my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times. There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.
Interesting, so do you see double vision all the time, as that will be the most accurate picture, one from each eye?
Usually the brain processes and combines these two pictures to create the artificial single image that we "see".
The current model fits the bill for me, but with it being 446 days old, it's due to be refreshed soon, and as long as I waited this long, I can wait a little longer to get the latest and greatest.
Precisely! The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges! Over 500 days and no refresh, yet, with newer components out in market for months now! It may be new, but it's OLD!
Precisely! The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges! Over 500 days and no refresh, yet, with newer components out in market for months now! It may be new, but it's OLD!
/
/
Really? So 446 is over 500? You must have done well in math class. /s
In any event, you can expect this. Today's computers are more powerful than most people need - especially entry level users. The benefit of updating entry level computers annually is minimal. The average Mini buyer gets essentially no benefit at all.
It's more surprising that they haven't upgrade the Pro any time recently, but much of the delay was lack of availability of significant faster Xeon chips from Intel. I don't know what has held them up for the past 6 months or so.
Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac? I'm genuinely curious.
It's not. Depending on your needs
Most of our office uses iMacs but we do have a couple of guys that use Mac Minis connected to Cintiqs because they find it easier to do their fine detail work that way. And since everything is processed off a render farm the local power is less important.
Frustrated Apple buyers should remember to keep their minds open to new experiences. They should try Linux.
OH GOD NO!!!
Those who become frustrated with OS X are likely to become suicidal after using Linux.
Even the most popular of distros, Ubuntu and its derivatives, are a frightening mishmash.
It's not even straightforward to install on EFI Macs.
Of course, life will be a lot easier if you pay for support and don't try updating your software, in which case you may as well go for the polish of OS X or Windows.
I speak from the experience of maintaining a Mythbuntu system.
Each software update carries with it the worry it will break something else.
EVERY SINGLE distro upgrade I've carried out on the machine, from 9.10 to 12.04 has brought a major headache WITHOUT FAIL, from messing up the graphics and GUI drivers to corrupting the boot loaders. Each issue took much time and study of machine and Ubuntu forums to fix.
These are headaches people with a life other than sitting with their computers avoid by using OS X and Windows.
iMac: 18 months old already, and the processor they're rumored to be putting in to the next update is already nearly 8 months old.
I can't speak for all but since I run my business off these machines I'd rather an 8 month old stable processor than a fresh on the market possibly unstable one.
It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times.
So are mine. But unlike you my brain is wired to know how to position lights to avoid reflections.
And if you weren't just a ball of gas yourself, you'd know why that's an immeasurably foolish question, one so unworthy of a serious answer that it's also unworthy of using the correct state of matter in this self-referential retort.
Put in the A10 5800k APU with Hypertransport and add an on-board 7700M* second GPGPU and you've got a little pocket rocket for GCD to pass off all it's OpenCL ready code to chomp on.
AMD has some nice processor solutions with their APUs. Even without the discrete GpU they handle OpenCL well. Often they will actually perform better than intel when that capability can be leveraged.
Make that as a build option and it will fly off the shelf.
* Radeon 7700M has full support for OpenCL 1.2 which would give the system more shelf life than the 7600M.
It will fly off the shelf if priced right. I would have no problem with a Mini like machine built on AMD hardware. The only iffy thing is Thunderbolt but I'd be just as happy with two Gigabit Ethernet ports.
Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac? I'm genuinely curious.
Hope it's true, though. I see that many, many people have been waiting on this.
EDIT: The analyst has been wrong on 3 out of 4, so far. Why's he worth quoting?
Cause you can take it with you from one place to another. Good for business and professionals and people who live in more than one place or move around and it serves as an entertainment center with a tv and a remote trackpad and keyboard from 30 feet away and its cheaper than an imac and you can use a different screen than an imac. Is that good enough.
