DuhSesame said: I see what you mean, an "xMac" would be interesting as a concept, but it wouldn't be much different from average desktop PCs. The goal of an iMac was to put something different in the mainstream platform, and since people in the PC world still underlooks AIO in general, it serves a purpose.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable ...
But, does it need to be much different from the average desktop PC, aside from supporting/running macOS?
I need a reasonably priced Mac workhorse, not some kind of special 'Mac sculpture' to make me feel unique. My gosh, that was big insult we used to get as Mac users, back in the day, was that we were just buying it to have something pretty on our desks, or make a fashion statement.
I appreciate some nice design, but it has to come along with functionality. Nice design w/o functionality is either trash or art, and my computer system isn't primarily art... it's something to get work done with.
My main issue with the iMac (besides thermal issues, which can be solved with an iMac Pro) is that it doesn't have any video inputs. It is a single-use display (albeit a nice one). I want my display(s) to be multi-function.
I'm sure the traditional headless design offers many benefits, especially a widely accepted standard like ATX, but that's also their problem. Motherboard manufacturers have to focus their efforts on other things to stay competitive - say, adding RGB lights or put steel brackets on the PCI-E slots, then put a huge amount of advertising to appeal their consumers. They're being way homogenize because the market is saturated. By the way, those people can be much a "fashion statement" as you'd expect, spending money on things that hardly benefits "functionality".
Not saying Apple can't build a mainstream headless option, but it still needs to be different than the rest, otherwise, people will ask for it. Yes, the Mac Pro is way different than traditional workstations, but that's also because it's a workstation. If they're offering Core i9s, it won't stand out as much since that's what a lot of people would build.
That said, All-in-One does offer an option to be different, but I think you're worried about its "functionality". Some of your concerns can be addressed, like putting a better processor with a software solution similar to Sidecar, but I think the main concern you have are price and expansions, which still needs solutions.
I don't think they want to give up on AIO since iMac G3, and they can still be a great workhorse, but some middle ground could be implemented to meets the demand.
Edit: Actually, both solutions (headless and AIO) can work at the same time. Say, make the Mac mini works like "LEGO bricks" as earlier rumor suggests, while making the iMac more modular to make upgrades easier.
Not saying Apple can't build a mainstream headless option, but it still needs to be
different than the rest, otherwise, people will ask for it.
I just mean the main differentiator is macOS. I’m not opposed to an AIO like the iMac, but just want headless too. The current mini is darn close (which is why I have one). I don’t think we need the dreamed about xMac anymore, either. But there should be something between the mini and Mac Pro.
As great as the mini is, I just don’t feel comfortable with its cooling capabilities. I wouldn’t want to run it all out for extended amounts of time. I suppose Apple can say, ‘well, if that’s what you do, then you need the Mac Pro.’ But, there are a LOT of people who run machines hard (my mini runs hard if I play Minecraft, for crying out loud), like encoding a video to submit to YouTube. Those people don’t need a Mac Pro, but they probably want a quiet machine that doesn’t kill itself prematurely and has a reasonable GPU.
That doesn’t seem too much to ask. Like I said, with eGPUs, the mini is now quite a bit of the way there. But, having a smallish box that could run cool, and maybe have some RAM slots and a slot for a standard GPU, would make a lot of people really happy.
Even the iMac isn’t that great for the above. While you can get it with a reasonable GPU, it still doesn’t handle heat well. The laptops don’t either. The only machines that handle heat OK, are the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. That’s kind of silly they don’t have something under like $5k that can do basic workhorse type stuff, even a lot of everyday users would do. (And, that’s besides the iMac not having an HDMI in, etc. What if I have a PC under my desk? I need an additional monitor? What if I want to plug in an Xbox at my desk? Another monitor? It’s just silly.)
Not saying Apple can't build a mainstream headless option, but it still needs to be
different than the rest, otherwise, people will ask for it.
I just mean the main differentiator is macOS. I’m not opposed to an AIO like the iMac, but just want headless too. The current mini is darn close (which is why I have one). I don’t think we need the dreamed about xMac anymore, either. But there should be something between the mini and Mac Pro.
