Do you have any links? The only LGA 1155 boards I've seen that have support for more than 16GB listed are those that are certified for Xeon processors, which can use 8GB ECC unbuffered DIMMs. Though these DIMMs should technically work with the Core i7 processors, with ECC becoming disabled, manufacturers have never put such things on their spec sheets before. I'm curious if manufactures are listing 32GB support in anticipation of non-ecc 8GB DIMMs coming to market.
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.
Sandy Bridge iMacs Due Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you have any links? The only LGA 1155 boards I've seen that have support for more than 16GB listed are those that are certified for Xeon processors, which can use 8GB ECC unbuffered DIMMs. Though these DIMMs should technically work with the Core i7 processors, with ECC becoming disabled, manufacturers have never put such things on their spec sheets before. I'm curious if manufactures are listing 32GB support in anticipation of non-ecc 8GB DIMMs coming to market.
This is the one weird thing that I'd never experienced in my life before I started reading Apple forums.
That there are people out there who if given the hypothetical option of having something better than they currently have, that won't impose on them negatively in any way, meaning the new thing will still do all the same thing the old thing did, AND offer something better on top.
Will actually say, no we don't want it, and it would be bad for us to have it.
It's quite incredible that there are people who think this way.
If, for example a case design had to go from being neat to being ugly then fair enough, or if the price of say a $2000 machine had to rise by $100 or $200, then I suppose, there would be a understandable reason.
Just amazes me.
It's the Apple way. It's why PCs still had parallel and serial ports long after their lifetime was up, why they still have VGA ports, why they had floppies long after Macs, etc.
Apple's view is different. Does it surprise you that people who use Apple share in this world view? (Seriously, not trying to be agrumentative).
Apple thinks Blu-Ray is dead tech. I agree with them. They could add it, but they don't think it's a worthwhile addition. Sure, it could be a benefit to some people. But so could VGA ports, PS2 mouse jacks, SmartMedia card slots, etc. Where do you draw the line?
Blu-ray is not a legacy technology and the comment you're responding to isn't about sticking to legacy technologies (which are nice, I was still using the serial port on my PCs back in 2003 when I was doing Cisco work, which still to this day, requires it for the console port).
I'm an Apple user. Apple at times seems to be anti-choice. I'm not anti-choice. A BTO configuration for Blu-ray removes nothing from you, and doesn't impact you at all. Why are you against it ? Because Steve Jobs said so ?
Why do you compare Blu-ray, an up and coming new technology, to legacy ports again ? I think this is part of the problem you are personally facing. Blu-ray is on the rise, not on a decline. It's not dead at all.
Yes, but there's nothing new to put into these machines later this year, at least not by Intel. Ivy Bridge won't come out until 2012.
Also, the times they did several releases in rapid succession were either small intermediate speed bumps without a case redesign or (in case of 2005/6) caused by the Intel switch, where they released the last G5 iMac shortly before the first Intel one.
I do believe that the refresh after this one might be a complete redesign, because in the past, no iMac design lived longer than three refreshes (minor mid-cycle speedbumps and BTO option changes excluded), except for the white one, but if you split that into the G5 and the Intel model, the same rule applies.
However, I think the chance of this refresh coming later this year is very slim, because that would give the current iMac design a lifespan of just two years. The average lifespan of iMac designs is almost precisely 2.5 years, except for the white Intel model (but the same design already ran 2.5 years in PPC form, so the redesign was overdue anyway).
So my guess for the iMac redesign is Early 2012.
That's the crux of the issue. I see Blu-ray as dead, and therefore not worth supporting. You don't. Neither is right, and neither of us is likely to change the opinion of the other.
Maybe not, but how can you see something that's growing year after year, and beating the records established by its predecessor as dead ?
I think you're quite wrong and I'm right. At least, I have the numbers to support my argument. All you have is Steve's word.
i really hope they do try and keep us consumers happy, i would most def like the usb 3.0 future proofing and the addition of blu-ray is slightly unwanted however i wouldn't complain should it be there, its just something to push the price higher, we don't need the storage of blu-ray as ext hdds are faster and larger, and should i even watch a blu ray film id tend to use the blu ray player under my tv not the one on my mac,
Likewise, I think you're quite wrong and I'm right. I have history on my side. Blu-Ray doesn't offer enough of an incentive to upgrade. Every successful media transition has been accompanied by a REAL improvement. Something tangible, not just "higher fidelity"
Record -> 8-track: increased portability, smaller form factor
8-track -> cassette: increased number of tracks, smaller form factor
cassette -> CD: increased number of tracks, ability to skip immediately to track
VHS -> DVD: increased storage, random access, special features
DVD -> Blu-Ray: increased fidelity
If consumers really cared about fidelity, mp3 would be losing to lossless, SACD would have supplanted CD, and so on.
