lemon bon bon.
- lemon bon bon.
- Last Active
madan said:lorin schultz said:nht said:lorin schultz said:StayPuftZombie said:StayPuftZombie said:tylersdad said:Mike Wuerthele said:tylersdad said:Mike Wuerthele said:d3bug said:I'm sorry Mr Gallagher and Mr. Wuerthele, but you cannot redefine what "Pro" means just for Apple. Everyone abides by the same definition of "Pro" or nobody does. I'm afraid you are guilty of a classic hypocrisy move... one definition for me, and one for thee. When the components you might wish to upgrade (RAM, HDD, CPU, GPU) are soldered to the board, I'm afraid you cannot claim that system to be professional in any way... You might get away with "Prosumer", but not "Professional".Upgrading components is in utterly no way the definition of "Pro." That may be YOUR definition, but it means you're calling Disney, Pixar, NASA, IBM, and most of the rest of the market not pro because they don't crack the cases open -- and never have, even when the door folded down. You really don't have any room to call somebody else a hypocrite in this matter.
I'm more or less just thinking about how these companies would possibly use a device like this without repairability (if that's even a word) .If you have a farm of these, some component is bound to fail. It's just the reality of electronics--no matter the quality of the components that make up the electronics. The companies you mentioned never crack them open at all? Not even to make repairs? I've built out data centers. Stuff breaks. And rather than be down a server, I can just pop in new components and have my downed server back up and running in a few hours. We keep spares of certain types of hardware--RAM, hard drives, CPUs. It's not an option with a device like this. You just have to wait for it to get repaired, do without, or keep spare computers around.
How would the enjoyment or utility of a Mac in this class be adversely affected by making it twice as big? Or even three or four times as big, like the size of a small RAID enclosure? If that meant quieter operation, better thermal control, room for internal storage, and more flexibility in the components Apple can design around (like discrete graphics and/or more powerful CPUs), wouldn't that be grounds for making it bigger?
I'm not saying that I'd prefer a bigger enclosure, I don't really care very much, I'm just saying it doesn't really NEED to be tiny. It just needs to be small enough to fit comfortably in the majority of use settings. Making it bigger wouldn't deter me from buying one.
They could make it a little larger but if they solved the thermal issues there’s no reason to. With 2x airflow it’s likely fine.
So it’s useless whining about something Apple has shown its not going to do. We now have a headless iMac that costs pretty much exactly like an iMac (within $50 or so) without the screen. It’s not “overpriced”. It’s not “underpowered”. And it’s designed like every other fucking Mac out there with soldered parts, adhesives and limited user upgrades.
People just need to GET OVER IT. 15 years of whining about how Apple cheats users, overcharges them and don’t give them what they want is enough for everyone else to get tired of it and tell these losers to buy a PC. They aren the losers because of what they want but because they stay with a vendor that they think has been abusing them for over a decade. Especially the dimwitted tools that start thier whining with “Ive owned a Mac ever since the original and Steve wouldn’t blah blah blah”. Holy shit...that was an AIO that if Steve could have gotten away with gluing shut to keep users out he would have.
Apple isn’t going to build it. Move the fuck on. HP makes a great little box. The intel NUCs are nice little boxes. There’s lots of options in 2018 and win10 is a decent OS.
I was simply responding to the argument that Apple had to make concessions in areas like graphics capability and internal storage in order to keep the mini small. That's begging the question, since Apple could have chosen to make it bigger.
Apple didn't. I don't care that they didn't. I just don't buy the argument for WHY they didn't. It's a logical fallacy.
This machine has no GPU. Great, Mac Minis don't have discrete GPUs. The problem is that this Mini's specs are hardly "super". They're mid-range. And yet they're charging 800 dollars for a computer that amounts to 500-550 tops. That's practically a 100% markup. Which is steep, even by Apple standards. Then we have the allegation that this is a good pro machine. A good pro machine without a GPU and a good monitor is what exactly? If you were to try to match the specs in an imac Core i7/580 right now, you'd be looking at spending close to 2200 dollars. On top of the 800 dollars for the mini. That's practically 33% more than a comparably specced-iMac...for the same performance.
That's not a good value proposition on any level. Yes, the mini has certain uses and advantages. It's small. It can be stacked. It can be used in server farms. It can make a great HTPC or set top box. And if you're as dumb as a box of rocks with no financial limitations you can try to turn this into a spider-web iMac Pro/Mac Pro by shoving a Vega 64 (and getting only Vega 56 performance through eGPU) in an external carriage, hooking up a monitor and paying almost 4000 dollars for the privilege.