As great as the mini is, I just don’t feel comfortable with its cooling capabilities. I wouldn’t want to run it all out for extended amounts of time. I suppose Apple can say, ‘well, if that’s what you do, then you need the Mac Pro.’ But, there are a LOT of people who run machines hard (my mini runs hard if I play Minecraft, for crying out loud), like encoding a video to submit to YouTube. Those people don’t need a Mac Pro, but they probably want a quiet machine that doesn’t kill itself prematurely and has a reasonable GPU.
That doesn’t seem too much to ask. Like I said, with eGPUs, the mini is now quite a bit of the way there. But, having a smallish box that could run cool, and maybe have some RAM slots and a slot for a standard GPU, would make a lot of people really happy.
Even the iMac isn’t that great for the above. While you can get it with a reasonable GPU, it still doesn’t handle heat well. The laptops don’t either. The only machines that handle heat OK, are the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. That’s kind of silly they don’t have something under like $5k that can do basic workhorse type stuff, even a lot of everyday users would do. (And, that’s besides the iMac not having an HDMI in, etc. What if I have a PC under my desk? I need an additional monitor? What if I want to plug in an Xbox at my desk? Another monitor? It’s just silly.)
If heat & noise is your only concern and fine with an eGPU, I say just wait for another processor. Intel sucks these days.
Yes, your wish for "smallish box that's modular and cool" isn't hard. I already wrote it down in the last post.
It got: - Two expansion slots for graphics cards, though proprietary. - CPU card with RAM slots. - Unified thermal core. - Silent operation. - 300W power supply. - Removable SSD.
Though it failed as a workstation, it can still be decent for a miniature desktop. They can shrink it down a bit, put a low-power i7 instead of a Xeon, then call it a mini.
Well, when are those other processors coming? LOL Yeah, that will be nice, but I think right now I blame Apple for not facing reality. If you build the right enclosure, you can keep the CPUs Apple is using cool. Apple just isn’t building the right enclosures.
They do on their pro products, but the reality is that non-pro products need that too. Like I said, there are tons of non-pro or prosumer things even a typical home Mac user will do that make these machines run too hard. The user shouldn’t get blamed for not buying a $5k+ pro, but Apple for not designing to the needs of their users.
If they had a real option, they could then say, “well, if you do lots of gaming or video encoding, you should have bought our xMac over here instead of a MacBook Air, iMac, or mini.” They could include the MacBook Pro in that, but it’s a bit of a sore spot for me that the MacBook Pro is also quite non-Pro in that regard (of course, that’s nothing new... it has been an issue since the MacBook Pro was... way before Intel was supposedly the problem point).
re: iMac as display - that was a feature of those old models of iMac. That won’t work anymore, afaik.
Actually, the old trash can provide a good example for "small box with silence & modular", they can shrink it down a bit, put a low-power i7 instead of a Xeon, then call it a mini. ... Though it failed as a workstation, it can still be decent for a miniature desktop.
Oh, absolutely! A number of us have been saying that around here for some time. With (what at least seems like minimal design effort), Apple could take the basic concept of the cylinder Mac Pro and apply it to a prosumer machine. Kind of like Blackmagic did with their eGPUs (which I also have one one my desk, and LOVE it!).
I’ve seen PC builders since copy that concept as well. The problem is those machines don’t come directly from Apple and properly support macOS. Apple could easily build a really nice mid-level machine lots of people would be thrilled with. I’m guessing the reason they don’t, is that they think the iMac is that machine. The problem is... it isn’t.
Actually, the old trash can provide a good example for "small box with silence & modular", they can shrink it down a bit, put a low-power i7 instead of a Xeon, then call it a mini. ... Though it failed as a workstation, it can still be decent for a miniature desktop.
Oh, absolutely! A number of us have been saying that around here for some time. With (what at least seems like minimal design effort), Apple could take the basic concept of the cylinder Mac Pro and apply it to a prosumer machine. Kind of like Blackmagic did with their eGPUs (which I also have one one my desk, and LOVE it!).