I see Blu-Ray as sharing a shelf with Laserdisc and MiniDisc when you look back at the history of consumer media.
Blu-ray is not "legacy" technology, but for many consumers (I would say the vast majority) it is the technology that never will be. Most people are not the level of videophiles that Blu-ray junkies are. Spinning disk storage is on its way out. That includes optical discs. I haven't had a DVD player of any kind hooked up to my TV for over three years, other than a BR player that I bought mainly because of it's internet capabilities, and got rid of a couple of months later because the wireless was unreliable. During that time I rented a downloadable movie from VUDU in HDX format, and borrowed a friend's BR copy of Inglorious Basterds, just to compare. I could tell absolutely no difference between the quality of the two on my 40" Samsung LED (Both were exceptional quality).
My point is that people want a little more simplicity in their lives. My legacy DVD movies have been in a box in my closet for 7 years, as I have been streaming them from iTunes. If I sit almost anyone down in front of my TV and show them the way I access media, they are agog, and usually one of the first things out of their mouth is, "This is the way of the future." As flash storage becomes even cheaper than it is now, and streaming media becomes much more a part of our everyday lives, BR, and all spinning discs will become obsolete.
And mark my word. It won't be long before someone (probably Apple) releases an OS install on flash media.
Ok got it... so if it is a feature you want then not having it you rail on Apple for being anti-choice. But if it is a feature you don't care about then it isn't a big deal...
I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, but logically I can only see one "real" reason on the BluRay front.
Steve Jobs wants to make money above all else, and will do and argue everything to achieve this outcome.
Apple for technical reasons only currently offer 720p for purchase from their store, where they make money from customers.
Customers can then either buy a DVD disc from a non Apple store to play on their Apple computers of buy a 720p higher quality version from Apple, hence Apple make money as a company.
If Apple were to fit a BluRay drive in their Mac machines, then customers would then have another choice. Buy the 720p version on-line and Apple make money from the sale, or they could go to a store, or order on-line the BluRay version with the very best 1080p Video and Audio version currently available for the public.
And possibly no more expensive than the lower quality 720p on-line version from Apple, AND if you get bored of the film you could sell it on, or give away to another member of your family/friends.
But Apple would not make any money. So by fitting BluRay drives into Mac's Apple can only lose money from doing it. And would lose money from doing it.
So as a business they will not do it, as it makes no sense to offer their customers this choice.
Sorry, but I can not see this in any other way.
Steve Jobs wants to make money above all else, and will do and argue everything to achieve this outcome.
Apple for technical reasons only currently offer 720p for purchase from their store, where they make money from customers.
Customers can then either buy a DVD disc from a non Apple store to play on their Apple computers of buy a 720p higher quality version from Apple, hence Apple make money as a company.
If Apple were to fit a BluRay drive in their Mac machines, then customers would then have another choice. Buy the 720p version on-line and Apple make money from the sale, or they could go to a store, or order on-line the BluRay version with the very best 1080p Video and Audio version currently available for the public.
And possibly no more expensive than the lower quality 720p on-line version from Apple, AND if you get bored of the film you could sell it on, or give away to another member of your family/friends.
But Apple would not make any money. So by fitting BluRay drives into Mac's Apple can only lose money from doing it. And would lose money from doing it.
So as a business they will not do it, as it makes no sense to offer their customers this choice.
Sorry, but I can not see this in any other way.
Again, the numbers are against you. History has no meaning in this case, since the uptake of Blu-ray is quite spectacular, especially considering it had to first defeat HD-DVD (which as in any media format war, can diminish the initial uptake of a technology).
Blu-ray has more penetration than even DVD had at this point in its history.
End of story. Your only basis is Steve's comment.
Rest of your post is unsupported by current sales figures of Blu-ray unfortunately.
As for this last comment, Linux has been doing it for years. Of course, you could also install Linux over the Internet or a local network back in the 90s. Apple is kind of late to the game on this...
Though I don't see them selling you Flash media with an OS on it. Costs are prohibitive. They would just sell you a download you copy to a flash media you already have, like the Linux distributions do. Makes much more economic sense.
