- Last Active
The real question is "Why Xeon at all?"For tasks like video editing, people won't care about ECC RAM or IPMI, so the core count is the only thing you gain over an i7.And for servers (I'm pretty well resigned to having to install at least one of these as a server, because Apple won't build anything else and somebody's critical server is going to fail before we get a new Mac Pro; that's going to be the most beautiful console screen nobody is ever going to look at) the ECC is great, but it's probably not going to have IPMI hooked up, only has one ethernet port, and ALL of the storage is going to have to be in external boxes.I really want a new Mac mini server for my really small business clients, and a new (real) Mac Pro for the bigger ones. I don't care about graphics cards. I don't care about big screens. I'd love to have a new XServe, but I don't expect that, just give me something suitable for server use.
Mike Wuerthele said:Read the article again, and tell me what the similarities are between these products, and how they relate to this conversation:Macintosh IIfx
Original Powerbook 3500 (G3)
Twentieth Anniversary Mac
He had one on his desk, alpha hardware in a IIx case.
It was referred to by everyone on his team as the "Too F*cking eXpensive". (They also cussed the black SCSI terminators.)
Amusingly, I own both a TAM and a Cube. They were free, because they were both kinda crap machines that, while they sold for too much money initially, they also depreciated very quickly. I don't have a Kanga, but I do have a 3400, which I eventually intend to sacrifice for repair parts for the TAM.
The only reason the iMac Pro will sell is that it's coming out before the first release of what will hopefully be an actual Mac Pro since 2012, and people need to get work done.
And if Apple actually does a $1200 iPhone? Yeah, I know people who will buy one. But I don't know many.
And those are all interesting comparisons. The IIfx was a really good machine, Apple pushed the boundaries of the possible with the tech then. It had a lot of quirks because of that, and it was stupid expensive, but worth it for the few people who needed it right then - but the Quadras were better.
The Kanga was kind of similar, pushing what could be done without a complete redesign - and the redesign (Wallstreet) was much better.
The TAM was a compromised machine from the beginning, never meant to be a performance machine, never meant to be anything but pretty and have good speakers.
The Cube was the same, aesthetics were given priority over everything else, it was a low-end G4 in a pretty case. The attempt at quiet operation was foiled by the bad bearings in the hard drives they shipped with, you could frequently hear a cube over everything else in the room even though it had no fan.
And the iMac Pro is another inherently compromised design. There is no sane reason to put a top of the line computer in a super-thin case behind a screen. It's not portable, a 27 inch computer is not intended to be portable, put the guts in a box, give the box plenty of expansion capability and cooling.
I don't understand how you'd relate any of that to a stupid-expensive phone, though.
zimmermann said:I don't seem to reed it in this article. Is this a winner, or is it an OK laptop for a very high price?Neither.It's still crap in a lot of ways, there's still a 16GB RAM limit, the SSD and RAM are still soldered, the battery is still glued, the keyboard is still awful, the graphics chip is still wimpy. Oh, and it's overpriced.This is not a significant upgrade from the 2012 MBP, and in many ways it's a downgrade.I'm not saying it's the wrong laptop for everybody, but this really should be called the MacBook Executive, because it's not a pro machine, but it's great for VP types.
prof said:cf77 said:
Hey Apple, please release a MacBook Pro that us 17" users actually want to buy. It is 2017, and I've already replaced the motherboard and battery once in my 17". I would really like to upgrade, I would really like to give you my business, but the current offerings dont work for the amount you are charging. Please fix!
I'm not giving up on Apple yet but if push comes to shove (i.e. my MBP finally kicks the bucket) I'll have to look for alternatives.
I will never understand why Apple thought it was a good idea to make the screen shiny.
I'm living with one on my 2011 15", but as soon as I run into one, I'm swapping this for a 2012 15" antiglare.
There's nothing compelling for me about any MBP past 2012 at this point. 16 GB RAM was great in 2011. It's pitiful in 2017, but you still can't get a new MBP with more than that.
I don't usually carry my 2011 17", for what I do it's just a bit too big to carry conveniently. When I do carry it, it's because I need the big screen, and the 15" just won't do.
I'm not dumping Apple, everything else out there is awful, and while a Hackintosh can be a great desktop, it doesn't work so well for laptops.