I’ve seen PC builders since copy that concept as well. The problem is those machines don’t come directly from Apple and properly support macOS. Apple could easily build a really nice mid-level machine lots of people would be thrilled with. I’m guessing the reason they don’t, is that they think the iMac is that machine. The problem is... it isn’t.
Speaking of the processor, Intel just released its 10nm+ processors and it's unexciting. Even AMD has better options. To me, Intel must be replaced either by their own or at least AMD. That will eliminate the thermal issues for sure as Cook blamed Intel for that, that means it will be embarrassing if they throttled on their own.
I don't want to talk about laptops too much, but a redesign is on the way, we'll see how some of the controversies will be addressed.
Well, when are those other processors coming? LOL Yeah, that will be nice, but I think right now I blame Apple for not facing reality. If you build the right enclosure, you can keep the CPUs Apple is using cool. Apple just isn’t building the right enclosures.
They do on their pro products, but the reality is that non-pro products need that too. Like I said, there are tons of non-pro or prosumer things even a typical home Mac user will do that make these machines run too hard. The user shouldn’t get blamed for not buying a $5k+ pro, but Apple for not designing to the needs of their users.
If they had a real option, they could then say, “well, if you do lots of gaming or video encoding, you should have bought our xMac over here instead of a MacBook Air, iMac, or mini.” They could include the MacBook Pro in that, but it’s a bit of a sore spot for me that the MacBook Pro is also quite non-Pro in that regard (of course, that’s nothing new... it has been an issue since the MacBook Pro was... way before Intel was supposedly the problem point).
re: iMac as display - that was a feature of those old models of iMac. That won’t work anymore, afaik.
They got Sidecar for iPads, no reason not to have Target Display Mode back. If not, we can hope some third-party solution exists.
cgWerks said: Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.
What levels of expansions or modularity would you like to see?
Well, I'd like to see a box that could keep cool rather silently, that had i5, i7, etc. maybe with standard SSD, some RAM slots, and a slot for a standard GPU. Like I said, most of that (the original want for xMac) is more of a moot-point now that eGPUs are here. But, I still think people would like to just stuff a GPU in, and maybe don't need the specialized SSD, etc.
Or, for me specifically... I'd like to see a Mac mini just like the one that is on my desk, only maybe a bit bigger with a proper cooling system. That's really my only sore point about it (which I've largely solved by turning off Turbo Boost).
DuhSesame said: I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
I think Cook is being blamed for jacking up the pricing from the 2000s. I'm guessing a lot of people became Mac users in that timeframe, and never experienced the earlier times when Macs were quite expensive.
I see what you mean, an "xMac" would be interesting as a concept, but it wouldn't be much different from average desktop PCs. The goal of an iMac was to put something different in the mainstream platform, and since people in the PC world still underlooks AIO in general, it serves a purpose.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable:
Given that Apple created their own connectors in the Mac Pro (MPX slots), I think it's possible to move some of the technologies to iMacs while maintaining an All-in-One chassis. Thermal issues can be solved by putting a better processor in, which also frees up extra power consumption to allow better GPUs, then shrinking down an MPX graphics card to something like the trash can, put a heatsink, then modified the entire thermal system and there you go. Also If they somehow offer two slots, then it will not just be limited to a graphics card.
iMacs from at least the first intel even The G5 maybe till only recently have used mxm cards the same as gaming laptop. Problem was it was hard to find drivers for anything other than the cards Apple used so upgrading was limited to harvesting broken next gen iMacs. These cards would make great egpu options for s small footprint box behind screen.
cgWerks said: Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.
What levels of expansions or modularity would you like to see?
Well, I'd like to see a box that could keep cool rather silently, that had i5, i7, etc. maybe with standard SSD, some RAM slots, and a slot for a standard GPU. Like I said, most of that (the original want for xMac) is more of a moot-point now that eGPUs are here. But, I still think people would like to just stuff a GPU in, and maybe don't need the specialized SSD, etc.
