Apple Announces iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, OS X Yosemite and More

Many outlets are reporting on Apple's iPad event today. Highlights include:

• Apple pay will launch Monday.
• WatchKit -- a way for developers to make apps for the Apple Watch will launch next month.
• iOS 8.1
• Messages, iTunes, and iWork updated and many more new features in OS X Yosemite.
• You can send and receive calls on your Mac if you have an iPhone with iOS 8 that's signed into the same FaceTime account.
• iPad Air 2: New camera, 10 hour battery life, 12x faster than the original iPad.
• iPad mini 3.
• iMac with Retina display.
• And a Mac mini update: Faster processors, Intel Iris graphics, and two Thunderbolt 2 ports.

Comments

Yosemite

[Anonymous Coward]

But Yosemite Sam wasn't a large cat.

Re:Yosemite

[Ackmo]

Yosemite Sam was the hootinst, tootinist, shootinist bobtail wildcat in the west!

Re:Yosemite

[bkmoore]

Yosemite Sam was an angry Hessian.

Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

a mac user and their money are soon parted.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

Re:Confucius say:

[MightyYar]

This has been my experience, too. They make good quality hardware, and you will save in the long run, even if they make an insane profit from you in the short term. I'm sure someone on here can point out similar quality PC hardware, but I find other manufacturers to be very uneven. For instance, I got my mother-in-law a high-end HP in 2004 and she is still using it. But some HP machines are absolute garbage.

Re:Confucius say:

[chispito]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

My XPS from 2006 is still with me, but the equivalent Macbook would have been far more expensive. What is your point?

Re:Confucius say:

[angel'o'sphere]

What is an XPS?
What is yoir point?

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

I spent $1,200 on my Black MacBook and got eight years of use ($150 per year). Prior to that, I spent $1,200 on a Dell laptop that gave me three years of use ($400 per year). Do the math.

Re:Confucius say:

[dugancent]

and my XPS fell apart (hinges failed and the body start cracking) while I'm still running my 2008 MacBook.

Who cares?

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You don't have any clue to what an XPS is? Not even using context?

Well, I can only hope you give your children up for adoption so at least the NURTURE side gives a fighting chance. >_>

Re:Confucius say:

[FatAlb3rt]

Your two data points have me convinced.

Re:Confucius say:

[ihtoit]

XPS is/was a high end Dell laptop specification and branding touted as being the ultimate in desktop replacements (also marketed with the Alienware badge). The series started in the Dimension line of desktop machines when the Pentium first hit the market (source: have owned a Dimension XPS P60 desktop (since scrapped) and an Inspiron XPS 8200 laptop (which I still use because it's got 2GB RAM and a 1600x1200 screen)). The trademark for the laptop line is a lit "XPS" logo running down the left and right sides of the lid in red or blue, on rare occasions in green (mine has the standard lid because I managed to break the XPS badge). On the show Stargate Atlantis, XPS laptops were rebadged with the fictional logo depicting them as "SGI" laptops (SGI have NEVER made a laptop) but for anyone who's ever owned an XPS, Inspiron or Latitude the chassis were pretty recognisable. The biggest selling point for me with the Latitude/Inspiron PPx chassis wasn't the XPS badge on the high end machines but the fact that they're pretty much completely modular. You can switch batteries, optical drives, hard drive caddies, internal cards, graphics processors etc, among almost the entire line from the lowliest PII/233 up to the P4/2.0 - knowing this because I've been doing it since 2002.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

Why? What's it worth now?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Confucius say:

[DoofusOfDeath]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

I'm glad it worked for you. But depending on where you're going with that statement, you might be committing the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.

Re:Confucius say:

[SuperBigGulp]

Maybe they are thinking X-ray photoelectron spectroscope?

There are only a few choices, and one seems more obvious than the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X...

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

The Texa WTF Fallacy?! Never heard of it. ;)

Re:Confucius say:

[Noah Haders]

On two different occasions I sold 5 year old MacBook on Craigslist for $500. I don't know what the expectation would be for an hp or whatever, but I was satisfied with this.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

I spent $1,200 on my Black MacBook and got eight years of use ($150 per year). Prior to that, I spent $1,200 on a Dell laptop that gave me three years of use ($400 per year). Do the math. This is known as a Return of Investment (ROI).

The current value of my Black MacBook with a busted CPU fan, a 32-bit CPU and unable to run current software is a paperweight in my dead tree inbox.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad it worked for you. But depending on where you're going with that statement, you might be committing the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy [wikipedia.org].

Not when Apple has been at the top of hardware reliability surveys for years.

Re:Confucius say:

[Iniamyen]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xps+compu...

Re:Confucius say:

[KingOfBLASH]

My XPS had the keys on the keyboard fall off, suspiciously close to the time the warranty ran out.

As always, YMMV.

Re:Confucius say:

[alen]

i have one too and it still kind of works. not any useful but works

to bad today's mac's are cheaper than comparable windows laptops

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, NO! Confucius say "learn to masturbate; come in handy".

Re:Confucius say:

[lister king of smeg]

I spent $1,200 on my Black MacBook and got eight years of use ($150 per year). Prior to that, I spent $1,200 on a Dell laptop that gave me three years of use ($400 per year). Do the math.

Yeah and I have had a Toshiba laptop last 5 years at 400. Thats 80 bucks a year. Both of our accounts a merely anecdotal though.

Re:Confucius say:

[Cutterman]

My Black MacBook is still working and I still use it.
(Ditto for my ancient Travelmate)
They weigh a ton though....

Bit envious of son's new MacBook :-(

The Cutter

Re:Confucius say:

[DogDude]

Spending lots of money on PC hardware is pretty silly, as far as I'm concerned. There's more refurbished/used hardware that one could shake a stick at and it's absurdly cheap. Buying expensive PC hardware is like buying really expensive disposable pens: It's a waste of money, usually.

Re:Confucius say:

[barc0001]

You bought a Dell laptop. Might as well have just taken that money out in ones and lit them on fire in your back yard. Would have been entertaining in a horrific way and at least you wouldn't have had any expectations crushed afterward. Dell makes OK servers and workstations, but their laptops are hit or miss to the point that we haven't bought them in years.

Buy a decent Lenovo or Asus laptop and you'll be far more satisfied.

Re:Confucius say:

[schlachter]

Do the math.

But you already did it!

Anyways, Apple products can be pricey, but if you want excellent quality and usability, nothing on the market offers the same value.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. A $400 dell is OK for a year, then slow after that.
Spend $1000 for a business class machine, it's good 3-5 years minimum.

Every time I think "Fuck this, I'm dropping Apple for Linux", I start pricing up a box the way I want it with a huge bus, good motherboard, high-end processor, and all the goodies, I'm at $1600+

Hardware matters the most. Cheap hardware is cheap.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

If you can't afford brand new Apple prices, check out the used Apple products at OWC.

Re:Confucius say:

[Hognoxious]

One, the phrase is "return ON investment".

Two, the calculation normally involves some element of revenue.

Re:Confucius say:

[schlachter]

Moreso, the frequent and free OS upgrades that keep it modern and well integrated with other devices add considerable value. As does the fact that you don't need to buy virus protection, or to have said protection drain your system resources, particularly important as the system ages. And when you finally sell it, you get some real money. Macs in their base configs are good value. Although memory and storage upgrades are not.

Re:Confucius say:

[MightyYar]

If the MTBA on a high-end PC is six years (though you can pick any number), and I buy a 3-year-old machine (again, pick any number), I've just doubled the time that I spend setting up a new machine. Honestly, I just don't enjoy that process anymore.

Re:Confucius say:

[x0ra]

Try running the latest Lightroom, Photoshop CC, and After Effect CC on that machine, editing raw DLSR files and 1080p video, and you will suffer. Most of my hardware update is at foremost due to more demanding software, rather than hardware failure per-se.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Exactly. A $400 dell is OK for a year, then slow after that.

My father used to get a new $400 Dell box every other year because the old Dell box would slow down from all the naughty bits he downloaded off the Internet. He refused to properly maintain his PC by defragging the hard drive and updating the AV scanner. Meanwhile, his old Dell box became my newest FreeNAS file server.

Re:Confucius say:

[thegarbz]

So is mine, except now with 4 times the RAM, a brand new battery, and a brand new SSD, all bought within the last 4 months.

How easy is it to replace a Mac battery 8 years on? Actually how easy is it to replace it 8 months on?

Re:Confucius say:

[thegarbz]

Did the math, my Dell laptop has outlived any Apple device I own. Plus I can still get replacement batteries and upgrade it with RAM and SSD at will without paying extortionate prices for the privilege of doing so.

Re:Confucius say:

[dargon]

Laptops, like most other hardware has it's quality rise and fall. One year Dell is good, the next year it's Asus, and so on and so on. I used to be a big fan of the Dell Latitude D630C laptop with a business class extended warranty, oops it fell out of the back of the truck and put a big crack in the LCD while i was unloading luggage at the airport, no problem sir, we'll get that fixed right away are there any other items on the laptop that are cracked / broken / missing screws, etc. Things change over time, a company that gives great support today, might be absolute shit in a years time due to budget cuts, etc.

Re:Confucius say:

[kthreadd]

Defragging the hard drive and updating the AV scanner? I thought that wasn't even necessary on Windows anymore.

Re:Confucius say:

[praxis]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

My XPS from 2006 is still with me, but the equivalent Macbook would have been far more expensive. What is your point?

Today that price difference is not nearly as much. Looking at (as best I could find, not exactly) comparable systems, a Dell 15" XPS laptop is $0.99 MORE than a MacBook Pro 15". The Dell has a touch-screen but the MacBook Pro has an SSD and other differences. Perhaps if you took more time than I just did to build as close a system as possible the Dell would be cheaper, but I didn't find that.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

The MacBook is still useful

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Plus I can still get replacement batteries and upgrade it with RAM and SSD at will without paying extortionate prices for the privilege of doing so.

For my 2006 Black MacBook, I maxed out the RAM to 2GB by using cheaper memory modules from Other World Computing (OWC). I popped in a OWC 120GB SSD for less than a $100 last year. Although Apple still charges $129 for replacement batteries, I can get them for $75 through OWC or $35 on eBay from China.

Re:Confucius say:

[gnasher719]

On two different occasions I sold 5 year old MacBook on Craigslist for $500. I don't know what the expectation would be for an hp or whatever, but I was satisfied with this.

While I congratulate you on that sale, I really don't get it. You can get a refurbished MacBook Air, 13", latest model, better in any way imaginable and as new, with a year warranty, for $849. Why does anyone pay $500 for a five year old Mac?

Re:Confucius say:

[gnasher719]

How easy is it to replace a Mac battery 8 years on? Actually how easy is it to replace it 8 months on?

Eight years on: You buy a battery, either from Apple or on eBay. You need a coin to unlock the battery and swap it out.

Eight months on: Doesn't matter how hard, because it will be under warranty.

A bit older: Very easy. You take your MacBook to the Apple Store, hand over your cash, and they put in a new battery.

Re:Confucius say:

[exomondo]

For my 2006 Black MacBook, I maxed out the RAM to 2GB by using cheaper memory modules from Other World Computing (OWC). I popped in a OWC 120GB SSD for less than a $100 last year. Although Apple still charges $129 for replacement batteries, I can get them for $75 through OWC or $35 on eBay from China.

Yeah that was back then, you can't do that anymore. The MacBook was replaced by the MacBook Air in which the battery and RAM are soldered-in components. Not sure if these new just-announced models have the SSD soldered in now.

Re:Confucius say:

[Noah Haders]

the low price trend started only recently. My 2009 15" MBP cost $1700 new.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh...

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

What is an XPS?

and what is a MacBook?

Re:Confucius say:

[Noah Haders]

Also in one case the guy really needed a 32 bit computer so he could run whatever critical PPC programs.

Re:Confucius say:

[kosmosik]

> For my 2006 Black MacBook, I maxed out...

The newest Mac OS X 2006 MacBook can run now is Lion (to be honest - you CAN run Mountain Lion but it involves hacking the install media, some voodoo with kexts etc. - I would not be sure about stability of such system). Which is now 3 releases old. Not a big deal if you really want to run it (simply put - you have no money for newer hardware) but it will certainly give you compability issues like recent versions of software not working at all. With PC laptops usually you can pop in recent-decent version of Windows even on much older hardware. It will run slowly (such as Lion on 2006 MacBook with 2Gs RAM) but it will run your software. With Mac you can't do that.

Re:Confucius say:

[kosmosik]

That is similar to what is going on with PC laptops. Basically MacBook Air is an ultrabook in PC nomenclature. PC ultrabooks also tend to be less upgradeable and serviceable than bigger laptops. For example compare Lenovo ThinkPad 430 and 430u (u - as in ultrabook). The slim design just forces use of smalled perhaps nonremovable parts. IMO all PC laptops that match MacBook Air size are also as unupgradeble and unserviceable as MacBook Air - it is not a marketing choice by Apple but the size imples it. Also what is new that you can't upgrade or service your phone or tablet - any brand. Get over it.

