Detnator
About
- Username
- Detnator
- Joined
- Visits
- 44
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 620
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 287
Reactions
-
A 24-inch 4K monitor & Mac mini is a good option versus the Apple Silicon iMac
Omg.darkvader said:Only if you get the Intel Mini now while you still can.There's a reason it's more expensive than the M1 junk. It's worth it.(And go for a bigger monitor. 24" is kinda tiny these days.)Have you even tried an M1 Mac? For the last year I’ve had a maxed out latest model 16” MBP (8-core, 16 threads, 64GB RAM) which in some tests benchmarks better than the current 8-core Mac Pro. Both are high end Intel, obviously.I recently bought the M1 MBP. With translated x86 apps it keeps up with the 16”. With native ASi apps it smokes the 16” on everything except the most intense graphics related tasks. And this is Apple’s low end chip with the effective equivalent of 5 cores.And it does all that without batting an eyelid — meaning without it heating up so much I need to sit it on two ice packs to stop it throttling down and literally grinding to a halt. Doing that has been the only way to get my 16” to even come close to what the M1 MBP can handle.Yes the M1’s graphics is lower end and doesn’t compete with dedicated high end AMD graphics, but it was never supposed to. It still runs rings around every Intel integrated graphics, which is its competition.My 16” is now in a corner playing file server and FileMaker database server for my home network thanks to its 8TB drive, the fact that my use of those devices aren’t exactly taxing processes, it has a portable fan pointed permanently at it, and it sits on a compartment I put ice packs into when it does start throttling. It just doesn’t hold a candle to my M1 for day to day usage.Laugh at the M1 tech specs - or whatever else you’re doing here - if you want but without actually using one you can’t observe just how astounding it is compared to Intel’s offerings so you have no basis for calling it junk. And if you have used one — for it’s intended purpose (eg. not editing and rendering Hollywood movies) — and still want to call it junk then you’re being paid to lie, or you’re brainwashed.DarkVader, with some of the complete nonsense you spout, I’ve been thinking for a while you must be a shill (and every time I’ve called you out on said nonsense you’ve never replied with anything remotely meaningful, if at all - because you can’t). Your “M1 junk” line really nails it. Prove me wrong.
-
A 24-inch 4K monitor & Mac mini is a good option versus the Apple Silicon iMac
Haven’t read past this comment yet so don’t know if anyone else has commented on this but my thoughts are…maciekskontakt said:No it is not. Monitor in 24 inch size is way too small and it is ill idea of someone who does not understand principles of human vision. It is the same as marketing foolishness from years ago about 32 millions of colors while human eye can recognize about 300,000. Selling on technical specs does not pay off.
If you really want to squeeze more information on screen that is expressed with 4K resolutions then you need minimum 27 inch monitor or better: 32 inch monitor. Tiny fonts do not work when you have to start using eyeglasses to see them. 24 inch monitor is for 1080/HD resolutions and it is old standard at this point, but popular with many applications including some office work.
Sigh… not this ignorant rhetoric again. Have you ever even seen any retina Mac (or the LG Ultrafine ~220+ ppi) displays? Do you even own or use any Mac from the last 5+ years?If you did you’d understand Apple’s pixel doubling process and the impressive algorithms behind that that effectively gives all of those 220+ppi displays resolution independence.
Text too small? You’re doing it wrong. A 4K display in/attached to a Mac is not supposed to be set to 4K resolution and it’s not even possible out of the box (you need one of a number of third party extensions to pull that off). It’s supposed to be set to “1920x1080 HiDPI”.Today’s retina displays have the same point resolution as all Apple’s older displays pre-2012. They just show each point with a 2x2=4 grid of independent pixels resulting in extraordinarily crisper and clearer textfor close to the kind of fidelity you get out of a laser printer. This shows everything (text, UI elements, etc) at the same visible size as the old 1080p 21” 4K iMac, just with very visibly improved clarity and crispness. The 2880x1800 15” retina MBP is by default set to “1440x900 HiDPI” and shows everything the same size as the pre-2012 1440x900 non-retina MBP. Likewise the 13” MBPs and MBAs (2560x1600 = 1289x800 HiDPI). And and all of that is before you start changing to the higher dpi (not ppi) resolutions that are standard options in the Displays system preferences (eg 1920x1200 HiDPI on 15” retina MBP or 2560x1440 HiDPI on a 21” iMac 4K that yes, make text and UI smaller but is still perfectly usable if you have the need for the extra dot resolution (equates to extra desktop real estate. 4K at 27 or 32 inches (compared with 21 inches) is noticeably fuzzy or blurry when you set the display to the correct resolution for the inches (which for a Mac is about 110dpi).The correct resolution stats for some of Apple’s displays are:
Display inches | ~220 ppi* | ~110 dpi**13” | 1560x1600 | 1280x800
15” | 2880x1800 | 1440x900
21” | “4K” 3840x2160 | 1080p
24” | “4.5K” 4480x2520^ | 2250x1260
27” | “5K” 5120x2880 | 2560x144032” | “6K” 6016x3384 | 3008x1692
(*physical pixels per inch,
**UI-correct dots per inch.^ new iMac)
If you really can’t see the difference between the old non-retina models at ~110ppi and today’s retina ~220ppi Macs or displays (set to the default HiDPI resolutions) then you need to make some appointments with your optometrist.And that said, there is no way you can not have experienced this if you’ve owned or even used any Mac with a built-in or attached Retina display in almost the last decade. I suspect you’re basing your comments on Windows’ comparatively woeful handling of hi res displays and haven’t experienced just how impressively maxOS handles this.So yeah… pretty much every point your comment makes is incorrect, and absurd. -
Apple debuts colorful 24-inch iMac with M1, upgraded camera and audio
Dude you’re ranting over and over and over again the same speech. Everyone who responds to critique you with good points you simply regurgitate the same crap you’re saying back again and again. Let it go already.titantiger said:
This makes some sense. My only issue with this one compared to previous redesigns is that you didn't step backwards in functionality outside of when they finally ditched the optical drive with the last version of the Intel aluminum one. Before, the iMac either kept the same number or even added USB, Thunderbolt or Firewire ports. It kept ethernet as a standard option, not a configurable one for more money. And the only differentiator in the $1299 one and the same size ones that were more expensive were things like more memory, larger HDD or SSD, or a faster processor. The entry level one didn't lack any features or functionality that the upgraded one had - it just had a slower processor, integrated graphics instead of discrete ones, less RAM, less storage space.Happy_Noodle_Boy said:For people wondering why the new low end iMacs didn’t come in at previous generation’s lower price point, it's kinda typical for Apple to reset the price with a major redesign.
