[quote name="wizard69" url="/t/151469/september-launch-pegged-for-apples-13-retina-macbook-pro-new-imac/40#post_2153356"] Maybe just maybe your wish will come true with that new dock connector.???? Other than the physical size not much has been leak with regards to that new dock connector. However if it has reduced pin count then the likely replacement for all of the dedicated pins would be a high speed digital port. Thunderbolt to be exact. USB as in USB3 would still have to be supported as would analog audio, which would mean a minimal of 9 pins so the question becomes can TB be supported on ten pins? It would be a massive win for Apple if the could support TB next to USB 3 on that port. It certainly would justify the change to the new configuration. [/QUOTE]
There is the rumour about it being only 19 pins which seems about right by my count of FW, iPhoto Color and unused pins being removed. That said, your "next to" comment is interesting because of the nature of Thunderbolt. Apple doesn't need to have separate pins for TB and USB, it needs to be able to do one or the other as needed.
Even if heat or beefier (ie: larger and more expensive) components aren't needed for the added heat double the wattage would add there is the issue of what benefit data speeds would be (if you bought what I assume would only be an optional TB cable) since NAND is still very slow in these devices.
Of course, that will change over time but it doesn't look to be moving quickly. It's charging that's most important. But will even that be a big issue next year when the lithography is shrunk?
I don't know, I hope they go toward TB but I have my doubts.
Anti_glare is essential for tasks like Database Administration. The"classic" revised Macbook Pro 15 with Anti-glare is purrffect, Many people still live in a mono-chrome world. Simple color palette sufices when I need to communicate tuning issues to developers.
Apple has mitigated the glossy reflection on the new MacBook Pro. It's not 100% perfect but it's a lot better than it was. I just don't know why Apple didn't fix this issue sooner. I own a 17 inch MacBook Pro with an antiglare screen. I love it. But I also love my iPad & iPhone too where the glass screen's reflections don't really bother me. I will say this: the matte screen MacBook Pros are lighter than the ones with the glass/glossy display. The glass ads some weight to the computer. And this is probably why there is no glass screen on the MacBook air because weight is very much an issue with that product line.
If anyone in their right mind would want a desktop to forgo mass storage and optical drives, to be frank, they're nuts.
Desktops are about one thing - power. That's it. End of story. Nothing else matters. They need vast amounts of RAM, huge hard drives, the ability to rip and burn optical discs (BDs obviously now being the standard), and they need very good cooling to stop the top end CPUs and GPUs from melting.
By all means strip out all the powerful stuff to make a dumbed down laptop or tablet, but leave desktops alone. They're for people who actually have work to do, and want to get that work done to the highest standard in the quickest time. As the Mac Pro is now abandoned (or as good as), the iMac needs all the power it can get.
You can have mass storage - on SSD. Internal vs. external is a moot debate at the moment, connections exceed drive speed by a fair margin, except for the super high end, and it's far more than enough for spinning disks.
I see a lot of new computers without BD, so I think it's false to say it is the standard now.
You make some good points. Plus there are a lot of people out with large CD collections they've yet to fully rip to their hard drive and iTunes. If the selling point of iTunes Match is that you can upload your non-iTunes purchase music to be available anywhere, you have to leave them a way to get it on there.
The portable music revolution happened a many years ago, MP3s in the late 90's, the 11th anniversary of iPods this year, and so on. Why are those people so behind on importing their music? There is also still the option to use an external optical drive.
Baloney!
This from a MBP owner with a Matte screen. They suck and are a big negative to getting work done.
You have been brainwashed by the matte screen zealots just as I was. You can get over it and get on your way to greater productivity. Frankly it is a bit like being brain washed, after a bit of reconstruction you will actipually be embarrassed that you fell for the line of BS that is the matte screen.
I think it's a matter of personal preference and the use environment. To just say that someone has been brainwashed by other people is pretty low in my opinion, even if you try to hedge it by claiming you were too.
I have a matte screen connected to a new iMac. I think the matte is a lot more comfortable. My ideal is a stronger anti-reflective, better than matte in many cases. On a lark, I just pulled the front glass on my iMac. It's even nicer without the extra reflections, and the base screen does have a higher degree of anti-reflective coatings than the cover glass.
I think it's a matter of personal preference and the use environment. To just say that someone has been brainwashed by other people is pretty low in my opinion, even if you try to hedge it by claiming you were too.
