tht

About

Username
tht
Joined
Visits
128
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,379
Badges
1
Posts
4,498
  • Mac Studio designed with customer feedback & Pro Workflow team feedback in mind

    macxpress said:
    netrox said:
    It's not really modular if you cannot swap the internal disk drive.

    I can understand that RAM gets soldiered for maximum efficiency and performance but an internal storage should be easily replaceable and modular.
    It is modular...all of the internal ports are removable from what I saw. Just because you can't change a HD doesn't mean its not modular. There's more to modular components than a HD. And again, I seriously doubt most buying this will ever want to get inside it to change a HD anyways. IMO, this is so much of a non-issue except for the limited edge cases. 
    Understandably, people have varying definitions of what "modular" means. Apple is definitely trying to have its cake and eat it though, with using the word "modular".

    This is a quote from fcp.co interview with Tom Boger, the guy responsible for Mac and iPad features: People, of course, want maximum performance. So that's goal number one. Lots of connectivity so they can connect all kinds of different peripherals and spec out a studio that meets their workflow. And three, a modular system in terms of a separate display and computer so that over time, users can upgrade their compute resources without the need to upgrade their display.

    I suppose Schiller could have thought the same thing when he said the 2019 Mac Pro would be modular. He was quite coy about it, as he simply would not utter the words internal expansion or have PCIe slots prior to the reveal. He only said modular, and that led some people thinking it meant a small stackable desktop, kind of like the Mac Studio. After the reveal had the Mac Pro as a big box with beautiful engineered rack mount style cooling with everything basically tool-less, wire-less internal expansion, people think modular means having internal expansion. So, saying modular now is definitely giving people the wrong impression of what it means for the Mac Studio.

    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamelijahgjony0watto_cobra
  • New MacBook Air to come in two sizes, but without miniLED & ProMotion

    Notches here we come.  >:)
    williamlondon
  • Apple launched its revolutionary OS X 21 years ago

    Also amazing that Mac OS X was effectively a 13yo version of NeXTSTEP with its releases in 2021. I think you can still find vestigial bits where Mac OS X is called NeXTSTEP 5. ;)

    The Mach kernel and BSD userland were updated, Carbon and Foundation APIs were added, Display PDF replaced Display Postscript, and the Aqua GUI replaced the NeXTSTEP GUI, but the design of the system basically goes back to the NeXTSTEP beta release in 1988: an Objective-C based apps running on top of a Mach+BSD system.

    If you could go back in time to 1995, when NeXT was basically looking to exit the operating system business in favor of WebObjects and OPENSTEP on top of other OSes, and tell those folks their operating system was eventually going to run on 1 to 2 billion devices spanning speakers, wrist watches, TV dongles, phones, tablets and PCs, even a display, and uh headphones too?, those 1990s era NeXTSTEP developers and fans wouldn't comprehend it. It is incomprehensible. It wasn't just Apple that was on death's door. NeXTSTEP was for intents and purposes dead in 1996. Incomprehensible that its descendants run on so many devices today.

    If there was a milestone for when NeXTSTEP ended and macOS evolved, it was the introduction of Swift sometime in 2014 was it? Objective-C is still heavily used today, but once Swift becomes the defacto language for macOS and iOS apps, I think that means NeXTSTEP is dead and something different replaced it. Once Swift becomes mandatory for apps, I think you can officially call it the end.

    On an interesting footnote, microkernels versus monolithic kernels were a big tech discussion point in the 90s. Arguments between Torvalds and Tanenbaum and Torvalds and Tevanian were infamous. Now, nobody gives two shits about it now. The kernel doesn't matter anymore. Wish the RISC versus CISC debate suffered the same fate.
    Alex_Vbestkeptsecret
  • Apple using world's first low-carbon aluminium in the iPhone SE

    Apple using world's first low-carbon aluminium in the iPhone SE


    Apple plans to make the iPhone SE using low-carbon and carbon-free aluminum produced from an innovate new smelting process its $4.7 billion Green Bonds investment helped create.

    Which is it? Is Apple using low-carbon aluminum or planning to use low-carbon aluminum in the SE? I can see in the linked Apple PR, that they intend to use the low-carbon aluminum in the SE. So that mean they didn't start producing the SE3 with low-carbon aluminum and will or might be switching over? 
    It's planning to use. From Apple's press release today:

    "As part of this work, Apple is purchasing direct carbon-free aluminum following a major advancement in smelting technology to reduce emissions. The aluminum is the first to be manufactured at industrial scale outside of a laboratory without creating any direct carbon emissions during the smelting process. The company intends for the material to be introduced in the iPhone SE. ... Apple will purchase this first batch of commercial-purity, low-carbon aluminum from ELYSIS for intended use in the iPhone SE."

    At some point, units of the iPhone SE will simply start using this aluminum. Apple purchased the first batch of zero/low carbon emissions aluminum from this Elysis joint venture in 2019 which they tested its use on the MBP16: "Apple purchased the first-ever commercial batch of aluminum resulting from the joint venture, using it in the production of the 16-inch MacBook Pro". They facilitated the joint venture. They say the Audi uses their aluminum for the wheels of the Audi e-Tron GT, so hopefully they will get other high paying, high demand customers too. Since that initial purchase, the company has been scaling their electrolysis process for mass manufacturing. So, they are getting there.

