sandor

Mike Wuerthele said:

sandor said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

sandor said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

deminsd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The difference between the cheese grater Mac Pro and the contemporary iMac is mainly internal vs. external expansion, not general expansion. I owned a 2009 Mac Pro and updated the RAM, drive space, boot drive, GPU, and added USB 3.0 support via a 3rd party card. However, I eventually had to move on from the Mac Pro because the old motherboard bottlenecked the GPU, and the WiFi and bluetooth standards were too old and also too problematic to try and update relative to the OS. Bottom line: the 2017 5K iMac that I bought as a replacement can expand in all the same areas as the Mac Pro, with the exception of adding a card internally for USB upgrades. Again, the main difference is whether or not the expansion is handled internally or externally, not whether it's supported at all.

Can't upgrade the GPU in the iMac, which is one of the main reasons the old Mac Pro is still coveted today.  Drives?  Sure, external, but if you want RAID of 4 drives, not as cheap as just sliding in 4 drives.  Upgrade CPU(s) like in the Mac Pro?  Nope.  With the iMac, everything is external.  So while it's possible, it's not the same as the Mac Pro.

The process to replace the processor in the iMac Pro is no less or more of a pain in the ass than the Mac Pro cheese grater.

To be very, very clear. Apple has never endorsed CPU replacements, even if they were possible.

Mike, that comment makes it seem like you have never removed the CPU tray from a cheese grater. Apple literally has instructions on how to do it.

Incomparably easier than an iMac:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205043#1

(yes, Apple has never endorsed them, yes, they are completely possible. http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems.html )

This isn't a CPU replacement. This is a tray replacement. The heat sink removal procedure with the long-handled Torx, the un-lidded processors on the 4,1, and the temperature sensor cable is a pain.

Yeah, I know they're possible. The point of the remark was that not everything can get a processor swap. Many iMacs can't, for instance.

Regarding the procedure, I stopped counting at 10 Mac Pro processor pair swaps and had a whole series about upgrading the 3,1 through 5,1 at another venue. And, I've done it three times on an iMac Pro, so I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to comment.

You said that CPU replacement in the iMac Pro was no more or less of a pain in the ass than the Mac Pro cheese grater. 

It is simply not true.

Access to the CPU is the hurdle in the iMac Pro, not in the Mac Pro. *That* is why the 4 "clips" and single pull-out tray is about.

Yeah, i do miss the ZIF G3 233 mhz processor that i was able to drop in upgrades for, but the cheese graters arent much more difficult considering the extra heat dissipation necessary. And access to the CPU is far easier.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're glossing over lidless processors, bluloc-seized screws, and a few other factors.

Out of curiosity, have you done an iMac Pro CPU replacement? The screen removal isn't terrible if you don't rush it.

GeorgeBMac said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

wanderso said:

If Apple would make the cost premium of 128 GB only be $50 more, rather than $100, the appeal of the new iPad would further grow.  Better yet, be willing to have a micro SD slot and let users add their own memory.  Space may be the excuse for the reason for not offering this, but competing products show that it is readily possible to support it.  Why doesn't Apple offer this?  Clearly the benefit of profit comes into play as many more users would be content with purchasing the lower GB model if a memory slot was available.   I've owned Apple products since '92 and love their innovation, but this is an item where they could improve.  Upping the camera quality on the $100 model would also be an appeal, but I expect that wouldn't work out cost wise. 

Hosing the user isn't the reason the SD card slot isn't included -- security and protection of the installed OS is. There's some user-experience here as well, as inexpensive SD cards are terribly slow.

If you want to expand video storage and whatnot, then get a Lightning flash drive, or a NAS with Files support.

Could we assign that to you as a homework assignment to explain and expound on that?   As iOS devices delve further into the arena of traditional computers, that could be most interesting.

PickUrPoison said:

london11 said:

Andrew_OSU said:

Nameo_ said:

There are two things that came to my mind when I heard the news about this budget iPad:

1. I know Sammy’s Galaxy tablets are already dead, but I just want to recognize them: RIP Galxy tabs. 
2. At this point, when the budget iPad packs all these features and performance while maintaining the price tag of $329, iPP pricing seems unreasonable and even a little ridiculous.

At $649, it’s roughly 2x the price of the iPad 6th gen, and I just can’t justify that price gap. I hope this year’s iPP would bring enough enhancements to make me feel I was actually wrong.

To be fair on the iPad Pro pricing, those devices are now a bit older. Chances are they will be updated fairly soon, putting them quite a step above this budget iPad. 
The more egregious issue, in my opinion, is the ridiculous price of the iPad Mini. The mini 4 is only $29 less than the same storage 9.7"iPad. So for that $29 you get a bigger/better screen, faster processor, upgraded motion coprocessor, more ram, etc. The iPad Mini isn't even capable of shooting Live Photos. 

Yes, it makes no sense to not kill the iPad mini or drop its price, or update it.  

I hope the mini4 is updated, some prefer the form factor and it’s important to certain verticals. I think Apple is aware of this, and I expect it will be updated in the image of this latest 9.7” iPad, i.e. A10, Apple Pencil support and non-laminated screen. It’ll then be good for another 3-4 years of shelf life untouched.

It won’t be much cheaper though, since costs aren’t much cheaper, if at all, considering the lower volume it will sell at. $249 would be a real reach and would probably be less gross margin than the 9.7”. I’d expect something more like $279 or even $299 (compared to the larger iPad’s $329 retail), which is at least a $100 price cut from its current $399 price. Maybe $20-30 discount for education, if Apple wants to go there. 

tipoo said:

Have a few questions about it that probably won't be answered till reviews, but...

Is the display laminated? Using the pencil without lamination would probably feel weird 
Is the antireflective coating back? 
What is the touch and pencil sample rate? 
Will the Crayon share the same Pencil sample rates/is it active/what does it miss out on for the price? 

zoetmb said:

sandor said:

macxpress said:

sandor said:

NY1822 said:

I'll place my bets on Apple vs "Industry Experts"...

you obviously don't work in the medical world & have to deal with the FDA processes.

I doubt work in that field either...You don't know anymore than they do. 

almost 20 years now, on the clinical side, not the vendor side, but i work closely with the development processes of dozens of medical devices.
I have had to write IRB protocols for non-approved devices & we have been a clinical site for FDA data gathering pre-approval as well.
we can wait 12-18 months for software algorithms to make their way through the FDA, hardware can be years in the testing & approval phases.

Why would a non-invasive (and from the little biology I know, I don't see how it could be) device require FDA approval, especially over the next few years as the current administration attempts to deregulate everything.  How would it be any different than a blood pressure gauge?  I don't think my gauge is FDA approved.   And unless there's a way to measure blood glucose via saliva, I don't see how it could ever be non-invasive anyway.  Of course there probably would be a way for a device to track the results from urine test strips, but it's the strip that's already doing all the work.  Unless they expect us to urinate on our phones or watches. 

I didn't know until now that Jobs also had diabetes.   It certainly wasn't a weight issue and from what we supposedly know about Jobs, he probably didn't eat processed foods with high sugar and fat content, although I think there was some anecdote about him demanding an ice-cream soda in a restaurant that didn't ordinarily serve them.