People are still buying the 21.5 inch iMac which has a 10 year old CPU and low resolution display for $1099. Apple will keep selling that for at least the next decade because its pure profit: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy... [apple.com]
A good example of that is the HermÃs Airtag accessory it costs 10x more and does nothing better than the $35 one. It doesnâ(TM)t even look very different.
it's not garbage. That's a value judgement YOU have placed on it. Others have different criteria (e.g. my wife for example is very happy with a quite low powered Apple machine, she plays no games, doesn't write software or do anything else particularly power hungry, and yet values the quality offered by Apple's machines (enclosures, screens etc).
Further more, if you have a problem with an apple machine, the after sales service is just spectacularly good compared to any other electronics supplier in my expe
I guess 9 times outta 10 is an exaggeration. Tbh the fixes be had for macs have all been free but all under their programmes for “out of the ordinary” repairs, like the “stage light” problem and a couple of butterfly keyboards.
And don't even talk to me about the crappy black tower boxes from self-build efforts (and yes I have done a self build before) - regular crashes from crap quality enclosures is the norm.
Hahaha I've built machines in fucking shoe boxes that don't "Crash", your argument shows you know nothing about building PCs. But the case is soo gooood! LMAO
Apple are not the reliability kings you seem to think they are.
In another hobby I'm involved in there are 3 major manufacturers - of the three one has a profoundly greater failure rate, typically every new major product has at least one major failure, sometimes requiring the product be shipped to the manufacturer, yet their customers gush over their great products, and when asked about high failure rates, they talk about how speedy the repairs are!
If you self-built, and you are getting "regular crashes from crap quality enclosures" then you need to spend more than $30 on a case and actually install some fans that move air through it. The problem isn't with the enclosure, the problem is with the incompetent person who didn't buy components of the proper spec to keep things in operating temperatures.
As far as other OEMs go, I think you'll find that Dell's Precision and XPS laptops are every bit as high quality in their engineering as Apple's MacBooks,
I will give you that Dell makes some really nice stuff, but their cooling solutions leave something to be desired at times. I've had more than a couple of Dell laptops simply up and die with no warning. I had an XPS 13 that I really liked, but I liked my MacBook Pro 15" more.
Apple's issues are definitely not imaginary - keyboards aside (which is an obvious sore spot) they do a decent job of board design but ask too much of their GPU and CPU cooling and more often than not end up cooking themselves. This has
They are just as thin and light, made with quality materials, and house the same powerful components if not more powerful in the GPU options, and get similar battery life.
They do not run macOS or OS X. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Oh so now you are going to retroactively add requirements that were not in the comment that I replied to. I believe that is called "moving the goalposts".
If the GGP would have said "I need to run macOS so other OEMs and DIY won't get the job done" I wouldn't have even replied.
Basically you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
1. Someone says "the Apple hardware is better because other OEMs are crap and DIY sucks" 2. I reply "some other OEMs are crap, others are pretty good, you just need to shop around a bit. And if you are having overheating issues on a DIY build, it's because you did it wrong. 3. Someone else replies and basically confirms what I said 4. You reply with "OMG macOS bullshit arguments blah blah blah" 5. I reply with "Hey, you're the first to even mention software, so good job on s
If you want to do a self build with a decent quality case then there's likely to be far less price difference. If you want something stylish AND good quality, self built, then forget it.
That sounds like a challenge to me sir. Here's a $750 build that should outperform the linked iMac. It has an expensive white case, and a nicer screen than I've ever seen on a mac.
Apple's main website no longer links to that old 21.5 inch iMac sales page. They discontinued 2 of the 4 prior storage options weeks ago. Leading up to the event this week, rumor sites were reporting many Apple retail stores had completely run out of stock on 21.5 inch iMacs.
Pretty sure Apple will not "keep selling that for at least the next decade".
As for what could be considered "pure profit", Apple's M1 chip is said to be about 120 square mm, which is about half size of Intel's latest chips. That half-cost chip comes with an integrated GPU that rivals the lower range of discrete graphics cards. The whole thing runs on only 15 watts, so they also save on power supply, voltage conversion and cooling parts. The whole computer fits onto a tiny circuit board, also lowering cost when manufactured at high volume.
Even at Apple's premium prices these new iMacs are going to deliver a great value, and at a much lower cost to Apple.
It is the way of Macs.
