Tough to tell, it is interesting that the introductory 21.5" iMac is using the Iris Pro graphics though, but I doubt there is a correlation with that model and the rMBP lineup.
I echo the statements above, get the MBA now if you want/need it.
Mac Hardware and Software |OT| - All things Macintosh
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
Tough to tell, it is interesting that the introductory 21.5" iMac is using the Iris Pro graphics though, but I doubt there is a correlation with that model and the rMBP lineup.
I echo the statements above, get the MBA now if you want/need it.
So the low end dropped the dedicated graphics card? Does the Iris Pro built in in Haswell out perform the 640M with 512 MB?
Personally I think so, yes.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Anyone wanna wager a guess as to when the MBP line will be updated? Did people know this iMac update was coming? One week after the iPhone release. I am gonna guess October 8th thereabouts.
Can't wait. So hard.
Thing is I might have to go 15" this time. I don't want to. I like my 13" size. But seeing as I highly doubt they'll put discreet graphics, a 16GB RAM option and a quad-core in the 13", I'll suffer with the 15". I will miss the feather lightness of the Air though.
Can't wait. So hard.
Thing is I might have to go 15" this time. I don't want to. I like my 13" size. But seeing as I highly doubt they'll put discreet graphics, a 16GB RAM option and a quad-core in the 13", I'll suffer with the 15". I will miss the feather lightness of the Air though.
Industry favourite, Ming-chi Kuo pegged this update to come in June/July, about the time I was considering getting an iMac. I knew it was folly to count on stuff like that, and was glad I did. It was months alter before it happened, and the model I got had a dedicated Graphics card - the new one does not.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
There's no dedicated card in the new iMacs? I don't know a thing about what model numbers mean. Is whatever the high end model has good enough for running some games, even at lower settings?
The entry level $1299 21.5" iMac has Iris Pro. The rest all have dedicated graphics cards.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Okay. So that means the 15" rMBP's could still get them right? I hope so.
I just wish they'd give the 13" models the option of being configured with that stuff. I just want a 13" but with the power. Gimmie my 16GB, quad-core, discreet GPU 13" Retina MacBook Pro.
Yah, that's what it looks like. I'm curious about Iris Pro. I've heard that it can actually outperform the 650M, which is what came with the 2012 entry-level iMac (which is what I have), but would like to see the pros and cons.
The stuff I've read about the Iris Pro is that it doesn't quite outperform the 650M in games, etc. but destroys it in OpenCL and video rendering stuff.
Apparently the rMBP will have an even more powerful variant of the Iris Pro, though, so perhaps that would also beat the 650M in games and the like.
polyh3dron
Banned
you'd be missing out on lots of cool integration stuff. like your contacts on your mac reflecting your phone contacts immediately and vice versa, pics just showing up on your computer after you take them with your phone, wifi transfer of music and videos, auto-syncing of notes, airdrop, etc etc etc.
Yeah I was wondering if Google has services that can duplicate most of that.
airdrop doesn't work between iPhones and macs
yes, Google's services can. Even more so if Chrome is your main browser.
oh you mean the iMac. The Thunderbolt display doesn't have the crazy thin edges yet and Apple has shown a willingness (iPad 3 & 4) to trade weight and thickness for retina displays.
polyh3dron
Banned
It's integrated on the Android side and on the Mac side there are no restrictions on integration (unlike on iOS). Apple even provides syncing with Google contacts.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Totally. I love my rMBP, and I wouldn't buy a non-Apple laptop again. At the same time, I'm an Android-only mobile user. Dropbox instantly uploads my pictures (as does Google+; I have both running). Chrome has a great Hangouts app that synchronizes notifications with my Android phone or tablet. And I love Chrome; I find it much more user-friendly than Safari or Firefox. There's the new Android Device Manager website that can find, lock, ring, or wipe your device like Find My iPhone can. I use Google Voice for SMS, but if I didn't there's MightyText and other services that allow you to text from your computer. I also use Google Music which can upload your iTunes collection for free and make it available on your Android device.
For me it's a seamless, highly enjoyable experience.
EDIT: I should note, I don't use the Mac apps for Calendar or Contacts. I find it much more convenient to Command+T a new tab for those in the browser than to open up a separate app. I also find Google Calendar much easier to use. However, my wife likes dedicated apps, and I easily synced her Google Calendar to the OS X app, as well as Contacts.
Ah, I see, sweet!
Be skeptical of the video encoding benefits. Apple has never integrated Intel's QuickSync on OSX and to this day Mac users can't benefit from it.