I have a matte screen connected to a new iMac. I think the matte is a lot more comfortable. My ideal is a stronger anti-reflective, better than matte in many cases. On a lark, I just pulled the front glass on my iMac. It's even nicer without the extra reflections, and the base screen does have a higher degree of anti-reflective coatings than the cover glass.
Isn't it quite vulnerable to the elements that way? I have a matte display, a display hood, and lighting flagged off from it. Methods of cutting reflections that don't interfere with transmissive light would be nice. In some ways the anti-glare treatments received by quality crts and some of the non LG tft panels were vastly superior to what we have now (hitachi had a good coating system and they actually pioneered IPS). As to Wizard, I think he hates their implementation rather than a lack of reflection.
Isn't it quite vulnerable to the elements that way? I have a matte display, a display hood, and lighting flagged off from it. Methods of cutting reflections that don't interfere with transmissive light would be nice. In some ways the anti-glare treatments received by quality crts and some of the non LG tft panels were vastly superior to what we have now (hitachi had a good coating system and they actually pioneered IPS). As to Wizard, I think he hates their implementation rather than a lack of reflection.
There is less protection, but I don't know how much of a problem it is. I did pretty well with a 30" monitor for six years without any glass on it.
There is the rumour about it being only 19 pins which seems about right by my count of FW, iPhoto Color and unused pins being removed. That said, your "next to" comment is interesting because of the nature of Thunderbolt. Apple doesn't need to have separate pins for TB and USB, it needs to be able to do one or the other as needed.
Interesting idea but I'm not too sure the two standards are that compatible.
Even if heat or beefier (ie: larger and more expensive) components aren't needed for the added heat double the wattage would add there is the issue of what benefit data speeds would be (if you bought what I assume would only be an optional TB cable) since NAND is still very slow in these devices.
I think flexibility is the big deal. TB could be used to drive a monitor or establish communications to slave devices.
Of course, that will change over time but it doesn't look to be moving quickly. It's charging that's most important. But will even that be a big issue next year when the lithography is shrunk?
I don't know, I hope they go toward TB but I have my doubts.
I'm not convinced that a performance improvement is that hard to obtain in the flash subsystem. Asto charging the device takes all that the USB port can give it. I suspect Apple will keep charging demand constant for the long run if users find it tolerable. This allows them to increase capacity and performance as process technology shrinks by keeping power usage constant.
So what I'm saying is that next years process shrink most likely will go to improved performance and new capabilities. Apple could easily double overall performance next year and at the same time double storage. As nice as my iPad is, performance is a problem, new hardware could go a long way towards beefing up performance if power usage is keep constant.
You can have mass storage - on SSD. Internal vs. external is a moot debate at the moment, connections exceed drive speed by a fair margin, except for the super high end, and it's far more than enough for spinning disks.
I see a lot of new computers without BD, so I think it's false to say it is the standard now.
You can have mass storage on SSD? Really? Doing a quick check online -
Seagate 3tb internal SATA 3.5" hard drive - £115
OCZ Octane 1tb 2.5" internal SSD - £1718
So if a 3tb SSD existed, and they currently don't, they would cost somewhere in the region of £5000. That's only 48x more expensive. Quite a deal. I have 8tb of storage on my Win 7 PC and it cost peanuts. I won't be able to replicate that with SSD drives for many, many years.
Also, isn't the whole point of the iMac to reduce desk clutter and keep everything you need in one super tidy unit? If you have to then start adding a plethora of external drives that will mess up your desk in no time.
As for BD drives in PCs, well if you go really low end, you may find a few with DVD drives, but they're pretty rare now. There's no reason not to use BD drives as they're incredibly cheap now.
You can have mass storage on SSD? Really? Doing a quick check online -
Seagate 3tb internal SATA 3.5" hard drive - £115
OCZ Octane 1tb 2.5" internal SSD - £1718
So if a 3tb SSD existed, and they currently don't, they would cost somewhere in the region of £5000. That's only 48x more expensive. Quite a deal. I have 8tb of storage on my Win 7 PC and it cost peanuts. I won't be able to replicate that with SSD drives for many, many years.
Where in his comment did he say that you can have SSD mass storage at the same price point as HDD mass storage? 1TB is mass storage. Very few consumers even come close to needing that much capacity.
As for BD drives in PCs, well if you go really low end, you may find a few with DVD drives, but they're pretty rare now. There's no reason not to use BD drives as they're incredibly cheap now.