Re:Confucius say:

[Fwipp]

"Doubled" doesn't mean much, when it's one afternoon every three years.

Re:Confucius say:

[exomondo]

That is similar to what is going on with PC laptops.

So? We're talking about MacBooks, it was great that you could do it back then but now that those MacBooks have been replaced by the MacBook Air you can't do those things anymore which is a shame because it was so useful and you could keep an older system going for much longer before needing to upgrade.

Re: Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac users BUY more software... So developers make done money. That's why we have a Mac App Store and Windows don't.

Re:Confucius say:

[mjwx]

I spent $1,200 on my Black MacBook and got eight years of use ($150 per year). Prior to that, I spent $1,200 on a Dell laptop that gave me three years of use ($400 per year). Do the math.

If you dont need a computer, a Dell lasts as long as any Mac.

However if you've got real requirements for a computer (I.E. work or gaming) then a Macbook goes out of date faster than a Dell because the dell is both higher speced and upgradeable.

Re:Confucius say:

[Guest316]

My '92 Sun IPX is still running. And I think I paid about $20 for it.

Re:Confucius say:

[MightyYar]

Between going to hourly contracting and having kids, I value my time more than ever. That afternoon is worth several hundred dollars IMHO. I was very different as a young man.

Re: Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

2004 toshiba is in great shape. All plastic.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Lightroom 1.0 and Photoshop CS3 run great on my 2006 Black MacBook, which was current hardware when those software packages came out. If I run anything demanding, I set up a script and let it run overnight.

Re:Confucius say:

[x0ra]

You seem to miss the point. I want the latest software to speed up sorting/filtering/tagging/editing of a 250-to-multi-1000 shoot. And yes, I'm not a casual photographer.

Re:Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

An expensive paperweight, prone to GPU failure.

Re:Confucius say:

[Stuarticus]

So does his Dad.

Re:Confucius say:

[stealth_finger]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

You say that as if a regular laptop cant last that long. And I bet you paid more for that than you would of an equivalent specs windows based machine.

Re:Confucius say:

[jma05]

What stopped you from using your Dell after 3 years? Did it break? Did Dell refuse to fix it?

Re:Confucius say:

[stealth_finger]

Do the math.

But you already did it!

Anyways, Apple products can be pricey, but if you want excellent quality and usability, nothing on the market offers the same value.

Quality, fair enough. Usability is entirely subjective. For me using the mac at work is an exercise in frustration. Does look nice though.

Re:Confucius say:

[stealth_finger]

Considering that my Black MacBook (2006) lasted eight years, it was a good investment.

My XPS from 2006 is still with me, but the equivalent Macbook would have been far more expensive. What is your point?

Today that price difference is not nearly as much. Looking at (as best I could find, not exactly) comparable systems, a Dell 15" XPS laptop is $0.99 MORE than a MacBook Pro 15". The Dell has a touch-screen but the MacBook Pro has an SSD and other differences. Perhaps if you took more time than I just did to build as close a system as possible the Dell would be cheaper, but I didn't find that.

You can bet dell but an extra chunk of cost on just because apple showed them people will pay that much and apple overcharge because they know most people who buy one want the badge more than any actual feature of the machine.

Re:Confucius say:

[Whatchamacallit]

I have a customer with a MacPro (PowerPC). He can't upgrade the OS anymore since the Intel switch but its working still and is as fast as ever. The machine is 12 years old and still humming along. Sure he spent a lot of money on it but he's gotten his money's worth! In the past he would buy cheapo systems such as those retail discount PC's that are practically obsolete and cut a lot of corners to keep the price down. They would slow down to a crawl in a year, get infected with gobs of malware and then the hardware would fail and he'd buy a new one. The money he spent on all his previous computers exceeds what he spent on one Mac Pro and the life of the Mac Pro exceeded all the old systems. So in the long run he's saved a lot of money. This guy is very cheap, he's complaining about having to upgrade even after 12 years. I tried to explain that the system is way too old and its time to consider an upgrade. But he'll run this thing till it goes snap crackle pop and the magic blue smoke pours out. He's also had two hard disk failures but Time Machine saved his bacon. Within 2-3 hours he was up and running like nothing happened each time. That includes the drive time to Best Buy to pickup a new hard disk! When the MacPro finally bites the dust, he'll likely get an iMac as they have come a long long way from what they were 12 years ago. Also he saved countless hours of tech support and many dollars on AV upgrades and subscriptions. Sure he's got a few questions now and then but it's not really a problem. I just spoke with him last night and his problem was that Comcast was bouncing up and down including his TV service. No problems with the Mac.

Re:Confucius say:

[tibit]

Why would I care? :)

Re:Confucius say:

[AmiMoJo]

Apple hardware is uneven too. The first generation products are kind of notorious, but even more mature ones regularly have issues. Overheating CPUs, ghosting on LCDs, failing logic boards, failing charger boards, failing optical drives, failing nVidia chipsets, failing batteries etc. Not that Apple is particularly bad or anything, other high end manufacturers have the same issues.

I'd say proper Thinkpads (not the Lenovo consumer stuff) and Panasonic Let's Note (Toughbook in some markets) are just as reliable, and definitely more repairable. I have found NEC business laptops to be extremely robust too.

HP are awful, not least because they were one of nVidia's biggest customers so were hit the hardest by chipset failures that happened around the 18 month mark. Fortunately in the EU that's still in warranty.

Re: Confucius say:

[KenHansen]

Uh, you just did the math - why should I duplicate your effort?

Re:Confucius say:

[MightyYar]

I actually agree on the "old style" Thinkpads, but recent models look more and more like Lenovo's other stuff so I don't know how confidant I am. We all have Thinkpads at work and even the last generation was uneven, with the cheaper models acting... well, cheap. The old-school stuff was very high-quality.

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Why would I run Lion when Snow Leopard was the most rock stable version of OS X ever released?

Re:Confucius say:

[__aaclcg7560]

Cracked screen. Out of warranty. I didn't know much about laptops as I do now. Getting a replacement screen on eBay may have been a possibility.

Re:Confucius say:

[EmeraldBot]

I spent $1,200 on my Black MacBook and got eight years of use ($150 per year). Prior to that, I spent $1,200 on a Dell laptop that gave me three years of use ($400 per year). Do the math.

What is this, an Atari commercial?

Re: Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Anecdotal : Japanese cap issue with $1000 motherboard replacement cost.
Ipod nano easily broken screen. Ipod nano battery defect causing free swap out.

The class action lawsuits are endless.

But same for any large company selling millions of widgets. But don't make it out like they always have amazing design and build quality, they fuck up often and have the best PR.

Re: Confucius say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't have to be money gained, but material gain over that time. Ie, entertainment and productivity. Can still be measured as a return on investment. No?

Thunderbolt

[Anonymous Coward]

Good God, y'all, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing

Re:Thunderbolt

[guytoronto]

Just because you don't understand what it's good for, doesn't mean it is important to others.

Re:Thunderbolt

[danbob999]

Thunderbolt is useful for a niche market. Just like firewire, it won't last long. Too expensive.

Re:Thunderbolt

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand why some would like it but it could definitely be improved upon.

Hey Thunderbolt, the 80's called, they want their daisy-chain back.

Re:Thunderbolt

[sexconker]

Just because you don't understand what it's good for, doesn't mean it is important to others.

It's a bigger flop than firewire, which had a few niche uses.
Thunderbolt is nothing more than external PCIe with a yet another "one protocol to rule them all" wrapper.
We've had eternal PCIe for over a decade. We don't use it outside of pro workstations with external FirePro / Quadro shit.

They key selling point of Thunderbolt is "OMG it's so fast!". Yet the only practical uses for that speed for 99.99% of people are already served by other shit (DisplayPort, Ethernet, etc.). For regular use, USB 3.x will dominate the market, even if they're being completed retarded and still changing the connectors. For uses where you really do need speed, you connect to PCIe directly anyway.

As bad as USB 1-2 / 3 / 3.1 / otg / mini / micro / a / b / c is, Thunderbolt is worse because of the cost of the cables and controllers compounds with the fact that any port can be a thunderbolt port, so you'll need an adapter to go from that USB port that's actually a thunderbolt port on your Sony laptop to your thunderbolt cable to your thunderbolt device.
Passing ethernet, video and USB over a single cable may look nice, but it's not worth the cost and it serves very little purpose. Daisy chaining can be done via DisplayPort, if you really want. HDMI can carry Ethernet for some reason, and DisplayPort can carry USB (data and the higher-power charging shit).

Nothing about Thunderbolt is novel or particularly useful. Being connected straight to PCIe the way Thunderbolt is is wildly insecure, to boot.

Re:Thunderbolt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like firewire isn't used in most video cameras still.

Thunderbolt is just 25x faster.

Re:Thunderbolt

[NatasRevol]

niche uses like most all video cameras.

Just because you don't understand the actual use, doesn't mean it's not useful to transfer data at 20Gbps.

Re:Thunderbolt

[Anonymous Coward]

Thunderbolt networking requires a $30 cable to achieve 10Gb ethernet connectivity without spending several hundred/thousand dollars on switches, HBAs and cabling.

Re:Thunderbolt

[aristotle-dude]

I can understand why some would like it but it could definitely be improved upon.

Hey Thunderbolt, the 80's called, they want their daisy-chain back.

Hey PC user, the 90's called, they want their boring large beige boxes back.

Re:Thunderbolt

[sexconker]

A $30 cable, expensive Thunderbolt chipset, expensive peripherals, and you won't be getting actual 10 Gbps full duplex Ethernet through Thunderbolt, nor will it work a damn without an actual 10 Gbps Ethernet controller somewhere in the system.
Keep on keepin' on, though.

Re:Thunderbolt

[sexconker]

niche uses like most all video cameras.

Just because you don't understand the actual use, doesn't mean it's not useful to transfer data at 20Gbps.

I understand the use. "Most all video cameras" don't fucking have Thunderbolt. "Most all video cameras" can't fucking sustain that bandwidth out.

For any professional gear, DisplayPort 1.2/1.2a/1.3 is the better choice. 17.28 Gbps of bandwidth as of the end of 2009, 25.92 Gbps as of now. Yes, it supports daisy chaining.
So fuck right on off with telling me what I don't fucking understand.

Re:Thunderbolt

[exomondo]

What does that even mean?

Re:Thunderbolt

[Plumpaquatsch]

A $30 cable, expensive Thunderbolt chipset, expensive peripherals, and you won't be getting actual 10 Gbps full duplex Ethernet through Thunderbolt, nor will it work a damn without an actual 10 Gbps Ethernet controller somewhere in the system. Keep on keepin' on, though.

Does being stupid come with being an Apple-Hater, or did you pay extra? http://www.macworld.com/articl...

Re:Thunderbolt

[stealth_finger]

Yeah, like firewire isn't used in most video cameras still.

Thunderbolt is just 25x faster.

What else is it used in? Exactly, niche.

Re:Thunderbolt

[stealth_finger]

What does that even mean?

That to mac users form>function.

Re:Thunderbolt

[stealth_finger]

niche uses like most all video cameras.

Just because you don't understand the actual use, doesn't mean it's not useful to transfer data at 20Gbps.

Niche uses like 1 product type. I say that's pretty niche. Practically every keyboard (musical) has a MIDI port, but I doubt you'd argue that's not niche.

Re:Thunderbolt

[tibit]

Thunderbolt lets you do things that were never possible with firewire, even if we ignore the speed disparity. You can, for example, attach a card cage with PCIe (and PCI) slots for whatever specialized hardware you need. Then you hook this up to your laptop. Before thunderbolt, you had to have a laptop with expressCard slots, and use expensive (think $1k for one card bay for good brand name products), bulky, finicky and rather short range PCIe extender solutions. This wasn't possible at all with FireWire.

Re:Thunderbolt

[tibit]

First of all, Firewire was never able to transfer arbitrary PCI traffic, thus you couldn't use it to attach external PCI/PCIe devices to your portable device. When PCIe "extender" solutions became available, they were expensive and bulky. The connectors were huge, and the cable thick, and sometimes it would just refuse to work in a particular setup. Thunderbolt provides this kind of functionality on a manageable, off-the-shelf interconnect that you can buy in nearby Walmart. A brand name thunderbolt single x16 PCIe card cage runs about $500, and you can buy off-brand ones for half that. This lets you pull off stunts like adding two graphics cards to your laptop. I'd say calling it a "bigger flop than firewire" is borderline trolling.

Connecting "directly" to PCIe for expansion/extension purposes is setting the clock 10 years back - if you have any PCIe to attach to begin with. Fewer and fewer laptops have expressCard slots, and some high end laptops rightfully (IMHO) got rid of them. I don't really miss expressCard on MacBooks. Thunderbolt is much easier to deal with.

Re:Thunderbolt

[tibit]

A buddy of mine is evaluating a design of a small 32 node HPC cluster with nothing but thunderbolt as point-to-point interconnect. So far the results are very positive, and it's a huge bang for the buck. I don't think you quite know what you're talking about, because the presence of an ethernet controller "somewhere in the system" would be immaterial.