Same here. I've got my home windows computer, will be using a MBA for uni (maybe dualboot XP/Ubuntu/Steam OS), and a HTC one which is Android.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
DropBox on Android has a feature where it takes your photos and uploads them automatically to your DB. It's the closest you'll get to iCloud Stream.
Autumn Wind
Member
If the iMac is any indication, I feel Apple will have an entry level 15" rMBP with just Iris Pro and two others with discrete cards. They both should have a 750M or 755M with 1 GB of memory and the upper model might have 2 GB of the 765M as the Razer Blade does. That would make sense. Who knows though? I am only looking forward to the Mac mini and wondering if they will use the HD 4600, Iris, Iris Pro, or some combination of the three.
I imagine HD 4600 and Iris. Can't see the Pro ending up in the mini, personally.
Autumn Wind
Member
I asked over at MacRumors how much video memory the Iris Pro graphics took from the main memory in the base model iMac. I would like to credit user iStiggy over there for telling me that it is listed as 1024 MB (not 1 GB even though they are the same thing) out of the 8 GB available. I am not sure if more is used with Windows or how much is used when you upgrade to 16 GB with both operating systems.
The new iMacs are depressing. They are keeping all the bad stuff of the last model:
- an entirely separate VESA mountable model that doesn't ship with a foot: bad availability, bad resale value, barely any will be in the used market
- still the same bad ergonomics on the regular, non-VESA model
- still overemphasizing thickness which is of absolutely no consequence in a desktop (iMac two models back was sufficiently slim for any purpose), but inevitably results in more noise under load, thermal throttling etc.
- can't get a decent GPU before paying at least ~2000 euros
- no SSD as default, upgrading to the smallest available SSD is 200 euros
- still no HDMI input on the 27" iMac; I'd feel incredibly silly if I owned a 27" iMac and had to stick another display next to the iMac's perfectly fine display just to use another picture source
I've used Apple laptops for a decade, and I have long wanted to buy a Apple desktop, but I just can't. Not when they deliberately fuck them up and the equivalent non-Apple desktop is half the cost.
Though I don't personally need a low-end desktop, I think they are missing opportunities with that as well. Why doesn't the iMac start at $999 with ordinary Intel integrated graphics? That's plenty of performance for most people. Where is the mid-priced alternate Thunderbolt Display that people could buy with a Mac mini without going directly into 27" iMac price territory?
- an entirely separate VESA mountable model that doesn't ship with a foot: bad availability, bad resale value, barely any will be in the used market
- still the same bad ergonomics on the regular, non-VESA model
- still overemphasizing thickness which is of absolutely no consequence in a desktop (iMac two models back was sufficiently slim for any purpose), but inevitably results in more noise under load, thermal throttling etc.
- can't get a decent GPU before paying at least ~2000 euros
- no SSD as default, upgrading to the smallest available SSD is 200 euros
- still no HDMI input on the 27" iMac; I'd feel incredibly silly if I owned a 27" iMac and had to stick another display next to the iMac's perfectly fine display just to use another picture source
I've used Apple laptops for a decade, and I have long wanted to buy a Apple desktop, but I just can't. Not when they deliberately fuck them up and the equivalent non-Apple desktop is half the cost.
Though I don't personally need a low-end desktop, I think they are missing opportunities with that as well. Why doesn't the iMac start at $999 with ordinary Intel integrated graphics? That's plenty of performance for most people. Where is the mid-priced alternate Thunderbolt Display that people could buy with a Mac mini without going directly into 27" iMac price territory?
Because a big part of what your paying for is services. Services that you just cant get at the same quality anyplace else. $20 OS updates every year; that's $20 for all your computers not $20 each BTW. Cheap or free iLife software. iCloud integration. Other cheap software. Not to mention build quality. That 50% discout you are mentioning will have a much lower build quality. Apple build quality is second to none. On top of all that Apple does still charge a premium. No doubt. But plenty of people think its worth it.
Yes it would be nice if Apple added an HDMI port to the iMac but that has never been their style. If you want an HDMI port and a Mac buy a Dell monitor and a Mac Mini. You probably saved money and problem solved.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Good idea, except unless Apple makes an unexpected change, the 2013 Mac Mini will not have anywhere near the GPU performance of the iMac.
Which is too bad.
I guess they might change the internal design (and possibly the external) of the Mini to give it a PCIe SSD-stick as on all of the other Macs (save the non-Retina MBPs).
Even under load the new iMac is fairly quiet and cool. Tthe old iMac, with the thicker back, was actually louder and got hotter under load.
Obviously the iMac isn't for someone like you, maybe a Hackintosh would be a better fit. Personally, I'm happy with making the tradeoffs that come with an iMac.
newdayrocks
Member
Shopping for a new 13" Macbook Air for my wife, which will be used mostly for email, web browsing, Office, etc. Nothing exceptionally heavy.