Not even close to the truth. If you want to talk about low-end PCs you are talking about most PCs sold throughout the world which makes your point invalid right there. If you talk about the high-end PCs you are talking about Macs which doesn't have BRDs. Therefore you're pretty much left with the high-priced, low-volume PCs from Apple's competitors who are trying to add features that will make their machines look better to their target audience. That audience being those that wouldn't have bought a Mac anyway and look at a spec sheet for rudimentary feature listings over more important aspects of a PC.
Where are these cheap BRDs? It was only in around 2010 that I first saw an ultra-slim BRD and I think it wasn't until a year later that I first saw an ultra-slim slot-loading BRD. The price was about $500-600 for the upgrade over the DVD burner in the Sony notebook and I don't think the first ones even had burners.
But that was a long time ago. What does BRD have to do with PCs today? Notebooks are moving away from moving parts because they are more prone to wear out and break. They are also very large and use a lot of power. The DVD drive takes up 25% of the 13" MBPs internal space and it gets used so very little. You try watching a movie on a notebook with that BRD spinning in front of you and you'll not only have noise pollution to contend with but have a very short window before your battery needs to be recharged. Hopefully you'll be able to get through the film before your machine dies. Storing the video on your internal drive is more efficient in many ways.
Let's not forget this is 2012. With each passing day the likelihood lessens that Apple will ever support Blu-ray. It's the last optical media for PCs but it will remain 2nd to DVD until both are removed from OEMs PCs, starting with the notebook.
If anyone in their right mind would want a desktop to forgo mass storage and optical drives, to be frank, they're nuts.
Desktops are about one thing - power. That's it. End of story. Nothing else matters. They need vast amounts of RAM, huge hard drives, the ability to rip and burn optical discs (BDs obviously now being the standard), and they need very good cooling to stop the top end CPUs and GPUs from melting.
By all means strip out all the powerful stuff to make a dumbed down laptop or tablet, but leave desktops alone. They're for people who actually have work to do, and want to get that work done to the highest standard in the quickest time. As the Mac Pro is now abandoned (or as good as), the iMac needs all the power it can get.
The current MBP 15" Retina can hold 768 GB Flash, so I'm sure the next iMac could hold even more than that.
You can have mass storage on SSD? Really? Doing a quick check online -
Seagate 3tb internal SATA 3.5" hard drive - £115
OCZ Octane 1tb 2.5" internal SSD - £1718
So if a 3tb SSD existed, and they currently don't, they would cost somewhere in the region of £5000. That's only 48x more expensive. Quite a deal. I have 8tb of storage on my Win 7 PC and it cost peanuts. I won't be able to replicate that with SSD drives for many, many years.
Also, isn't the whole point of the iMac to reduce desk clutter and keep everything you need in one super tidy unit? If you have to then start adding a plethora of external drives that will mess up your desk in no time.
I keep my big storage on a wired network.
As for BD drives in PCs, well if you go really low end, you may find a few with DVD drives, but they're pretty rare now. There's no reason not to use BD drives as they're incredibly cheap now.
I looked at ASUS's web site and found zero desktops with BD.
I go to Dell's site and found 44 desktops with DVD, 6 with Blu-Ray.
I don't believe yields for Retina Displays will improve fast enough for a Retina iMac to be possible in 2012. The only additional Retina Mac I expect in 2012 is the 13" MacBook Pro. All the other Macs will probably have to wait for 2013 to get Retina Displays.
Use flash chips, the Ivy-Bridge is based on 22nm (smaller processor), use quieter/less heat fans, remove the optical drive, etc.....
The New iMac will be a sealed unit like the rMPB. Soldered RAM, specialized SSD, no optical drive. Basically no reason to open it because of zero expansion capabilities. Two models, both 21.5 inches, with the retina iMac being the new high end model. No more giant honking monitors. Same resolution as the 27 inch in the same physical space as the 21.5 inch.
Same with the mini. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the New Mac Mini is the same size as the appleTV.
Comments
Maybe just maybe your wish will come true with that new dock connector.????
Other than the physical size not much has been leak with regards to that new dock connector. However if it has reduced pin count then the likely replacement for all of the dedicated pins would be a high speed digital port. Thunderbolt to be exact. USB as in USB3 would still have to be supported as would analog audio, which would mean a minimal of 9 pins so the question becomes can TB be supported on ten pins?
It would be a massive win for Apple if the could support TB next to USB 3 on that port. It certainly would justify the change to the new configuration. [/QUOTE]
There is the rumour about it being only 19 pins which seems about right by my count of FW, iPhoto Color and unused pins being removed. That said, your "next to" comment is interesting because of the nature of Thunderbolt. Apple doesn't need to have separate pins for TB and USB, it needs to be able to do one or the other as needed.