Or, for me specifically... I'd like to see a Mac mini just like the one that is on my desk, only maybe a bit bigger with a proper cooling system. That's really my only sore point about it (which I've largely solved by turning off Turbo Boost).
DuhSesame said: I see what you want, but Apple had never built such things when Jobs was in charge, blaming Cook being greedy and short-sighted is just a false accusation.
I think Cook is being blamed for jacking up the pricing from the 2000s. I'm guessing a lot of people became Mac users in that timeframe, and never experienced the earlier times when Macs were quite expensive.
I see what you mean, an "xMac" would be interesting as a concept, but it wouldn't be much different from average desktop PCs. The goal of an iMac was to put something different in the mainstream platform, and since people in the PC world still underlooks AIO in general, it serves a purpose.
Though, I think the iMac can still get some degrees of modularity. Take a look at gaming notebooks, which their graphics card are removable:
Given that Apple created their own connectors in the Mac Pro (MPX slots), I think it's possible to move some of the technologies to iMacs while maintaining an All-in-One chassis. Thermal issues can be solved by putting a better processor in, which also frees up extra power consumption to allow better GPUs, then shrinking down an MPX graphics card to something like the trash can, put a heatsink, then modified the entire thermal system and there you go. Also If they somehow offer two slots, then it will not just be limited to a graphics card.
iMacs from at least the first intel even The G5 maybe till only recently have used mxm cards the same as gaming laptop. Problem was it was hard to find drivers for anything other than the cards Apple used so upgrading was limited to harvesting broken next gen iMacs. These cards would make great egpu options for s small footprint box behind screen.
Wow, maybe staying with the official version or licensed third-party will work. What I'm thinking here is a more proprietary solution, like the MPX in a Mac Pro, therefore it's possible to plug other things like an SSD card.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
I haven't had time to really look over the specs and details, but the impression I get is that most everything is upgradable, either with Apple modules, or other parts (not sure what limitations).
I really doubt they wouldn't socket the CPUs, but the bigger question in my mind, is if Apple A-series processors could somehow be added/used someday.
They even included USB-A internally so people could put software-lock dongles inside the case and such. They also have modules for GPU update or slots, which I assume could take standard GPUs?
I'm underwhelmed by the storage speed... up to 2.6GB/s sequential read and 2.7GB/s sequential write performance, and that's from two storage modules working together.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
I haven't had time to really look over the specs and details, but the impression I get is that most everything is upgradable, either with Apple modules, or other parts (not sure what limitations).
For the Xeon W chips, I would warn that it may not be.
The Xeon W 2-series in the iMac Pro uses a LGA2066 socket while the Mac Pro uses a Xeon W 3 series that uses a LGA3467 socket (I think, as ARK doesn’t list it for some reason). So, upgrading the CPU within the series is possible, but you never know if a next gen Xeon W 4 series will use the same LGA3467 socket. Ie, the iMac Pro can’t be upgraded to the Xeon W 3 series chips in the Mac Pro, and still doesn’t have any good CPU options if Apple just wants to do an in-place speed bump.
For SSDs, you can just get a PCIe SSD and call it a day.
melgross said: ... Apple has a range of machines that serve most pros very well. Like it or not, the iMac is perfectly suited for most. The iMac Pro serves a market, and happens to sell well. That machine goes up to $15,000. ...
I agree except for this point. The problem with the iMac is noise/cooling. The problem with the iMac Pro is that it is an all-in-one. The mini is really the closest thing to the less-pro Mac Pro. It's pretty great (which is why I bought one), but I wish it cooled better. There is absolutely a hole in the lineup for some kind of headless Mac that can keep its cool and run off non-Pro parts at a much lower price-point.
melgross said: The trash can is from 2013. By that, I mean that it has never been upgraded. So you’re buying a new machine for several thousand that’s 6 year old technology. Is that really a good idea? I don’t think so. I convinced more than a few to buy an iMac Pro after it came out instead. Much better machine overall, and the monitor is one of the best.