    The company or the joint venture appears to be the first company to develop a carbon anode (likely a carbon anode) that won't interact with the freed O2 in the aluminum electrolysis process. The carbon from the anode combines with the free oxygen from aluminum oxide, resulting in CO2 being emitted from the process. They call their anodes "inert", which probably means what it says, their anodes don't interact with the byproducts of the AlO3 electrolysis process, resulting in both pure enough aluminum and only oxygen emissions.

    kurai_kagejas99
  • Mac Studio with M1 UItra review: A look at the future power of Apple Silicon

    dewme said:
    I was so excited to get a Mac Studio until I saw the GPU benchmarks. Very disappointed and the wait continues for a Mac with great 3D performance. They should really clarify that  their performance graphs are for video editors only - this is no where near the performance of a 3090 for 3D and I didn't think it was but even if it was 70% of the performance of a 3080 I would have got one. Will there ever be a Mac with comparable GPU performance? Probably not, it seems their focus is solely on the video side of things.
    While I think there may be more GPU performance in the M1 Ultra than what we’ve seen in current benchmarks there is a point where you have to recognize that physics still do apply. The Mac Studio with M1 Ultra is still a very small form factor machine that you can run very comfortably right on your desktop next to or underneath your monitors. I’m not a gaming PC person but I can only imagine it would be somewhat difficult to find an RTX 3090 equipped machine with the same form factor, power supply requirements, operating thermals, and audible characteristics (fan noise) as Apple’s Studio systems without losing something on the performance side. 

    I’m very interested to hear about directly comparable machines (as defined above) that demonstrate that Apple has somehow missed the mark on the graphics performance of the M1 Ultra. I don’t discount the possibility of their existence. I’m also expecting that Apple will deliver a new Mac Pro that breaks through some of the constraints imposed by the Studio’s very small form factor and user friendly operating characteristics, i.e., no earplugs required to operate the system 12 inches from your keyboard. 

    At the same time, I do agree that Apple has some 'splaining to do regarding their M1 launch presentation material that shows their wonderchip running neck and neck with competitive graphics platforms. This includes ones like the RTX 3090 that require small fission reactors and cooling towers to supply them with sufficient power to max out those critical benchmarks and 3D applications that drive some people's purchase decisions. This is where even diehard Apple supporters are feeling like we’re not getting the whole story from Apple. What exactly did they mean by those graphs and what assumptions were they making? The review numbers don’t add up and we need to know why.
    This, plus the “modularity” spat earlier in this thread reflect something about the Peek Performance presentation—it’s like the people who designed the Studio handed responsibility over to Marketing and didn’t look back. I guess it probably reflects an attitude that the product speaks for itself. That truly tech-savvy people will recognize a functional marvel when they see it. A good example of this dynamic is the Ars Technica dismantling of the foolish (the nicest word I can think of) YouTube posturing of Luke Miani (mentioned earlier in this thread in a post that has apparently been deservedly vaporized): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/explaining-the-mac-studios-removable-ssds-and-why-you-cant-just-swap-them-out/

    I’d like to see Apple do a better job of defending their design decisions and their pricing, but I suspect they see it as a sort of no-win situation. Better not to get drawn into it. 
    That Luke Miani video has got to be an SEO Youtube ASMR designed shit piece. There isn't any honesty in it. It's all acting. It seems ludicrous that any Apple rumorologist, and Miani's video channel trades in Apple rumors, doesn't know how Apple's NAND storage works. Apple hasn't used a normal SSD since the T1/T2 Macs came out. Both the 2017 iMac Pro and the 2019 Mac Pro have this same basic storage design as the Mac Studio: dumb NAND in a daughter card with the storage controller in the T2. Other Macs with the T2 have the dumb NAND soldered onto the logic board instead of a daughter card. With Apple Silicon, the storage controller is in the SoC itself. It's not like Apple hasn't illustrated this multiple times in their videos.

    The M1 Ultra has a 21 single precision TFLOPS GPU. It will have some wins over the 3090 because of memory architecture and TBDR, but yes, it isn't going to compete on most GPU compute tasks against a 35 TFLOPS 3090. The rumored 32+8+128 Apple Silicon package for the Mac Pro will have a ~42 TFLOPS GPU, hopefully at the end of 2022, running at about 250 W. So they are getting there. They might even have raytracing hardware in it.

    The GPU really is a platform issue for Apple. Virtually all GPU compute code is optimized for CUDA, and hardly any for Metal. It's a long road ahead. They need to get developers to optimize their GPU compute code for Metal. They need to sell enough units for developers to make money. Those units have to be competitive to the competition. So, a Mac Pro will Apple Silicon needs to be rack mountable, be able to have 4 or 5 of those 128 g-core GPUs, consume 2x less power than Nvidia and AMD, and Apple needs to have their own developers optimize code for Metal. Like with Blender, but a lot of other open source software and closed source software. Otherwise, it is the same old same old. Apple's high end hardware is for content creation (FCP, Logic, etc), and not much else.

    dewmetenthousandthingsmuthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellercgWerks