This is what I want: Xeon based iMac. Presumably it would be better than iMac but not as much as Mac Pro. If priced reasonably (for Apple) it would be a buy as soon as funds are available. If they're smart they'll make the drive and memory user-accessible easily.
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 'Server-Grade' iMac With Next-Gen Xeon Processor Coming End of 2017
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like a Ferrari F1 engine in a Fiat 500....
Seriously, why the heck would you put a Xeon CPU in an iMac housing with limited thermal cooling... Of course Xeon = ECC DRAM... and even worse an AMD GPU, which is more power hungry than Nvidia's.
Massive chin? Enormous bezels? Does that make it too hard to hold in one hand? Does it block too much of your view of... the wall behind it?
I'm with you, but given Apple's track record over the last few years, I'm not holding my breath.
Kinda wish they'd go back to the G4 iMac or MS Surface Studio approach. Swivel monitor, and the goods in the base.
no they don't.
they want to buy a machine that's suitable for their needs and is reliable.. that's basically it. they choose their configuration at time of purchase and would rather not bother with computer parts/purchases until their next machine.
the people mostly concerned with upgrading the individual components are tinker types and those who will be buying the used computers off the pros in an effort to not pay new prices while having new specs.
"Standard 128gb of ram"
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it.
Can we put the 2pro4u argument to bed please? I'm using a tbMBP right now for work and it's been absolutely fantastic, I'd consider that professional.
Most people, including professionals, don't want to upgrade. They want something so powerful that they will never need to upgrade.
It will be so great, its gonna be so thin, you are gonna see, how great, it is... so thin
Well. The iMac is also only covering a niche market -- the fact that it runs macOS instead of the industry standard alone doesn't help much to get it out of a niche.
That being said, the Surface Studio does run the "industry standard" desktop platform, allowing it to run any application on the market and allowing it to be used for any purpose, and ON TOP OF THAT, it is also a great solution for people who can take advantage of its capability to be used as a drawing board. (Just as an anecdote, the head of my company's networking department would kill for this machine -- he's nuts for every electronic device that he can use to draw network diagrams by hand. He usually does this on his Galaxy Note...) Sure, not everybody needs or wants that. But not everybody wants or needs an all-in-one machine either.
It's expensive? For what it actually offers, really? That's quite debatable. However, Microsoft isn't trying to attract the mass market here, nor are they trying to beat their OEM customers. The Surface Studio is first and foremost a reference hardware that is supposed to show off features of Windows 10 that NO COMPETING PLATFORM has. You simply cannot do this with macOS -- using an external tablet for this purpose just isn't the same thing, no matter how much you might want it to be. Nor can you properly do this with any Linux distribution or FreeBSD or Solaris or whatever else you may find on the market. Yes, you can pull an Android or iOS gadget out of nowhere - but those aren't desktop platforms, and they don't have that caliber of application software that Windows has.
So, no -- Microsoft isn't delusional about the Surface Studio itself becoming the ultimate market leader. However, the Surface Studio shows off Windows technology, and it's supposed to inspire OEMs to build similar (and usually more affordable) machines - and the sum of those third party devices might eventually become a leading standard. This is the business Microsoft is in. (Or Google, for that matter -- their Pixel devices are high-end reference implementations, just like their Nexus devices were reference hardware for developers. There never was any intention to be the market leader in hardware.)
"Professional" = anyone who is not happy with a MacBook Pro :-(
Professionals don't swap out internals. Professionals _may_ ask the IT guy to do it.
Still, Xeon makes absolutely no sense to me. There are also i7 mobile Kabylakes out there with similar TDP. There's no need for ECC DRAM. Unless Apple desperately wants to offer a 6-core option.
With retail 1 TB SSD costing only about $300, Apple better pulls their head out of a.. and equips every iMac with at least that. No more spinning drives please. I know the PCI-E flash is faster etc, but at this point, compared to a stupid 5400 or 7200 rpm drives, I would take a regular SSD over HDD any day or night. For high end models, please offer PCI-E storage, but for god's sakes, put SSD in the base models.
Total and utter nonsense. The MacBook Pro 15" is the standard device for all professional MacOS and iOS developers. What you call "neutered IOS" allows developers to reject anti-user demands from clueless marketing. And since the iPhone is where companies make money, iOS development is where developers make money.
Yep, considering the now more than a decade-long string of problems Apple has had with cooling, the last thing they want to do is build yet another system that cooks itself just to shave off a 1/4" of thickness or meets some other idiotic design ideal. Mind you, I don't dislike beautiful industrial design, I think the majority of Apple fans are keen on products that look and feel a cut above the normal, but function is king; design it to look as good as possible within the bounds of proper usability. That's all I ask.
So what could Apple do? Easy; liquid cool their iMacs (even if that means making them a tad "fatter" somewhere) and give them proper ventilation and fans (which will be pretty-darn quiet if they liquid-cool). Then Apple would be able to fit desktop-class GPUs/CPUs. (Separate liquid-coolers good enough to allow me to overlock my CPU by 15% and my GPU by 10.5% in my gaming-rig cost me a total of only $150 and resulted in a system that can stay pegged at 100% for hours with both stability and quietness - so that gives you an idea how effective and inexpensive liquid-cooling has become).
It sucks for some of us but we should remember that around 99% of buyers will never replace a single piece in their own computer, even if it is possible. Those of us who want upgradability are in the very very small minority. Lack of upgradability doesn't impact most users, which is why the vast majority of buyers have no issue with it.
They tried liquid cooling, and it didn't go over so well. I think they'd not be all that open to that solution.
The same could be said about all the new slick TV's. It is also about style and modern looks too. I'm ready for cutting down the old fashioned looking bezels big time! I understand that some don't care but lots of us do.
All Xeon Kaby lakes have 4 cores. If Apple wants something with more cores they will have to go Broadwell.
Last edited:
I haven't yet read any of this thread so apologies if this is repeating something that's already been raised.
I find this hard to believe. The iMac all-in-one enclosure is small and I can't see how they'd keep a Xeon CPU cool under load. It's one of the reasons to go for a Mac Pro over an iMac. That and being able to use a large display.
Remember that Apple thought that 16GB of RAM was "pro" in the MacBook Pro update last year... 'nuff said.
I find this hard to believe. The iMac all-in-one enclosure is small and I can't see how they'd keep a Xeon CPU cool under load. It's one of the reasons to go for a Mac Pro over an iMac. That and being able to use a large display.
Remember that Apple thought that 16GB of RAM was "pro" in the MacBook Pro update last year... 'nuff said.
Can't wait to see what they come up with. The iMac needs a redesign and my Mid2011 iMac is about ready for replacement.
But the cost will be very important. The new MacBook Pros were eye-wateringly expensive. Please don't price the new iMac into the realms of la la land.
But the cost will be very important. The new MacBook Pros were eye-wateringly expensive. Please don't price the new iMac into the realms of la la land.