



Apple Will Ship A Pro iMac Later This Year, It Won't Feature Touchscreen (buzzfeed.com) 163
Apple's expected update to its iMac line will arrive later this year with some previously unexpected additions: pro models. From a report: "We have big plans for the iMac," Phil Schiller, Apple's SVP of worldwide marketing, said during a recent reporter roundtable at the company's Machine Shop hardware prototyping lab. "We're going to begin making configurations of iMac specifically with the pro customer in mind." Just what those configurations will entail, Apple won't yet say. Nor will it comment on the possibility of an iMac Pro moniker for the more powerful machines in the lineup. Company executives are, however, quite happy to confirm a feature the pro iMac will not have: touchscreen. "No," Schiller said when asked if Apple would consider building such a thing. "Touch doesn't even register on the list of things pro users are interested in talking about. They're interested in things like performance and storage and expandability."
Apple will never give you what you want. (Score:1)
Apple will make you use dongles and raise the price for their toy Macs. Real (PowerPC) Macs have been out of production for a decade.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, lets go back to the days of endless shipping delays due to IBM fabbing chips for their P-series servers, and then Apple as an afterthought. Let's go back to not having any performance whatsoever in notebooks, because there was no such thing as a low-wattage G5 and never would be. And, even better, let's get all the software incompatibility of not running a common instruction set with the rest of the world, causing you to have to run needed applications in virtualization + emulation rather than just
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, lets go back to the days of endless shipping delays due to IBM fabbing chips for their P-series servers, and then Apple as an afterthought. Let's go back to not having any performance whatsoever in notebooks, because there was no such thing as a low-wattage G5 and never would be. And, even better, let's get all the software incompatibility of not running a common instruction set with the rest of the world, causing you to have to run needed applications in virtualization + emulation rather than just virtualization.
You may have missed it, but the transition to Intel was the smartest thing that Apple has done in 15 years, other than release the iPhone.
Even though the G5 whipped all over the Intel chips of the day, raw-performance wise, you're right that the move to Intel was the smartest business decision Apple ever made.
Re: (Score:1)
Motorola, at the time, was another manufacturer of PowerPCs, so Apple wasn't locked on IBM. In fact, today, Apple could do a whole lot of good by migrating to their A series
Problem is, Mot. was busy trying to kill themselves at the time, and couldn't focus on their commitment to the PowerPC Consortium. All they wanted to do with the PPC was make high-end embedded controllers for Ford and GM with PPC 603 cores under the Freescale name.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple will make you use dongles and raise the price for their toy Macs. Real (PowerPC) Macs have been out of production for a decade.
So the cheese-grater Mac Pros weren't Real?
I'll always love my G5 tower (which continues to serve as an iTunes server); but I'd trade it in a minute for a 2010 Mac Pro.
Re: (Score:1)
Blame IBM for not producing a G5 that was suitable for notebooks, Apple's bread and butter back then. Maybe they didn't care, as Apple was a much smaller client than console makers, or maybe they didn't realize that Apple had Mac OS X on x86 ready since day one for this sort of contingency.
IBM was too interested in the Cell processor they were making for all the console mfgs at the time. Apple was like .5% of their entire IC sales.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple will make you use dongles and raise the price for their toy Macs. Real (Motorola 68000) Macs have been out of production for two decades.
FTFY
Yes, let's get a computer with a 10 year old CPU, when the rest of the world is using 386s. Hell Apple even managed to lag behind Commodore until their Quadra line came out. Now that's impressive.
Commodore had their own fab. That was their secret sauce. That and Jay Miner (occasionally)...
Apple adrift (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, Apple should ship a 256 GB NVMe SSD and a 1TB HDD, using that for a baseline Fusion configuration. For expanded stuff, the machine should have at least two NVMe slots (for SSD RAID), and a good amount of SATA slots with a hardware RAID controller that supports autotiering, and RAID 6.
Re: (Score:1)
Ideally, Apple should ship a 256 GB NVMe SSD and a 1TB HDD, using that for a baseline Fusion configuration. For expanded stuff, the machine should have at least two NVMe slots (for SSD RAID), and a good amount of SATA slots with a hardware RAID controller that supports autotiering, and RAID 6.
In the desktop world, I believe that TB 3 has nicely addressed that need. No reason whatsoever to have massive amounts of internal drive bays.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple has a serious problem with storage on MBP. For their price points they should start at 512, with 1T being the norm and all lines having a slight increase to access 2T. If iMac is going to be like MBP why would anyone care?