Even if heat or beefier (ie: larger and more expensive) components aren't needed for the added heat double the wattage would add there is the issue of what benefit data speeds would be (if you bought what I assume would only be an optional TB cable) since NAND is still very slow in these devices.
Of course, that will change over time but it doesn't look to be moving quickly. It's charging that's most important. But will even that be a big issue next year when the lithography is shrunk?
I don't know, I hope they go toward TB but I have my doubts.
Anti_glare is essential for tasks like Database Administration. The"classic" revised Macbook Pro 15 with Anti-glare is purrffect, Many people still live in a mono-chrome world. Simple color palette sufices when I need to communicate tuning issues to developers.
I can enjoys hi-res on my IPad3 and save my eyes
Apple has mitigated the glossy reflection on the new MacBook Pro. It's not 100% perfect but it's a lot better than it was. I just don't know why Apple didn't fix this issue sooner. I own a 17 inch MacBook Pro with an antiglare screen. I love it. But I also love my iPad & iPhone too where the glass screen's reflections don't really bother me. I will say this: the matte screen MacBook Pros are lighter than the ones with the glass/glossy display. The glass ads some weight to the computer. And this is probably why there is no glass screen on the MacBook air because weight is very much an issue with that product line.
You can have mass storage - on SSD. Internal vs. external is a moot debate at the moment, connections exceed drive speed by a fair margin, except for the super high end, and it's far more than enough for spinning disks.
I see a lot of new computers without BD, so I think it's false to say it is the standard now.
The portable music revolution happened a many years ago, MP3s in the late 90's, the 11th anniversary of iPods this year, and so on. Why are those people so behind on importing their music? There is also still the option to use an external optical drive.
I think it's a matter of personal preference and the use environment. To just say that someone has been brainwashed by other people is pretty low in my opinion, even if you try to hedge it by claiming you were too.
I have a matte screen connected to a new iMac. I think the matte is a lot more comfortable. My ideal is a stronger anti-reflective, better than matte in many cases. On a lark, I just pulled the front glass on my iMac. It's even nicer without the extra reflections, and the base screen does have a higher degree of anti-reflective coatings than the cover glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think it's a matter of personal preference and the use environment. To just say that someone has been brainwashed by other people is pretty low in my opinion, even if you try to hedge it by claiming you were too.
I have a matte screen connected to a new iMac. I think the matte is a lot more comfortable. My ideal is a stronger anti-reflective, better than matte in many cases. On a lark, I just pulled the front glass on my iMac. It's even nicer without the extra reflections, and the base screen does have a higher degree of anti-reflective coatings than the cover glass.
Isn't it quite vulnerable to the elements that way? I have a matte display, a display hood, and lighting flagged off from it. Methods of cutting reflections that don't interfere with transmissive light would be nice. In some ways the anti-glare treatments received by quality crts and some of the non LG tft panels were vastly superior to what we have now (hitachi had a good coating system and they actually pioneered IPS). As to Wizard, I think he hates their implementation rather than a lack of reflection.
There is less protection, but I don't know how much of a problem it is. I did pretty well with a 30" monitor for six years without any glass on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
There is less protection, but I don't know how much of a problem it is. I did pretty well with a 30" monitor for six years without any glass on it.
I wasn't sure how well the imac is protected without its glass relative to displays that are not designed to be covered by a glass panel.
I'm not convinced that a performance improvement is that hard to obtain in the flash subsystem. Asto charging the device takes all that the USB port can give it. I suspect Apple will keep charging demand constant for the long run if users find it tolerable. This allows them to increase capacity and performance as process technology shrinks by keeping power usage constant.
So what I'm saying is that next years process shrink most likely will go to improved performance and new capabilities. Apple could easily double overall performance next year and at the same time double storage. As nice as my iPad is, performance is a problem, new hardware could go a long way towards beefing up performance if power usage is keep constant.
I saw nothing to indicate that it is any different, or any less protected, than any other LCD panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I saw nothing to indicate that it is any different, or any less protected, than any other LCD panel.
I wasn't sure as I haven't really pulled apart any recent imacs. That makes me wonder why the glass is there.
I think additional protection, a smoother look and increased consistency with the broader product line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think additional protection, a smoother look and increased consistency with the broader product line.
Perhaps. I'm just not big on added reflections. Others have complained about dust buildup underneath the glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
You can have mass storage - on SSD. Internal vs. external is a moot debate at the moment, connections exceed drive speed by a fair margin, except for the super high end, and it's far more than enough for spinning disks.