Are either the processor or RAM upgrades a good idea right out of the gate? As with other computers, am I better of starting with 4GB of RAM, and upgrading myself through Crucial? Will there be a noticeable difference going from 1.3 GHz to 1.7?
Are either the processor or RAM upgrades a good idea right out of the gate? As with other computers, am I better of starting with 4GB of RAM, and upgrading myself through Crucial? Will there be a noticeable difference going from 1.3 GHz to 1.7?
StopMakingSense
Member
Ram on the Air is not serviceable, as its soldered onto the board, what you order is what you get.
Yes.
Also pay the apple tax to max out the ram for maximum lifespan of the MBA. It costs more upfront but if it gets you a few extra years of lifespan then its worth it.
newdayrocks
Member
Hmm, thanks. Sounds like $94 to go from 4GB to 8GB would be a wise move, then.
newdayrocks
Member
Yeah, looks like paying the bit extra for the processor and RAM upgrade is the smart way to go. I think she can deal with the smaller SSD drive, as I can't imagine what she'd need 256GB for.
Yeah, that's just Apple being Apple. I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 27" iMac a few months ago because the screen is just that good, but Apple's price gauging and general stubbornness is just too apparent in the iMac line. Another issue with going that thin is that the speakers aren't physically able to not be garbage, which kinda hurts the all-in-one appeal. I wish the inevitable Mac Pro & 4K Thunderbolt display wasn't beyond my budget, but for now I'm sticking with Macbooks.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aw yiss, I'm the guy who feels privileged to pay $20 for service packs. I'm the extensive iLife user. I'm the lone iCloud fan. I'm the guy who thinks that cheap software only exists on Macs. I'm the oewsuhnwegkillmenownrhukgner
Well good luck to you on getting Windows and Office for those prices.
You have to think that iMac sales aren't going to grow any more at this point, so they're just squeezing as wide a margin as possible from it.
The Apple tax goes towards design and engineering... of looks. A computer you can put in your home office that looks good. A computer that looks good from behind so you can have it at your reception desk. A computer in a nice suit with a slick haircut.
The big PC makers make all-in-ones that are functional and ok-looking, and you can compare them against each other based on how much the parts cost. Like commuter cars. Apple makes iMacs. They're like sports cars, which look good parked in front of your house just like an iMac looks good sitting in your open-floorplan living room/den computer nook.
As an audio designer, I'm married to the Mac because the software I use is either exclusive for it, or it performs better on Mac vs Windows. I'm ok with this for my needs and that of my company, but I don't think it's for everyone. I think they have a purpose as a good looking, least-geeky computer option for some people, and an expensive but necessary piece of gear for others. I would advise people who don't fit into either of these camps to look elsewhere for their computers.
The big PC makers make all-in-ones that are functional and ok-looking, and you can compare them against each other based on how much the parts cost. Like commuter cars. Apple makes iMacs. They're like sports cars, which look good parked in front of your house just like an iMac looks good sitting in your open-floorplan living room/den computer nook.
As an audio designer, I'm married to the Mac because the software I use is either exclusive for it, or it performs better on Mac vs Windows. I'm ok with this for my needs and that of my company, but I don't think it's for everyone. I think they have a purpose as a good looking, least-geeky computer option for some people, and an expensive but necessary piece of gear for others. I would advise people who don't fit into either of these camps to look elsewhere for their computers.
Yeah, I get what they're doing and I've understood that iMacs just aren't for me...it's just frustrating because the screens are so breathtaking. Same with rMBPs and gamers, really.
That's a terrible argument and ultimately leads to Chromebooks. Mavericks seems to be worth the price, but let's not act like last few iterations of OS X haven't been premium-priced service packs. That's inexcusable considering how much money Apple makes on the hardware end compared to Microsoft...I'm afraid you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
You can use most Chrome OS app in offline mode, and for basic productivity tasks (the ones that someone who would actually get a Chrome OS device would be doing), it's perfectly usable in that situation.
But I guess I wouldn't expect someone who thinks iCloud represents a quality of service that nobody else can match to know that.
But I guess I wouldn't expect someone who thinks iCloud represents a quality of service that nobody else can match to know that.
ComputerMKII
Banned
I've got another problem with my Macbook Air. Sometimes when I press the wrist rest, there's some sort of clicking noise when I release my palm. It's annoying because it didn't do the noise before and I'm afraid something I can't see might be broken. Makes it sound like a cheap laptop. Apple screwed up.