With TB, who cares? Especially with a desktop. Get yourself an external and STFU.
Vision (Score:2, Offtopic)
Jobs died and so did the Vision at Apple. Jobs had the Vision of what Apple was. Now they wander around with no clue as to what kind of company they are, coasting on momentum. I wonder sometimes if the people running Apple use Windows 10 on their Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
I wished Apple would get Woz in it since he still alive. He had good technical vision. Maybe Apple should hire me since I am unemployed and unhappy with what Apple is doing right these days.
Re: Vision (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree. I think Jobs' vision was Apple itself and he worked very hard to make sure the ideals and culture would survive him. The cylindrical Mac Pro was designed with love and it was a very Jobsian machine in my mind. But the design just doesn't stand up to what people want in a pro machine. (G4 Cube anyone?)
What is Apple doing so wrong? And how would Jobs have done things differently? Under Jobs Apple killed the Xserve overnight.
Well, not "overnight"; but it sure should have made the transition to Intel before they gave up on it.
So they do know what we want (Score:1)
"[...] the list of things pro users are interested in talking about. They're interested in things like performance and storage and expandability."
Uhmm... If they knew all along, I'd like to hear him explain the latest MacBook Pro model.
Re: (Score:2)
What about PC laptops with docking stations that are essentially an x16 PCIe 3.0 fanout?
It's about time! (Score:3)
I'm really looking forward to running Aperture on one of these new Pro iMacs!
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tasks that previously would have required the Mac Pros of old are now being well addressed by today’s iMac."
And creative tasks that require a high-end machine, where once creative pros would turn to Mac Pros, are now being well addressed by high-end Windows workstations, that, you know, allow newer CPUs than Sandy Bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, my bad, _Ivy_ Bridge. FTFM. But still, a pre-Haswell CPU, and a GPU that benchmarks roughly similar to a GTX 660 Ti or a Radeon HD 7870. Fine for photoshop and DTP people, I imagine, for for those with serious 3d and/or video workloads...
Already have a monitor... (Score:2)
The iMac is really cool, sleek, pretty, minimal, yeah... but many pros I know already have monitors they like. How about a little love for their other desktops (mini and Pro)! I'd also wager that most "pros" aren't, in general, people with white offices and squeaky clean desks on which art-like computers sit.
And keep your confounded sticky fingers off my screen!
Otherwise, yeah, a long-time Mac user drifting away from the fold. Then again, there aren't many systems left that aren't larded with propri
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, touchscreens are lame on anything but a tablet; it has been known since the days of the light pen (remember how successful they were?) that, surprisingly, people's arms get tired trying to lift then up to a vertical screen.
That being said, why the fuck don't we have a MacPad Pro already? (aka the Mac equivalent of Surface, running OS X, not iOS)
A "small" internal SSD is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
A "small" internal SSD is fine. Like 1TB. I would be running an external RAID encloure anyways. I can't see having less than 8TB for editing 4K videos anyway.
But what I REALLY would like was a workstation like the old Mac Pro. My late 2013 iMac runs OK(the big 4gb graphics card and fastest cpu) still but it bothers me that I have to replace everything, including the screen. I can extend the life of it now that I make more and more in 4K by getting a faster external RAID.
So what I think what I will do is that I will build a 8 core hackintosh workstation so that I can get a proper workstation to run FCP X on now that Apple don't make one and haven't done for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
That late 2013 iMac should still do Target Display Mode though. Yet another amazing feature that Apple decided to do away with when they moved to the 5K version. At least you can still use it as a background processor and secondary display.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need external hard drives, then the iMac isn't made for you. You should get a tower with 4-5 hard drives slots. Unfortunately if you like Apple, Apple doesn't offer any.
Re: (Score:2)
If high storage capacity is a requirement, external devices tend to be a better be regardless. The problem is that the recent Macs have performed the paradoxical task of both pigeon-holing and fragmenting the market for such things.
For users where disk I/O isn't critical (photographers, etc.), NAS units like Synology or QNAP are great, plentiful, and relatively inexpensive. They'd be more useful if there were 10gbit NICs on their computers or even if the Thunderbolt adapters that were either 10g or dual-hea
Re: (Score:2)
If high storage capacity is a requirement, external devices tend to be a better be regardless.
Unless you often need to connect the drives to different computers (and no, network file sharing doesn't count), internal storage is much better than external.
Less expensive, less cables, less bulky, no need for a second power supply, you get the full speed of the native hard drive bus.
