Silicon Mac users: What do you want from a new device in order to upgrade?

[Gudi]

Again, the A4 may have been designed "by" Apple, but it used existing ARM designs for both the CPU and GPU cores. The first A-series SoC entirely designed by Apple (i.e., using no preexisting ARM core designs) was the A11. The A4 is akin to a child taking a LEGO set of a bulldozer and building a tractor out of it instead. The core components are the same, but the order in which the pieces are assembled are different. That's what the A4-A10 basically were.

And nobody cares or said something to the contrary. Everybody is aware that the very first in-house designed Apple chip and the one where Apple claims to have the fastest cpu and fastest gpu core in the market are not the same chip. It all started with the A4 (2010) and ended with the M1 (2020). During this decade Apple went from not being a chip designer at all to replacing Intel on the Mac. I for one do not consider this an innovative era for Intel.

You claim that I'm making things up, but I have been quoting AND responding to said quotes from you. That's not making things up, just what feels like an attempt at gaslighting by claiming you didn't say what you said earlier. This goes hand-in-hand with the "if you don't care to read what I write" garbage line.

I didn't claim, I didn't say it. I quoted myself for you to read again what my argument actually is, not what you think it is.

How can the VR headset market not exist (as you claim above) when both the Oculus (now Meta) Quest and the HTC Vive have been out for years?

You've probably heard that META is laying of 10,000s of employees and losing billions of dollars of market valuation, because nobody believes that the Metaverse is a viable business. Just like 3D TVs, Teslas and Apple's own Ping social music network there are countless of new products all the time, which fail to solve a problem the user actually has and is willing to pay for. Right now VR headsets look exactly like such a dead end and people are starting to notice:

Some Apple Employees Seriously Concerned About Mixed-Reality Headset as Announcement Draws Closer
Skeptics have questioned if the device is "a solution in search of a problem," unlike the iPod and iPhone.

I prefer to wait and see if it's even a viable product, before I judge who contributed the most to the aspect which made it an innovation rather than another dead end.

I have been reading what you write, and it continues to a) contradict the facts (which I have presented numerous links to support) and b) shifting your advocacy as needed.

And my one link confirmed the Apple A4 was the first Apple-designed system on a chip. Which is all I cared and argued about. You can keep all your useless A6 and A11 facts. I never said you were wrong about them.

 

[PsykX]

So the fastest iMac ever is too slow for you, but previous slower iMacs were always to your satisfaction?

The fastest iMac is currently the slowest Mac in the entire lineup, and there's no option to make it better.
Previous iMacs, in their era, could be pro machines if you chose a proper configuration.

So yes, I was very satisfied with my 2013 iMac. I'm not sure about your rhetorical here ?

 

[bobcomer]

Have you actually tried it out?

No, but I bought the M1 MBA when it first came out and the specs are pretty similar. 16G of RAM is nowhere near what I need.

The M1 iMac is probably still faster than previous Intel iMacs with more memory.

It sure doesn't feel like it for normal work. My iMac 27" has an i7 and 128G of RAM and runs everything I need quite comfortably. Maybe it wouldn't win a benchmark test, but in doing what I do, it's a lot faster than the MBA.

You shouldn't buy it compared to a Mac Studio, if you crunch that many numbers. But it's not a substential regress over previous iMacs either, is it?

I sold the M1 MBA and got a Mac Studio Max with 64G of RAM and while performance is good for most things I don't use it much because of my need to run Windows applications and the iMac does that better. I also have an i9 desktop with 64G of RAM, and I use that for batch work.

My main work machine is my iMac, fast, better monitor, does everything I need well.

But it's not a substential regress over previous iMacs either, is it?

It would be for me! Maybe if you put my Mac Studio Max's guts in a 24" iMac, that would probably work pretty well except for Windows, and for the most part it would be in the okay category for that. VM's take up a lot of RAM, and that's where I do most of my development/testing.

Anyway, I've always been convinced that a large-screen iMac with a much faster chip is still in the making.

I certainly hope so! I really like the AiW form factor. Less cables, cleaner, and they usually come with a really good screen. Sure, if the screen goes out it can be a total pain, but still, I just like it better.

I know, I'm not a typical user, heck, I'm not even a typical computer geek, but I am what I am.

 

[Gudi]

The fastest iMac is currently the slowest Mac in the entire lineup, and there's no option to make it better.
Previous iMacs, in their era, could be pro machines if you chose a proper configuration.

So I'm not sure about your rhetorical here?

Yes, the 24" M1 iMac only replaced the small iMac and there is no replacement for the large iMac yet. That's what is to be expected during a silicon transition. There are holes in the lineup, which get filled one by one. There was also no Mac desktop with an M1 Pro chip, but now we have the Mac mini with M2 Pro. I'm not at all concerned that there is no large and powerful iMac right now. I'm sure the lineup will look very different in a couple of months.

 

[Gudi]

16G of RAM is nowhere near what I need.

Which is quite possible, I don't know your workload and what you consider "normal work".

My iMac 27" has an i7 and 128G of RAM and runs everything I need quite comfortably. Maybe it wouldn't win a benchmark test, but in doing what I do, it's a lot faster than the MBA.

But we wanted to compare old iMacs with new iMacs, not with a fanless laptop.

Maybe if you put my Mac Studio Max's guts in a 24" iMac, that would probably work pretty well except for Windows ...

No-no-no! There is reason why Apple didn't put the M1 Max in the 24" iMac. Have you seen the size of the heatsink in the Mac Studio? This chip would never fit into the new form factor. M3 with 3nm node might change the equation, but right now the large-powerful iMac doesn't exist for a reason.

VM's take up a lot of RAM, and that's where I do most of my development/testing.

And that's why there is no iMac for you. It's not necessary a speed problem, but keeping up multiple OSes at once.

I certainly hope so! I really like the AiW form factor. Less cables, cleaner, and they usually come with a really good screen. Sure, if the screen goes out it can be a total pain, but still, I just like it better.

You like it better, because it solves a few problems better than anything else. Which makes it a marketable product which can be sold at a profit against any other alternative. And that's why I believe, the large and powerful iMac will make a return. And in the meantime Apple offered you a very capable Mac Studio. So they didn't even lose you as a pro-customer.

I know, I'm not a typical user, heck, I'm not even a typical computer geek, but I am what I am.

You are okay as you are. And there are more than enough users like you, who could make use of a much larger, more powerful iMac with way more RAM. You only need to wait a little longer than us average folks, who are fine with the 24" iMac as it is.

 

[bobcomer]

But we wanted to compare old iMacs with new iMacs, not with a fanless laptop.

That's true, the passive cooling did hurt the MBA a lot.

No-no-no! There is reason why Apple didn't put the M1 Max in the 24" iMac. Have you seen the size of the heatsink in the Mac Studio? This chip would never fit into the new form factor. M3 with 3nm node might change the equation, but right now the large-powerful iMac doesn't exist for a reason.

It seems the Mac Studio has more cooling than it needs to me, one can probably get by with a lot less. As is, it hardly ever gets the fans above idle, even what it's working hard. Normally I'd want as much cooling as I can get.

And that's why there is no iMac for you. It's not necessary a speed problem, but keeping up multiple OSes at once.

That's a lot of it, yes.

You are okay as you are. And there are more than enough users like you, who could make use of a much larger, more powerful iMac with way more RAM. You only need to wait a little longer than us average folks, who are fine with the 24" iMac as it is.

We'll see. . But I do think you're right, a better iMac will come.

 

[Gudi]

I really like the AiW form factor.

All-I-Won 😆

 

[jmcube]

I got a base MBP. I would really like more ram. I also have been impressed with the M1, but I wonder how good a M1 Max or M1 Ultra would be, as a replacement for my linux workstation? My linux workstation is doing OK though. I could use a replacement for my MP6.1 which my linux workstation was.

 

[lepidotós]

My linux workstation is doing OK though. I could use a replacement for my MP6.1 which my linux workstation was.

If it still works use it, but I'd say an M2 Pro mini with an external hard drive would probably be the ideal route to go if you do need an upgrade. SFF, much cheaper than Studio, and Linux gets ridiculously high performance on AS compared with macOS. That on top of the ~75-100% increase in performance (E5-2697v2/E5-1650v2).​

 

[floral]

If it still works use it, but I'd say an M2 Pro mini with an external hard drive would probably be the ideal route to go if you do need an upgrade. SFF, much cheaper than Studio, and Linux gets ridiculously high performance on AS compared with macOS. That on top of the ~75-100% increase in performance (E5-2697v2/E5-1650v2).​

Yeah, if I ever were to buy a Mac it would likely be a mac mini.

 

[mr_jomo]

Simple: release before August 15 2023 where I'm handing my Air down to yet another daughter going of to Uni. 🤩

And be a 15" macBook Air M3 ... so yeah ... 🥹

 

[anselpela]

Better prices for more memory and storage. The upgrade prices are extortionate. And yes, Apple, believe it or not, we do need more storage than in 2012. One would think prices for both RAM and SSDs would have gone down since then rather than up.

I also wouldn’t mind a lighter machine with the same power as the MBP. I’m absolutely willing to trade off battery life for that. Usually I’m carrying it on my back from one place it can plug in to another place it can plug in. Can’t remember the last time I worked on battery for more than 2 hours at a time.

Those extortionate BTO prices are the only way Apple maintains margins on the Mac, so I wouldn't count on it.

 

[H_D]

Those extortionate BTO prices are the only way Apple maintains margins on the Mac, so I wouldn't count on it.

Yeah but still - 4 TB is far, far too expensive.

 

[anselpela]

Yeah but still - 4 TB is far, far too expensive.

It sure seems like it. If we're going by the "storage is storage" mentality, then a cursory glance tell us that "4 TB SSD" goes for about $250. Apple wants $1,000 more (than what's included). So that's...patently insane. Of course, Apple's unified memory that is built into the silicon wafer is hardly comparable bit for bit to the off the shelf SSD's on which we base this comparison. But even if we double the estimate to $500...Apple is still more than double that for what they want for 4 TB. This basically subsidizes the existence of the low end Macs so, I'm not sure if I want Apple to lower these fees into the realm of reality, or not. Because you know it wouldn't be without consequences to the Mac lineup as a whole.

 

[Sydde]

Those extortionate BTO prices are the only way Apple maintains margins on the Mac, so I wouldn't count on it.

BTO may be the approach Apple takes with the AS Mac pro. I could imagine bespoke platforms where the customer says "I need these capabilities," and Apple scribes out the MBd and seats the equivalent of card functionality on it. It would make for a much more compact and cooler Mac Pro, albeit pretty damn expensive.

First, though, it seems like they need to rasp off the rough edges of macOS.