Again, it's not that the Mini is a bad product. It's a *good* product. It's not that it doesn't have some advantages. It has some *distinct* advantages. It's that it's product price isn't compelling unless you're clueless about computers. I'd be hard pressed, even today, to build a 1.5 year old iMac i7/580 for significantly less than 2000 dollars. Hell the 27" 5K LG monitor on Amazon/Newegg is still going for almost 900 dollars. An i7, 2 DIMMs of DDR 4 and an Intel mobo with built in USB C-Thunder+Bluetooth+Wifi will easily run you another 7-800 dollars. The value is there even if the parts are old. Apple has a big margin on iMacs but it's not offensively big.
The notion that Macs are "overpriced" is a myth. The *product matrix* has a combination of expensive features that make Apple computers by their nature/capabilities...expensive. They come with Intel motherboards. They pack Thunderbolt. Bluetooth. Wifi. They have built in cameras, dual mics, decent speakers. They have world-class monitors. Those computers are expensive by virtue of what they have. The Mini is a nicely engineered machine with some nice features but it's not worth 800 dollars in any dimension. It's not worth 75% of 800 dollars. It's uncompelling and while some people may have very particular needs that are well suited by the Mini and while everyone should buy what they want, we shouldn't be overly-aggressive Apple fanboys and attack other Apple enthusiasts simply because they don't drink the koolaid on this upgrade.
The Mac Mini. Welcome, as all Mac updates are. It was horrendously out of date along with the shocking Mac Pro.
Take a look at HP's line of computers with upto date specs and snazzy design to remind yourself of the company Apple used to be in 2001.
Mac Mini doubles in price yet Apple nickels and dimes when they can get an i5 processor and 256 SSD drives for next to nothing in bulk. They could pass on their great leveraging power to the consumer...but no...they want to pocket the advantage (we gave them, by the way...) for themselves on top of the excessive mark up they already have.
Mac Mini. Entry. No monitor? No keyboard? No mouse? i3, no dedicated graphics, 128 gig SSD which you can buy for peanuts now. (Really Apple? SSD prices have been dropping like rocks and you're still pretending it's a premium sell up? Along with hostage to fortune memory gauging?)
£995. i5 6 core. Dedicated graphics. 256 SSD. 16(!) gigs of ram. That's you're killer machine right there.
£1495. i7 8 Core. Better dedicated graphics. 512 SSD.
Do that? I'd buy one. Missed the boat with no i-9 and no 8 core on the high end.
And most stupidly...no dedicated graphics? What about at least including the graphics of the macbook pro in the base mini? Or RX 580 in the 'high end' config? At least?
Sorry, Apple, 4-6 core machines are already passe in x86 land. It's 8, 10, 12, 16 core and 32 core machines for the price of a maxed out mini. And with a GPU that will pound it's face into the sand.
No Nvidia choices? So, we don't get the highest performing hardware because of some political grudge Apple has with Nv?
The old Blue and White G3 tower was a far better design with far better choices.
I was disappointed when I saw the mini design. I was really hoping it would be a bit bigger and include a decent gpu...and up an 8 core machine.
I guess I'll have to hope 8 core will come to the iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Rayz2016 said:patchythepirate said:JustSomeGuy1 said:"That is roughly a 25-percent single-core gain and almost 50-percent multi-core."You guys are usually better at math. It's a more than 90% improvement on multi-core.From a hardware standpoint, this is really impressive. It means that the performance scales basically *linearly* going from 2 to 4 cores. (Since there's 4 efficiency cores in both models, contributing approximately the same towards the results, scaling is better than the 90% figure!) This is a pretty big deal as it means that Apple's capable of building an interconnect that not only scales to at least 8 cores, but that power use for the interconnect is scaling well too.Until recently I was not convinced that putting an Ax chip in a MacBook was viable, but last year's A11 changed my mind. This puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that Apple can't scale their processors up to compete with the best 4-8 core processors Intel can build. Just using the tech on display in the A12x, replacing efficiency cores with performance cores, they could probably beat intel's best chips now. (There's some question as to how far they can push clocks on the current design without hitting a wall due to pipeline length, but in any case they're certainly close... and they haven't even tried to optimize for a laptop power envelope yet.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
'Real artists ship.' Steve Jobs.
I bought an iMac. Why? Because Apple's tower options sucked.
Apple have let the Mac wither on the vine. Gotta feel for Apple's Tower customers.