If some of you folks want to buy a cheaper, uglier non-Apple device, with poorer build quality. Then go ahead and do so. I don't care.
If you want to play armchair CEO and claim you know what would be better for Apple, then that argument would have worked a lot better 10 or 15 years ago.
http://www.businessweek.com/article...ers-iphone-sales-eclipse-microsoft-and-amazon
"Listen Up Apple-Haters: IPhone Sales Eclipse Microsoft and Amazon Revenue"
If you want to play armchair CEO and claim you know what would be better for Apple, then that argument would have worked a lot better 10 or 15 years ago.
http://www.businessweek.com/article...ers-iphone-sales-eclipse-microsoft-and-amazon
"Listen Up Apple-Haters: IPhone Sales Eclipse Microsoft and Amazon Revenue"
Apple may have designed the new one better or with different focus, but that doesn't change the fact they are making a severe tradeoff. Thinner machine always means some combination of more noise, less performance, higher cost. And as we can see, the iMac is very much hobbled on the performance and cost fronts. (Note that I'm not complaining about Apple's profit margin. This is cost suffered by Apple, and transmitted to the customer, because they have to do stuff like buy very expensive binned / low-power CPUs and GPUs in order to fit them into the anemic thermal envelope of a thin iMac. Changing the design or offering a different one would let Apple pull the same margins while the customer would get a ton more performance, convenience and ergonomics.) I wouldn't be so pissed about this if there was even the slightest practical advantage from thinning the machine (compared to the old thicker Mac), but there isn't.
I'd love it if Apple were to get serious about developing and selling the paper-thin status object / interior decoration piece that they obviously want to be making - solid state everything, no mechanical cooling, go nuts - and satisfy their weird urges with that, so that they could then offer another machine that is designed to be a good desktop computer. Right now, they are pushing the iMac into the first category without offering anything in the second.
Nope. I'm not interested with tinkering with hardware or upgrading anything, I want to buy a computer and use it.
LOL please. Those "services" which I, apart from OS upgrades, haven't used in a decade of Mac ownership, also come with the cheapest low end Mac mini. When you have to pay 2500 euros to get a nicely performing iMac (upgraded GPU, cheapest offered upgrade to SSD, extra charge for VESA compatibility) you are not paying for "services", you are paying for the whims of Apple's designers. And since when is "cheap software" an Apple perk?
You don't even touch a desktop computer other than when setting it up or moving it. "Build quality" outside actual defect rates is irrelevant. I'm not aware that Apple would be significantly better than anyone else on defects. Their components certainly aren't better.
Nobody's playing armchair CEO and I'm perfectly happy with Apple's direction in 90% of the cases. You're just the type of fanboy consumer who'll praise services like MobileMe right up to the day Steve calls it crap.
Whipping out an iPhone sales links to "own" someone in a Mac argument is sub youtube-commenter behavior. Combine that with Ellen Feiss-esque knowledge of non-Apple solutions and we're dealing with someone whose posting career is looking rather grim.
I'm happy to pay for legit usability. I don't upgrade my computers. I have bought Macs for myself for the last decade, and bought Macs for others longer than that. I'm typing this on a Mac. How am I not part of "Apple's target audience"? Not ignorant enough?
Up to this point I've been complaining because iMacs fail to meet my personal needs and the needs of many others, and also because Apple offers no adequate alternative to the iMac that would cover these needs. But I'll go further than that and argue that the stock iMac models sacrifice usability and have a bad balance of components for almost everyone. The computer as a whole is still a reasonable choice for many, but these particular choices are bad design, period.
The ergonomics are one obvious failure. There's just one axis of adjustment, whereas every professional-level display I have ever used has had at least two, most have had three, and many have had pivot functionality on top of that. I could somewhat excuse this if the iMac was set at a good height to begin with, but it's not. Apple eliminating VESA mounting in the previous iMac model prevented the user fixing the ergonomics after the fact with an expensive display arm or aftermarket foot. Now the ergonomics of every iMac sold are not just terrible but also unfixable.
On the component side, Apple shovels money into CPUs even though the majority of users would never notice a difference to a slightly slower and cheaper CPU, while neglecting SSDs which would benefit practically every single user. And what they do with GPUs is just stupid. Either you are good with a very basic GPU, or you want a fast one, or you want a very fast one. Apple offers a bunch of mediocre mobile GPUs, indistinguishable for the average user while simultaneously being unnecessarily expensive. And at the high end of their range, they offer two nearly indistinguishable, absurdly expensive mobile GPUs that get smoked by mid-range parts intended for actual desktops.
This stuff is true. Maybe they'll make a shift in the coming years. Hope so.