Re:Thunderbolt

[danbob999]

Except that in practice nobody does that, and if someone does, it will never get mainstream. It could be useful to attach a high end graphic card to a laptop, but: 1. such a case would be very expensive and bulky (power supply) 2. bandwidth is still too slow for high end graphic cards There was nothing wrong with express card. You could get a cellular modem, wifi, ethernet, usb2, sound card, eSATA card in that format. It was cheap and covered pretty much every use case except, again, graphic cards, for the same bandwidth reason. What killed it is that laptops had pretty much all these functions built-in so there was no need for external cards. Plus laptops keep getting smaller so that slot unused by 99% of us had to go. In practice the main selling advantage of Thunderbolt is that you save one cable (against using DVI/HDMI/DP + USB3) to connect a monitor.

Re:Thunderbolt

[sexconker]

A $30 cable, expensive Thunderbolt chipset, expensive peripherals, and you won't be getting actual 10 Gbps full duplex Ethernet through Thunderbolt, nor will it work a damn without an actual 10 Gbps Ethernet controller somewhere in the system.
Keep on keepin' on, though.

Does being stupid come with being an Apple-Hater, or did you pay extra? http://www.macworld.com/articl...

Having a fucking brain necessitates being a Mac hater. If you think you're getting anything near the capabilities for full duplex 10 Gbps Ethernet over Thunderbolt without a true 10 Gbps Ethernet controller in the system, you're a damned fool. If you do have a 10 Gbps Ethernet controller in the system, just use it directly.

Re:Thunderbolt

[sexconker]

First of all, Firewire was never able to transfer arbitrary PCI traffic, thus you couldn't use it to attach external PCI/PCIe devices to your portable device. When PCIe "extender" solutions became available, they were expensive and bulky. The connectors were huge, and the cable thick, and sometimes it would just refuse to work in a particular setup. Thunderbolt provides this kind of functionality on a manageable, off-the-shelf interconnect that you can buy in nearby Walmart. A brand name thunderbolt single x16 PCIe card cage runs about $500, and you can buy off-brand ones for half that. This lets you pull off stunts like adding two graphics cards to your laptop. I'd say calling it a "bigger flop than firewire" is borderline trolling.

Connecting "directly" to PCIe for expansion/extension purposes is setting the clock 10 years back - if you have any PCIe to attach to begin with. Fewer and fewer laptops have expressCard slots, and some high end laptops rightfully (IMHO) got rid of them. I don't really miss expressCard on MacBooks. Thunderbolt is much easier to deal with.

Compare the adoption rate of firewire vs the adoption rate of Thunderbolt across peripherals.
Firewire was much more successful, and had an actual use at the time - it was much faster than USB when USB was a bottleneck for common uses.
Thunderbolt is faster than USB, but USB 3 and USB 3.1 are not bottlenecks for common uses. For high-demand uses, you should be using something like DisplayPort or PCIe, both of which are faster and cheaper (from controller to cable to licensing) than Thunderbolt.

I don't think you understand how Thunderbolt works - it's a controller that attaches directly to PCIe and then wraps some protocol shit around it so it can shunt USB, Ethernet, etc. over a single pipe. I would prefer to go over PCIe without Thunderbolt every single time.

Re:Thunderbolt

[Plumpaquatsch]

A $30 cable, expensive Thunderbolt chipset, expensive peripherals, and you won't be getting actual 10 Gbps full duplex Ethernet through Thunderbolt, nor will it work a damn without an actual 10 Gbps Ethernet controller somewhere in the system. Keep on keepin' on, though.

Does being stupid come with being an Apple-Hater, or did you pay extra? http://www.macworld.com/articl...

Having a NO fucking brain necessitates being a Mac hater. If you think you're getting anything near the capabilities for full duplex 10 Gbps Ethernet over Thunderbolt without a true 10 Gbps Ethernet controller in the system, you're a damned fool. If you do have a 10 Gbps Ethernet controller in the system, just use it directly.

FTFY, and you just proved it. And you will never be able to tell, because you are so fucking stupid.

Re:Thunderbolt

[tibit]

Thankfully, it acts as a PCIe bridge, too :)

Re:Thunderbolt

[tibit]

Graphics cards really need bandwidth only for texture uploads, and if you're shuttling images between the CPU and the GPU. For many high-performance games, the bandwidth requirement for the CPU-GPU links is rather models.

Maybe a Mini

[kannibal_klown]

I've been thinking about giving the OSX another try... I've been messing around with it at work.

The mini wouldn't be a bad way to go... it's not that expensive and I can still use my 27" monitor.

The iMac Retina... no. Besides not wanting to spend that much now, I'd hold off on a first generation rig like that.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[OzPeter]

I've been thinking about giving the OSX another try... I've been messing around with it at work.

The mini wouldn't be a bad way to go... it's not that expensive and I can still use my 27" monitor.

Aside from the Mac Pro, the Mini was the only Mac that you could easily change the hard drive and memory yourself. I just had a quick look at the specs of the new mini and I can't tell if you can still do that.

I'm worried that the mini may go the way of the iMacs and head into being a totally sealed/pre-configured device and have no user changeable parts.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[jones_supa]

The mini wouldn't be a bad way to go... it's not that expensive and I can still use my 27" monitor.

Was thinking the same. The good specs and lower price make the new Mini quite attractive desktop.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

Aside from the Mac Pro, the Mini was the only Mac that you could easily change the hard drive and memory yourself. I just had a quick look at the specs of the new mini and I can't tell if you can still do that.

Memory, yes. But changing the hard disk was not a task for ordinary mortals. (Been there, done that.)

What concerns me is the lack of any mention of dual-drive configurations. If I can't mirror the boot drive, then it just became much less useful as a small server.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than phones/tablets, they always mention on their store if the memory can't be upgraded later. The new mini doesn't have that warning. They're not as clear about the hard drive. Anyway, the new mini looks okay, which makes it the only Mac I'll consider until my 17" MB Pro bites the dust. (Their current laptops: smaller displays, no matte screen option, no optical drive option, smaller hard drive -- where do I sign up? Fuckin' A. They need a new MB Pro line for actual professionals.)

Re:Maybe a Mini

[drinkypoo]

I look forward being able to buy a used new mini for running linux :p

Re:Maybe a Mini

[NatasRevol]

6 screws & a paint scraper. Follow the step by step. Isn't very hard.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[rgbscan]

Didn't even need the paint scraper if you had a kitchen spatula :-)

I even did the dual deck CD to SSD upgrade with the special tray on my '09 mini.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[zugmeister]

Well, depending on your application (and I'm assuming here it's not too demanding if you're using a mini as a server), you could always stick an external HDD and schedule Carbon Copy Cloner to dupe the boot drive over every now and then and the data portion rather more often. That'll give you a bootable volume in case of primary failure. It's not a raid 1 but for home or small office purposes it would probably do the trick just fine.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[LDAPMAN]

It has Thunderbolt. Attach as many drives as you like.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[spoot]

The newer unibody models don't need a paint scraper/spatula. The chassis slides out. There is a "special" apple tool for service providers to slide it out, but it can be done by mere mortals. And there is a second hard drive kit available.

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/I...

Re:Maybe a Mini

[aristotle-dude]

The iMac Retina... no. Besides not wanting to spend that much now, I'd hold off on a first generation rig like that.

Rig? Are you in the wrong forum? We are not talking about trucks here. Oh, wait, you want to try to make your gaming/facekbooking/drawing computer sound tough and industrial? Is that like how slashdotter like to call their tech jobs their "trade"? Sorry but the software industry is not a "trade". We are not blue collar but rather white collar and we do not earn a "wage" but rather a salary.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[tlhIngan]

I'm worried that the mini may go the way of the iMacs and head into being a totally sealed/pre-configured device and have no user changeable parts.

The mini started out that way, though now the unibody ones have a huge rubber root that can be twisted to remove it and exposing the RAM and innards. RAM swap is easy. hard drive swap requires a bit of work but the /. crowd should have the requisite skill to do it (

About the most "proprietary" part is the PCIe SSD, but it has a SATA port too for regular spinny hard drives or SATA SSDs.

Anyhow, the easiest way is to wait a couple of days and iFixit will have their teardowns.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

It has Thunderbolt. Attach as many drives as you like.

Yeah, but ZFS with 2-disk parity does me no good for the system disk, since OS X will not boot from it. (And proprietary hardware "RAID-in-a-box" is something that I will not accept anymore.)

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

Well, depending on your application (and I'm assuming here it's not too demanding if you're using a mini as a server), you could always stick an external HDD and schedule Carbon Copy Cloner to dupe the boot drive over every now and then and the data portion rather more often. That'll give you a bootable volume in case of primary failure. It's not a raid 1 but for home or small office purposes it would probably do the trick just fine.

The load is not demanding, but RAID-1 (at least) on the boot device is required, because it's remotely managed, so the "warm standby" approach is not acceptable for the boot disk.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[GlobalEcho]

They kept the Ethernet port on the back also, which keeps me happy. I don't want to buy another TB-to-Ethernet adaptor!

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward being able to buy a used new mini for running linux :p

It's almost as if getting something to run Linux is such a challenge that that is what people want to accomplish with any new hardware. It's never "will it run Linux so I can do xyz", it's just "will it run Linux".

I could understand if there were something that a Mac Mini + Linux could do that no other setup could but the endgame (like with any of the "but can it run Linux" products) is always just the OS. The OS is a means to an end except when it comes to running Linux where in most cases that is the end.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Jarik C-Bol]

No, changing the fan in a 2007 macbook is not a task for ordinary mortals. I actually used up a screw driver on that project. USED UP A SCREWDRIVER.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[snsh]

The $499 version is bait and switch. Upgrade to an i7-4610M with 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD, and the price hits to $1399..

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Known Nutter]

"Bait and switch" -- I do not think it means what you think it means...

Re:Maybe a Mini

[NoMaster]

No, changing the fan in a 2007 macbook is not a task for ordinary mortals. I actually used up a screw driver on that project. USED UP A SCREWDRIVER.

What, was it made of chocolate or something?

I've done the fan in my 2007 Macbook a couple of times (what can I say? It gets a lot of field - as in "standing in the middle of a ..." - use). It's not much harder than:

• Remove a lot of tiny screws, unplug the keyboard
• Peel back the foam and foil, unplug the fan
• Plug in the new fan, stick the foam and foil back
• Plug in the keyboard, put back a lot of tiny screws

The only other way I could think you'd "use up a screwdriver" is if you needed to down a couple of vodka and oranges to face the horror of all the tiny screws...

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

I'm worried that the mini may go the way of the iMacs and head into being a totally sealed/pre-configured device and have no user changeable parts.

What? The iMac is anything but sealed.

True, you aren't going to find a dozen choices for a replacement mobo on the shelf at Fry's (anymore than you would for, say a Dell or HP AllInOne); but there are at least some commodity, replaceable parts in an iMac.

And as far as accessibility for repair being a bit tedious, again, I refer to other AIO designs. I would hazard a guess that changing a bad Power Supply in ANY AIO would be a painful experience. But it can be done.

So, "no user changeable parts" is simply hyperbole.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

Aside from the Mac Pro, the Mini was the only Mac that you could easily change the hard drive and memory yourself. I just had a quick look at the specs of the new mini and I can't tell if you can still do that.

Memory, yes. But changing the hard disk was not a task for ordinary mortals. (Been there, done that.)

What concerns me is the lack of any mention of dual-drive configurations. If I can't mirror the boot drive, then it just became much less useful as a small server.

I admit I couldn't find a dual drive configuration, either; but I would bet that Apple sold next to none of those before, or else they wouldn't have killed it.

But wouldn't a TB or even USB 3.0 HD be fast enough for mirroring these days? I mean, I doubt you'd be running an airline reservation or stock-brokerage on it; so what's a few milliseconds between friends?

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

It has Thunderbolt. Attach as many drives as you like.

Yeah, but ZFS with 2-disk parity does me no good for the system disk, since OS X will not boot from it. (And proprietary hardware "RAID-in-a-box" is something that I will not accept anymore.)

I'm wholeheartedly with you on the consumer-grade NAS RAIDs, been there, painstakingly recovered that...

But I thought that ZFS won't boot on any system. And that Apple was done with its fling with ZFS. Did I miss the memo?

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

The mini wouldn't be a bad way to go... it's not that expensive and I can still use my 27" monitor.

Was thinking the same. The good specs and lower price make the new Mini quite attractive desktop.

Speaking of specs, does anyone know why there is no i7 configuration, or did I miss a BTO option?

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Blaskowicz]

FreeBSD 10.0 will boot on ZFS, after an easy installation where you do shit on the command line but it's very easy due to the documentation. No idea about doing it on a Macintosh though. That was just a quick try in a vbox VM.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[drinkypoo]

I look forward being able to buy a used new mini for running linux :p

It's almost as if getting something to run Linux is such a challenge that that is what people want to accomplish with any new hardware. It's never "will it run Linux so I can do xyz", it's just "will it run Linux".

