ah, the elusive xMac
https://arstechnica.com/staff/2005/10/1676/
Everything you said can pretty much be summed up into "apple needs to update the Mac Pro"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What if the Mini wasn't so tiny, but the size of a loaf of bread?
- Thread starter elasticmedia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
https://arstechnica.com/staff/2005/10/1676/
Everything you said can pretty much be summed up into "apple needs to update the Mac Pro"
Merely updating the current Mac Pro doesn't cut it. Apple needs to replace the current Mac Pro with something along the lines as the previous versions of the Mac Pro.
Yeah, i mean, update as in "not ignore anymore", not that they refresh current design
Yeah, I was really disappointed that I couldn't use all four ports at full speed simultaneously. Does anyone have any info on which ones are controlled by which controllers?
Yeah, the lack of dGPU cleared 8x lanes for 2 additional thunderbolt controllers.
1+2 and 3+4 are grouped as far as i know.
There's no mac currently that has 4 separate controllers, even iMac pro has 2+2 despite the fact that it's CPUs have plenty of free PCIe lanes.
Probably saving that for the Mac Pro.
I don't feel updating the current Mac Pro is going to solve the issue. A redesign into something like the version which predated it will go a long way.
[doublepost=1547585875][/doublepost]
IMO Microsoft needs to provide a way to prohibit automatic updates. I understand the reason behind it but to not provide any means to disable it (short of disconnecting it from the Internet) is inexcusable.
The iMac range still perplexes me as well. Apple are still using fusion drives and their reasoning leaves me puzzled. Why don't they leave the spinner in there for data with the addition of something like M.2 storage for the boot drive? There should certainly be sufficient room inside for such an option.
Apple really need a good shake to wake them up from their present torpor in the computer division.
Apple really need a good shake to wake them up from their present torpor in the computer division.
No, the problem is that you're wanting something that Apple doesn't offer and you're blaming them for forcing you into a corner when they aren't responsible for designing your desires. Again, the simple solution is build it yourself.. that's what Steve Jobs did when he wasn't happy with current offerings.
I use Windows 7 Enterprise. I have access to Windows 10 Enterprise but won't do it because the security system might break with an upgrade and I'm not willing to go there. It is not attached to the internet so I'm not as security conscious.
Yes - its my preferred option when I want a Windows or Linux PC - I also ran a Hackintosh for about 6 months using a (somewhat over-specified) HTPC that I'd built a couple of years earlier.
Problem is that - although the Hackintosh community have done a stand-up-job of making it easy - at the end of the day you're running an unlicensed version of MacOS on unsupported hardware. That can't be condoned for any sort of professional use and, while Apple are unlikely to start pursuing individuals for license violation, they have no obligation whatsoever not to - even accidentally - break your Hackintosh with the next software update, in an era where you daren't access the internet without up-to-date security patches.
(Plus, you need a working Mac to download Mac OS and prepare the installation stick)
BTW - have Apple let NVIDIA release drivers for Mojave yet?
Mine was moderately successfully, but the occasional glitches and the amount of finger-crossing needed when applying software updates put me off the idea of spending serious cash to build a "new" machine. Its now back to running Linux (which is cooking with gas if your doing command-line or server stuff but however much I try I can't see the various Linux GUI options as anything other than clunky and unfriendly)
Because they like the free money from people who succumb and pay 2x the going rate for the 1 or 2TB SSDs, when all they really need is a super-fast 256 or 512 GB PCIe SSD for the system drive and a 2TB HD or cheaper, slower SATA SSD for data. There's always another rationalisation for lower unit sales in the long term, but higher margins are a feather in your cap this quarter.
However, on the other hand, given the hassle of cracking open an iMac to get at the drive it might be better not to have all your data sealed inside the machine, and use external data storage instead. Having a little hatch on the back with even a 2.5" bay or an M.2 slot would be sooo good, but it ain't gonna happen.
I, and many others, want something Apple used to offer. Offering such a system is not an unreasonable ask. Especially when their "solution" ends essentially consuming as much desk space as what people are requesting.
[doublepost=1547597774][/doublepost]
If it's not attached to the Internet then how does it update?
There is a way but as anything Windows, you need to search through forums and blogs to find a working solution, ugh.
I did disable it but I think I flagged my pc as a pc that's connected to a slow network or something similar, I'm not sure.
I was wondering that but was too polite to mention it. I just don't understand all these stories about security and things breaking. I updated exactly the same OS system as Harriska2 on one of my VMs at the weekend. I thought I may as well update whilst you can still get W10 for free. The system updated without one single issue, all my settings worked after the update, all the programmes worked and all my data was still in tact.
All these urban myths/scare stories about Windows upgrades drive me mad. They may not have been totally reliable in the past but that was many years ago. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to do this upgrade in around 50 minutes and experience no issues whatsoever. Obviously it's wise to do a backup first just in case, but this applies to MacOS as well.
It wasn't clear to me which update she is referring to. Is the concern surrounding the upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 (which is the way I read her post) or the monthly updates forced on Windows 10 users, or both.
I think her concerns are understandable, if you have a critical system and it goes down do to a bad update that's unacceptable. If Windows 7 works for her on this system then she should continue using it. It's still supported by security updates and she can control when, or if, those updates are applied.
Microsoft has a huge diversity of hardware combinations which they have to account for and they're unable to test every configuration. Relatively speaking they do exceptionally well given the task at hand. But when you're one of those who gets hit with a bad update or upgrade (such as the 1809 rollout) it doesn't matter how good they are. But I agree that some people are stuck in the past by overhyping the issue.
That pretty much describes me as well. I have a desktop PC running Windows 7 Pro with no plans to upgrade. I only use this system to run older GIS software; it still does everything I need and would be too expensive to update. I don't use e-mail on this system, I don't watch movies, don't use social media, don't do online shopping. Maybe everything would still work if I updated to Windows 10, maybe not. But just not interested in finding out.
If it took a full length video card that could inserted by the consumer, it would also need a much bigger power supply as well. Then if you wanted to add more drives, including a 3.5 spinning drive, what you'd end up with is something much larger than a loaf of bread.
At this point, you're describing a Mac Pro (without the Xeon and ECC memory).
I think and I stand to be corrected on this, that the poster was referring to both security updates and the initial upgrade. Windows 7 has only 12 months left to run before MS pull the plug so users really need to be looking at contingency planning now. I'm still baffled by the post because if you are going to upgrade you surely have at least one backup in place (I always have three), so it's not that much of a risk. Security updates are easily delayed these days.
Besides how can you say you are worried about data loss and security then jump ship entirely to another platform with all the risks that entails.
This is my real takeaway from the post - the poster obviously wanted to experience a different platform i.e. MacOS/Mac hardware. Why not just say that instead of coming up with convoluted reasons for doing this and in turn scaremongering about the Windows platform? I run MacOS and I run Windows on two different lots of hardware. I don't need to justify that decision to anyone and I certainly wouldn't come up with spurious reasons for doing so.
[doublepost=1547651379][/doublepost]
I can pretty much guarantee it would actually run better as it makes more efficient use of system resources. My VM is running far smoother and faster with the W10 upgrade than it ever has with Windows 7. You should try it, as you have 10 days to roll it back if you don't get on with it.
[doublepost=1547651606][/doublepost]One thing about the Mini baffles me - graphics. If ever there was a chip meant for the Mac Mini it's the Kaby Lake-G and yet Apple decided to go with the highly inferior Intel 630 graphics.
Perhaps they didn't want it competing too much with the other Mac's?
There's a huge gap between the integrated video and full sized GPUs. The Mini wouldn't have to internally accommodate the fastest GPUs but could use something in between. HP offers a number of SFF systems which utilize SFF GPUs which offer performance easily exceeding the integrated GPU of the Mini but not having the size / power / cooling requirements of the high end GPUs.
What he is describing is the previous version of the Mac Pro. The current Mac Pro has constraints which limit, if the options were available, how much it could be upgraded.
[doublepost=1547656482][/doublepost]
I think she's discussing two different systems. One being her personal system and the other being a security system of some sort.
Honestly - I don't care if it would "run better". It runs fine now. If the time comes when I HAVE TO upgrade, then I'll deal with it. There is just no benefit to upgrading now. Makes absolutely no sense to waste time upgrading and troubleshooting, then possibly having to roll it back in the end. I can find better uses for my time.
I think we are getting closer to the key issue. Apple in the 90s bent over backwards making many options. And it nearly killed the company. Steve came back, laid out a tidy 2x2 grid and saved their bacon.
Apple is a trillion dollar company. They could offer at least as many models as Dell. But most of apples leadership was around or at least aware of Apple during the dark days and is afraid of going back.
So they play it safe. They stick with models or at least categories that Steve blessed and don’t go over. The good news is mini being blessed means it stays around. The bad news is, no xmac.