar
I wouldn't even bother with other cpu options, but an optional 128/256GB SSD blade on ALL models would be nice.
FWIW, I can't wait to see the full specs/prices of the future Xeon E5-2400/2600 series...
Still I find ti interesting to speculate about how Apple will support discrete GPU's on future machines with DP/TB ports. It looks like the days of plug in video cards is quickly coming to an end.
I suppose you're talking about the MP (or the likes;-). That one is easy: basic dedicated but on (the mother) board graphics with (hopefully) 2 TB controllers/ports for dual-display and up to 8x PCIe bandwidth. If you need better/different gpus -? PCIe cards (sans TB) different icon.
CD/DVD/Bluray drives are not going to be disappearing anytime soon. At the end of the day, they are cheap, versatile, and easy storage medium that can be mass produced in vast numbers. There still used by millions and are still valuable, even more so now with bandwidth caps appearing all over the place.
Even though SSD are fast, there ridiculously expensive for the amount of storage you get, and out of reach by majority of people because of their cost, simply because most people, even if they have the money, don't find it as a great investment. Just to get a decent, 256gb SSD your looking between $500 - $600, compared to $80 for a WD black 7200 rpm 1tb HDD, or even a WD 10000 rpm 600gb drive for $250. There's a reason why regular HDD sell drastically more than SSD. Their performance still doesn't justify the price tag unless you have money to burn. Its the reason why the industry as yet to fully implant SSD into every computer. They will be "optional" and targeted at the enthusiast who have money to burn for a very long time.
The optical drive is, and should be on its way out (at least for Apple). There are so many alternatives that the average consumer very rarely uses it anyways. For a company that is obsessed with thinning down devices, I can't see the optical drive staying around much longer. It takes up way too much space. There will always be external drives for people who want them.
Of course the 27" displays are expensive, and Apple's Cinema Display is priced competitively, but that doesn't mean they aren't making money on them, just that everybody is making a similar profit on the display.
Apple probably makes $100-200 more on the base iMac than on the mini, and once you buy an iMac, you are more likely to keep buying them when you upgrade, since you no longer have a separate monitor involved in your upgrade decision. You're likely go up a screen size to feel like you are really getting an upgrade (and prices have come down since you bought your last iMac, so it feels like you're getting a great deal).
Maybe, maybe not! I just see a lot more hardware going into an iMac while a Mini is the most feature free PC one can buy.
Also, I think you're overestimating the size of the average user's data. Most users don't have dozens of movies in their iTunes library (like I do), or hundreds and hundreds of ripped CDs, or a bunch of TV shows. My sister is a much more typical user - she has lots of family photos, some video, and some music, but her user folder is around 50GB. She was close to filling her old mini (with a 100GB drive), but the new mini's 320GB has about 250GB free. The friend I sold my unibody aluminum MacBook to thought it was overkill when I installed a 500GB drive for her, since even her mammoth music collection and decent-sized iPhoto library were only around 130GB.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
Even the least-savvy user on this forum is more knowledgeable than the average computer user, given that they're actually interested in discussing their computer use on some level. Most people aren't - they just want a computer that works, and does the things they want to do with no drama.
Nope not at all. First you are giving members of this forum ore credit than the deserve. Yes there are some here that know the difference between RAM and ROM but honestly most people here are illiterate as far as computers go. Mind you that is not a bad thing. Beyond that many geeks want nothing to do with AppleInsider. In any event your point just doesn't pan out, the forum isn't any richer than the rest of the world when in comes computer savvy.
They don't have mountains of data - just a bunch of JPEGs from their digital camera, maybe some video, and a selection of their favorite songs from iTunes (and maybe a few ripped CDs, though even that is becoming rarer with every passing day). They don't rip DVDs. They don't shoot RAW photos. They don't have hours and hours of HD video. The don't use Adobe Creative Suite. Their data volumes are nowhere near what you think they are - you, your tech-savvy friends, and I are major outliers.