Your reading comprehension skills are as poor as your grasp of the situation.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Jarik C-Bol]

The horror of all the tiny screws was, that wile tightening the very last one down, the blades on the head of the only size 000 philips driver i had actually sheered off on the last turn. Lessons learned? 1 apple uses very durable screws, 2 whoever made that screwdriver used crappy metal, and 3, holy shit, i'm glad that didn't happen five screws earlier. Thus, the screw driver was used up.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[tibit]

I don't think there's anything particularly 1st gen about retina iMac. It's just an iMac with a higher-resolution screen. I'm sure some enterprisey folk will start "backporting" those screens to older iMacs in a few years as the used-screen supply gets going on eBay.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[BasilBrush]

Good luck with that. Macs don't depreciate much.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

But I thought that ZFS won't boot on any system. And that Apple was done with its fling with ZFS. Did I miss the memo?

Solaris (and its open-source derivatives) would always boot from it. FreeBSD and Linux now boot from it, after a bit of configuration voodoo.

The memo you missed is that after some fracturing among the various open versions, they got together and formed the OpenZFS group, which does some sharing of plans and code as updates are made. Since that time, the open-source versions have matured from promising curiosities into really great implementations. The older open-source version for OS X has died, and been replaced by a derivative of the Linux version, which is a strong piece of work.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

But wouldn't a TB or even USB 3.0 HD be fast enough for mirroring these days? I mean, I doubt you'd be running an airline reservation or stock-brokerage on it; so what's a few milliseconds between friends?

USB 3 is faster than any single disk drive you can buy anyway, so yes it would fast enough. Just offensively less elegant ;-)

(I've tested throughput on an older mini's USB 3, and it is actually true that in USB 3 there's significantly less protocol overhead, so it is actually faster than 10x USB 2, very different than the USB 1.1 to USB 2 change.)

Re:Maybe a Mini

[drinkypoo]

Good luck with that. Macs don't depreciate much.

They don't depreciate much until they depreciate completely and they get more or less given away. I can wait.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[AmiMoJo]

Anything that can't be opened with common screwdrivers and fingernails is an automatic fail in my book. Glue, difficult to pry open clips and the like are indications of either bad design or a customer-hostile manufacturer. Aside from anything else, it tends to void your warranty.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

FreeBSD 10.0 will boot on ZFS, after an easy installation where you do shit on the command line but it's very easy due to the documentation. No idea about doing it on a Macintosh though. That was just a quick try in a vbox VM.

Thanks for the info!

Well, at least a few ZFS (albeit non-bootable?) versions that work at least up to Mavericks (10.9) seem to be alive and well on OS X, as seen here and here. And here is an informative forum thread from someone who has been using ZFS as his primary filesystem on OS X for over 2 years.

However, to answer the GGP's concerns about not supporting ZFS on a boot drive: If you are truly running a "Server"-type of setup, why, oh, why would you be keeping your main data stores on the System (boot) Drive, anyway? And once you are past that point, then it seems like ZFS is pretty much as "supported" on OS X as it is on most *NIX-based systems. That is to say, to a somewhat greater or lesser extent, depending on your needs/expectations.

But if does seem like ZFS on OS X is anything but a "dead" issue, at least as far as the F/OSS community is concerned. Yes, it would be very nice for Apple to take another look at full-support of ZFS, now that it has matured. Let's hope they get serious about it again someday...

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

The memo you missed is that after some fracturing among the various open versions, they got together and formed the OpenZFS group, which does some sharing of plans and code as updates are made. Since that time, the open-source versions have matured from promising curiosities into really great implementations. The older open-source version for OS X has died, and been replaced by a derivative of the Linux version, which is a strong piece of work.

You're right, of course.

When I looked into ZFS on OS X as a way to do an ultra-fault-tolerant RAID for a friend's massive media collection (after I painstakingly recovered the data on his Buffalo RAID, as per my original post), the state of the state wasn't very promising, and so I ultimately punted on the idea. But it most certainly looks like the situation has MUCH improved, thanks in large part to the efforts of the OpenZFS Group.

Maybe now Apple will come around and take another look at full-support of ZFS, like what was going to happen in Snow Leopard Server, before Apple got cold feet.

Fortunately, Apple tends to listen to its Userbase pretty well, and there appears to be renewed interest among Users for full-on ZFS Support in OS X. At least we can hope...

At least OpenZFS is now compatible with the newly-released OS X 10.10 (Yosemite).

Re:Maybe a Mini

[sribe]

When I looked into ZFS on OS X as a way to do an ultra-fault-tolerant RAID...

Yep. Like you I had looked at it some time ago, and passed on it as not yet ready for prime time. Just this summer took another look when I outgrew my Synology NAS, and discovered things had much improved. Bought an inexpensive 10-bay dumb eSATA box, hooked it up to an unused PC, installed CentOS + ZFS, and am happy with the result.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[Teckla]

The mini wouldn't be a bad way to go... it's not that expensive and I can still use my 27" monitor.

The Mac mini looks interesting to me as well, to replace an older iMac.

However, I do think 4 GB of RAM is insufficient for all but the most basic usage (web browser plus one other application running). Apple really needs to upgrade their entry level RAM to 6 GB or 8 GB.

Ditto with the storage on their iOS devices. 16 GB doesn't cut it anymore. 32 GB of storage should be the entry level these days.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[arvindsg]

I do not think it means what you think it means...

I think it does not say what you meant to say

Re:Maybe a Mini

[kannibal_klown]

There is a meager i7 option when "Built to order"

BUT!!!! No Quad Core i7. Still just a dual core.

That, combined with the soldered RAM has a bunch of people upset.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[kannibal_klown]

Supposedly the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard. I've heard mix-messages, but the Apple person on CHAT confirmed it. However he could be wrong too.

I guess we'll find out soon.

If it is soldered, that is a sad day indeed.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

There is a meager i7 option when "Built to order"

BUT!!!! No Quad Core i7. Still just a dual core.

That, combined with the soldered RAM has a bunch of people upset.

IIRC, there has never been a quad in the 'mini. Heat dissipation issues.

Re:Maybe a Mini

[macs4all]

Supposedly the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard. I've heard mix-messages, but the Apple person on CHAT confirmed it. However he could be wrong too.

I guess we'll find out soon.

If it is soldered, that is a sad day indeed.

Soldered. From the Apple Store page for the 'mini: "Memory This Mac mini comes standard with 8GB of 1600MHz LPDDR3 memory. Please note that the memory is built into the computer, so if you think you may need more memory in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase."

18 percent thinner than the first iPad Air

[Anonymous Coward]

but what happens when i put it in my pocket??

Re:18 percent thinner than the first iPad Air

[Anonymous Coward]

Says so in the name: It becomes air.

The iOSification continues!

[Kethinov]

For those of you who are a fan of customizing the colors of message bubbles in Messages.app and don't like that Apple removed this ability as part of the iOSification of Yosemite, there's an app for that: https://github.com/kethinov/Bu...

I made this during the developer previews because I don't like the default puke green for most of my IM conversations. Hope this helps some people. Source code also available.

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Noah Haders]

You should make friends with more mac/iOS users so those bubbles start turning from green to blue

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Kethinov]

What if I want them to be purple! ;)

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Noah Haders]

A q: do you change colors to add more info, eg label friends green and frenemies red, or for aesthetic purposes? Either is valid.

Re:The iOSification continues!

[MildlyTangy]

I made this during the developer previews because I don't like the default puke green for most of my IM conversations.

Please heed my advice, your life literally depends on it!!

If your puke is that shade of green, you need to get yourself to a hospital right NOW. You may have a life threatening condition and need to seek expert medical advice ASAP.

Please, do yourself and your family a favour and get yourself checked out. No puke should EVER be that colour, now quit reading this and get yourself to a hospital QUICKLY!!

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Jarik C-Bol]

I'm still doggedly using a customized "grays on white" theme for Adium, and never switching to Messages.

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Jarik C-Bol]

No, he's fine, he just drinks WAY to much lime Gatorade.

Re:The iOSification continues!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want purple friends?
And BTW, I've puked many times and not once was it the color of of an iMessage bubble.

Re:The iOSification continues!

[BasilBrush]

Pointless customisation.

Secrecy

[lyran74]

As great as these advances are, perhaps the biggest news is what wasn't announced. Tim has made lots of hints this year about products in the pipeline not hinted at in the rumour mills, then teased us again today about "tripling down" on secrecy. Making Stephen Colbert their chief of secrecy is a pretty strong hint it's TV-related.

Yawn

[vux984]

A big bunch of nothing exciting.

Oooo... an ipad 12x faster than the "original ipad" ... gee... what kind of bullshit marketing is that? Maybe Intel should do that, the recent i7 4770K wasn't impressively faster than the 3770K... maybe they should have compared it to the original Pentium D or something.

Oooo... an imac with a retina display... only reason its even theoretically interesting is that thanks to there being no way to buy a half decent desktop mac without buying that ridiculous tube is to get stuck with their lousy all-in-one form factor.

I'm not especially anti-apple, but this isn't really news. Oh, look, Dell announced an new 13" XPS laptop, and $20 off on Inspirons under $500 ... we should put that on the front page too.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an iMac where the entire screen is the mouse pad? Nah, touch screens are useless. Carry on.

Re:Yawn

[Lawrence_Bird]

"an ipad 12x faster than the "original ipad"

faster doing ... what?

At least the Google 9 was mildly interesting if for no other reason than its been a few years since the 10 came out. Apple seems to be on a 6 to 12m hamster wheel of speedbump upgrades. Yawn indeed.

Re:Yawn

[ihtoit]

would that be a fair comparison, a quad 3.9 with a FSB running well over 1GHz against something with a 400MHZ FSB and only two cores?

(I don't know what the original iPad had in it nor do I know what the new one has, but I suppose you could extend my argument to cover that as well. Is it 12x faster for having twice the core running at three to four times the core speed, or is there some strange benchmark going on here that takes advantage of some extended instruction that the older chip doesn't have? It can only be one or the other or both; in either case, you can't make a fair comparison unless you're running exactly the same benchmark on exactly the same platform (right down to the kernel) which I'm pretty damn sure isn't happening here).

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's news. These minor bump will outsell all the other manufactures combined. The fans will replace perfectly decent gear with these just to have the latest, pure version lust.

Name any other company that has this power year on year.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the way Apple works. The claim is that the user experience is 12x faster, which probably means something like "a reference app that combines UI, math, etc can do 12x as much work in the same time."

It's not a fair comparison. Kernels change. Microcode changes. Bus bandwidth and instruction sets change. But people who use computers to do stuff care about the sum of all that, and don't care at all that the 12x improvement is achieved in part with optimized instruction sets and improved kernels.

Re:Yawn

[vux984]

The point is that its 12x faster than an ipad 1. That's several generations ago, and pretty much obsolete.

When a new Porsche 911 comes out, the interesting question for buyers is how it compares to last years 911, not the original one from 1963.

Re:Yawn

[Ronin Developer]

I have to assume you and the original poster didn't watch the keynote.

The main processor is 12x faster than the original iPad (which, I still own and use). Graphics are 140x faster with the new graphics processor.

However, what the original poster DIDN'T say is gain in 2x+ performance over last year's iPad Air and the drop in pricing for comparable versions. The demonstrated photo processing apps were seemless. They also didn't indicate whether the new devices have more RAM or not. 1 GB has worked well. But, there were rumors of 2 GB.

No NFC either. Apple Pay is for "internet" purchases and not POS.

Nothing stood out to me as a "gotta have" this time around. While the iMac Retina has been improved and the screen is amazing, my 2009 iMac still works great (thought, I might replace the HD with an SSD). My iPad still works but pisses me from time to time when trying to load a web page that requires too much memory. My next "upgrade", when and *if* I can afford it, will be for the new iPad Air 2 as the original is something I still use every day.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Google 9 run Microsoft?

Re:Yawn

[vux984]

However, what the original poster DIDN'T say is gain in 2x+ performance over last year's iPad Air and the drop in pricing for comparable versions.

The original poster (me) didn't say that because it wasn't in the summary. That its twice as fast as the previous ipad air actually WOULD have been reasonably interesting. 12x as fast as the original ipad is meaningless marketing propaganda fluff.

Re:Yawn

[jimbo]

I don't buy new stuff every year any more and I'm looking to replace an iPad2. I have been waiting for the Air 2. Fortunately in the actual presentation they showed a nice graph spanning all the generations.

Of-course numbers are for enthusiasts and real life is different but I expect I'll feel a big difference.

Re:Yawn

[kthreadd]

Yes.

Re:Yawn

[Lawrence_Bird]

Actually they are both pretty meaningless. 12x faster at .. what? 2x faster at .. what? 12x faster at a NOP loop? 2x faster a drawing the screen (1ms instead of 2ms?)

And what is it (other than some very poorly written apps) that requires continuous speed bumps? Are we still not drawing webpages fast enough? Are mp4s still stuttering at full screen? I suppose games might be an issue but most of the ones I've seen run pretty much fine already.