Smallwheels has a point but I don't see the two systems as being even remotely comparable in terms of ease of use. Before 2008 I was running Linux as my primary OS and had been since since well before RedHat introduced Fedora. So I have Linux experience up the kazoo. It is a fantastic OS if you have the technical ability and most importantly don't mind a huge amount of time spent maintaining your system. MacOS brings you much of the goodness of Linux through its UNiX systems but without all of the hassles. More importantly each update to Mac OS breaks the very minimal of software, this dramatically cuts maintenance time.
Those who become frustrated with OS X are likely to become suicidal after using Linux.
Linux does require a bit of gray matter between the ears but for some applications it can be a stable as a rock. It really is a great power user system.
Even the most popular of distros, Ubuntu and its derivatives, are a frightening mishmash.
I really never understood Ubuntus popularity. I actually consider it a terrible distro.
It's not even straightforward to install on EFI Macs.
Of course, life will be a lot easier if you pay for support and don't try updating your software, in which case you may as well go for the polish of OS X or Windows.
The updating issues really does blow with Linux. This is why I went the Mac route, I've been updating my MBP since 2008 and it just gets better and better with very few update glitches. It is a huge benefit if you don't want to spend days maintaining a system after an update.
I speak from the experience of maintaining a Mythbuntu system.
Each software update carries with it the worry it will break something else.
Yep! However core features aren't as brittle.
EVERY SINGLE distro upgrade I've carried out on the machine, from 9.10 to 12.04 has brought a major headache WITHOUT FAIL, from messing up the graphics and GUI drivers to corrupting the boot loaders. Each issue took much time and study of machine and Ubuntu forums to fix.
Don't use Ubuntu!
These are headaches people with a life other than sitting with their computers avoid by using OS X and Windows.
Exactly why I went with a MBP in 2008, I needed one machine that would work reliably. However I still have Linux machines in the house. They have their good points. Linux based hardware can be trouble free if put to work to run undisturbed.
Why would you expect a cheaper product to be "better?"
The Mac Mini is entry level, and does a good job for it's price. I don't think it's meant to compete with the iMac, or there would be faster configurations.
Easy. It allows me to buy a separate NON-REFLECTIVE display.
Currently, Apple doesn't make a consumer-grade machine that I can use, other than the mini. It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times. There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.
Oh, iirc there is the BTO option on the MacBook Pro, but that forces waay too many pixels. The current 15" models already require me to wear reading glasses, I'm not going to get something where the dot pitch is even smaller. Why on earth did they remove the ability to order a "standard" 1440x900-ish matte display on the 15"? Weird.
Oh, and plus the other reasons above, i.e. headless, home-theatre, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, because an iMac sure doesn't afford that opti… oh. wait.
Turning on and actually using the display helps with that.
Seen the retina MacBook Pro? That's what a Haswell iMac will be like.
None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote. Serious Twilight Zone moment.
None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote.
Only if you ignore the things that I said, or choose not to put them into context, is that the case.
The iMac affords the ability to buy whatever the heck display you want.
Reflections on the iMac's screen are abated when the screen is actually on.
The retina MacBook Pro, in addition to operating at a resolution seen as 1440x900, has diminished glossiness from all previous models. The argument against glass-covered displays being therefore rendered further moot.
So you'll buy a weaker performing computer because you haven't ever heard of buying a anti-reflective film to solve the glare problem without compromising the computing power. A matt screen OPTION would be best for a minority opinion such as yours, although I doubt Apple will comply for 10% of the small iMac market. The 90% rest of us like our smooth glass (reflective) screens.
As for buying a weaker performing computer, I guess you weren't following closely enough or taking what I said literally enough. The reflections make the glossy machines unusable (for me). So given the choice between a weaker performing computer and a computer that's unusable, there really is no choice.
Putting one of those piece-of-shit plastic-wrap things over a display isn't an option, they obscure detail. Good matte screens, with no glass, can be clear and sharp. Been using them for many years, typing on one right now.