Instead of having a dedicated NAS device it's often a better idea to get a tower with built-in hard drives, and share them over the network.
Re: (Score:2)
If high storage capacity is a requirement, external devices tend to be a better be regardless.
Unless you often need to connect the drives to different computers (and no, network file sharing doesn't count), internal storage is much better than external.
I think it's a horses-for-courses thing. Don't get me wrong, my laptop has more onboard storage than most and I don't walk around with external drives, but I also have a NAS for a reason.
Less expensive
Well, yes...but a half decent RAID controller evens the score pretty quickly.
less cables
Technically, yes...but it's not like one power cable and one bus cable is in itself going to be a dealbreaker.
less bulky
Depends on how many drives are needed and a few other factors. If a desktop can only handle two internal drives, a 4-bay NAS isn't bad at
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes...but a half decent RAID controller evens the score pretty quickly.
Most people who need storage don't need that. Software raid and/or fake raid works just fine. I use the Intel RAID I don't see what I am lacking. I doubt those low end NAS box have great RAID controllers anyways.
A typical "Pro" desktop computer should have the room for at least 4 hard drives. Apple doesn't offer any product in this category. They only offer a desktop with laptops components (iMac) or a non-expendable desktop (Mac Pro / Mac Mini).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping that more USB 3.1 arrays wind up on the market, because they can not just be used at a high speed, but work everywhere, be it a Mac, a newer PC, or heck, even an older PC running at a lower speed. Thunderbolt drives do run faster, but the bottleneck winds up being the drives or the array, and not the bus, so the added headroom that Thunderbolt gives isn't worth the cost in most cases.
For "slow" storage, NAS units from QNAP, Synology, etc. are ideal, just because they bring so much functionality
It's the usual... (Score:2)
Confused As Usual (Score:1)
vs.
"Nor will it comment on the possibility of an iMac Pro moniker"
Not gonna click the link to RTFA because BuzzFeed.
Don't do Mac's or Microsofts anymore (Score:1)
Actually, my Linux Mint's are just running well, yesterday I needed to scan some documents, so a picked up from basement my old Canon LED USB scanner that is not working on OSX anymore, no drivers. Connected to the Mint and in like 5 seconds I was burning documents using it, no pain, no drivers to install, nothing. EAT that Apple & Microsoft!
Wake me when they release a standard Pro tower not this garbage can!
My Oculus Rift says otherwise (Score:2)
I sometimes spend 2-3 hours playing games with hands constantly moving in the air. Don't understand what's up with Apple's claims that an occasional swipe on the screen will immediatelly make people collapse with exhaustion. Trackpad will still be there, even make it a second screen if you want to be fancy.
I understand the objection when technology was poor quality or for budget devices. But now Apple is just being obnoxious.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you're a snotty little hipster brat who's too young to remember gorilla arm syndrome.
Unless it comes with... (Score:2)
Address the gap in the lineup... (Score:2)
In my opinion, the real gap in Apple's lineup isn't "an iMac with more professional features," but instead "a consumer-grade headless Mac that can be used for gaming." I really don't understand why they won't make one.
They could release a small upgradable tower, which I'm sure a lot of people would like. They're not going to, though. That's not Apple's style. However, they could make a more consumer-grade Mac Pro, running a single Core i5/i7 processors instead of Xeon processors and a single Nvidia 106
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, the real gap in Apple's lineup isn't "an iMac with more professional features," but instead "a consumer-grade headless Mac that can be used for gaming." I really don't understand why they won't make one.
I don't know if gaming has been a priority of Apple. Sure you can play some games on one but don't expect the latest AAA one that requires the newest video cards to be on those lists. PC Gaming desktops are starting to become niche PCs themselves.
They could release a small upgradable tower, which I'm sure a lot of people would like. They're not going to, though. That's not Apple's style. However, they could make a more consumer-grade Mac Pro, running a single Core i5/i7 processors instead of Xeon processors and a single Nvidia 1060/1070/1080 instead of dual AMD Fire Pro cards. Drop all the hardware down a peg from workstation-grade to consumer-grade, and drop the price to reflect that. I think you'd have a system a lot of people would buy.
The only people that might be interested in a consumer Mac Pro would be gamers. Then the problem is they want so many customizations.
Or if you don't want to do that, just make bigger version of a Mac mini that can hold a laptop-grade Nvidia CPU instead of using Intel's chips. Maybe something vaguely in the class of an Alienware Alpha. Hell, just cram a discrete GPU into one of the existing Mac mini lineups. They used to do that, and I suspect they could overcome any technical challenges if they wanted to. They put discrete GPUs into the 15" Macbook Pros.