Keep a PowerMac G4 to run Quark, a G5 for that art application that was never updated, an early Intel Mac for GlassWriter Pro, a late Intel Mac for 93 Escort Wagon's app that needs Mojave, and a early M1 Mac to run the inevitable ARM-native stuff after the next transition.
That's five computers over 20 years. I hope your work desk has a LOT of space . . .
Haven't needed to before, but wouldn't virtualization software cover you here? I believe that Parallels supports older Mac OS VMs. At least for the versions compatible with Intel. Not sure about the old PPC versions.
Of course, the last PPC shipped ~15 years ago. I find it hard to believe that there isn't better software out there now than whatever you were running 15 years ago.
If not, you can set up the older machines somewhere else and use remote desktop to access them from the single machine on your d
Haven't needed to before, but wouldn't virtualization software cover you here? I believe that Parallels supports older Mac OS VMs..
Only if you have an Intel Mac to run those VMs on - at least for now. Parallels on M1 currently only supports ARM-based VMs. Supposedly VMware is working on addressing this, but who knows if/when that will actually happen.
Interestingly, Codeweavers' Crossover software can run x86 Windows software on M1 already. So at least anything which would run under Wine can work on an M1 Mac.
Get with the program. Apple has been closing the 64-bit computing hole for well over a decade now. If you are running software that old...it's time to look for other alternatives. If the developers have failed to keep up with the latest, then they deserve to be eclipsed. If you're not willing to pay for the latest version, then the fault is yours, not theirs or Apple's.
If you are running software that old...it's time to look for other alternatives. He already found and alternative. It is called a VM. Hint: software does not age. Age is meaningless.
Supposedly reinstalling software allows it to be converted into an ARM binary as well. I don't have a working mac so I have no idea if this is true or how effective it is. Most of the problems I'd heard about were with Photoshop, but that got an M1 native release in March.
Things that I would expect to fail are anything that relies on Intel specific technologies. For example, if you're relying on Intel Vt like VirtualBox and some other emulators, you're probably going to have issues.
Except for people who need to run legacy software?
When I read the word "legacy" in this context, it tends to invoke a "good luck with that" disclaimer when it comes to support.
Either you're able to resolve your issue in virtualization (which a lot of people successfully do), or get someone to fix the root problem (rewrite the software). Software is constantly facing an adapt-or-die crisis. This isn't anything new.
Software is constantly facing an adapt-or-die crisis. Actually, no. Software works or not. If it does not work, it never has worked and needs fixing. If it works: there is no reason to adapt to anything or fix anything.
This is just stupid featureitis to constantly change software for no damn reason, see Firefox.
no one wants to be left with an abandoned machine, i.e. during the PPC to Intel transition.
Rosetta worked well then and it should work well now
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Since it already has 8 cores (4× high-performance + 4× high-efficiency) I'd guess not long or put 2 or more in there. However when they announced the M1 first thought I had was how long before the Mac Pro gets upgraded what I would like to se in the new configurable macpro is coprocessor cards, add in more M1 type or other processors for different tasks
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Since it already has 8 cores (4× high-performance + 4× high-efficiency) I'd guess not long or put 2 or more in there. However when they announced the M1 first thought I had was how long before the Mac Pro gets upgraded what I would like to se in the new configurable macpro is coprocessor cards, add in more M1 type or other processors for different tasks
AFAIK, the high-performance cores and high-efficiency cores are mutually exclusive, so basically, it has four cores when you're talking about performance. It's also about ten or fifteen percent slower than the eight-core Mac Pro. So it would probably take on the order of 12 high-performance cores to match the performance of the current 16-core Intel chips. Scaling up a computer architecture to ~3x the number of cores isn't just adding more cores. It typically requires completely rethinking the interconn
So it would probably take on the order of 12 high-performance cores to match the performance of the current 16-core Intel chips.
Sounds like apple would have a reason right there for a M2
Scaling up a computer architecture to ~3x the number of cores isn't just adding more cores. It typically requires completely rethinking the interconnects between cores, the caching architecture, etc., or else you get rapidly diminishing speed gains as the number of cores increases.
Completely agree however Intel has been letting Apple down like Motorola did in the past Apple just fired the warning shot.
Beating the top-end Mac Pro, with its 28 cores, is a goal that is completely out of reach for the foreseeable future unless they are willing to throw a huge amount of resources at a tiny percentage of their user base. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Apple kept Intel around at the top end for many more years, rather than throwing their top-end pro users under the bus.