If Apple hadn't released the Mac mini, I might have gone with the 2013 MP. The big problem is the TB2 (instead of TB3)... and as I now know, lack of T2 for video export (which I didn't realize until I got the mini). But, that machine otherwise is pretty idea for someone like me. It is just way overpriced given how old it is. If Apple dropped the price enough, it might still sell. Actually... if they would take that design, and just drop an i7/i9 in there with TB3, it would sell like hotcakes!
The iMac Is pretty quiet. We have two high end models here at ho e. They are silent. I don’t get where you’re talking about noise. I’ve had louder monitors. The iMac Pro has no cooling problems as far as I’m aware of. I know peop,e and studios with them. They are very happy. No problems. The iMac pro has been selling very well.
i don’t u defat a d why Apple did t upgrade than machine. Newer chips have greater performance for the same power, and heat consumption. They could have. They shou,d have. 18 months ago, or so, they did lower the pricing. But it’s too old, and I haven’t recommended it for years.
tht said: For the Xeon W chips, I would warn that it may not be.
The Xeon W 2-series in the iMac Pro uses a LGA2066 socket while the Mac Pro uses a Xeon W 3 series that uses a LGA3467 socket (I think, as ARK doesn’t list it for some reason). So, upgrading the CPU within the series is possible, but you never know if a next gen Xeon W 4 series will use the same LGA3467 socket. Ie, the iMac Pro can’t be upgraded to the Xeon W 3 series chips in the Mac Pro, and still doesn’t have any good CPU options if Apple just wants to do an in-place speed bump.
For SSDs, you can just get a PCIe SSD and call it a day.
I was thinking more in terms of more cores. Like say you started with the 8-core and then wanted to go to the 28-core, once prices come down? (They do show the CPU going into a socket on the Apple page about it, although that heat sink is pretty crazy.)
Yeah, I'm not sure there are m.2 slots (for a Samsung 970 EVO), but lots of options for storage, so kind of a moot point.
I'm curious though (even theoretically) if a system like this could be converted to ARM when Apple gets to that point, or if that is just too much change of everything? (ie: would you need new everything, or could something like that go into some slot and just bypass or add-to the Intel stuff) Probably not possible, but I'm just not up on hardware like I once was. I guess to the target market, it doesn't much matter. But, for someone looking at dropping the $ on this as a long-term machine, that makes me a bit nervous.
I'm underwhelmed by the storage speed... up to 2.6GB/s sequential read and 2.7GB/s sequential write performance, and that's from two storage modules working together.
They didn’t say that the speed from both together. Up to simply means sequential.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
They’re in slots, so it’s certainly possible. Not likely that Apple would be offering it though.
Two questions:
The Xeon processor, it will be possible to upgrade the in the future (like in the older chesse grater mac pro)?
And, it will be possible to upgrade ssd or add more ssd storage for data disk? (For example, use a samsung 970 EVO as data internal storage.
I haven't had time to really look over the specs and details, but the impression I get is that most everything is upgradable, either with Apple modules, or other parts (not sure what limitations).
For the Xeon W chips, I would warn that it may not be.
The Xeon W 2-series in the iMac Pro uses a LGA2066 socket while the Mac Pro uses a Xeon W 3 series that uses a LGA3467 socket (I think, as ARK doesn’t list it for some reason). So, upgrading the CPU within the series is possible, but you never know if a next gen Xeon W 4 series will use the same LGA3467 socket. Ie, the iMac Pro can’t be upgraded to the Xeon W 3 series chips in the Mac Pro, and still doesn’t have any good CPU options if Apple just wants to do an in-place speed bump.
For SSDs, you can just get a PCIe SSD and call it a day.
