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.
New MacBook Pro and 13-Inch 'MacBook' Coming Next Week, iMac and Display Not Ready Yet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is a consumer orientated company these days and I can't see how the Mac Pro really makes them any serious money so I expect them to finally kill it off sooner or later. However, I think it will receive another update before it's demise but if I needed high-end performance and I wasn't reliant on Apple software, then common sense tells you that there are many vastly superior PC workstations available, or people can build their own.
Yeah, the Mac Pro looks pretty, but it's not that practical and if expansion & upgrades is your thing, then why buy the Mac Pro in the first place? You can do whatever it is you do on with the Mac Pro better and cheaper with a beefy PC workstation, so common sense should tell a lot of people that the Mac Pro is a poor purchase.
I was already strongly leaning away from Mac for a while now (have a loaner 2015 dell xps 13 and that's a sweet device.)
But if Apple switches to the new keyboard I won't have a choice. I was playing around with the new keyboard in an Apple Store while waiting for a repair, and within minutes of typing, my fingertips started developing pain.
Maybe I can get used to this, and learn to type so as to not trigger RSI, but I'm not taking a chance.
What are you basing this all on? There has not been a single report that any particular Apple department has issues with their housing.
Actually my personal experience of improving innovation cultures in multinational companies (I work as a consultant in innovation management) is that tightly packed communities increase their output due to better collaboration through more effective interfacing.
My current client just moved a large part of their base R&D facility to a new building that is much larger. We are now having to organize process definition workshops because the scientists are complaining that distances have increased and approachability has decreased due to labs being more spacious and people being harder to find.
Where do you get your knowledge?
Glossy notebooks look cheap. Matte is where it's at. I think a matte black or space grey would be a good option. But not glossy. That would just look horrendous IMHO.
Didn't want to shill a particular brand, but that is the exact brand that I use for mineIt's very good stuff.
That's a good one... The thing is, the base models are often quite attractive for what you get. It's the extra's where they get that nice fat margin. If whatever she's doing isn't CPU-bound, then I'd take the base model.
However there are certain use cases... If for example she'll use Photoshop to get RAW files from a DSLR, then get something better than base. RAW file size keeps increasing with camera sensor size, and >25MB files are nothing to sneeze at. (Not a photographer, this is what I heard from the latest ATP podcast, I think it was issue 191 or 192). However in that case, the disk space will also be a big problem with the base model.
I'm buying 2 laptops - one for my 13 YO Girl - she has a decent Nikon DSLR with multiple lenses. She currently uses my wife's 27 5K IMAC for her photo/video editing. I'm not sure what you mean 'Disc Space' (storage 128, 256, 512 or the 8 or 16gb - what do you recommend )...Do you think bumping up to the higher I5 is Ok for her or does she need the I7? The other laptop is for my 14 YO boy..he is pretty simple - 80% school work, 5% Minecraft game and 15% videos from his GOPro Camera (he does whitewater kayaking and mountain climbing/hiking)....I would think the base would work for him or do you think he needs an upgrade too? What I don't want is while they are doing school for wither of the 3 to have their laptop waiting to bring up web pages or the videos of the online professors. Thanks so very much for your continued feedback.
Sky lake instead of Kaby Lake isn't really a concern for me. While the efficiencies are improved, performance isn't a huge step up. And OSX allows Apple some leeway in the efficiency area.
What annoys me, however, is hearing fanboys defend Apple not updating macs to Skylake earlier by saying they are waiting for Kaby Lake. But turns out that more than a year after sky lake is released, Apple isn't going to Kaby, but just updating to Slylake really late.
You clearly understand nothing of the internals of software or hardware.
ARM is a CPU architecture - it's not like anything that "runs" on ARM can just "run" on some other ARM CPU
1. There are probably more 8bit uc, but that's not the point - they are controlling things that are not general purpose computers.
2. Intel is doing so for the mobile / embded market (where it makes sense, because there is no legacy support needed)
3. Apple is putting ARM in exactly all the places that everyone else is using ARM as well - where it makes sense
4. See my previous post. in terms of physical objects *EVERYTHING* you use is designed on computers that run on x86 style architecture. Porting CAD sw is a non-starter.
I'm aware of that. I don't think you understand my point. Everything Apple would have to do is easy. It's all of the 3rd party support that's tough to get moving.
No it doesn't. There's a reason it's called "simulator" and not "emulator."
From what I understand the only reason that sort of worked was because the Intels used at the time very over 2x faster than the Gx that they were emulating.
I know what it does. It's a test environment that simulates iOS's APIs. Your app is compiled for x86 to run inside the simulator. It is NOT running ARM code of any kind.
I suspect that if Apple really is entertaining the idea of another architecture switch, we'll see a dual-CPU type setup where x86 applications will run on a real x86 processor, whereas any ARM apps will run on the built-in ARM processor.
It would be extremely tricky to pull off (since one processor would have to be the "gatekeeper" for things like interrupts and the like), but it's the best way I can see such a transition happening.
Ok, but the code you are writing is for an app that will run on ARM, so this is effectively an emulator. it translates one kind of code to another kind of code.
As I just posted elsewhere, not going to give into no desktop Macs being announced yet. There's still a possibility Apple will announce them on Thursday - even if they won't be available yet.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're very clearly not a developer.
When you run code on the iOS simulator, XCode compiles your source code to run on x86. When you deploy to an iOS device, XCode compiles your source code to run on ARM.
There's no absolutely "translation" going on or any kind of ARM compatibility layer in the simulator. It's an iOS API simulator running x86 native binaries. Nothing more. It is NOT an emulator in any way, shape or form.
"it translates one kind of code to another kind of code" makes absolutely no sense. That's what a compiler does.
I get what you're saying but I would say no way on that - they would much rather sell you an iPad Pro with keyboard case for only 99 USD extra *in addition* to the Macbook. After all, they've never added cellular to the Macbook, nor can you use the iPad as a phone AFAIK - heck even the Watch needs an iPhone to have any functionality.
Ok, so if my iOS app can be compiled for x86 today and runs just fine in the simulator and then compiled for arm and runs just fine on iOS device why are you even mentioning emulations when clearly same code can be compiled to run on both without any emulation.
I'm not sure how the points your making refute anything I said.
Like I said, you're very obviously not a developer.
iOS is not macOS, and an iPhone is not a Mac. There are a lot more things on the Mac side of the house that are CPU-specific that simply do not apply to iOS applications.
Rebuilding something like Lightroom for Mac to run on a different processor is infinitely more complicated than cross-compiling an iOS app to run in the simulator on x86.
I agree with you - I just wanted to clarify to others on this thread, as you have shown the non-triviality in creating an ARM-based Macbook, that an ARM co-coprocessor Macbook is equally unlikely for marketing (rather than just technical) reasons.
You are making it sound far harder than it really is for Apple. They probably have Mac OS running on ARM for a few years. And i'm not disputing that some specific apps will be more difficult to transition, but most will require a simple recompile.
[doublepost=1477324087][/doublepost]
It's unlikely, because it would a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.