Apple kept the pro around without upgrades for a very long time, kind of why my last Mac-pro was the first cheese-grater. the garbage bin while more powerful didn't suit my needs. However it also upset the userbase and while it was a small number it was a number that was very important and they ignored them lets hope apple has le
I got myself an fully optioned up intel based 15" macbook pro.
M1s might play your games a bit faster, until the next generation of cpus comes out, but if you want the suite of security features in the Intel instruction set and the extensive IO options, the M1 isn't going to cut it.
I got myself an fully optioned up intel based 15" macbook pro.
M1s might play your games a bit faster, until the next generation of cpus comes out, but if you want the suite of security features in the Intel instruction set and the extensive IO options, the M1 isn't going to cut it.
So, killer security features, eh?
I would pressure you to share more detail as to how you came about this conclusion, but I wouldn't want to trigger a Meltdown or anything. You might be up for a week having nightmares about battling Spectres in Zombieland.
There's a reason why Intel in constantly churning out updates to ME, Microcode and related BIOS issues. Everyone who uses client hardware that isn't enterprise-grade line models from Dell, HP, Lenovo etc has been SOL for 3 years now concerning their CPU security against side-channel attacks from things as lowly as their browsers.
Latest intel CPUs lose in every single department against AMD's, overall performance, single core, all-core, performance-per-watt, performance-per-dollar, ne
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
But not as long until they scale M1 to run faster than 16 Intel cores.
That would take about 14 performance cores in the M1, I think. But remember that the real target is "faster than 28 Intel cores", which would require way more than 16 M1 cores.
I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Are you sure?
The M1 is already at 8 cores. Yes, 4 of them are low-power; but thatâ(TM)s only a consideration when the power and thermal design budgets are those of laptops, small-form-factor desktops and All-In-Ones.
Once they can stretch out their design with virtually unlimited power, thermal and cost budgets, I predict that 16 cores at 5 GHz will only be the beginning.
Itâ(TM)s truly a new day. Your 2019 MP is a fine machine, and will serve you well for years to come.
So, are we ever going to get M1 {...} based high-performance laptops running Linux ?
We're slowly [phoronix.com] getting [rosenzweig.io] there [asahilinux.org].
other ARM based high-performance laptops running Linux ?
The Pinebook Pro from Pine64 has proven that it's possible to make decent ARM-based laptops that are from the ground up designed for opensource and linux. So the "other ARM based" part is covered. (Disclaimer: this is typed on one).
Now what's needed is the "high-performance" part. Hopefully, other chipset manufecturer will soon try to "one-up" Apple, and among the upcoming 5nm high performance ARM cpus, some will be more friendly and will end up in a similar device.
Afterall, Pine64 has already started to look into th 8nm rk3566 rk3588 to upgrade their hardware (starting from SBC anytime soon, then smartphone probably within 1 year and perhaps laptops by 2 year mark), so probably other companies might follow, especially once higher performance 5nm chips start pouring down the pipe.
Sadly, the pine book Pro you mention is a long way from the sort of performance folks on slashdot are errr pining for ! A geek bench multicore score of 650 is less that 10% of the performance of the Apple M1 (somewhere around 7000).
Much as I would love to see a high quality vendor selling ARM/Linux machines to compete with Apple, I suspect the mechanics of volume/investment/chip design/performance doesn't really make it viable for anyone except Apple.
Sadly, the pine book Pro you mention is a long way from the sort of performance folks on slashdot are errr pining for !
Yup, as I said it only covers the "Other ARM" part. Not the "High-performance part".
(Though depending on one's field of work, it's good enough to SSH into the HPC where the actual big work happens, so, it's fine by me.
Much as I would love to see a high quality vendor selling ARM/Linux machines to compete with Apple, I suspect the mechanics of volume/investment/chip design/performance doesn't really make it viable for anyone except Apple.
There's definitely a rising demand for ultra-high performance ARM chips (As I've pointed out elsewhere: just look at the Lenovo smartphone with the ridiculous cooling solution -- these Snapdragon 888 5G are in the same ballpark as the M1)
With rising demand, rising offer will follow and eventual
Performance notwithstanding, a tiny phone flash card as the only storage, and and only a 1080p panel stretch modern values of "decent". Not to mention their clear assertion that they'll sent you a panel with as many as 3 broken pixels.
We're slowly [phoronix.com] getting [rosenzweig.io] there [asahilinux.org].