The whole point of a Mac Mini is that it isn't upgradeable. Making it more upgradeable goes against the entire design.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the whole point of the Mac mini was a low-cost entry Mac. Removing RAM slots increases the cost of entry because you have to pay for the Mac mini and extra RAM right at the beginning. At Apple's RAM prices on top of that. It couldn't be further from the idea of the Mac mini.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to argue about, go watch the Keynote where Steve Jobs introduced the Mac mini. The point was to be a low-cost, bring-your-own display/mouse/keyboard Mac for switchers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if gaming has been a priority of Apple. Sure you can play some games on one but don't expect the latest AAA one that requires the newest video cards to be on those lists.
Yeah... that was kind of my point. Apple has practically been going out of their way to make sure their computers aren't good for gamers. I'm suggesting that if they just made one model that had hardware appropriate for gaming, they might see an uptick in people using it for that, and then developers would have more incentive to port games to it.
PC Gaming desktops are starting to become niche PCs themselves.
Do you have some market research to support that? I feel like I've been hearing for decades that consoles would kill PC gaming, but it hasn't happened. If anyth
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some market research to support that? I feel like I've been hearing for decades that consoles would kill PC gaming, but it hasn't happened. If anything, I feel like consoles are showing some weakness recently.
I'm not saying that console games are making PC gaming obsolete. I'm saying people who are building fewer and fewer gaming PCs and generally people are buying fewer desktops.
That's debatable, but also beside the point. I didn't say that they should make the Mac mini upgradable, just that they could sell a higher-end model with a decent GPU.
Yes but how soon does that GPU become obsolete? I mean you can still use decade old CPU just fine for general computing but decades old GPUs are basically unusable by gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that console games are making PC gaming obsolete. I'm saying people who are building fewer and fewer gaming PCs and generally people are buying fewer desktops.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to infer from this. You're not saying that consoles are killing the gaming PC, but you're saying people don't buy gaming PCs. Are you saying that nobody is gaming anymore? Or are you trying to imply that consoles are killing the gaming PC while refusing to say that, for some reason? Because I notice you're also not saying that consoles *aren't* killing the gaming PC.
Yes but how soon does that GPU become obsolete? I mean you can still use decade old CPU just fine for general computing but decades old GPUs are basically unusable by gaming.
So you're simultaneously implying that consoles are killing the gaming PC because people aren't building PCs
and in the past apple tryed to push gameing but th (Score:2)
and in the past apple tryed to push gaming but the only really good systems where the high imac or the old mac pro with a 3rd party video card.
Once, long ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Once, long ago..., Slashdot was a place of serious programmers.
No it wasn't.
People settled for the iMac. Old Pro was better. (Score:4, Insightful)
The old Mac Pro (4U aluminum chassis) had:
- Four drive bays, and you could get an aftermarket tray to add SSDs/
- Easy RAM upgrade
- Interchangeable GPU(s) -- it would take nVidia or ATI boards.
- Two network drops
The "replacement" Pro garbage can had stuff soldered in place, no upgrade option for GPU and a form factor that didn't allow upgrades, in addition to being abhorrently expensive and never updated. Not to mention having to do simple things like expand hard drive space with daisy chained expensive Thunderbolt stuff strung together like Christmas lights. I remember the mocking Jeff Goldblum Apple ad asking if PC stood for "Perpetually Cabled". In the old system you could keep all that stuff internal and using PCI, which was still faster.
When we retired the old Pros, we replaced them with MacBookPros -- the garbage can just priced itself out of contention, and into the realm of "can we do the same thing Linux or Windows instead, since that garbage can is now more expensive than some really decent servers we bought recently"
e-net $30 more 10-gig-e $100 from apple and it use (Score:2)
e-net $30 more 10-gig-e $100 from apple and it uses the TB3 bus.
They've yet to deliver on the Mac Pro (Score:2)
They're interested in things like performance and storage and expandability.
Not doing too well on that front after they switched to the trashcan.
Re: (Score:2)
Number of people who want touchscreen desktops?
No trackpoint (Score:2)
No trackpoint. Still.
Pass.
Re:No trackpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with this sentiment. Touchpads are the ultimate in dumbing down a HID to make it 'friendly' but ultimately less efficient. I refuse to use a consumer notebook these days, so I stick with my T-series ThinkPads with TrackPoint. I understand why some people like touchpads, but I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate. Also, nothing like moving a mouse without taking your hands off the home keys.