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
That doesn't imply everybody out there has that problem but the point is these are not geeks by any stretch. Just because many can get by with 64GB doesn't mean everybody can. You mention photography, which is a good example as I'm willing to bet that only a few professional photographers even bother to read this forum and would suggest that even fewer amateurs do. Of those that don't read this forum, their disk space demands will vary widely as each person has different interests and different storage habits. So it doesn't pay to group people into tight little niches because we don't fit easily into niches.
Some of the low-end models will have different/better graphics than the mobile or desktop K-series SB cpus (P3000). But those are not the ones that will go in the MP (Xeon E5-2400/2600 series, late 2011), they are very similar to the desktop Core i5/i7-2000 series, with the addition of 4x PCIe lanes (useful for TB) and ECC RAM support. Pricing has yet to be revealed.
Xeon E3-1220 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1225 = 3.1GHz 4C/4T Core i5-2400 with P3000 graphics (95W)
Xeon E3-1270 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 without integrated graphics (80W)
Xeon E3-1275 = 3.4GHz 4C/8T Core i7-2600 with P3000 graphics (95W)
My twisted mind would use those workstation cpus in the iMacs: a 95W model with just integrated graphics, and the 80W with dedicated graphics (even in the 21.5" model).
Nothing twisted about it at all.
The current 21.5" iMac uses a 73W cpu and 59/64W dedicated gpus, that's up to 137W total, so a 80W cpu + 50/55W dedicated gpu is not impossible. With, of course, a miniDP/TB port.
This should highlight to people just how awesome Sandy Bridge is. For those that can wait it is the reason I suggest waiting for the tech to come to Macs. The performance of these machines should be outstanding. That is before we even consider a new dedicated GPU, Thunderbolt or whatever else may get stuffed into the new machines.
$1199 21.5" iMac 4C/4T 3.10GHz Xeon E3-1225/P3000 (95W)
$1499 21.5" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6570 (5?W) or similar
$1699 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.20GHz Xeon E3-1230 (80W) + ATI HD 6670 (63W) or similar
$1999 27" iMac 4C/8T 3.40GHz Xeon E3-1270 (80W) + ATI HD 6750 (86W) or similar
I wouldn't even bother with other cpu options, but an optional 128/256GB SSD blade on ALL models would be nice.
We are of like minds here. These would yield extremely fast machines.
FWIW, I can't wait to see the full specs/prices of the future Xeon E5-2400/2600 series...
Yes that will be interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to see base clock speeds close to 4GHz.
I suppose you're talking about the MP (or the likes;-). That one is easy: basic dedicated but on (the mother) board graphics with (hopefully) 2 TB controllers/ports for dual-display and up to 8x PCIe bandwidth. If you need better/different gpus -? PCIe cards (sans TB) different icon.
Well event the iMac has video on a separate card. Well it did have I've not looked inside one in awhile. Mind you this isn't just an Apple issue, I wonder how Intel and the motherboard makers will approach supporting Thunderbolt.
AS to TB ports I need to read up more on the standard but I wonder if they have to support video in every receptacle. For some uses even two TB ports won't be enough. It is actually puzzling what Apple/Intel's intentions are here. For what it does (what we know now) the TB controller chip appears to be massive, which makes me wonder just how many channels the controller can handle.
The amount of people in here that are talking about "cloud computing" and wanting it to take over all data storage and getting rid of CD/DVD/Bluray drives scares me. Cloud computing is never going to happen. Its not safe (look at Google's recent "lol we lost a couple hundred thousand peoples email"), privacy issues (other people able to look at all your precious data and those naughty photos you took), and bandwidth issues (which is a major concern now seeing that almost all major ISP's here in the states are imposing bandwidth caps now, let alone Europe's and Canada's ridiculously small caps).
The idea of a cloud computing environment is interesting buy the reality of the situation really sucks. AS you point out there are multiple negatives. however you mis one important one, it is seldom always available.
Apple can deal with the always available issue but they can deal with some of the others by buying up AT&T. It doesn't have to be Apple either as I'm certain even HP, MS and others see the carriers as a big impediment to future growth.