We seem to have hit (or are nearing) a point in mobile devices where increments just dont matter anymore. 500dpi? really? Most people can't tell past 250dpi. 3GHZ vs.. 2? 32 cores vs.. 4?

Re:Yawn

[aaaaaaargh!]

faster doing ... what?

I have a theory why people buy tablets ... or better to say, why men buy tablets: Porn. I believe they buy them so they can watch porn while sitting on the toilet. That's why tablet sales are so high. The remaining alleged 'purposes' are just excuses. It's just a theory, of course.

Now regarding women who buy tablets, I have no idea why they would do that. Do they buy tablets? If so, that's perhaps because they are sleek and handy and you can watch Sushi advertisements on them. Or whatever.

Re:Yawn

[Jarik C-Bol]

You know my first thought when I saw the 5K iMac? "Jesus, making desktop wallpapers for that is going to create some HUGE photoshop files. " followed by "How many people own a camera that will take a picture that will actually look good as a desktop on that?"

Re:Yawn

[GrahamCox]

Modern digital SLRs have higher res than this. e.g. my mid-range Nikon D5300 does 6000x4000, and that's not a top end camera by any means.

Re:Yawn

[Plumpaquatsch]

"an ipad 12x faster than the "original ipad"

faster doing ... what?

Doing stuff you can't do on Android.

Re:Yawn

[BasilBrush]

It's already been pointed out to you that in the presentation they also compared with the last iPad. So the information you're whining about was there. Now it's interesting for some people to see how far we've come since the first iPad in 2010. Why are you so concerned that this additional statistic is suppressed?

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Be fair, you're being sexist in a way.

Women buy them so they can buy and read "50 Shades of Grey" and then play with their "toys" while their husband is doing what you described in the bathroom.

Let's keep it honest here.

Re:Yawn

[vux984]

It's already been pointed out to you that in the presentation they also compared with the last iPad. So the information you're whining about was there

Indeed. It turns out I'm only complaining about the slashdot summary, and reporting of the event, not the event itself.

I guess I'm not surprised. :)

Re:Yawn

[Ronin Developer]

If you had watched the keynote, you would have seen this on the infographic that was displayed. The improvement in processing and, more specifically, the graphics processing is like the difference between light and day in mid-latitudes. Heck, my iPhone 5 can render things that my original iPad can't even load (probably, due to its limited 256MB RAM vs 1GB RAM of the iPhone 5).

But, yeah...12x over the original iPad doing what? That metric really didn't make sense...like saying my current desktop processor is 3K faster than my original 8088 in my IBM PC or 10K faster than the 6502. Funny thing...back then, they were considered blazingly fast. Software continues to grow more bloated and sophisticated to take advantage of the greater bandwidth and processing speeds. If not, my original iPad wouldn't crash when trying to load a javascript laden website. Today's development tools and languages encourage that behavior.

Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm genuinely interested in the details of how Apple Pay is better than Chip & Pin. I've read lots of articles full of marketing FUD but haven't seen a whole lot of the technical details which make me believe it's better in areas of security or convenience.

I see a lot of people say it's better because of NFC, or that it's faster to pay with your phone, but it's just as easy for me to pull out my credit card as it is to pull out my phone. Also, I don't have to recharge my credit card each night when I go to bed.

How is Apply Pay better, in both areas of security and convenience?

Re:Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not but it gives Apple lots of data about your spending habits.

Re: Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it doesn't

Re: Apple Pay

[_xeno_]

How doesn't it? My understanding is that instead of paying by your credit card, your Apple Account gets hit for the charge and Apple pays the vendor and then Apple charges your linked credit card, just like for existing in-app purchases. Since it's your Apple Account doing the purchasing, Apple is in the loop and sees every transaction that you make.

Re:Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm genuinely interested in the details of how Apple Pay is better than Chip & Pin. I've read lots of articles full of marketing FUD but haven't seen a whole lot of the technical details which make me believe it's better in areas of security or convenience.

Convenience is obvious, it's substantially faster. Re security though. It doesn't give out your card number like chip and pin, it uses unique (one per transaction) security codes, rather than a fixed one.

And of course finally, its launch is in America, where no one uses chip & pin, so it's much much much more secure than the default there (swipe and sign).

Re: Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding is incorrect. The transaction only hits the banks. Apple is not informed of the location, value or time of the transaction.

Re: Apple Pay

[rgbscan]

There's the tokenization too. Instead of using your card number, you get a one-time use number for that transaction from your bank to process that transaction.

Re: Apple Pay

[_xeno_]

How? The way Apple described it was like "in-app purchases for physical items" - you pay using your Apple Account, but instead of just doing in-app purchases, you can now order physical goods from stores. How are they kept out of the loop when they're the one inherently validating and performing the transaction?!

Re: Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that you have no fucking clue on what it actually is.

https://www.apple.com/apple-pa...

Re: Apple Pay

[adamstew]

your understanding is incorrect. Apple has explicitly stated that the transaction is 100% between The Merchant, Your Bank, and you. Apple does not receive a copy of the transaction, they don't know who you've shopped with, and that they don't know that any specific transaction has happened.

The only thing Apple does is act as the facilitator to getting the device-specific account number in to the phone. So Apple could know which credit cards you have setup in your device and that's about it.

Re: Apple Pay

[Noah Haders]

Source for this? I haven't read anything about apple's access to information, and would be very interested if they cut themselves out of the loop by design.

Re: Apple Pay

[gnasher719]

How doesn't it? My understanding is that instead of paying by your credit card, your Apple Account gets hit for the charge and Apple pays the vendor and then Apple charges your linked credit card, just like for existing in-app purchases. Since it's your Apple Account doing the purchasing, Apple is in the loop and sees every transaction that you make.

Except that's not how it works. There's a special chip in the new iPhone that talks to an NFC payment terminal and presents itself as a virtual credit card. The terminal sends that information for example to Visa. Visa works together with Apple and figures out that this virtual credit card actually matches your real debit or credit card, and everything is done as if you had used your normal credit or debit card. The chip is locked away from the OS, even Apple couldn't read what's inside it.

The advantages are a minor bit of convenience (you pay by putting a finger on the fingerprint reader on the iPhone), but a big advantage in security because nobody knows your credit card number and therefore cannot lose it to hackers, and crooked employees cannot read it either.

Re: Apple Pay

[Ronin Developer]

I suggest you read up on the technology. You could take a look at Swipe as I think it's probably the closest pre-Apple Pay implementation to what Apple Pay is (Swipe, IS an Apple Pay provider, however). Banks are jumping onboard now that the technology appears secure. Apple claims another 500 banks have joined since last month.

Your card details are stored within a secure chip on the iPad. When you make a purchase, the card info hits the CC provider and a token is returned for THAT transaction. That is passed to the vendor who completes the charge and sends it to the CC processor. The CC Processor sends back a response to the vendor that transaction is completed and then a response is sent to the customer.

You can manually enter your CC info or take a picture of it using the iOS device. That image, is verified by the bank/CC company and then the information is loaded into the secure chip.

The beauty is that your CC info is only exchanged with the bank.

If your device is stolen, you can immediately render the CC info stored in it useless by logging into your iCloud account (I would assume, you have 2 factor authentication turned on - which I think Apple is now requiring).

I don't know how this compares to PayPal or Google Wallet as I don't use them. I do know that Apple has made it easy to add Apple Pay to apps and websites, and the user experience counts provided the security holds up. PayPal still looked a complex mess when I viewed the API last month.

Re: Apple Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

> but a big advantage in security because nobody knows your credit card number and therefore cannot lose it to hackers, and crooked employees cannot read it either.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm pretty familiar with how Google Wallet (with and without a hardware Secure Element) works, and I *know* that CC info is presented to the POS in order to make the transaction.

Re: Apple Pay

[Just Some Guy]

Do you have a cite for this? I'm pretty familiar with how Google Wallet (with and without a hardware Secure Element) works, and I *know* that CC info is presented to the POS in order to make the transaction.

Any of the hundreds of articles about how Apple Pay works. Here's one that explains that the device gives the credit card terminal a 16-digit randomized token and a unique one-time-use CCV. Payment processors use the pair to identify the credit account to bill.

In short, your actual credit card numbers never leave your device. Google for "apple pay token" if you'd like to dive into further detail.

Re: Apple Pay

[gnasher719]

I don't know how this compares to PayPal or Google Wallet as I don't use them. I do know that Apple has made it easy to add Apple Pay to apps and websites, and the user experience counts provided the security holds up. PayPal still looked a complex mess when I viewed the API last month.

The difference to Google Wallet is that Google Wallet transactions are visible to Google, and Apple Pay transactions are not visible to anyone (except the bank paying and the merchant getting money obviously).

Re:Apple Pay

[TomGreenhaw]

Short answer - tokenization and eCommerce security.

Chip and Pin uses physical contact of the card to the payment terminal. The chip is very hard to duplicate so it essentially eliminates card cloning. The PIN provides a second factor to authenticate a trusted customer at the point of sale.

Apple Pay is a variant of NFC (near field communication) much like Google Wallet with PayPass. This is wireless (contactless).

The specifications for hardware (Level 1) and software (Level 2) for both contact and contact-less payment systems are managed by EMVCo; see http://www.emvco.com/. Apple has chosen wisely to work with existing industry standards with a couple of big improvements. These guys are smart and they got it right.

What is different about Apple Pay is that unlike PayPass and Chip&PIN which send the credit card account number through all links in the system (usually encrypted), a one time use token is created. If an Apple Pay transaction is exposed, only a useless one time token would be divulged. This is much like the DUKPT system used from other secure transactions. If you are curious about DUKPT see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_unique_key_per_transaction.

Aside from the technical superiority of tokenization for security over Chip&Pin for card present transactions, how Apple Pay is better is a matter of taste because both systems mitigate card present fraud. It will always be hard to argue that either will be faster than a swipe.

I'm sick of sitting on my fat wallet and if I could get rid of my cards that would be great. Unfortunately I'll still need my cards because most places wont take anything but mag stripe for years (its taken Canada 7 years to get to 90% Chip&PIN at the merchants). If I lose my wallet I have to call a bunch of companies, whereas if I lose my phone nobody is going to get my card numbers. Apps will proliferate that allow loyalty programs and discounts to be offered to me through mobile integration (e.g. Amex has already announced buying McDonalds food with points). Geofencing in conjunction with NFC will further promote targeted marketing and I like the idea of saving money in exchange for loyalty. NFC will also likely be used to do things like open doors, start cars so it will be very convenient.

Apple Pay also supports tokenization for eCommerce. This is huge because card not present is the area where credit card fraud is most persistent. Apple Pay and the variations that are sure to follow will knock the online card fraud guys out of the game.

Re: Apple Pay

[jo_ham]

They absolutely did, and they talked about it specifically when Apple Pay was announced during the iPhone 6 keynote.

The design of the system is that your credit card number is hashed together with the unique device ID of your phone to create a signing key (the card number itself is then never stored anywhere). You then activate apple pay with your bank so they have a way to verify your purchases. When you then use your device to buy something a transaction-specific token is generated from your signing key that is passed to your bank, who then verify it, and send back a yay/nay to the vendor. The bank then debits the money. Each transaction you make generates a new token that is passed via the vendor to your bank.

The key things that Apple pointed out were that a) Apple doesn't know what you bought or how much it was, b) the vendor you are buying from doesn't know what your credit card number is and c) your credit card number is not stored on your phone. If you lose your phone you can log into iCloud and invalidate the signing key.

If you want to hear that from the horse's mouth, Tim Cook spent several minutes on it during the iPhone 6 keynote.

Re: Apple Pay

[jo_ham]

It's not even "your card never leaves your device" - your card number isn't stored on the phone in the first place. Your signing key is made using your card number, but after that the phone doesn't store the card info, just the key generated from your card and your device's ID.

Re:Apple Pay

[tibit]

The one-time-use token is very clever and backwards-compatible, too. It's a one-time-use credit card number, generated on the fly for that particular transaction. That way the merchants can keep using legacy infrastructure - they still deal with credit card numbers etc. Just that those numbers are ephemeral, and are useless when they get stolen/leaked (as they all eventually are, it seems).

Yep, that's the Apple I know

[NotDrWho]

You can send and receive calls on your Mac if you have an iPhone with iOS 8 that's signed into the same FaceTime account.[emphasis added]

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[reymyster]

You can send and receive calls on your Mac if you have an iPhone with iOS 8 that's signed into the same FaceTime account.[emphasis added]

How else would you expect it to work? Would you rather Apple force you to sign your Mac up to register a phone line with AT&T or Verizon so you have one number for your phone, and another number for your computer?

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[mrchaotica]

I'd expect it to work more like Google Voice, where instead of having a phone line for your cellphone that gets forwarded to your computer, you have a phone line for VoIP that gets forwarded to your cellphone, computer, and whatever else you want.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[Noah Haders]

Also, my understanding is to call from your Mac, your phone must be on the same wifi. Am I wrong?

