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.
Apple Working on Trio of New Macs With Custom Co-Processors That Could Launch This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PREDICTION:
The 2018 MacBook "Pro" update will be proclaimed "the thinnest MB EVER!" It'll be reduced to only one "awesome, best ever" port for "ultimate connectivity", cuz that's all you need. The keyboard will be removed in favor of five rows of Touch Bars, so can get to your favorite emoji quicker. For only $599 more you can customize it with the "sophisticated mauve" finish, so people at the coffee shop will think you're super hip.
Anyone who scoffs at this "Pro" machine will be mocked by the fanboys as behind the times and "it's time to look forward" and "Gee, how about a floppy drive with that! Yuk yuk yuk."
The 2018 MacBook "Pro" update will be proclaimed "the thinnest MB EVER!" It'll be reduced to only one "awesome, best ever" port for "ultimate connectivity", cuz that's all you need. The keyboard will be removed in favor of five rows of Touch Bars, so can get to your favorite emoji quicker. For only $599 more you can customize it with the "sophisticated mauve" finish, so people at the coffee shop will think you're super hip.
Anyone who scoffs at this "Pro" machine will be mocked by the fanboys as behind the times and "it's time to look forward" and "Gee, how about a floppy drive with that! Yuk yuk yuk."
This I agree with. I understand in the current cloud computing era, the need for physical storage space has been greatly reduced. However, that doesn't mean you provide less at the same price-point. How do you provide 256gb space standard on the Macbook but 128gb on the Pro?
I have a new MBP with the 128gb drive because I felt spending the extra money on 16gb of ram was a wiser choice. It sucked I had to choose between the two.
One physical CPU for the OS, another different physical CPU for the applications... This reminds me a bit about the way the Amiga was setup with different co-processors for graphics and audio.
If that's Apple's plans, then a low-power quad-core x86 CPU suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Wise. Unless get 512 or 1tb then still not enough. Better to just use external hard drive.
No, you are not alone. I fully expect this kind of nonsense from Tim Cook's Apple. The proprietary coprocessor is also a means to block the Hackintosh pressure relief valve for high-end customers Apple's currently frustrating with three-year refresh cycles.
Unlikely for a while since MacOS still needs to support a considerable amount of hardware for a few years yet that doesn't have a co processor. I still think they will move Macs to their own ARM processors within the next five years anyway though and Hacks will probably start to die out after that.
Of course the obvious solution to this would be for Apple not to have the macOS platform closed down so it can run on other Hardware rather than just Macs.It's no excuse. If you decide not to buy a hamburger at McDonald's because you don't like the buns, you're still not allowed to go in the kitchen and steal the patties!
[doublepost=1517388097][/doublepost]
I wouldn't bet on it. Remember how brutally Apple stopped using PPC chips and that was when Steve Jobs was at the helm. At least there was a valid argument for switching to Intel.
With Tim Cook at the helm Apple do not care about the consumer any longer. It's all about MONEY.
Last edited:
Here is what I would consider a bonafide argument to go Hackintosh. OS X 10.9 Mavericks and OS X 10.10 Yosemite running on an iMac G5It's no excuse. If you decide not to buy a hamburger at McDonald's because you don't like the buns, you're still not allowed to go in the kitchen and steal the patties!
Now the reason I say this is the consumer has clearly already paid a considerable amount of money for the Hardware. It was Apple who pulled PPC support not long after the release of the iMac G5 so if he wanted to run a later release than OS X 10.5 Leopard it would require purchasing a new Mac which is WRONG.
It's their product so it's their decision to take. If you don't like it don't buy it. To stay with my burger example, if you don't like the buns and McDonald's doesn't sell frozen patties so you can make your own burgers, it's still no excuse to steal the patties in the kitchen.
There is no argument to make, they make a product and they sell it at the price they want, however they want, support it for how long they want etc. It is all about money. But in the end, the customer has a choice to buy or not to buy.
If you decide to steal the product, fine, I'm not the Apple police. Just don't try to justify it!
For us, it's a bit egregious (the update cycle), but my company just bought like 12 of these with SSD's as our company switched over to MacOS and regular workers think they are the most modern, fastest, sleekest, well functioning computer they've ever used.
I respectfully disagree. The consumer bought the product and should expect it to be supported for a reasonable period of time.
The iMac G5 was released in the August of 2004 and the use of PPC architecture was scrapped entirely in the August of 2006.
This meant the iMac G5 had a mere two years of useful support and the base line model would have cost the consumer $1299 USD.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac_g5_1.9_17.html
Is there any other company out there that would get away with such a practice I don't think so.
It's like buying a car and being told two years down the line they no longer manufacture spare parts for that model.
So yes in this case there is a bonafide Hackintosh argument as the consumer wants the machine to perform the duties for which it was intended whilst being able to run up to date software which Apple without prior warning had plans to scrap the use of PPC architecture prior the release of the iMac G5.
it's not messing up.
tim / apple wants to be in control of what one can change about their product.
that's been a fact for quite some time now.
It's really a shame the mainstream PPC era came to an end. This was one of the three things that made Macs special. A PPC CPU, MacOS/OS X and the build quality & design. When the Xbox 360 launched it was a powerful console in part to its custom triple-core PPC CPU made by IBM. Custom chips also made consoles special. Now that they're basically using really cheap APUs, it's no wonder PC gaming has taken off like it has.
No one. But if it would be powerful gamers would buy it. There’s an untapped market that Apple could get into
Waiting for a new decent mini (couple of, actually) and/or pro machines. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting. No shred of rumour anywhere pointing at something that will release anytime 'soon'. It's been a year since Apple management made some noises about the screenless desktops. Just hoping the current hardware will keep working until the news stuff *finally* arrives as buying the current mini/pro is definitely a poor option.
Probably not, but I'm not with you on the fan noise. If I need to work with a computer for extended periods (and why buy a powerful machine if that is not the case) I want it to be perfectly silent. I never will go back to the 'wind tunnel' G4/G5 days which were unusable for me. I actually downgraded then to a Cube so I could work slower but without getting health issues just from the noise.
Not alone at all, the language used about the upcoming Mac Pro has been very careful and deliberate.
John Gruber quoting Phil Schiller from the Mac Pro apology round table last April..
The only thing that they commit to there is that a new Mac Pro and display coming. Looking at the "by definition a modular system" comment I think that merely means that it won't be an all in one like the iMac but rather a machine with separate display.
I would be amazed if they put something out that was user upgradable by design. The hope would be that in making a machine that can be updated regularly they leave some wiggle room for user upgrades.
Sounds about right; 45W CPU + dedicated GPU + display + etc with a 76Wh battery equals about an hour of run time.
Unfortunately, the largest size battery allowed on commercial flights is 100Wh, so even if Apple made the 15” MBP heavier and thicker (and more expensive) by maxing out the battery, you’re only gaining about 20 minutes of run time.
So you’d still be stuck with needing to be plugged in for sustained, max-performance requirements.