As for Apple going back to a default matte screen, I think you're right, although I don't believe for a minute the preference ratio is 90%/10%. From the various surveys that went out a few years back it was more like 50/50. In reality, it's probably more like a 10-80-10, with the 80% not really caring much one way or another.
The problem isn't that they don't make matte as the default, the problem is that they don't offer matte at all, even BTO for their desktop line. Neither for their consumer portable line. The only offering that I'm aware of is a too-tight dot-pitch BTO on the MacBook Pro, which again, isn't an option for me.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times. There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.
Interesting, so do you see double vision all the time, as that will be the most accurate picture, one from each eye?
Usually the brain processes and combines these two pictures to create the artificial single image that we "see".
Originally Posted by Cheesehead Dave
The current model fits the bill for me, but with it being 446 days old, it's due to be refreshed soon, and as long as I waited this long, I can wait a little longer to get the latest and greatest.
Yep. Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How does the current model not fit that bill?
Precisely! The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges! Over 500 days and no refresh, yet, with newer components out in market for months now! It may be new, but it's OLD!
/
/
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
The current model does not fit the bill Apple charges!
*Timshot.png*
Really? So 446 is over 500? You must have done well in math class. /s
In any event, you can expect this. Today's computers are more powerful than most people need - especially entry level users. The benefit of updating entry level computers annually is minimal. The average Mini buyer gets essentially no benefit at all.
It's more surprising that they haven't upgrade the Pro any time recently, but much of the delay was lack of availability of significant faster Xeon chips from Intel. I don't know what has held them up for the past 6 months or so.
It's not. Depending on your needs
Most of our office uses iMacs but we do have a couple of guys that use Mac Minis connected to Cintiqs because they find it easier to do their fine detail work that way. And since everything is processed off a render farm the local power is less important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
Frustrated Apple buyers should remember to keep their minds open to new experiences. They should try Linux.
OH GOD NO!!!
Those who become frustrated with OS X are likely to become suicidal after using Linux.
Even the most popular of distros, Ubuntu and its derivatives, are a frightening mishmash.
It's not even straightforward to install on EFI Macs.
Of course, life will be a lot easier if you pay for support and don't try updating your software, in which case you may as well go for the polish of OS X or Windows.
I speak from the experience of maintaining a Mythbuntu system.
Each software update carries with it the worry it will break something else.
EVERY SINGLE distro upgrade I've carried out on the machine, from 9.10 to 12.04 has brought a major headache WITHOUT FAIL, from messing up the graphics and GUI drivers to corrupting the boot loaders. Each issue took much time and study of machine and Ubuntu forums to fix.
These are headaches people with a life other than sitting with their computers avoid by using OS X and Windows.
I can't speak for all but since I run my business off these machines I'd rather an 8 month old stable processor than a fresh on the market possibly unstable one.
So are mine. But unlike you my brain is wired to know how to position lights to avoid reflections.
It likely would, but who wants to have something better come along in six months
Originally Posted by charlituna
It likely would, but who wants to have something better come along in six months
Six months is WAY too long a time to be waiting.
And how do you reposition the sun?
Originally Posted by iSheldon
And how do you reposition the sun?
Wait for the Earth to spin a little more.
And if you weren't just a ball of gas yourself, you'd know why that's an immeasurably foolish question, one so unworthy of a serious answer that it's also unworthy of using the correct state of matter in this self-referential retort.
AMD has some nice processor solutions with their APUs. Even without the discrete GpU they handle OpenCL well. Often they will actually perform better than intel when that capability can be leveraged.
It will fly off the shelf if priced right. I would have no problem with a Mini like machine built on AMD hardware. The only iffy thing is Thunderbolt but I'd be just as happy with two Gigabit Ethernet ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Can someone explain to me why a Mac Mini is better than an iMac? I'm genuinely curious.
Hope it's true, though. I see that many, many people have been waiting on this.