CD/DVD/Bluray drives are not going to be disappearing anytime soon. At the end of the day, they are cheap, versatile, and easy storage medium that can be mass produced in vast numbers. There still used by millions and are still valuable, even more so now with bandwidth caps appearing all over the place.
Yep! I seldom use my drive but there is no denying that CD's are often the cheapest way to a movie. Ripped to you HD disk the quality is just as good and often better than digital downloads.
Even though SSD are fast, there ridiculously expensive for the amount of storage you get, and out of reach by majority of people because of their cost, simply because most people, even if they have the money, don't find it as a great investment. Just to get a decent, 256gb SSD your looking between $500 - $600, compared to $80 for a WD black 7200 rpm 1tb HDD, or even a WD 10000 rpm 600gb drive for $250. There's a reason why regular HDD sell drastically more than SSD. Their performance still doesn't justify the price tag unless you have money to burn. Its the reason why the industry as yet to fully implant SSD into every computer. They will be "optional" and targeted at the enthusiast who have money to burn for a very long time.
Mac Book AIRs? SSD's are like every other technology out there, you need to weigh the plus and minuses and then make a buying decision. However the important thing here is that SSD's don't have to be the only solution in a Mac. Apples Blade SSD technology can really make for a much snappier Mac and can be easily coupled with a regular hard disk in an iMac or even a Mini.
For many the performance is worth it. The approach used on the AIRS make very lackluster hardware reasonably capable for many users. Are SSD's high priced, yes but then so are many of Apples computers. That doesn't stop people from retro fitting hardware with SSD's or creating hybrid systems. I was actually very surprised that the new MBP didn't have a couple of Blade SSD slots combined wit a normal disk slot as this is an excellent interim approach to high performance.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
That doesn't imply everybody out there has that problem but the point is these are not geeks by any stretch. Just because many can get by with 64GB doesn't mean everybody can. You mention photography, which is a good example as I'm willing to bet that only a few professional photographers even bother to read this forum and would suggest that even fewer amateurs do. Of those that don't read this forum, their disk space demands will vary widely as each person has different interests and different storage habits. So it doesn't pay to group people into tight little niches because we don't fit easily into niches.
This is so true. There is "no" average computer user when it comes to storage space. As they say, "there is nothing wrong with more space, it doesn't hurt." When it comes to disk space, this is so true. I know a family and they burn through disk space like no tomorrow. For some reason, they feel the need to make more than one copy of everything, and then litter them all over the place. When I was cleaning out their computer I was finding copies of photos they took in program files, just sitting there. Spreadsheet files in the photo folder and so on. They would make five copies of a single photo, document file, game installer, application installer, and so on. They saved every single thing they downloaded off the internet, and kept every program they had installed, even if they didn't use it anymore, or never had. There always running low on disk space. I have a friend who is the same way as well. He keeps everything.
Mac Book AIRs? SSD's are like every other technology out there, you need to weigh the plus and minuses and then make a buying decision. However the important thing here is that SSD's don't have to be the only solution in a Mac. Apples Blade SSD technology can really make for a much snappier Mac and can be easily coupled with a regular hard disk in an iMac or even a Mini.
For many the performance is worth it. The approach used on the AIRS make very lackluster hardware reasonably capable for many users. Are SSD's high priced, yes but then so are many of Apples computers. That doesn't stop people from retro fitting hardware with SSD's or creating hybrid systems. I was actually very surprised that the new MBP didn't have a couple of Blade SSD slots combined wit a normal disk slot as this is an excellent interim approach to high performance.
When I wrote about SSD, I meant that getting rid of $20 - $30 optical drives and replacing them with $600 - $700 SSD as standard isn't not worth it. For most people, even for quite a few enthusiast, it isn't worth the money yet. That's why I wrote that it will always be an option for enthusiast who need the decrease in boot times and faster write speeds. I have no problem with Apple making it an option, I personally like the fact that I can stick a SSD in my 27 inch iMac if I wanted to, but to replace the $30 at most optical drive with a $700 SSD as standard is kinda stupid.
