The same near-top-line cpu in both tablets and desktops. Its a recognition that the space between a tablet and a full blown workstation isnt in the processor anymore. Its pretty much the size of the screen, and the presence or absence of a keyboard and mouse.
I don't care what they do with the iPad operating system as long as they fix the god-awful multi-tasking interface. It's the least discoverable and jankiest way to try to do two things at once on a computer. Truly execrable.
The obvious thing is to let you link two iPads and use them as a single device, with different apps on different screens. It wouldn't matter if the second iPad just became a slave device showing video and sending back touch events. There are surely those who would buy a second or even third iPad to use it that way. (Not me, but we all like to mock those who buy every possible Apple product, and this would be a good way to milk them further.)
Either iOS evolves into a desktop OS, possibly a crippled one. Or macOS evolves into a mobile OS, basically: Same OS under the hood, but different interfaces.
Or the two merge at some point and become compatible but different "flavours" of the same underlying code.
Everyone was afraid that Apple was going to turn Macs into iPads.
This makes me think Apple are going to turn iPads into Macs.
You mean an ARM SoC with non-upgradeable soldered memory and storage? That’s the tablet setup that they are now stuffing into their laptops and desktops.
Its a recognition that the space between a tablet and a full blown workstation isnt in the processor anymore. Its pretty much the size of the screen, and the presence or absence of a keyboard and mouse.
No. Maybe the difference between a tablet and a normie desktop PC you'd be right, but there's a shitton more to an actual workstation than a processor, GPU screen size and input device. Unless you use your workstation as a playstation that is, but even that term has a distinctly high performance meaning these days.
What do you think a workstation is?? I don't think the iPad can hold a candle to my workstation on you know workstation tasks. It had a weedy little CPU, a weedy little GPU and not much storage. Because it's a tablet not a workstation.
My workstation has a 12 core ryzen, 64G ram, as 2080 Ti, and a big spinning disk in addition to the flash storage.
Fair enough. Yes, if you're a hardcore video editor doing massive rendering tasks, computational engineer, or theoretical scientist, yup you need every bit of power you can get and a dedicated GPU with as many cores as you can afford.
That's about 1% of the market and, yes, it's a pretty darn important part. And buying Apple for those applications is probably not the way to go.
Um, that's Apple's market. With the Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro, quite a lot *maybe even the majority) of high end professional video editing happens on the Mac. Lots of science happens on the Mac too.
Up until now, buying Apple for those applications was absolutely THE way to go. Looks like Apple may be trying to destroy their pro market, we'll have to see where the Mac Pro goes next.
Even internal to Apple most of their design studio uses Windows workstations because that’s where the CAD software they use runs best (much of it doesn’t run at all on Macs). It’s kind of their dirty little secret.
yep that's what a workstation is for. For me, video editing, deep learning and other miscellaneous computation tasks. My work workstation similar, except not video editing and much more compiling. It's faster than the much newer macbook pro I have for work and importantly doesn't sound like a tornado when it gets under load.
My 10 year old Thinkpad W510 gets more use because I do more websurfing than video ediing, and the workstation is not located in a convenient place for doing such things casually.
..., if you're a hardcore video editor doing massive rendering tasks, computational engineer, or theoretical scientist, yup you need every bit of power you can get and a dedicated GPU with as many cores as you can afford.
That's about 1% of the market and, yes, it's a pretty darn important part. And buying Apple for those applications is probably not the way to go.
For the other 99%, Apple products are great.
Actually, to contradict the both of you somewhat...anyone doing serious scientific computation in the modern era will be using a grid somewhere quite distant from their workstation, and can use a fairly low-spec machine on their desktop. I haven't asked a computer near me to do anything tough for nearly a decade.
Powerful GPUs, big memory and big storage in a workstation are the domain of video editors, gamers and dilettantes.
The architecture is the same but the form factor is not. With active cooling, a bigger power supply, and access to bigger storage and more bulky peripherals, the desktop will still be a much more capable machine and have different scenarios for usage.
People have done comparisons of the uncooled M1 (MacBook air) vs actively cooled M1 (mini). There were performance differences, but they were surprisingly small. As in "cooling barely budges the needle" small.
My take is that the M1 is designed around cooling efficiency. If you have hundreds of watts to burn and can tolerate a 12 pound heat sink, go Intel or AMD with a dedicated graphics card. They're designed for that scenario. You'll get more computing power AND heat your room for the winter.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social
sciences' is: some do, some don't.