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh, NotDrWho can't help his Apple rage. It's pathological.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[stephanruby]

Also, my understanding is to call from your Mac, your phone must be on the same wifi. Am I wrong?

Yes, they do need to be on the same wifi. See below.

Sometimes when your iPhone rings, it’s not where you are. Maybe it’s charging in another room. Or it’s buried in your backpack. But your Mac or iPad is sitting right there. Now you can make and receive phone calls on those devices as long as your iPhone running iOS 8 is on the same Wi-Fi network. Incoming calls show the caller’s name, number, and profile picture. Just click or swipe the notification to answer, ignore, or respond with a quick message. And making a phone call from your iPad or Mac is just as easy. Simply tap or click a phone number in Contacts, Calendar, or Safari. It all works with your existing iPhone number, so there’s nothing to set up.
[source]

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[BasilBrush]

In other words, Google Voice requires you to have a separate telephone number, that's not your mobile phone number. Depending on what services they want, people have to contact you on the two separate numbers. (Google Voice has limitation on SMS, international calling etc.)

Depending on which number they use, your ability to accept the call on a computer will either exist or not.

As a result of the complications, Google Voice isn't a big success.

As always Apple goes with a solution that cuts out all the confusion. One phone number, all services.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[mrchaotica]

In other words, Google Voice requires you to have a separate telephone number, that's not your mobile phone number. Depending on what services they want, people have to contact you on the two separate numbers. (Google Voice has limitation on SMS, international calling etc.)

No, Google Voice requires you to have a Google Voice number [full stop]. It doesn't matter whether you have a mobile phone number or not. Even if you do have a mobile phone number, nobody ever has to know it or call it, because they can reach your cellphone anyway (either by you setting up Google Voice to transparently forward to your mobile phone number, or by using a [VoIP] data connection with Hangouts). If you continue telling people to call your "real" cellphone number after signing up for Google Voice, you are proverbially Doing it Wrong.

You could cancel your cellular service entirely and use your phone with Google Voice over wi-fi, or get a plan where you only care about the data part and the "voice" minutes are irrelevant. For example, my T-Mobile plan costs $30 and has 5GB of 4G data (which is equivalent to about 4000 minutes of VoIP) and a measly 100 actual-voice minutes. But that's okay, because I use exactly 0 voice minutes because all my calls are routed over Google Voice. Since I don't come anywhere close to using all 5GB each month, I could probably even switch to a provider like Ting, select a data-only plan, and pay even less.

And by the way, Google Voice does in fact have SMS and international calling (the latter has some non-zero per-minute cost, though). I don't know how you imagined it didn't.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[BasilBrush]

I don't know how you imagined it didn't.

I said limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

It doesn't matter how real those limitations are. If there's any complication or limitation at all, real or perceived, people won't use it.

Same reason people aren't using Android NFC.

If you continue telling people to call your "real" cellphone number after signing up for Google Voice, you are proverbially Doing it Wrong.

Problem is of course that everyone already has the mobile phone number. This would require getting everyone to change it. Which is hard enough if ever your mobile phone number has to change. Given that your existing mobile phone number will still exist, good luck trying to get everyone to call this other number instead.

And you want to biggest limitation of all? Absolutely real, and completely prohibiting most people from using it? Google Voice is a US only service. Apple's system works in every country.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[mrchaotica]

Problem is of course that everyone already has the mobile phone number. This would require getting everyone to change it. Which is hard enough if ever your mobile phone number has to change. Given that your existing mobile phone number will still exist, good luck trying to get everyone to call this other number instead.

Well, what you do is port your existing number to Google Voice and get a new number for your cellular service. Admittedly, it's most convenient to do this concurrently with when you'd be changing plans anyway.

Re:Yep, that's the Apple I know

[BasilBrush]

You can port a mobile number to a fixed line number? You can't in my country. Only mobile to mobile and fixed line to fixed line.

But then again, as I mentioned Google Voice doesn't exist in my country, or any others other than the US, so this may be a moot point.

5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

The iMac has come a long way from being a cute plastic toy. A 27" 5K display and quad-core i5 for $2500. That's pretty impressive.

I have a few questions before I start digging into my couch cushions, however:
1) What is the performance and refresh rate of the display?
2) Can it act as an external display for other computers, like some older versions of the iMac?

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[danbob999]

2) Can it act as an external display for other computers, like some older versions of the iMac?

No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[KingOfBLASH]

Apple historically has offered the same displays for sale as separate entities.

My guess would be in the future you'll be free to buy an Apple display

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[wbo]

No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.

Are you sure about that? The current generation of iMacs can act as a standard monitor when connected to another machine. Up until a few weeks ago, I was using one that had a failed hard drive in it as a monitor for a desktop PC via a simple mini Displayport to Displayport cable connected to the PC's graphics card.

There is a good possibility that the new iMacs can also be used as a monitor as well.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

1) 60Hz IPS, 8bpc+2bit FRC, organized as 2 2560x2880 tiles and connected over 2 eDP 1.2 links.
2) No.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Noah Haders]

1) I don't know. It's probably the same panel Dell announced a couple months ago.
2) no. You could probably do some sort of solution, but no hardware connection.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. For years now iMacs can act as an external display.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[LDAPMAN]

All iMacs can act as an external display for another machine. I'm using two of them for that at the moment. A quick keyboard shortcut switches it from displaying it's own video to displaying the external video. It's called Target Display Mode if you want to google it.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[spoot]

All iMacs can act as an external display for another machine. I'm using two of them for that at the moment. A quick keyboard shortcut switches it from displaying it's own video to displaying the external video. It's called Target Display Mode if you want to google it.

If my memory serves me correct, target display mode only works on thunderbolt models.

Re: 5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

So the expensive cpu part can't be separated and sold off (we are always told what great long term value there is...) it just has to sit there idling.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

All iMacs can act as an external display for another machine.

Nope. Only the older 27" and the 2011+ Thunderbolt iMacs.

It's called Target Display Mode

Yes, and the 27" Retina iMac does NOT support it.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[SeaFox]

I seem to remember there was a restriction that the iMac had to be turned on to act as a monitor. So you would be wasting the power of running the machine just to use the screen. Has that changed?

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[schlachter]

Well, this is a weakness of all-in-one machines.

But, Macs hold their value well. You won't be throwing it away. You'll be selling it for a pretty substantial amount of $$ to offset your upgrade.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, otherwise people could eventually connect a new mini instead of replacing the whole iMac. A further warning: not all iMacs support being used as a display--it was limited to the high end iMac, so check first if it is a feature you want.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember target disk mode, where your computer could become a firewire disk for another computer.
So easy to do a repair on those.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[UnknowingFool]

No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.

Apple says you can use iMacs as displays. It requires Thunderbolt apparently.

Re: 5K display (and computer) for $2500

[LDAPMAN]

That still exists and works over Thunderbolt now.

Re: 5K display (and computer) for $2500

[wasteofspace77]

Beware what model year your 27" iMac is. anything mid-2011 and later only supports input from Thunderbolt originated signals. Found out the hard way with my mini-displayport enabled device.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[danbob999]

Great, so you can buy another expensive Thunderbolt PC to connect to this bulky, power hungry monitor once the computer inside is becoming too old

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[sootman]

> There is a good possibility that the new iMacs can also be used as a monitor as well.

Likely not. The old Mac had a totally typical display. But now it's 5k, and...

Thunderbolt at 10 Gbit/s wasn't fast enough to drive 4K, which needs about 16 Gbit/s. Thunderbolt 2 at 20 Gbit/s can drive 4K, but not 5120Ã--2880, which needs 28 Gbit/s.1 The only promising standard on the horizon is DisplayPort 1.3 at 32 Gbit/s, but that spec is being finalized later in 2014, which means we're probably still years away from anything supporting it.

Marco Arment, January 2014

Wikipedia now says "DisplayPort version 1.3 was released on September 15, 2014." So yeah, no way is this iMac is supporting input based on a month-old spec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[Blaskowicz]

Can the 5K Mac be used as a display with the use of two Thunderbolt 2?, perhaps they didn't bother but having the option would have been useful.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[jo_ham]

No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.

Are you sure about that? The current generation of iMacs can act as a standard monitor when connected to another machine. Up until a few weeks ago, I was using one that had a failed hard drive in it as a monitor for a desktop PC via a simple mini Displayport to Displayport cable connected to the PC's graphics card.

Probably not at this time - the display sharing feature has been dropped from the spec sheet, probably because the new iMac only has Thunderbolt 2 and thus doesn't quite have the bandwidth to drive a 5k display over that interface.

I think it will probably return when this model hits revision 2 and gains Thunderbolt 3 running the new display port spec that has adequate bandwidth to run a display of that resolution.

I believe this is also why we haven't seen an update to the standalone thunderbolt display yet - Apple will want it to retain the Thunderbolt connectivity and there's no specification available right now to run such a large panel over that interface (or any external interface I believe) without doing things like multiplexing two TB2 busses together.

Those wanting to use this thing as a monitor are going to be out of luck until TB3 arrives I fear.

There is a good possibility that the new iMacs can also be used as a monitor as well.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[wbo]

An iMac does need to be powered on to act as an external display, however it doesn't need to have a working OS (or at least the ones I have played with don't).

Beware, I haven't actually tested the power consumption so this is just speculation on my part, but since the processor and GPU in iMac aren't really doing anything I suspect they are running at their idle frequencies. If so, the power consumption of the machine should be fairly low - since many modern CPUs and GPUs have fairly low idle power requirements.

As other posters have pointed out though, Apple appears to have used their own custom display interface for the new 5k model and it looks like they have dropped Target Display Mode from the spec sheet, so it looks like using the 5k model as a dumb monitor isn't really an option.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[tibit]

I love the times we live in. This all reads like yesteryear's science-fiction. We're fast approaching a cinema quality display in an iMac - a simple to use piece of off-the-shelf consumer hardware. In an aluminum chassis that would be considered viable only for military grade hardware a mere decade ago. One can bitch all they want about "Apple tax", but if it weren't for Apple, we wouldn't have that hardware. Never mind that nobody else makes a PC in the aluminum iMac-style chassis, AFAIK. Or at least not in the volume that'll ensure ample supply of replacement parts a decade from now.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[UnknowingFool]

Or you can buy a cheap Thunderbolt adapter.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[BasilBrush]

As all Macs already come with Thunderbolt connectors this is not a problem.

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[ashpool7]

The feature is called Target Display Mode and it is not available in the 5K iMac. It may return when it gains Skylake CPUs with Thunderbolt 3.0, because there is no DisplayPort currently capable of sending 5K data.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500

[UnknowingFool]

What do you mean by 2 TB 2? Do mean like switching between two computers? I don't think so.

Rotten Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Apple just release the fully updated end product! Tired of waiting for the Mac Final. I for one am not buying anything that is 'just an update' to a cut down version of what it could have been. That's just a rotten way of doing business and not particularly visionary.

Re:Rotten Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll be waiting for a long time...

iMac looks cool

[Anonymous Coward]

About time desktops caught up with better screen resolutions after the whole 1080p marketing hype ruined everything.

I just hope it doesn't have the stupid ghosting problem.

Re:iMac looks cool

[mjwx]

About time desktops caught up with better screen resolutions after the whole 1080p marketing hype ruined everything.

Erm, you've been able to buy PC monitors with resolutions higher than 1080p for nearly a decade now. Cheap 2560 x 1440 monitors have been available for years. Even Dell sells a 5K monitor today.

Its just Apple that's playing catch-up

Re:iMac looks cool

[Trogre]

Umm, yes but aren't the vast majority of those 4k/5k monitors sporting horrible TN panels, ie unusable for anything other than twitch gaming?

Re:iMac looks cool

[Blaskowicz]

If you don't want a TN then don't buy it?
By the way the 5K display is IPS or similar and extremely expensive. ($2.5K but should go down). 28" 4K TN is cheap ($600 or less), add a small $400 desktop or the cheapest graphics card with DP to your desktop and it's probably worth considering for dealing with such things as pdf, spreadsheets, editors and text terminals.

Re:iMac looks cool

[pherthyl]

>> Even Dell sells a 5K monitor today.

No they don't. They've announced one that isn't shipping.

smoke 'em if ya got 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Man - that stuff's expensive!

di34

[Anonymous Coward]

posts on Usenet are fucking market I know it sux0rs, [samag.com] in the keep, and I won't windows, SUN or We''l be able to bulk of the FreeBSD getting together to Crisco or lube.

Problem

[StripedCow]

Apple is keeping its number of products (devices/models) to a minimum.
If I invest in Apple products now, I'm sure that in the future -when I am locked in, or when Apple has destroyed the competition- I have only less to choose from.

Can somebody please explain why it would be smart to buy some of these devices?

Re:Problem

[DoofusOfDeath]

Can somebody please explain why it would be smart to buy some of these devices?

For many of us, it's not a good investment. But if someone can afford (and wants) to replace his computer every few years, it could make sense.