iMac G3 started at $1299
iMac G4 started at $1299
iMac G5 started at $1299
iMac Intel stated at $1299
iMac Intel AL started at $1199
iMac Intel AL thin at $1299
With the exception of the G4 each one went down in price over it's lifetime and then with a single exception the price went back to 1299 with the next redesign. The G4 iMacs were a little weird because they had the eMac come out which took the place of low end iMac. So there shouldn't be much surprise when it comes to the price tag, it’s been remarkably consistent. Also, if you adjust for inflation the iMacs today cost about half as much as the original G3.But with this one, they did return to the $1299 entry price but regressed on these kinds of things - just two thunderbolt ports, no ethernet. It doesn't come with the Touch ID keyboard. It's just, to me, a step backwards in terms how Apple has handled these redesign transitions in the past.Yes it lost Ethernet and some ports as standard. But it gained a far superior display and processor, WiFi upgrade, and a few other things.For one, this WiFi, with a suitable router, is as close enough to gigabit Ethernet speeds that most entry level users (those this is aimed at) won’t even notice let alone care. And same with ports. The people this thing is aimed at just don’t use them.You just don’t get it. YOU don’t like it because you want the base cheap model to have everything. It can’t. And it never has. The base model has always compromised something. Usually it’s the processor and GPU if not other things as well but that wasn’t really an option to compromise in this one (unless maybe they might have put the A12 that was in the dev kit mini but I think most of us will agree it’s good they didn’t do that). So they compromised other stuff instead.They could have released it with another spinning hard drive or or even less ports or no WiFi or who knows what else they could have left out. And no matter what they left out it would be a step back for something because otherwise literally everything in this new iMac is bigger, faster, better.And no matter what they left out some idiot like you would be complaining about how the cheapest desktop Mac with easily the best display on the market by far in its price bracket didn’t have everything in it that the more expensive ones have.I don’t know. You tell us? What should they have left out instead? Or are you so greedy that you think they should add the better wifi, display and everything else they added and not take anything else out and also not hike the price a little as they’ve done every other new one (per the post above) to help offset the development costs?Despite what some people here seem to think when throwing around words like “greedy”, this stuff costs money to design, test, build, and get right, and they’re a business not a charity, and always have been. Nothing’s changed. Steve was no better than Tim with this. Steve didn’t make cheap computers either.They’ve done their research and they’ve left out what they have found to be the stuff the users it’s targeted to need the least, that can also have any kind of sensible impact on saving costs.
So dude... get over yourself. You’re not the authority on Apple’s target market. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
-
Apple launches new Apple TV 4K with A12 Bionic CPU, redesigned Siri remote
Wow... seriously? I agree, I like the touch remote functionality, but it constantly has sensitivity and inconsistency issues. So they put buttons back in... which is great. So, swiping/touch?spliff monkey said:
Came here to say exactly that. It reminds me of the old remotes before they used a touch pad. I dread “click, click, clicking” around m the screen rather than just a swipe which can get me to the other side of the screen in a single gesture.neillwd said:Hate the remote.Thought I was the only one who liked and understood what the touch remote accomplished.
It still does that AS WELL! Did you not see that? Buttons AND swiping... It's the best of both worlds. Plus scroll-wheeling on top to boot.
And the other huge issue with the previous remote that this one fixes: no longer vertically symmetrical so no more using it upside down.
Frankly, I think they finally got the damn thing right.
But complainers gotta complain...? Present a legitimate issue if you have one, but seriously... maybe you guys wanna get your information straight first?
-
Two unreleased iMacs referenced in macOS Big Sur 11.3 beta
The 21 means generation 21. It’s mostly just coincidence that it’s the same as the year number.
As for a 6K iMac Pro, I highly doubt it. The iMac Pro was a 2017 stopgap while we waited for the 2019 Mac Pro after Apple admitted they’d kinda screwed up with the 2013 cylinder.They haven’t updated it in nearly 4 years and the standard high end iMacs are faster (except for the high core count iMac Pros where the pricing compares with the Mac Pro anyway. And now it’s pulled without any song of replacement.
I expect the iMac Pro is discontinued for good.But I do hope the iMacs grow (in physical size) like Tonghi is suggesting. 30” and 6K at today’s iMac pricing would be really nice.