EDIT: The analyst has been wrong on 3 out of 4, so far. Why's he worth quoting?
Cause you can take it with you from one place to another. Good for business and professionals and people who live in more than one place or move around and it serves as an entertainment center with a tv and a remote trackpad and keyboard from 30 feet away and its cheaper than an imac and you can use a different screen than an imac. Is that good enough.
Linux does require a bit of gray matter between the ears but for some applications it can be a stable as a rock. It really is a great power user system. I really never understood Ubuntus popularity. I actually consider it a terrible distro. The updating issues really does blow with Linux. This is why I went the Mac route, I've been updating my MBP since 2008 and it just gets better and better with very few update glitches. It is a huge benefit if you don't want to spend days maintaining a system after an update. Yep! However core features aren't as brittle. Don't use Ubuntu! Exactly why I went with a MBP in 2008, I needed one machine that would work reliably. However I still have Linux machines in the house. They have their good points. Linux based hardware can be trouble free if put to work to run undisturbed.
The Mac Mini is entry level, and does a good job for it's price. I don't think it's meant to compete with the iMac, or there would be faster configurations.
That said, it's fast enough for most people IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
Easy. It allows me to buy a separate NON-REFLECTIVE display.
Currently, Apple doesn't make a consumer-grade machine that I can use, other than the mini. It seems some people can learn to disregard the reflections in their displays, but apparently my eyes are actually wired to my brain such that I get an accurate picture of what's in front of me at all times. There ARE reflections in those frickin' glossy displays (in virtually all "normal" environments), it's just a matter of whether or not you can learn to ignore them.
Oh, iirc there is the BTO option on the MacBook Pro, but that forces waay too many pixels. The current 15" models already require me to wear reading glasses, I'm not going to get something where the dot pitch is even smaller. Why on earth did they remove the ability to order a "standard" 1440x900-ish matte display on the 15"? Weird.
Oh, and plus the other reasons above, i.e. headless, home-theatre, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, because an iMac sure doesn't afford that opti… oh. wait.
Turning on and actually using the display helps with that.
Seen the retina MacBook Pro? That's what a Haswell iMac will be like.
None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote. Serious Twilight Zone moment.
Originally Posted by Blah64
None of what you wrote here made any sense at all within the context of what I wrote.
Only if you ignore the things that I said, or choose not to put them into context, is that the case.
The iMac affords the ability to buy whatever the heck display you want.
Reflections on the iMac's screen are abated when the screen is actually on.
The retina MacBook Pro, in addition to operating at a resolution seen as 1440x900, has diminished glossiness from all previous models. The argument against glass-covered displays being therefore rendered further moot.
Quote:
So you'll buy a weaker performing computer because you haven't ever heard of buying a anti-reflective film to solve the glare problem without compromising the computing power. A matt screen OPTION would be best for a minority opinion such as yours, although I doubt Apple will comply for 10% of the small iMac market. The 90% rest of us like our smooth glass (reflective) screens.
As for buying a weaker performing computer, I guess you weren't following closely enough or taking what I said literally enough. The reflections make the glossy machines unusable (for me). So given the choice between a weaker performing computer and a computer that's unusable, there really is no choice.
Putting one of those piece-of-shit plastic-wrap things over a display isn't an option, they obscure detail. Good matte screens, with no glass, can be clear and sharp. Been using them for many years, typing on one right now.
As for Apple going back to a default matte screen, I think you're right, although I don't believe for a minute the preference ratio is 90%/10%. From the various surveys that went out a few years back it was more like 50/50. In reality, it's probably more like a 10-80-10, with the 80% not really caring much one way or another.
The problem isn't that they don't make matte as the default, the problem is that they don't offer matte at all, even BTO for their desktop line. Neither for their consumer portable line. The only offering that I'm aware of is a too-tight dot-pitch BTO on the MacBook Pro, which again, isn't an option for me.