Last Active
  • The cheesegrater Mac Pro is 16 year old, and still the best Mac ever made -- for now

    I wouldn't call the Apple Silicon transition 'successful'.  It has been over two years and Apple just now replaces the M1 with a new CPU, and they still don't have a replacement for the Mac Pro?  How is that successful?  Apple finished the Intel transition in 270 days and had newer and faster models the following year, and continued to do so for 15 more years.  Granted there is a supply chain issue, but the Apple Silicon transition has been slow as molasses.  There used to be high-end, high-performance iMacs. Now we are stuck with a single model with a low-end base model CPU (M1) that maxes out at 16GB of RAM, when the model it replaced maxed out at 128GB of RAM.  Everyone thought the Macs would come down in price with Apple making their own CPUs, but it has been the opposite.  The Macs are now more expensive than ever, and new models come with an unpleasant price hike.  And now you are forced to pay the Apple-Tax for memory and storage at the time of purchase.  No upgrading later.

    Watch the old Apple keynotes in which Steve Jobs introduced new models that were faster, but less expensive, or the same price as the outgoing models.  Speaking of this trip down Mac Pro memory lane, Apple made a point to show that the new Mac Pro started at $2,499, but the equally configured PC was over $4,700.  Now Apple's base model Mac Pro is $5,999, and the 2020 iMac 27" with 10-core i9 and 5700XT graphics beats it on most benchmarks, and cost less (at the time).  Of course the Mac Studio beats it hands down.  Yet Apple still sells it for $5,999.
  • Testing Apple's software fix for the Studio Display camera

    Could Apple update the camera's hardware in a revision of the Studio Display without having to refund or fix the display for current owners?
    Apple could, but they used a faulty keyboard for 3+ years in the MacBooks before finally giving up and replacing it with a keyboard that actually works.  It took them 6 years to fix the mistake of the 2013 Mac Pro.  So don't expect miracles with this very expensive display using iPhone 11 parts.
  • Testing Apple's software fix for the Studio Display camera

    You can't fix the lower quality ultra-wide camera with software patches.  The fact that the software does a digital zoom destroys the image quality.  A desktop monitor doesn't need center stage when you are sitting directly in front of it.  Sad that Apple touted the camera features, and then used the lower quality ultra-wide camera in a $1,599 device. The 1080P camera in the 2017 iMac Pro and 2020 iMac 27" are better cameras and produce a far better image.
  • New iMac Pro and M3 iMac coming, but not in 2022

    Could we just get a new M based 27" iMac with upgradable RAM?  Come on Apple?!  I'm a stock holder, and love the profits, but forcing customers to buy outdated equipment and to no degree of upgradability is really not cool.
    The Macs do have memory options, but you are required to pay Apple's prices, and must buy the memory at the time of purchase.  You will never see another Mac with user-upgradable RAM.  It is all Unified Memory on the SoC now.  Even Apple makes you pay $400 for the proper monitor stand.  What outdated equipment are you talking about?  The two year old M1?  Everyone with investments has a piece of Apple.  So flaunting that you have Apple stock means nothing.
  • Compared: Apple Studio Display vs. 2011 Thunderbolt Display

    Andrew, you wrote: "Because of Thunderbolt data limitations, it isn't possible to daisy chain two 5K studio displays." Do you know if it's possible to daisy-chain a lower-resolution third-party monitor to a USB-C port on the new Apple Studio Display?

    I have a 27-inch Dell QHD resolution monitor, which is 2560x1440 pixels. That's the same resolution as the original Thunderbolt Display and Apple's 27-inch iMacs from the 2009 to 2013 models. (The 2014 edition of the 27-inch iMac was the first Retina 5K model at 5120x2880 pixels.)

    I have an Apple Studio Display on order. I'm hoping that I'll need only connect one cable (from the Studio Display's one Thunderbolt port) to my MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) and that the one cable will provide the MacBook both with power and with connections to two monitors — the Studio Display and a 27-inch Dell monitor with USB-C and QHD resolution. In other words, the chain would be: 14-inch MacBook Pro <—> Thunderbolt cable <—> Apple Studio Display <—> USB-C cable <—> Dell U2721DE monitor, if that works.

    Thanks for any info!
    That is not possible.  Apple specifically stated that an additional display must be connected directly to the Mac.  The USB-C ports are for peripherals, storage, or networking.  Your Dell display would plug into the Mac Studio's HDMI port.