Yes, that’s the socket. Anandtech just did a typically excellent article on these new chips Apple is using. I highly recommend a read.
but Apple said, at least I believe it was Apple, that these CPUs were slotted, not socketed. That would mean that the socket was on a board that plugs into the mobo. If so, the the board would come out, chip, socket and all (perhaps external cache, if any) and a new board, with a new socket, chip and extras, would plug in.
for those of us who remember, we had that previously with Apple. I upgraded a number of machines that way.
an interesting bit of history. On Wintel machines, the socket was always soldered to the mobo, so you could only replace the CPU alone, and only with one using the same socket. Since Apple’s machines allowed a board to be replaced, with all the critical parts of the specific chip, we could move to a new chip family, and get almost all the oerformance, sometimes double, and we could do it again, with an even newer line, while Wintel users, at most, could increase performance by 30-40%, and that was on the very high side of reality.
to overcome the gap, a solution for Wintel came out, the name of which I forget, that essentially duplicated what Apple was doing. But since that increased the cost by about 20%, in the price first world of Wintel, it failed.
Comments
By the way, those people can be much a "fashion statement" as you'd expect, spending money on things that hardly benefits "functionality".
Not saying Apple can't build a mainstream headless option, but it still needs to be different than the rest, otherwise, people will ask for it. Yes, the Mac Pro is way different than traditional workstations, but that's also because it's a workstation. If they're offering Core i9s, it won't stand out as much since that's what a lot of people would build.
That said, All-in-One does offer an option to be different, but I think you're worried about its "functionality". Some of your concerns can be addressed, like putting a better processor with a software solution similar to Sidecar, but I think the main concern you have are price and expansions, which still needs solutions.
I don't think they want to give up on AIO since iMac G3, and they can still be a great workhorse, but some middle ground could be implemented to meets the demand.
Edit: Actually, both solutions (headless and AIO) can work at the same time. Say, make the Mac mini works like "LEGO bricks" as earlier rumor suggests, while making the iMac more modular to make upgrades easier.
As great as the mini is, I just don’t feel comfortable with its cooling capabilities. I wouldn’t want to run it all out for extended amounts of time. I suppose Apple can say, ‘well, if that’s what you do, then you need the Mac Pro.’ But, there are a LOT of people who run machines hard (my mini runs hard if I play Minecraft, for crying out loud), like encoding a video to submit to YouTube. Those people don’t need a Mac Pro, but they probably want a quiet machine that doesn’t kill itself prematurely and has a reasonable GPU.
That doesn’t seem too much to ask. Like I said, with eGPUs, the mini is now quite a bit of the way there. But, having a smallish box that could run cool, and maybe have some RAM slots and a slot for a standard GPU, would make a lot of people really happy.
Even the iMac isn’t that great for the above. While you can get it with a reasonable GPU, it still doesn’t handle heat well. The laptops don’t either. The only machines that handle heat OK, are the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. That’s kind of silly they don’t have something under like $5k that can do basic workhorse type stuff, even a lot of everyday users would do. (And, that’s besides the iMac not having an HDMI in, etc. What if I have a PC under my desk? I need an additional monitor? What if I want to plug in an Xbox at my desk? Another monitor? It’s just silly.)
Yes, your wish for "smallish box that's modular and cool" isn't hard. I already wrote it down in the last post.
Using iMac as an external monitor should only be a software issue, not the hardware one.
https://www.fonepaw.com/recorder/use-imac-as-monitor-for-pc.html
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro+Late+2013+Teardown/20778
It got:
- Two expansion slots for graphics cards, though proprietary.
- CPU card with RAM slots.
- Unified thermal core.
- Silent operation.
- 300W power supply.
- Removable SSD.
Though it failed as a workstation, it can still be decent for a miniature desktop. They can shrink it down a bit, put a low-power i7 instead of a Xeon, then call it a mini.
They do on their pro products, but the reality is that non-pro products need that too. Like I said, there are tons of non-pro or prosumer things even a typical home Mac user will do that make these machines run too hard. The user shouldn’t get blamed for not buying a $5k+ pro, but Apple for not designing to the needs of their users.