?
When I wrote about SSD, I meant that getting rid of $20 - $30 optical drives and replacing them with $600 - $700 SSD as standard isn't not worth it.
In a case like this it may very well be worth it, as many see the optical as a waste of space. Especially considering your pricing is way off. A 120GB SSD can be had for around $250 dollars. That isn't bad and cheaper models are available. The point is if such a drive is made into a boot drive with your apps on it, the machine will perform much better.
Is a hybrid system like this a good value? Well that is up to the user. The Mac Book AIRs highlight just how useful solid state tech can be in portables. For many booting off a SSD would equal a new machine.
For most people, even for quite a few enthusiast, it isn't worth the money yet. That's why I wrote that it will always be an option for enthusiast who need the decrease in boot times and faster write speeds. I have no problem with Apple making it an option, I personally like the fact that I can stick a SSD in my 27 inch iMac if I wanted to, but to replace the $30 at most optical drive with a $700 SSD as standard is kinda stupid.
Only from your perspective.
You jump to an iMac here but you also forget that one issue people have with the iMac is that it has zero room for disk expansion. In this scenario that drive location effectively becomes another drive bay. It could be a big payoff for some users.
Looking towards the future if Apple runs SATA 3 to the optical drive bay it would provide for a better match up to today's SSDs.
Honestly there is no such thing as an average user. Everybody has different needs, plus some people are pack rats. All I know is that my Mac has a 200GB disk that is about 3/4's full and that is with my iTunes on a separate external drive. It is only 3/4's full because I regularly trim or move files to other storage mediums. Some of that stuff I'd rather not move off the drive too.
There may not be an 'average user', but there is a bell curve distribution, and the current Mac models probably satisfy the storage needs over the next two years for the middle 80% of that curve. Other than the Airs and the marginalized MacBook, no model comes with less than 320GB, with the iMac only having as little as 500GB in the base model (the rest start at 1TB).
Nope not at all. First you are giving members of this forum ore credit than the deserve. Yes there are some here that know the difference between RAM and ROM but honestly most people here are illiterate as far as computers go. Mind you that is not a bad thing. Beyond that many geeks want nothing to do with AppleInsider. In any event your point just doesn't pan out, the forum isn't any richer than the rest of the world when in comes computer savvy.
You're completely ignoring the people who would never even think about coming to a Mac forum, for any reason. Most people treat their computer like they treat their car - benign neglect until it makes a funny noise, and then they take it to the mechanic (or Genius Bar). Once the problem is 'fixed', they probably don't know any more about what caused the problem than before it happened - they'll just go back to using the computer the same way they have for the last decade, regardless of whether there are new, better ways to do things.
Look you seem to want to class your self into a group that doesn't exists. Computer users come in all sorts of sizes, abilities and interests. Some are professional users some aren't, no surprise there. Even if you look at professional users their hard disk needs vary widely and no they don't have music collections or ripped CD's on their machines. I have a friend that runs a little PC repair business and frankly a good portion of his income comes from disk upgrades. You would think that that would slow up with todays larger disks but the reality is people just have more and more reasons to fill up those disks.
No, I'm just fully aware that my storage needs put me WAY out on the far end of the bell curve. I thought you were in the same sort of situation, but it turns out that your machine is old enough that it came with a small hard drive, so of course you're running out of room. I think your viewpoint is colored by that, and your assumptions feel like they're from a 2009 perspective.
A lot has changed in storage in the last two years. Specifically, hard drive capacity per dollar has continued to grow, with 2.5" drive prices dropping particularly dramatically per GB. At the same time, storage needs for the average user have not been growing at the same pace. There are several reasons for this:
1) Music files are not growing appreciably - they're fundamentally small files, so people need to buy a LOT more music for it to keep pace with storage capacity growth.