Agreed ;-)
http://www.apple.com/uk/macbookair/specs.html#included
Agreed that the money/choice/issue is one reason. But as has been mentioned here before (I don't know enough about it to accurately comment, so I'll leave it to someone else), there are HEAVY requirements on your system if you want to run Blu-Ray. OS-level hooks + security restrictions. So it's not just the issue of the added cost of the upgrade from a DVD slot drive to a Blu-Ray slot drive that we need to consider. There are (from what I've heard) serious OS-level implications. Please, someone correct me on this if I'm wrong.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=
8GB DIMMs are already available from OWC for example. Some of the current iMacs can already use 32GB.
Cool man, glad you have it figured all out. Talk to me in a couple years, we'll see who's right.
That's just a bad excuse. Blu-ray requires 2 things. AACS, which is the actual encryption/decryption method used for the disc contents and can be implemented in userspace by the playback software itself (or in a userspace library) which presently Macs don't have and ...
*drumroll*
The OS-level hooks + security restrictions known as HDCP. Which guess what ? Macs support today.
So much for that argument.
Yeah, you wait a few years, meanwhile, I'm enjoying the quality of my Blu-ray stuff right now and have been since the last few years.
Regarding Blu-Ray, I received a survey request from Apple last week asking me about iDVD, and, specifically features I'd like to see in the next version. There was no mention of Blu-Ray whatsoever in the survey, but there were several "write in" spaces to add it in.
What I found curious was that Apple was even considering improving it rather than merely support it for a bit longer. I mean who burns DVDs anymore when you can take HDish video with a phone. DVDs, especially after iMovie and iDVD finish transcoding and compressing, look horrible on an HDTV. I think most people much prefer showing HD videos online rather than use a DVD.
I'm almost over the entire concept of hard media, and seeing many of the iDVDs I made in the early '00s now unplayable (as in they don't work anymore), they are a horrible backup plan too. But until Internet connected TVs have a decent marketshare I suppose there is a need for BDR support, and maybe Apple recognizes this. Otherwise I can't think why they'd care to make a next gen DVD video burning program.
What I found curious was that Apple was even considering improving it rather than merely support it for a bit longer. I mean who burns DVDs anymore when you can take HDish video with a phone. DVDs, especially after iMovie and iDVD finish transcoding and compressing, look horrible on an HDTV. I think most people much prefer showing HD videos online rather than use a DVD.
I'm almost over the entire concept of hard media, and seeing many of the iDVDs I made in the early '00s now unplayable (as in they don't work anymore), they are a horrible backup plan too. But until Internet connected TVs have a decent marketshare I suppose there is a need for BDR support, and maybe Apple recognizes this. Otherwise I can't think why they'd care to make a next gen DVD video burning program.
Here you go and Gigabyte's new H67 solution go up to 32GB also what is interesting most of the Sandy Bridge chipset can (should) handle up to 32GB RAM, but the issue being RAM ain't out yet for the boards to utilise this yet... Cost could also be an issue
Basically rule of thumb being if it has 4 DIMMs, support Sandy Bridge (H67 is a good start) it should in theory be able to support 24GB (but don't hold me to that).
IF these upgrades are announced Tuesday, do you think they will be available for shipment soon after? Also, how soon after an announcement like this do places like Amazon start carrying them? I am interested in purchasing ASAP but would like to avoid paying sales tax by purchasing from the Amazon.
Usually they will ship in 24 hours or in the worst case, in couple of days. Amazon should have them pretty soon after the refresh, less than a week.
Here you go and Gigabyte's new H67 solution go up to 32GB also what is interesting most of the Sandy Bridge chipset can (should) handle up to 32GB RAM, but the issue being RAM ain't out yet for the boards to utilise this yet... Cost could also be an issue
Basically rule of thumb being if it has 4 DIMMs, support Sandy Bridge (H67 is a good start) it should in theory be able to support 24GB (but don't hold me to that).
I was being really lazy there
. A quick look at ark.intel shows all LGA 1155 processors officially support 32GB of memory, in the form of four 8GB non-ECC DIMMs.As you say though, 8GB non-ECC UDIMMs aren't out. Intel don't list any as tested, Samsung, Hynix, Elpida and Micron have none available; even as specifications let alone customer samples. I'm wondering if it there isn't a market for them right now as it curious that there are 8GB DIMMs in the other 3 types - SODIMMs, ECC UDIMMs and ECC RDIMMs.
Can you please post a link to some of these spectacular sales numbers? Not saying it ain't so, but the articles I read say that, while BR is currently propping up DVD technology, it's kind of like being the most popular buggy whip. Please show me something that shows BR having a faster adoption rate than DVD did at this point, and that sales figures for BR are on the upswing.
Oh god, all of this was discussed at length in the 5000+ post "Blu-ray thread". Go read it and peruse through it. All the links/graphs are there.
I don't really care if you do or don't believe it.