-- Ernest Rutherford
The lines are blurring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Its a recognition that the space between a tablet and a full blown workstation isnt in the processor anymore.
It certainly shows how far the manufacturers of desktop CPUs have fallen.
Re:The lines are blurring (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone was afraid that Apple was going to turn Macs into iPads.
This makes me think Apple are going to turn iPads into Macs.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what they do with the iPad operating system as long as they fix the god-awful multi-tasking interface. It's the least discoverable and jankiest way to try to do two things at once on a computer. Truly execrable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's still the difference between iOS and macOS and I wonder which way that'll end up.
Re: (Score:3)
IMHO there is no point in putting the M1 in an iPad if the end goal is not to run macOS at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the question.
Either iOS evolves into a desktop OS, possibly a crippled one.
Or macOS evolves into a mobile OS, basically: Same OS under the hood, but different interfaces.
Or the two merge at some point and become compatible but different "flavours" of the same underlying code.
Re: (Score:0)
Everyone was afraid that Apple was going to turn Macs into iPads. This makes me think Apple are going to turn iPads into Macs.
You mean an ARM SoC with non-upgradeable soldered memory and storage? That’s the tablet setup that they are now stuffing into their laptops and desktops.
Re: (Score:3)
Its a recognition that the space between a tablet and a full blown workstation isnt in the processor anymore. Its pretty much the size of the screen, and the presence or absence of a keyboard and mouse.
No. Maybe the difference between a tablet and a normie desktop PC you'd be right, but there's a shitton more to an actual workstation than a processor, GPU screen size and input device. Unless you use your workstation as a playstation that is, but even that term has a distinctly high performance meaning these days.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you think a workstation is?? I don't think the iPad can hold a candle to my workstation on you know workstation tasks. It had a weedy little CPU, a weedy little GPU and not much storage. Because it's a tablet not a workstation.
My workstation has a 12 core ryzen, 64G ram, as 2080 Ti, and a big spinning disk in addition to the flash storage.
Re: (Score:2)
That's about 1% of the market and, yes, it's a pretty darn important part. And buying Apple for those applications is probably not the way to go.
For the other 99%, Apple products are great.
Re: (Score:0)
Um, that's Apple's market. With the Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro, quite a lot *maybe even the majority) of high end professional video editing happens on the Mac. Lots of science happens on the Mac too.
Up until now, buying Apple for those applications was absolutely THE way to go. Looks like Apple may be trying to destroy their pro market, we'll have to see where the Mac Pro goes next.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:0)
And you know this how? If it's because you read it somewhere, post the damn link
Re: (Score:0)
And you know this how?
First hand experience.
Re: (Score:0)
Sure. That's super-convincing, that is
Re: (Score:2)
yep that's what a workstation is for. For me, video editing, deep learning and other miscellaneous computation tasks. My work workstation similar, except not video editing and much more compiling. It's faster than the much newer macbook pro I have for work and importantly doesn't sound like a tornado when it gets under load.
My 10 year old Thinkpad W510 gets more use because I do more websurfing than video ediing, and the workstation is not located in a convenient place for doing such things casually.
For th
Real work is done on non-workstations (Score:2)
..., if you're a hardcore video editor doing massive rendering tasks, computational engineer, or theoretical scientist, yup you need every bit of power you can get and a dedicated GPU with as many cores as you can afford.
That's about 1% of the market and, yes, it's a pretty darn important part. And buying Apple for those applications is probably not the way to go.
For the other 99%, Apple products are great.
Actually, to contradict the both of you somewhat...anyone doing serious scientific computation in the modern era will be using a grid somewhere quite distant from their workstation, and can use a fairly low-spec machine on their desktop. I haven't asked a computer near me to do anything tough for nearly a decade.
Powerful GPUs, big memory and big storage in a workstation are the domain of video editors, gamers and dilettantes.
Re: (Score:2)
The architecture is the same but the form factor is not. With active cooling, a bigger power supply, and access to bigger storage and more bulky peripherals, the desktop will still be a much more capable machine and have different scenarios for usage.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that the M1 is designed around cooling efficiency. If you have hundreds of watts to burn and can tolerate a 12 pound heat sink, go Intel or AMD with a dedicated graphics card. They're designed for that scenario. You'll get more computing power AND heat your room for the winter.