Yes the (relatively) easy bit has been done, running Linux on the ARM ISA has been done before so it's pretty unsurprising that it runs on the M1 but the real challenge would be in reverse engineering all the custom silicon that is purpose built for things like graphics, neural workloads, image processing, etc... that are a big part of what makes it perform so well. But it requires reverse-engineering all of that so it's always long out of date, in much the same way that the nouveau driver for nvidia cards
Yea, but the hardware support is very partial IIRC. Maybe it's improved since then but since most of the hardware is completely closed, I doubt you'll ever have an optimized support for it.
Haven't been able to upgrade my RAM in years on an iMac. My last fully upgradable Apple computer was the G4 tower and that was before 2000.
But then I've seen a colleague returning from holiday and all his RAM was gone. While the others had received RAM upgrades. Was a major outrage, but fun to watch:-)
Haven't been able to upgrade my RAM in years on an iMac. My last fully upgradable Apple computer was the G4 tower and that was before 2000.
Why do you continue to buy them then? Every PC that I've built for the last 20 years has had a very decent upgrade path. Even my sons 6 year old i7-6700k has plenty of room for upgrading memory, storage, and even a slightly faster processor. Buying a fixed system with no path for upgrades just seems counter productive to me.
The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer.
The haves get more, the have-nots die.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
no one wants to be left with an abandoned machine, i.e. during the PPC to Intel transition.
Re: And? (Score:2, Interesting)
People are still buying the 21.5 inch iMac which has a 10 year old CPU and low resolution display for $1099. Apple will keep selling that for at least the next decade because its pure profit: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>Very overpriced.
Like any luxury fashion statement, the entire point is to show the world that you can afford to pay extra.
Re: And? (Score:2)
A good example of that is the HermÃs Airtag accessory it costs 10x more and does nothing better than the $35 one. It doesnâ(TM)t even look very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes mr. Peacock, you tail is indeed there to help you fly better rather than impress the ladies!
Re: And? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not garbage. That's a value judgement YOU have placed on it. Others have different criteria (e.g. my wife for example is very happy with a quite low powered Apple machine, she plays no games, doesn't write software or do anything else particularly power hungry, and yet values the quality offered by Apple's machines (enclosures, screens etc).
Further more, if you have a problem with an apple machine, the after sales service is just spectacularly good compared to any other electronics supplier in my expe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And don't even talk to me about the crappy black tower boxes from self-build efforts (and yes I have done a self build before) - regular crashes from crap quality enclosures is the norm.
Hahaha I've built machines in fucking shoe boxes that don't "Crash", your argument shows you know nothing about building PCs. But the case is soo gooood! LMAO
Re: And? (Score:2)
Apple are not the reliability kings you seem to think they are.
In another hobby I'm involved in there are 3 major manufacturers - of the three one has a profoundly greater failure rate, typically every new major product has at least one major failure, sometimes requiring the product be shipped to the manufacturer, yet their customers gush over their great products, and when asked about high failure rates, they talk about how speedy the repairs are!
Re: (Score:2)
If you self-built, and you are getting "regular crashes from crap quality enclosures" then you need to spend more than $30 on a case and actually install some fans that move air through it. The problem isn't with the enclosure, the problem is with the incompetent person who didn't buy components of the proper spec to keep things in operating temperatures.
As far as other OEMs go, I think you'll find that Dell's Precision and XPS laptops are every bit as high quality in their engineering as Apple's MacBooks,
Re: (Score:2)
I will give you that Dell makes some really nice stuff, but their cooling solutions leave something to be desired at times. I've had more than a couple of Dell laptops simply up and die with no warning. I had an XPS 13 that I really liked, but I liked my MacBook Pro 15" more.
Apple's issues are definitely not imaginary - keyboards aside (which is an obvious sore spot) they do a decent job of board design but ask too much of their GPU and CPU cooling and more often than not end up cooking themselves. This has
Re: (Score:2)
Why again such bullshit arguments?
They are just as thin and light, made with quality materials, and house the same powerful components if not more powerful in the GPU options, and get similar battery life.
They do not run macOS or OS X. Can't be so hard to grasp.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so now you are going to retroactively add requirements that were not in the comment that I replied to. I believe that is called "moving the goalposts".
If the GGP would have said "I need to run macOS so other OEMs and DIY won't get the job done" I wouldn't have even replied.
Basically you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm arguing that you do not grasp why people buy ;acs.