If they had a real option, they could then say, “well, if you do lots of gaming or video encoding, you should have bought our xMac over here instead of a MacBook Air, iMac, or mini.” They could include the MacBook Pro in that, but it’s a bit of a sore spot for me that the MacBook Pro is also quite non-Pro in that regard (of course, that’s nothing new... it has been an issue since the MacBook Pro was... way before Intel was supposedly the problem point).
re: iMac as display - that was a feature of those old models of iMac. That won’t work anymore, afaik.
I’ve seen PC builders since copy that concept as well. The problem is those machines don’t come directly from Apple and properly support macOS. Apple could easily build a really nice mid-level machine lots of people would be thrilled with. I’m guessing the reason they don’t, is that they think the iMac is that machine. The problem is... it isn’t.
Speaking of the processor, Intel just released its 10nm+ processors and it's unexciting. Even AMD has better options. To me, Intel must be replaced either by their own or at least AMD. That will eliminate the thermal issues for sure as Cook blamed Intel for that, that means it will be embarrassing if they throttled on their own.
I don't want to talk about laptops too much, but a redesign is on the way, we'll see how some of the controversies will be addressed.
What I'm thinking here is a more proprietary solution, like the MPX in a Mac Pro, therefore it's possible to plug other things like an SSD card.
I really doubt they wouldn't socket the CPUs, but the bigger question in my mind, is if Apple A-series processors could somehow be added/used someday.
I'm not sure what all the internal ports are, but I suppose there would be a way to put standard SSDs in it. (For example, there is an article about an internal drive-sled and some kind of SATA connection: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/04/promise-debuts-first-internal-hard-drive-sleds-for-new-mac-pro )
They even included USB-A internally so people could put software-lock dongles inside the case and such. They also have modules for GPU update or slots, which I assume could take standard GPUs?
The Xeon W 2-series in the iMac Pro uses a LGA2066 socket while the Mac Pro uses a Xeon W 3 series that uses a LGA3467 socket (I think, as ARK doesn’t list it for some reason). So, upgrading the CPU within the series is possible, but you never know if a next gen Xeon W 4 series will use the same LGA3467 socket. Ie, the iMac Pro can’t be upgraded to the Xeon W 3 series chips in the Mac Pro, and still doesn’t have any good CPU options if Apple just wants to do an in-place speed bump.
For SSDs, you can just get a PCIe SSD and call it a day.
i don’t u defat a d why Apple did t upgrade than machine. Newer chips have greater performance for the same power, and heat consumption. They could have. They shou,d have. 18 months ago, or so, they did lower the pricing. But it’s too old, and I haven’t recommended it for years.
Yeah, I'm not sure there are m.2 slots (for a Samsung 970 EVO), but lots of options for storage, so kind of a moot point.
I'm curious though (even theoretically) if a system like this could be converted to ARM when Apple gets to that point, or if that is just too much change of everything? (ie: would you need new everything, or could something like that go into some slot and just bypass or add-to the Intel stuff) Probably not possible, but I'm just not up on hardware like I once was.
They’re in slots, so it’s certainly possible. Not likely that Apple would be offering it though.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14513/intel-cascade-lake-xeon-w-3200-launched-server-socket-64-pcie-30-lanes
but Apple said, at least I believe it was Apple, that these CPUs were slotted, not socketed. That would mean that the socket was on a board that plugs into the mobo. If so, the the board would come out, chip, socket and all (perhaps external cache, if any) and a new board, with a new socket, chip and extras, would plug in.
for those of us who remember, we had that previously with Apple. I upgraded a number of machines that way.
an interesting bit of history. On Wintel machines, the socket was always soldered to the mobo, so you could only replace the CPU alone, and only with one using the same socket. Since Apple’s machines allowed a board to be replaced, with all the critical parts of the specific chip, we could move to a new chip family, and get almost all the oerformance, sometimes double, and we could do it again, with an even newer line, while Wintel users, at most, could increase performance by 30-40%, and that was on the very high side of reality.
to overcome the gap, a solution for Wintel came out, the name of which I forget, that essentially duplicated what Apple was doing. But since that increased the cost by about 20%, in the price first world of Wintel, it failed.