Mini, mini Tower? Mac mini. Old components. Overpriced. Sealed shut and quad core gpu canned. How many years without an update?
Mac Pro. Old components. Overpriced. They even jacked the price £500 here. That's a first on ancient technology! Thought better tech' came at the same price of lower? It used to!!!
Dat's what I got a problem with.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm insane? Right? My first Mac tower (a clone) cost me £1995. Used it to death. (1997...) But I remember being able to price a rig the way I wanted it. And I remember Apple moving to better value and standard components bar the PPC G3. That's what I remember. Twenty years ago. How have we progressed?
We have lots of tech' experts writing lots of candy floss and buying into Apple's management nightmare and PR fluff.
You know. There's a lot of crap written about the 'Pro' market. Let's hear from Apple's very own creative visionary and genius. What did HE have to say on the subject?
Under Jobs return, the Mac was an all out priority, the creative and edu markets were a priority and a laser precision on the Mac consumer with the iMac...which they DROVE DOWN in price and IT was the product that put Apple back on the map. It was simple. Under 1k? iMac. Over 1k? B+W G3 Tower. Gorgeously simple.
Configure to wallet busting proportions if you wanted to. From Low pro...to medium pro to high pro. Wanted to max out? Bust your wallet. Wanted to get your foot on the ladder and add components AS YOU COULD AFFORD TO...and you could(!)
In case anybody has forgotten the legendary G3 Tower intro'... EXPANDABLE, DROP DOWN CASE, BLISTERING CPU, STANDARD and LEADING GPU and a FAIR and SCALEABLE PRICE POINT ACCESSIBLE BY ALL(!!!) not the province of some mythical 'Pro ELITE' designed by a company who has lost touch with their CORE BASE.
Here's a reminder by the RING MASTER SHOWMAN who 'GOT IT.' (Apple's 'executives' should re-watch this and burn it to memory.)
A masterclass. 20 years later on it's anniversary? Apple haven't bettered this...and are clueless to their core creative market, ...
'Our customers want access to that technology...' ... 'It's called a 'Door.' :P Steve Jobs.
'Most Powerful.' 'Best Graphics.' 'Most Expandable.' 'Best Design.'
$1599 to $2999! Four models in the price range! Pricing the entry model, with superior design and blistering CPU technology the SAME as the prior desktop model. (Job's own words...how about that.)
'Value engineering.' The most loaded system at $2999! 'To bring these products to you at these aggressive prices.' Two systems actually below $2k!!!
'...and they're available today!' Steve Jobs. (See the intro' tag line.)
Also, take note.
'We want to be the best and most respected gaming platform in the world.' Steve Jobs. '...and today, I'm going to show you 12 of the hottest games on the market.'
'I'm here today, because Apple finally has their act together with 3D graphics acceleration...both hardware and software. ...on the G3's they have state of the art 3D cards.' John Carmack.
...yes. And that's Uncle Phil playing games at a 'Mac' show.
Note the 800k iMac sales back then! Because it was affordable! $1195. And they went on to make it even more affordable.
See? Gaming and Pro benchmarks on the same stage! Touting the tower's flexibility. It was priced above the iMac. But the iMac was the affordable desktop.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Didn't CISC or x86 legacy compatibility become an on chip resource on...basically, RISC chips from Intel?
Though whether it matters for Apple to try something similar for a 10nm process?
With 1 billion 'Mac' devices out there (I count iPhone and iPads as basically 'Macs'. They are. It's not a phone in your pocket. It's a Mac for the rest of us...) Apple have an ecosphere that now eclipses Windows and is going to run it over going forwards.
selling 4-5 million Macs per quarter. Ten million iPads. 50 million plus iPhones. 65 million 'macs' per quarter. That's some steamroller.
They're all 'X' at heart.
Lemon Bon Bon.
sog35 said:schlack said:how long bf they swap out the intel chip in the macbook to an arm processor? dropping in two A10X chips would make it a powerhouse and likely be cheaper than the single intel chip. arm compatible apps wouldn't necessarily be a problem. apple could help recompile existing apps to work on arm chips. even just converting MSFT Office, Safari, and iTunes will cover 90% of what people do with MacBooks anyways.
I want to see a desktop iOS computer to address the $400-$500 market. I know so many people want to switch to an Apple desktop. But to get a decent Mac with SSD is $750. That's just too much for many.
128 GB flash
Some say no way Apple sells it for that cheap. But the AppleTV with similiar hardware sells for $149. Add new chips, more RAM, more flash should easily cover the extra $250.
Lemon Bon Bon.