Thy by them because they come with Mac OS X/macOS preinstalled.
So: YOU ARE MOVING THE GOAL POST.
Re: (Score:2)
Using some paraphrasing for brevity:
1. Someone says "the Apple hardware is better because other OEMs are crap and DIY sucks"
2. I reply "some other OEMs are crap, others are pretty good, you just need to shop around a bit. And if you are having overheating issues on a DIY build, it's because you did it wrong.
3. Someone else replies and basically confirms what I said
4. You reply with "OMG macOS bullshit arguments blah blah blah"
5. I reply with "Hey, you're the first to even mention software, so good job on s
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what you are talking about.
But it must have been a relief to get your anger shouted out! Continue!
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to do a self build with a decent quality case then there's likely to be far less price difference. If you want something stylish AND good quality, self built, then forget it.
That sounds like a challenge to me sir.
Here's a $750 build that should outperform the linked iMac. It has an expensive white case, and a nicer screen than I've ever seen on a mac.
https://pcpartpicker.com/user/... [pcpartpicker.com]
Re: And? (Score:1)
Re: And? (Score:4)
Apple's main website no longer links to that old 21.5 inch iMac sales page. They discontinued 2 of the 4 prior storage options weeks ago. Leading up to the event this week, rumor sites were reporting many Apple retail stores had completely run out of stock on 21.5 inch iMacs.
Pretty sure Apple will not "keep selling that for at least the next decade".
As for what could be considered "pure profit", Apple's M1 chip is said to be about 120 square mm, which is about half size of Intel's latest chips. That half-cost chip comes with an integrated GPU that rivals the lower range of discrete graphics cards. The whole thing runs on only 15 watts, so they also save on power supply, voltage conversion and cooling parts. The whole computer fits onto a tiny circuit board, also lowering cost when manufactured at high volume.
Even at Apple's premium prices these new iMacs are going to deliver a great value, and at a much lower cost to Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Most legacy software will run on the M1 using the Rosetta translator/emulator.
Re: (Score:3)
Most legacy software will run on the M1 using the Rosetta translator/emulator.
Only if by "most legacy software" you mean "only 64-bit software that is compatible with the most recent two versions of macOS (10.15 and 10.16)."
I've got several applications that won't run on anything above Mojave (10.14).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the last PPC shipped ~15 years ago. I find it hard to believe that there isn't better software out there now than whatever you were running 15 years ago.
If not, you can set up the older machines somewhere else and use remote desktop to access them from the single machine on your d
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't needed to before, but wouldn't virtualization software cover you here? I believe that Parallels supports older Mac OS VMs..
Only if you have an Intel Mac to run those VMs on - at least for now. Parallels on M1 currently only supports ARM-based VMs. Supposedly VMware is working on addressing this, but who knows if/when that will actually happen.
Interestingly, Codeweavers' Crossover software can run x86 Windows software on M1 already. So at least anything which would run under Wine can work on an M1 Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
Yepp, it is.
But surprise surprise: even a 25 year old Mac just runs as it was brand new.
Re:And? (Score:4)
I've got several applications that won't run on anything above Mojave (10.14).
In that case they won't run on any Mac that Apple is selling today. So no reason to complain about ARM Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case they won't run on any Mac that Apple is selling today. So no reason to complain about ARM Macs.
Incorrect - they'll run in a VM on any Intel Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are running software that old...it's time to look for other alternatives.
He already found and alternative. It is called a VM. Hint: software does not age. Age is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly reinstalling software allows it to be converted into an ARM binary as well. I don't have a working mac so I have no idea if this is true or how effective it is. Most of the problems I'd heard about were with Photoshop, but that got an M1 native release in March.
Things that I would expect to fail are anything that relies on Intel specific technologies. For example, if you're relying on Intel Vt like VirtualBox and some other emulators, you're probably going to have issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for people who need to run legacy software?
When I read the word "legacy" in this context, it tends to invoke a "good luck with that" disclaimer when it comes to support.
Either you're able to resolve your issue in virtualization (which a lot of people successfully do), or get someone to fix the root problem (rewrite the software). Software is constantly facing an adapt-or-die crisis. This isn't anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
Software is constantly facing an adapt-or-die crisis.
Actually, no.
Software works or not. If it does not work, it never has worked and needs fixing.
If it works: there is no reason to adapt to anything or fix anything.