Re: (Score:2)
I always think it's funny when I'm sitting in a cafe working on one of my Thinkpads and I'll be scrolling something with my right finger on the trackpoint. Then later I'll be doing something else and scrolling with my left finger and all these people on their Macs are looking at me like wtf.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
i would have once agreed with you, but have decided that it's largely because trackpads are just usually dodgy pieces of shit. i was a huge fan of thinkpads starting with the 600e/x, and even once dropped $100+ on the IBM external keyboard with a trackpoint, just so i could use the nipple on my desktop.
but, today, i can't think of anything i miss about the old trackpoint compared to an apple trackpad. the apple trackpad is more than precise enough; it is better for tracing curves since it's not a joystick (
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with this sentiment. Touchpads are the ultimate in dumbing down a HID to make it 'friendly' but ultimately less efficient. I refuse to use a consumer notebook these days, so I stick with my T-series ThinkPads with TrackPoint. I understand why some people like touchpads, but I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate. Also, nothing like moving a mouse without taking your hands off the home keys.
You must have only used non-Apple trackpads, then.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this sentiment. Touchpads are the ultimate in dumbing down a HID to make it 'friendly' but ultimately less efficient. I refuse to use a consumer notebook these days, so I stick with my T-series ThinkPads with TrackPoint. I understand why some people like touchpads, but I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate. Also, nothing like moving a mouse without taking your hands off the home keys.
You must have only used non-Apple trackpads, then.
ALL trackpads are ass. Only the worst of the Apple fanboys claim Apple trackpads are good. They're not. It's simply an inferior tool.
Re: (Score:2)
ALL trackpads are ass. Only the worst of the Apple fanboys claim Apple trackpads are good. They're not. It's simply an inferior tool.
So no, you haven't used Apple trackpads. Gotcha. So, I'm sitting at my work desk surrounded by all sorts of things plugged into my Mac - monitors, keyboards, etc. There's plenty of room on my desk for a mouse. And yet I have a Magic Trackpad because - wait for it! - it suits me better than a mouse. I have gaming mice at home, but at work the trackpad is much more comfortable.
It's OK that you don't like them. To each their own. But you can't objectively claim that Apple's trackpads are bad, because plenty of
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. I've used plenty of them, including the latest "magic" shit. Trackpads are trash devices for input. No, gestures don't make them good. Simulating a click with "haptic feedback" doesn't make them good. Being accurate, sensing pressure, etc. doesn't make them good. They're still fundamentally ass to use.
What would make them good? A larger area, more reliance on the wrist for lateral motion and less on fingers, physical buttons, and ergonomic shape that conforms to that fits and supports the hand
Re: (Score:2)
Darn kids - you get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
"I find them irritating, slow, awkward, and inaccurate"
This is exactly how I would describe a TrackPoint. It takes forever to move the pointer anywhere, yet even with that slowness I am still left spiraling around the target I am trying to hit.
Re: (Score:2)
No trackpoint. Still.
Pass.
No trackpoint, thank God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
debatable but in 2017 it's becoming more or less a standard feature on any iMac-killer Windows 10 all-in-one PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as an aside, and not tackling the question of whether touchscreens make sense on desktop computers: There's a difference between "a lot of manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon of including this feature," and "this is a useful feature that people will use an appreciate."
This will be the tipping point. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just as an aside, and not tackling the question of whether touchscreens make sense on desktop computers: There's a difference between "a lot of manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon of including this feature," and "this is a useful feature that people will use an appreciate."
DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!
You have EXACTLY hit the nail on the head!!!
Re: (Score:1)
debatable but in 2017 it's becoming more or less a standard feature on any iMac-killer Windows 10 all-in-one PC.
Which people then proceed to never use; because the app and OS support for it is so dodgy.
Re: (Score:2)
A touch screen might make sense if the computer is used as an instrument panel, but by and large it's an ergonomic disaster for common computer use.
Re: (Score:2)
4 years old now, but its going to be released next year by which time it will be 5 years old anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, M$ knows that you want a touchscreen desktop that looks and works just like an ipad.
Re: Great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But is still a touchscreen desktop which no one wants except for children
Re: (Score:2)
Yet targeting the exact group of professionals which a pro iMac would target. And by all accounts doing a much better job, partially due to its touch screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they need new ways? They still haven't fixed a lot of the old ways yet.