For my wife's photography business, we considered a Mac, because color calibration is a huge deal. In the end though, we decided that Windows' color management was close enough to OS X's, that we preferred the low cost and at-home-repairability of a Windows box.

Re:Problem

[alen]

any ecosystem is a lock in
windows apps run on windows
android on android
ios on ios
osx on os x

Re:Problem

[StripedCow]

Right. So why choose the ecosystem which offers the smallest amount of choice?

Re:Problem

[Eccles]

The free development environment in XCode, and reasonable, inexpensive general-purpose apps in Pages, Numbers, et al, make it fairly easy to set up to do most general computing tasks, without the Windows issues where many people prefer older versions to new, it still has drive letters, etc.

Re:Problem

[BasilBrush]

You are assuming that choice is necessarily a good thing. The paradox of choice says it's not.

Dell has far more choice than Apple. All of them worse.

Funniest bit

[ericloewe]

Apple proudly announced that their Excel competitor now supports table transposing.

What do you mean Excel has been doing this for over a decade and a half, at least?

Re:Funniest bit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not real until Apple innovates it.

Re:Funniest bit

[_xeno_]

Also have to give them credit for the bit at the very start where they proudly reiterated their very new widget and Intents features.

You know, cutting edge stuff that no one's ever seen in a smart phone before.

Re:Funniest bit

[gnasher719]

Apple's "Excel competitor" that sells for £13.99.

Re:Funniest bit

[angel'o'sphere]

What is table transposing?
Same as matrix transposing?

Re:Funniest bit

[angel'o'sphere]

And is free on new Macs, you buy.

Re:Funniest bit

[ericloewe]

Yes, the operation could be described like this:

(a, b) -> (b, a)

Re:Funniest bit

[jimbo]

They didn't say it was never seen before, only to the platform and that's often how they spin it. Fair enough.

Everybody borrows ideas, Android too and that's great because it benefits the consumer. If it causes you constipation that companies borrow and have marketing departments; most products in your home will send you to the pharmacy but be careful because the fibre supplement manufacturer's marketing dept. may have been a bit hyperactive concerning the benefits suggested.

Re:Funniest bit

[rthille]

I think it's the thing that Lotus invented in 1991 for NeXTStep:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:Funniest bit

[angel'o'sphere]

Hm, never needed such a thing :)
What are you doing that you need that so often that you consider it a useful feature?

iOS 8.1? Already?

[gstoddart]

Wow, so it wasn't much more than a month ago they rolled out iOS 8, and then bug fixes for it, and now iOS 8.1.

That kind of thing doesn't instill a lot of confidence.

I'm curious to know how many people have been holding off on upgrading to iOS 8 to begin with. I know I looked at it for my ipod touch and sorta decided to wait a little while and let it sort itself out. I think I'm glad I did.

Subdivision

[IgnitusBoyone]

I don't know if I'm the only one and to be honest the way I use OS X doesn't make this such a big deal, but at 5K unless they do automatic font scaling. I'm going to need to be able to divide my monitor up in to virtual monitors. That way I can resize zones where if I click the magnify/maximize button it doesn't waste the entire real estate of my monitor. I really enjoy the snap feature in windows 7 enough I use a program called sizeup on OSX to emulate it, but once I start buying 27 and 30" monitors I really would like my desktop tp let me arbitrary subdivide it in to multiple monitors for behavioral reasons.

Anyone have an app for that?

Re:Subdivision

[Bogtha]

All they've done is double the PPI of the existing displays exactly. This is going to be like the transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4 - everything will have the same physical dimensions, but applications that support retina displays will look sharper.

I'm sure if you want to use your screen as something that's quadruple the logical size you'll be able to, but this is intended to be a visual quality upgrade, not a real estate upgrade. What you'll get by default will simply be a clearer version of what you already have with existing 27" displays.

Re:Subdivision

[Noah Haders]

This is a great idea. I use a similar app to snap a window to the left/right size. A cool feature would e to snap the window to screen quadrants.

iMac with Retina display.

[LodCrappo]

"iMac with Retina display"

What does this mean? Is Retina is a technical term that should convey some specific meaning now?

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[Anonymous Coward]

It means "twice the DPI of a normal mac display because OS X still can't do any scaling between 100% and 200%"

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[Matheus]

Um... "Yes."

The retina display is a "brand" for Apple. The term was supposed to imply that the display's ppi was great enough that your eye couldn't perceive any improvement with better. Of course it was shown pretty soon after that they were wrong BUT the measure is fairly close and they stuck with the name.

My new Dell has a less snappy name for its display "QHD+" but I'm not complaining since it has a noticeably higher PPI than Retina (as well as supposedly better tech for a brighter image at that rez)

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[Anonymous Coward]

Retina has always been a technical term with a specific definition. It's any display in which a density high enough that one degree of viewing angle covers at least 53 pixels. (This is intended to be the density at which individuals pixels are too small to be visible to someone with perfect vision.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[LDAPMAN]

It defaults to twice the DPI but can be set to other resolutions. https://www.apple.com/macbook-...

"Native resolution: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels"

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[Iniamyen]

So this means that any display touted as "retina" would depend on the distance from the eye to the display, right? Meaning, the diagonal measurement + "retina" requires another piece of data to know how many pixels are on the damn thing.

I could claim that my old VGA display is "retina" if I don't need to specify the viewing distance, right?

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[LodCrappo]

so... any manufacturer that makes a device to meet or exceed these parameters is selling a "Retina" display?

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[jones_supa]

Yes, that is true.

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[tibit]

It is a semi-technical term. It pretty much means that when you foveate at the middle of the display, at a normal book-reading distance for mobile devices, and normal monitor distance for desktops, there's roughly no more than one photosensitive element on your retina per one screen pixel.

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[tibit]

If your desk is 5 feet deep and you put your 15" VGA monitor at the far end, then sure, a VGA display is "retina".

Now, back in the real life, the viewing distance is what people normally have on their desks. Normal desks. Heck, there are even standards that specify what the "normal" viewing distance is for a computer monitor. IOW: You're making up imaginary problems.

Re:iMac with Retina display.

[Iniamyen]

My point is that It's easier to do the math myself, for my own application. All that "retina" tells me is that the resolution is above MxN threshold, assuming some distance. What if the distance in my particular application is different than that assumed for the "retina" terminology? Just tell me how many damn pixels the thing has so I can figure out if it will work for my application!

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[_xeno_]

The way I understand it is that this isn't "really" a x.1 version, it's "8.1" because it's the version that adds Apple Pay and support for the new iPads.

Basically iOS 8.0 was released missing features that the couldn't finish in time for launch, and 8.1 will be the originally intended 8.0 with all the features iOS 8 was supposed to have from the get-go.

Which, uh, really doesn't instill much confidence either, now that I think about it.

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[__aaclcg7560]

That kind of thing doesn't instill a lot of confidence.

Never mind that iOS 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 were in testing after iOS 8 got released. So many new products, so many updates.

No new macbook pro

[greywire]

Still no new macbook pro...

Thats it, I'm out. I'll just get a Nexus 9 and a keyboard and move to the cloud.

Re:No new macbook pro

[Anonymous Coward]

yea 'cause theyre basically the same thing right?

Re:No new macbook pro

[Anonymous Coward]

July isn't recent enough for you??

Re:No new macbook pro

[antdude]

And same with MacPros. :P [grin]

Re: No new macbook pro

[greywire]

I see I've been moderated funny but I'm actually not kidding. I've been deliberating over whether to get a new high end laptop or get a nice tablet and just move mostly to cloud services. Why bother setting up Web servers and databases etc locally when you can fire them up in the cloud? And I despise working with photoshop anyway, I just want to code..

I went through a similar transition from desktop to laptop.

It's time.

Re: No new macbook pro

[Anonymous Coward]

MacBook Pro hasn't been updated since July 29,2014! I mean, who does Apple think they are to get away with waiting nearly 90 days to make another change to their laptops...

Re:No new macbook pro

[captjc]

No one was seriously expecting a new notebook from Apple. The new notebooks are most likely to feature Intel's new Broadwell chips, which have been delayed until what's looking like next spring.

Besides, the Macbook Pro was just given a refresh in the Summer.

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[gstoddart]

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If you're releasing a major version a month or so before you launch new products, you'd hope you have the OS for those products squared away.

This sounds like they pushed out iOS 8, ran into problems and released iOS 8.0.1, and apparently 8.0.2, and then 8.0.3.

And now they're rolling out 8.1.

That is a lot of churn in a relatively short period of time. Which tells me I'm still going to wait a while, because I expect 8.1.1 or 8.2 to appear within a month or so.

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like MickeySoft with Win8 + Win8.1?

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[master_kaos]

well the release of ios 8.0.1 was a joke with the bugs, but 8.1 makes sense since the main reason for the release is to include apple pay (if it was just bug fixes would be 8.0.3)

New Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

In Yosemite many things gets reported to mother-ship, try this open: "About this Mac" yep, network packet send to the boss...and many more...

Re:New Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tried it. Nothing was sent.

To each their own...

[gwolf]

When the netbook craze began (2008), I bought a 9" Acer Aspire One, for roughly US$400. That was my main laptop (and, during vacations, my main computer. Yes, I work at a university, so six weeks of vacations every year).

One year ago, I decided it was time to renew. I bought its sucessor, the 10" Acer Aspire One. For US$350. And it's my main computer outside of my office. I am really happy with it.

I have just bumped up its memory (2GB6GB). Besides that, I'm more than satisfied with what I got. I have recommended it to my family — Nowadays, my wife has one, and I have taken three more to her family (mother and two brothers). We are all quite happy with them (except for the sister that insisted on keeping Windows 8).

So, yes, US$400 for a good five year use... Is about US$80 per year. Quite acceptable!

Low-end Mac mini

[Anonymous Coward]

The new low-end model of Mac mini has a dual-core 1.4GHz i5 CPU. How would that compare to a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo?

Re:Low-end Mac mini

[ArcadeMan]

I'm going to guess that you are comparing the "Mid 2010" Mac mini with the newly released low-end model.

Clock speed aside, the 1.4GHz i5 in the new Mac mini is a 22 nm, fourth-generation Intel Core processor. So if I understand Intel's generations correctly, that's a 4th generation i5 compared to a Core 2 Duo which makes this new Mac mini CPU at least five generations ahead of the Core 2 Duo.

Can anyone with more knowledge compare the clock speeds, cache, etc?

Re:Low-end Mac mini

[UnknowingFool]

I assume this is the processor the new Mac Minis will use compared to the 2010 processor The clock speed isn't a much benchmark as it once was considering that the new CPU can ramp up to 2.7GHz. It's more of a powersave feature as the new processor has a 15W TDP as opposed to 25W. The newer chip uses a 2 x 256KB L2 cache and a 3MB L3 cache whereas the older chip only uses a 3MB L2 cache. The bus speed on the new chip is 5GT/s and the old one was 1.066 GT/s. The most important difference would be integrated graphics vs discrete graphics required on the older one.

Re:Low-end Mac mini

[jones_supa]

cpubenchmark.net is these days quite useful tool for comparison. You get a rough number, which isn't applicable to all use scenarios, but is still worlds better than clock rate.

Re:Low-end Mac mini

[ArcadeMan]

Direct link to the comparison of both CPUs mentioned.

Touch ID for $100??

[Mr_Silver]

If you look at this comparison chart you can see that the iPad Mini 3 is exactly the same as the existing iPad Mini with Retina Display (now called iPad Mini 2) with the exception of two things:

1. It's got Touch ID
2. It's $100 more expensive

I'm not entirely convinced that Touch ID is worth the extra $100. Hopefully the IHS teardown will indicate if there is anything else of value between the two.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[starless]

If you look at this comparison chart you can see that the iPad Mini 3 is exactly the same as the existing iPad Mini with Retina Display (now called iPad Mini 2) with the exception of two things:

1. It's got Touch ID
2. It's $100 more expensive

I'm not entirely convinced that Touch ID is worth the extra $100. Hopefully the IHS teardown will indicate if there is anything else of value between the two.

If there was anything else worthwhile, wouldn't apple be boasting about it rather than us having to wait for a teardown?
I am convinced that Touch ID isn't worth $100 to me...

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[Mr_Silver]

If there was anything else worthwhile, wouldn't apple be boasting about it rather than us having to wait for a teardown?
I am convinced that Touch ID isn't worth $100 to me...

I don't remember Apple talking very much about internal memory on an iPad - mainly because it means nothing to the average customer.

As a result I'm hoping that the Mini 3 has 2GB compared to the 1GB inside the Mini 2. That way Safari can manage to open 2 tabs without having to force a reload (so losing your buttons and form fields) when you return to a tab.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[Anubis IV]

Touch ID is only worth $25. The other $75 is a surcharge on all iPad mini 3 users for demanding that gold be added as one of the color options.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[sootman]

Wow, you're right, I didn't catch that. I thought the Mini 3 got the A8X like the Air, since last year Apple made such a big deal that the only difference between the Mini and the Air was the size. Very disappointing, and yeah, definitely not worth $100.