I see a lot of new computers without BD, so I think it's false to say it is the standard now.
You can have mass storage on SSD? Really? Doing a quick check online -
Seagate 3tb internal SATA 3.5" hard drive - £115
OCZ Octane 1tb 2.5" internal SSD - £1718
So if a 3tb SSD existed, and they currently don't, they would cost somewhere in the region of £5000. That's only 48x more expensive. Quite a deal. I have 8tb of storage on my Win 7 PC and it cost peanuts. I won't be able to replicate that with SSD drives for many, many years.
Also, isn't the whole point of the iMac to reduce desk clutter and keep everything you need in one super tidy unit? If you have to then start adding a plethora of external drives that will mess up your desk in no time.
As for BD drives in PCs, well if you go really low end, you may find a few with DVD drives, but they're pretty rare now. There's no reason not to use BD drives as they're incredibly cheap now.
Where in his comment did he say that you can have SSD mass storage at the same price point as HDD mass storage? 1TB is mass storage. Very few consumers even come close to needing that much capacity.
Not even close to the truth. If you want to talk about low-end PCs you are talking about most PCs sold throughout the world which makes your point invalid right there. If you talk about the high-end PCs you are talking about Macs which doesn't have BRDs. Therefore you're pretty much left with the high-priced, low-volume PCs from Apple's competitors who are trying to add features that will make their machines look better to their target audience. That audience being those that wouldn't have bought a Mac anyway and look at a spec sheet for rudimentary feature listings over more important aspects of a PC.
Where are these cheap BRDs? It was only in around 2010 that I first saw an ultra-slim BRD and I think it wasn't until a year later that I first saw an ultra-slim slot-loading BRD. The price was about $500-600 for the upgrade over the DVD burner in the Sony notebook and I don't think the first ones even had burners.
But that was a long time ago. What does BRD have to do with PCs today? Notebooks are moving away from moving parts because they are more prone to wear out and break. They are also very large and use a lot of power. The DVD drive takes up 25% of the 13" MBPs internal space and it gets used so very little. You try watching a movie on a notebook with that BRD spinning in front of you and you'll not only have noise pollution to contend with but have a very short window before your battery needs to be recharged. Hopefully you'll be able to get through the film before your machine dies. Storing the video on your internal drive is more efficient in many ways.
Let's not forget this is 2012. With each passing day the likelihood lessens that Apple will ever support Blu-ray. It's the last optical media for PCs but it will remain 2nd to DVD until both are removed from OEMs PCs, starting with the notebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
If anyone in their right mind would want a desktop to forgo mass storage and optical drives, to be frank, they're nuts.
Desktops are about one thing - power. That's it. End of story. Nothing else matters. They need vast amounts of RAM, huge hard drives, the ability to rip and burn optical discs (BDs obviously now being the standard), and they need very good cooling to stop the top end CPUs and GPUs from melting.
By all means strip out all the powerful stuff to make a dumbed down laptop or tablet, but leave desktops alone. They're for people who actually have work to do, and want to get that work done to the highest standard in the quickest time. As the Mac Pro is now abandoned (or as good as), the iMac needs all the power it can get.
The current MBP 15" Retina can hold 768 GB Flash, so I'm sure the next iMac could hold even more than that.
I keep my big storage on a wired network.
I looked at ASUS's web site and found zero desktops with BD.
I go to Dell's site and found 44 desktops with DVD, 6 with Blu-Ray.
I don't believe yields for Retina Displays will improve fast enough for a Retina iMac to be possible in 2012. The only additional Retina Mac I expect in 2012 is the 13" MacBook Pro. All the other Macs will probably have to wait for 2013 to get Retina Displays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Litvin
Use flash chips, the Ivy-Bridge is based on 22nm (smaller processor), use quieter/less heat fans, remove the optical drive, etc.....
The New iMac will be a sealed unit like the rMPB. Soldered RAM, specialized SSD, no optical drive. Basically no reason to open it because of zero expansion capabilities. Two models, both 21.5 inches, with the retina iMac being the new high end model. No more giant honking monitors. Same resolution as the 27 inch in the same physical space as the 21.5 inch.
Same with the mini. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the New Mac Mini is the same size as the appleTV.
Originally Posted by Conrail
The New iMac will be a sealed unit like the rMPB. Soldered RAM, specialized SSD, no optical drive.
Nonsense, nonsense, hopefully.
Same with the mini. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the New Mac Mini is the same size as the appleTV.
The laws of thermodynamics prevent that.