This is just stupid featureitis to constantly change software for no damn reason, see Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
no one wants to be left with an abandoned machine, i.e. during the PPC to Intel transition.
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Re: (Score:2)
no one wants to be left with an abandoned machine, i.e. during the PPC to Intel transition.
Rosetta worked well then and it should work well now
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Since it already has 8 cores (4× high-performance + 4× high-efficiency) I'd guess not long or put 2 or more in there. However when they announced the M1 first thought I had was how long before the Mac Pro gets upgraded what I would like to se in the new configurable macpro is coprocessor cards, add in more M1 type or other processors for different tasks
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Since it already has 8 cores (4× high-performance + 4× high-efficiency) I'd guess not long or put 2 or more in there. However when they announced the M1 first thought I had was how long before the Mac Pro gets upgraded what I would like to se in the new configurable macpro is coprocessor cards, add in more M1 type or other processors for different tasks
AFAIK, the high-performance cores and high-efficiency cores are mutually exclusive, so basically, it has four cores when you're talking about performance. It's also about ten or fifteen percent slower than the eight-core Mac Pro. So it would probably take on the order of 12 high-performance cores to match the performance of the current 16-core Intel chips. Scaling up a computer architecture to ~3x the number of cores isn't just adding more cores. It typically requires completely rethinking the interconn
Re: (Score:2)
So it would probably take on the order of 12 high-performance cores to match the performance of the current 16-core Intel chips.
Sounds like apple would have a reason right there for a M2
Scaling up a computer architecture to ~3x the number of cores isn't just adding more cores. It typically requires completely rethinking the interconnects between cores, the caching architecture, etc., or else you get rapidly diminishing speed gains as the number of cores increases.
Completely agree however Intel has been letting Apple down like Motorola did in the past Apple just fired the warning shot.
Beating the top-end Mac Pro, with its 28 cores, is a goal that is completely out of reach for the foreseeable future unless they are willing to throw a huge amount of resources at a tiny percentage of their user base. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Apple kept Intel around at the top end for many more years, rather than throwing their top-end pro users under the bus.
Apple kept the pro around without upgrades for a very long time, kind of why my last Mac-pro was the first cheese-grater. the garbage bin while more powerful didn't suit my needs. However it also upset the userbase and while it was a small number it was a number that was very important and they ignored them lets hope apple has le
Re: (Score:2)
I got myself an fully optioned up intel based 15" macbook pro.
M1s might play your games a bit faster, until the next generation of cpus comes out, but if you want the suite of security features in the Intel instruction set and the extensive IO options, the M1 isn't going to cut it.
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
I got myself an fully optioned up intel based 15" macbook pro.
M1s might play your games a bit faster, until the next generation of cpus comes out, but if you want the suite of security features in the Intel instruction set and the extensive IO options, the M1 isn't going to cut it.
So, killer security features, eh?
I would pressure you to share more detail as to how you came about this conclusion, but I wouldn't want to trigger a Meltdown or anything. You might be up for a week having nightmares about battling Spectres in Zombieland.
Re: (Score:2)
On a single user machine Meltdown and Spectre are a non issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Intel
Security
Choose one.
There's a reason why Intel in constantly churning out updates to ME, Microcode and related BIOS issues. Everyone who uses client hardware that isn't enterprise-grade line models from Dell, HP, Lenovo etc has been SOL for 3 years now concerning their CPU security against side-channel attacks from things as lowly as their browsers.
Latest intel CPUs lose in every single department against AMD's, overall performance, single core, all-core, performance-per-watt, performance-per-dollar, ne
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it already has 8 cores...
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
But not as long until they scale M1 to run faster than 16 Intel cores.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
But not as long until they scale M1 to run faster than 16 Intel cores.
That would take about 14 performance cores in the M1, I think. But remember that the real target is "faster than 28 Intel cores", which would require way more than 16 M1 cores.
Re: (Score:2)
Just counting cores is pretty meaningless ...
Everyone doing software should know that.
Re: And? (Score:2)
I just bought a Mac Pro. It's going to be a long time before they scale M1 up to 16 cores.
Are you sure?
The M1 is already at 8 cores. Yes, 4 of them are low-power; but thatâ(TM)s only a consideration when the power and thermal design budgets are those of laptops, small-form-factor desktops and All-In-Ones.
Once they can stretch out their design with virtually unlimited power, thermal and cost budgets, I predict that 16 cores at 5 GHz will only be the beginning.