2) Photos have stopped growing dramatically in size. The megapixel race has (mercifully) ended, after a few consecutive years of dramatic file size growth, but the last two years have seen photo size stabilize. People have to take a LOT more pictures for photos to stretch their storage needs.
3) Personal video is growing, but only for people who are shooting HD. On the other hand, the need for video storage for movies and TV shows may actually be dropping - streaming and rentals are becoming the default modes for video, so there's not as much need to store movies and other large video files on a permanent basis. Overall, I think this is a wash - a bit more space for personal video, but less for movies and TV.
Put all of that together, and the typical user's storage needs are not growing as fast as storage capacity (on a $/GB basis) continues to grow. Stock computer configurations come with about twice as much storage capacity as they did two years ago, but the typical user doesn't need twice as much storage.
SSDs? Very expensive. They'll be mainstream one day. Be nice to have one in the iMac. But given insane prices? Unless the prices are sane 'most' people will opt for HD drives. Not rocket science that.
But Apple are doing a relatively decent job of bringing solid state to the mainstream.
iMac?
Faster quad cores. Across the whole line. Better dedicated GPU...and a price cut.
The latter won't happen. Because people are still buying them at the current prices.
I'll probably get a 6-8 core version in about 2-3 years time...in a sale. When it's performance makes my Core 2 Duo model seem like night and day.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I care about iMacs. I have one. Very serene machine.
I don't have one at the moment, having purchased my MBP before the upswing in iOS device capability. It is very possible that I might go with a desktop machine the next time around and use iOS devices for my portable needs. I'm not sure if that means an iMac or a Mini though, I'd really like an XMac. Here XMac means a desktop with a discrete GPU and some sort of storage expansion capability.
SSDs? Very expensive. They'll be mainstream one day. Be nice to have one in the iMac. But given insane prices? Unless the prices are sane 'most' people will opt for HD drives. Not rocket science that.
The prices really aren't that high to day, more expensive yes but not extremely so, at least not here in the USA. Storage capacity is low but that is where hybrid installations are justified.
I look at this like engines in automobiles or trucks. You can spend the extra dollars for the bigger engine if you can justify the expense to yourself. That justification could be power or durability. For many users the considerable difference in performance can put current SSDs in a positive light.
But Apple are doing a relatively decent job of bringing solid state to the mainstream.
Yes in a very cost effective manner too. For many users the AIRs are an excellent value and demonstrate clearly the value of solid state tech.
iMac?
Faster quad cores. Across the whole line. Better dedicated GPU...and a price cut.
One could only hope for a price cut but I suspect just the opposite. With Sandy Bridge we should see a very significant jump in performance, with the improved performance per clock and the potential for very high clock rates we should see the biggest performance jump in years.
The latter won't happen. Because people are still buying them at the current prices.
Not only that Mac sales are extremely strong relative to the rest of the industry. So Apples only incentive to lower prices is to damage the competition. Knowing Apple we could actually see a price increase.
I'll probably get a 6-8 core version in about 2-3 years time...in a sale. When it's performance makes my Core 2 Duo model seem like night and day.
I honestly think the SB iMacs will have that sort of performance especially if your current iMac is more than a couple if years old. I've looked closely at the new MBPs and estimate that those machines are about 2.5 times the performance of my early 2008 MBP. That is only roughly as I suspect in some manners the new MBPs are a lot faster.
Unfortunately this is not the year for me to satisfy my techno lust.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm hoping you and the rest of the forum end up amazed when the new Macs come out. I just hope Apple doesn't try to pull off a lackluster update.
I'm hoping you and the rest of the forum end up amazed when the new Macs come out. I just hope Apple doesn't try to pull off a lackluster update.
Thunderbolt, same form factor, same screen sizes, Sandy Bridge chips, same RAM/HDD, GPU from the Radeon 6xxx family.
I'm not sure if that means an iMac or a Mini though, I'd really like an XMac. Here XMac means a desktop with a discrete GPU and some sort of storage expansion capability.
I wish you really were a wizard because I would like an XMac too.