GPU (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you can do this already.
https://eshop.macsales.com/sho... [macsales.com]
Install your pair of BEEFY cards and go.
It's been an option for 3 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting...maybe I need to look back into this again.
I thought I'd read, a year or so ago..that expansion boxes for GPU wouldn't really work with Resolve or other applications running on OS X..on an iMac or older Macbook Pro....
Maybe things have changed...I'll look into this.
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Get the right thunderbolt box. the cheaper crappier ones do not supply enough power and require a "hack" that does not work anymore.
Friend of mine uses the "devil box" with his MBP and Final Cut all the time for video editing.
Re: GPU (Score:2)
Re: GPU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least they heard the bit about 'expandability and storage' - two things completely absent from the trash can Mac Pro. Unless you count paying extra for less performance by way of Thunderbolt, which I don't.
Thunderbolt might take care of the storage bit by way of 10gbe and fiber channel adapters. It is a sorry excuse for GPU expandability though, especially since Apple has gone out of their way to prevent GPUs from working on Thunderbolt by way of software lockout.
Skip the 'pro iMac' and just make
Re: (Score:1)
Well at least they heard the bit about 'expandability and storage' - two things completely absent from the trash can Mac Pro. Unless you count paying extra for less performance by way of Thunderbolt, which I don't.
Thunderbolt might take care of the storage bit by way of 10gbe and fiber channel adapters. It is a sorry excuse for GPU expandability though, especially since Apple has gone out of their way to prevent GPUs from working on Thunderbolt by way of software lockout.
Skip the 'pro iMac' and just make a Mac Pro like you had in 2010, except with 2017 hardware inside. How fucking hard is that?
Thunderbolt may make less sense on a conventional "tower" peripheral card cage disguised as a computer; but it makes a HELLUVA lot of sense on laptop and All-In-One designs.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt never made sense. External PCIe makes some sense. Thunderbolt itself is a mishmash of standards and ports and protocols running on top of PCIe with all of the security issues that comes along with attaching shit to your PCIe bus. So why not skip the expensive controllers, proprietary implementations, ridiculous cables, and just use external PCIe?
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because PCI-Express does not really support hotpluging. True, the spec states that it "should" be possible, however there are no consumer-available devices where it works properly.
Being able to plug/unplug a high performance device without cycling the power is worth some extra layers given that the alternative is to dump PCI-express entirely and design a new main bus technology that supports it natively.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that it doesn't work, but if people were buying external PCIe devices they'd get it working.
Even if the native lanes coming off the CPU were unable to support it until Intel/AMD got around to it in a generation or two of there being demand for it, it would be trivial make a PCIe device that was nothing more than a hotplug enabler with a bracket for ports for the external cables. And of course it could be implemented via a muxer that many mobos already have or via the chipset (which usually pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
$$$? There are many more iMac users than Mac Pro users. I would guess 10:1 would be a conservative estimate.
Add at least TWO zeros to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Both of them use the keyboards and ignore touch.
Every single Surface pro I see used is used with the keyboard and they use the trackpoint spot on the keyboard cover. When I had the Surface Pro I tried to use the touchscreen. It's pretty darn useless if you are doing any real work.
Re: (Score:1)
Both of them use the keyboards and ignore touch.
Every single Surface pro I see used is used with the keyboard and they use the trackpoint spot on the keyboard cover. When I had the Surface Pro I tried to use the touchscreen. It's pretty darn useless if you are doing any real work.
And yet, with all the Surface commercials, it's ALL they advertise...
Re: (Score:2)
if you dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit
corrected (Score:2)
if you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they still haven't gotten over losing the tablet war. They see millions using their iPads and Android tablets and figure that being able to touch stuff is the killer feature. They never seem to get that making a UI that people can and want to touch is where the real magic lies.
Re: (Score:1)
ganoo plus linocks on the desktop is for people who want to have a premium experience theming Gnome and using TWMs
Re: (Score:1)
And by "works" you mean after you've manually configured files, got told to RTFM which doesn't exist, got yelled at online by people who think you should automatically know what to do, then sacrifice a goat in the hope an obscure posting from three years ago will do the trick.
If Linux just "works", why is it people on here repeatedly post about not having sound or cameras or drives working even with the latest packages and instead have to jump through hoop trying to get the above to work?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You took the words right offa my keyboard.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not 1999 loser. You must be retarded. My grandma uses Linux.
And I'm sure that either her name is Ada Lovelace, or she didn't set it up herself.
She can take an iMac out of the box and be up and running in less than 10 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)