Itâ(TM)s truly a new day. Your 2019 MP is a fine machine, and will serve you well for years to come.
But it is honestly only about
Re: (Score:2)
Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
So, are we ever going to get M1 {...} based high-performance laptops running Linux ?
We're slowly [phoronix.com] getting [rosenzweig.io] there [asahilinux.org].
other ARM based high-performance laptops running Linux ?
The Pinebook Pro from Pine64 has proven that it's possible to make decent ARM-based laptops that are from the ground up designed for opensource and linux.
So the "other ARM based" part is covered. (Disclaimer: this is typed on one).
Now what's needed is the "high-performance" part. Hopefully, other chipset manufecturer will soon try to "one-up" Apple, and among the upcoming 5nm high performance ARM cpus, some will be more friendly and will end up in a similar device.
Afterall, Pine64 has already started to look into th 8nm rk3566 rk3588 to upgrade their hardware (starting from SBC anytime soon, then smartphone probably within 1 year and perhaps laptops by 2 year mark), so probably other companies might follow, especially once higher performance 5nm chips start pouring down the pipe.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, the pine book Pro you mention is a long way from the sort of performance folks on slashdot are errr pining for ! A geek bench multicore score of 650 is less that 10% of the performance of the Apple M1 (somewhere around 7000).
Much as I would love to see a high quality vendor selling ARM/Linux machines to compete with Apple, I suspect the mechanics of volume/investment/chip design/performance doesn't really make it viable for anyone except Apple.
Prices falling offereing increasing. (Score:2)
Sadly, the pine book Pro you mention is a long way from the sort of performance folks on slashdot are errr pining for !
Yup, as I said it only covers the "Other ARM" part.
Not the "High-performance part".
(Though depending on one's field of work, it's good enough to SSH into the HPC where the actual big work happens, so, it's fine by me.
Much as I would love to see a high quality vendor selling ARM/Linux machines to compete with Apple, I suspect the mechanics of volume/investment/chip design/performance doesn't really make it viable for anyone except Apple.
There's definitely a rising demand for ultra-high performance ARM chips (As I've pointed out elsewhere: just look at the Lenovo smartphone with the ridiculous cooling solution -- these Snapdragon 888 5G are in the same ballpark as the M1)
With rising demand, rising offer will follow and eventual
Re: Prices falling offereing increasing. (Score:1)
(Though depending on one's field of work, it's good enough to SSH into the HPC where the actual big work happens, so, it's fine by me.
If we're going there, a VT-220 might be adequate. But not an ASR-33 because they're slow and clanky and smell of oil.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're slowly [phoronix.com] getting [rosenzweig.io] there [asahilinux.org].
Yes the (relatively) easy bit has been done, running Linux on the ARM ISA has been done before so it's pretty unsurprising that it runs on the M1 but the real challenge would be in reverse engineering all the custom silicon that is purpose built for things like graphics, neural workloads, image processing, etc... that are a big part of what makes it perform so well. But it requires reverse-engineering all of that so it's always long out of date, in much the same way that the nouveau driver for nvidia cards
Re: (Score:2)
Linux already runs on M1 Apple/ARM chips. /. two months ago.
The news was on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why I don't buy Macs: their pathetically short commitment to backwards compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
So Apple buyers think that way? I mean they are buying machines with soldered in, non-upgradable RAM, SSD, Wifi/Bluetooth and CPU.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't been able to upgrade my RAM in years on an iMac. My last fully upgradable Apple computer was the G4 tower and that was before 2000.
But then I've seen a colleague returning from holiday and all his RAM was gone. While the others had received RAM upgrades. Was a major outrage, but fun to watch :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't been able to upgrade my RAM in years on an iMac. My last fully upgradable Apple computer was the G4 tower and that was before 2000.
The 27" iMac has had user expandable memory for years, still does. The 21.5", not so much.
Re: And? (Score:2)
The 27" iMac has had user expandable memory for years, still does.
In fact, in the final(?) Intel iMac, the RAM limit is a healthy 128 GB.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't been able to upgrade my RAM in years on an iMac. My last fully upgradable Apple computer was the G4 tower and that was before 2000.
Why do you continue to buy them then? Every PC that I've built for the last 20 years has had a very decent upgrade path. Even my sons 6 year old i7-6700k has plenty of room for upgrading memory, storage, and even a slightly faster processor. Buying a fixed system with no path for upgrades just seems counter productive to me.