OTOH, in the glass-is-half-full land, look how cheap the awesome iPad Mini 2 is! :D

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[wildsurf]

If you look at this comparison chart you can see that the iPad Mini 3 is exactly the same as the existing iPad Mini with Retina Display (now called iPad Mini 2) with the exception of two things:

1. It's got Touch ID
2. It's $100 more expensive

Does the Touch ID imply that it also has an NFC chip for ApplePay? (Apparently it does, and the iPad Mini 2 doesn't.) That's an odd thing to leave off the comparison chart.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[Mr_Silver]

Does the Touch ID imply that it also has an NFC chip for ApplePay? (Apparently it does, and the iPad Mini 2 doesn't.) That's an odd thing to leave off the comparison chart.

This was mentioned in the keynote. Although they both have Touch ID, neither of them come with NFC.

As a result, they'll only support half of Apple Pay. That is, they'll support purchasing things online from retailers, but not contactless transactions at physical merchants with a contactless terminal.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it has rounder corners?

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[david_thornley]

Some of us consider not supporting contactless transactions a feature.

Re:Touch ID for $100??

[petervandervos]

There are more difference, but not on that page. Look at the tech specs.

DOS

[skaralic]

Great, my old DOS(Box) games will now be the size of an icon. :D

Re:DOS

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I have this problem already on a 2560x1440 27" monitor, I can't imagine having them reduced to a quarter of the size they are now :-O

Yeah yeah, I know everyone's going to run then pixel-doubled for sharper cleaner graphics and text, but it would be hilarious to run it at 1:1 for a while.

Mac mini update: Faster processors?

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous generation had the option of a 2.6 GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-3720QM.
Is their new 3.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 really faster?

What's with the performance comparisons?

[Gordo_1]

Is Apple so embarrassed by their lack of meaningful CPU performance improvements that they feel the need to compare the latest iPad to a 5 year old obsolete brick to impress me? I think that they think I'm stupid.

Re:What's with the performance comparisons?

[ic3m4n1]

Apple rather thinks that you can boast around with bigger number to rest of the world. Bigger the better right?

Re:What's with the performance comparisons?

[gnasher719]

Is Apple so embarrassed by their lack of meaningful CPU performance improvements that they feel the need to compare the latest iPad to a 5 year old obsolete brick to impress me? I think that they think I'm stupid.

Lack of meaningful improvements? 40% faster than the iPad Air. Which was a lot faster than the iPad 4. And trying out how fast I could make that run, i got 7 GFlops out of an iPad 4 with plain C code.

If you think that Apple showing the best possible numbers is a sign of "embarrassment" then you absolutely need your head examined.

Re:What's with the performance comparisons?

[AmiMoJo]

RAW CPU performance isn't a very interesting metric for most uses. How fast do apps open up, and how much RAM does it have to make multitasking smoother? How quickly can I go from locked to taking a video, in case my cat does something funny and I need to put it on YouTube? How fast can I get to commonly toggled settings? How long does it take to charge the battery?

Re:What's with the performance comparisons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Apple still has the only 64 bit arm processor sold in /any/ market. Mobile, server, tablet, destkop, media player, or otherwise.

And they have since the 5s was launched. It caught the ENTIRE industry completely off guard. Fucking /ARM/ wasn't even sampling 64 bit cores. If you look at specs and benchmarks apple's 64 bit processors sit on top of the bunch, and have for more than a year.

Why fear the iMac?

[Radical Moderate]

They've been selling Retina displays for a couple years, slapping it on the iMac isn't rocket science. I do think it's an unnecessary feature that will jack the price, but the iMac went from being the cheap mac to the not insanely expensive Mac some time ago, so meh.

Re:Why fear the iMac?

[kannibal_klown]

Because this is their first REALLY BIG Retina display? Apple's first attempt at something unique often has issues, hence the mantra of "avoid any Revision A Apple product."

Recall the various screen issues and defects they had 1-2 years ago with smaller Retina displays? Recall a bunch of issues they had with the 27" iMac (non-Retina) redesigned screen? Things looking blotchy, bad glue jobs, etc. Apple had done retina a bunch before those issues, and 27" Macs a lot too. But a large enough redesign and all of a sudden they realize "oops, there's a manufacturing issue"

Apple isn't any worse than any other company, and I tend to think they're slightly better than most. But first generation products, while trying something new, tend to have some quirks to roll out.

Re:Why fear the iMac?

[TheRaven64]

They're still not offering a retina external display, but they're about the only manufacturer that isn't. I just got a 4K 27" display at work (and I'm now back to preferring to read text on the big screen instead of on the laptop screen). The panel quality is nice, but it lacks any bells and whistles. They're only £300 now though, so we're buying them as the standard external displays.

Re:Why fear the iMac?

[kannibal_klown]

Follow the thread.

This was about the 27" Retina iMac they are releasing. My concern is their Revision A products tend to have issues.

When they redesigned the 27" screen on the iMac last time, it had a number of issues. Likewise they changed something around with the Retinas on their laptops and they ran into a number of issues.

Ghosting, splotchy screens, bad glue-jobs, etc.

Meanwhile they've been doing Retina for a while and 27" for a while and just recently had problems changing both. Combining the two is probably going to have issues as well.

Re:Why fear the iMac?

[kannibal_klown]

Sorry, my "Follow the thread" statement wasn't meant to sound like a jerk. Meant to say something nicer but clicked "Post" before I thought of something

Lawks

[Hognoxious]

The summary is a list of bullet points?

Awesome.

Re:Lawks

[x0ra]

That's the new Apple Revolution ! Soon to come, the Apple Bingo.

Maybe it's just me

[Cro Magnon]

I'm surprised they're calling it "Apple Pay". I thought it would be "iPay".

Re:Maybe it's just me

[GrahamCox]

I'm surprised they're calling it "Apple Pay". I thought it would be "iPay".

Or YouPay.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[AmiMoJo]

iPay already seems to be trademarked in many countries. Apple has probably realized that existing trademarks will be a big problem in the future as everyone from wannabe western companies to far eastern manufacturers of low quality crap is calling their stuff iStuff now, so did what most companies do and used their company name + generic verb. Generic verbs have the advantage of not being trademarkable on their own.

Opinion Tag

[MildlyTangy]

Why does article have an opinion tag?

I read the entire summary, and all it did was list facts. Not a single word of opinion is in there.

Now I can fully understand the reason for the iGarbage tag, as this is Slashdot, and no love of Apple products is permitted in any way, shape or form.

But opinion? huh?

Yo Semite

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the goyim have their own OS X?

Re:Yo Semite

[shilly]

With that finely honed wit, I think it's fair to say that the Catskills would never have come calling for you...

Yeah, but you're not using your XPS anymore

[mveloso]

Dell's equipment service life is 3 years. The difference between your XPS is the Black Macbook is that the guy was still using the macbook for daily tasks. Your XPS is probably on a shelf somewhere.

My late 2009 i7 iMac is unfortunately still going strong, with 16gb of ram and a 4TB fusion drive. It'll last for another few years. I have a mac mini 2009 that's been cranking away in a colo 24x7 for the last 4-5 years with no issues.

You can see the difference between Apple products on eBay every day. I've been trying to pick up a old Mac Pro, and Mac Pros from 2009 are going for $1k+. It's unreal and sort of ridiculous.

Even the prices for iDevices are crazy. Look on glyde.com: the 3GS is still $48, $100+ for a 4s. These phones are ancient. You can't give old cellphones away that aren't iPhones.

Re:Yeah, but you're not using your XPS anymore

[tibit]

"My late 2009 i7 iMac is unfortunately still going strong" Unfortunately? You're getting your money's worth! Enjoy it. With 16G of ram and a fusion drive it's likely a screamer. I only upgraded the late '07 iMac to the latest model a few months ago since every once in a while I need to do ports builds and they took a day on that '07 model and I got tired of waiting :)

Apple products have excellent resale value, I don't think of it as ridiculous at all. You're reaping the benefits of a solid brand, even many years after the purchase. What's not to like?

Re:Yeah, but you're not using your XPS anymore

[chispito]

The difference between your XPS is the Black Macbook is that the guy was still using the macbook for daily tasks. Your XPS is probably on a shelf somewhere.

I guess my comment was a bit misleading in one way: I don't think Macbooks are necessarily a bad value or were a bad value circa 2006. But let me clarify:

1) My 2006 Dell XPS M1210 is my daily driver. It started life with XP and has exclusively run Ubuntu the last 3 years.

2) I had to replace the power adapter and disc drive under warranty, and upgraded from the original 80GB hard drive to a 500GB hard drive three or four years ago.

3) Otherwise, I can't remember replacing anything on it. The rubber feet on the bottom have fallen off and the left-click button on the trackpad is mushy. I'm convinced it's just some crumbs in the cracks, but I'm too lazy to fix it and have been content to just tap the touchpad to click.

4) I'm still using the original 9-cell battery it shipped with. The 6-cell I bought at the same time died, but the 9-cell is still barely usable, providing maybe 40 minutes' usage. Not great but not bad for 8 years old.

5) Again--I'm not trying to say that Macbooks are a bad buy, but my wife's 2007 15" Macbook has had far more expensive problems (to be fair, it's still with us too).

iPad Mini 3: the non-update

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still scratching my head over the so-called "update" that is the iPad Mini 3. The 32 GB wi-fi Mini 3 is $150 more than the still-available wi-fi Mini 2 and the only difference is the addition of a fingerprint sensor on the Mini 3. Otherwise, they are identical. Same CPU, same GPU, same retina display, same size, thickness and weight. It's the lamest update of a product in Apple's history.

Not improved

[malvcr]

I have a very nice Mac Mini latest 2012 with a 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 Quad-Core processor with Eight logical threads. It has a 1TB disk and I put 16 GB memory to this machine, costing me around $900.

Now I see the options ... No i7 quad, only dual core, and many i5. No more than 16GB two years later. The disk options are neither better. What they did was to add a less than 2 GHz CPU for the $499 version (yes, the i5 and i7 have more MHz in the "options" but applications are becoming more parallel, so the extra cores are important).

From my perspective as a developer, these machines are not state of the art. They are really becoming "mini" in the current menu of computing options, so what I think is that Apple is reserving "something else", maybe a Server or something that it is not yet published.

And I made a little exploration in Amazon, just for comparison:

Lite-On 24X SATA Internal DVD+/-RW Drive Optical Drive IHAS124-14 $20.16
Intel Core i7-3770 Quad-Core Processor 3.4 GHz 4 Core LGA 1155 - BX80637I73770 $299.99
2 WD Green 2 TB Desktop Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD20EZRX $82.99
Corsair CX Series 430 Watt ATX/EPS Modular 80 PLUS Bronze ATX12V/EPS12V 384 Power Supply CX430M $49.99
Gigabyte LGA 1150 Intel H87 Dual LAN DVI HDMI UEFI DualBIOS Mini ITX DDR3 1600 Motherboard (GA-H87N) $111.22
Cooler Master Elite 130 No Power Supply Mini-ITX Tower Case- Midnight Black (RC-130-KKN1) $39.99
Crucial 16GB Kit (8GBx2) DDR3L 1600MT/s (PC3-12800) DR x8 ECC UDIMM 240-Pin Server Memory CT2KIT102472BD160B $178.97


TOTAL $866.30


This is comparable by price, but as a machine this is two times the capacity of the mini. A real i7 Quad, 2 2TB disks and a much better, although not so beautiful box. And the motherboard has 10 USB ports, 2 Net ... etc.

Re:Not improved

[Anonymous Coward]

- Selected a lot of cheap parts, the mobo is particularly bad - Probably can't run OSX on this without a lot of hassle - Didn't include the cost of windows, plus the insane amount they charge to upgrade to their latest garbage - The Cooler Master Elite is what 4x the size of the mini, and looks awful. Honestly you can't even compare this case to the mini's tiny all aluminum shell. - This thing probably puts out way more noise - You built it from parts, even a PC is going to cost more to have it preassembled. Not a very fair comparison. Btw I have both, a Macbook Air/Pro for school and work, then a PC built from parts for gaming. Idk why everyone is complaining about the raw specs of Apple products. Are people actually gaming on these? Thats sad.

Re:Not improved

[Anonymous Coward]

Also not a big deal since you're probably not building this, but you picked a LGA 1150 mobo and a LGA 1155 CPU. You'd probably at least like my Asus P8Z77-I ($150) to get close to the quality of whats in a mini. And then still it's way bigger and more power hungry.

Re:Not improved

[Blaskowicz]

Why is wanking about power use such a big thing? It still uses much less power than an older desktop, especially at idle.
The 3770 was a mistake, so include an i7-4790S instead of downgrading the computer.

Re:Not improved

[jo_ham]

LGA 1150 Motherboard and LGA 1155 CPU.

Move along here, nothing to see here.

Re:Not improved

[pherthyl]

>> Why is wanking about power use such a big thing?

As you may be aware, power costs money.

My quad core desktop idle's at about 100W of usage. The mac mini uses about 11W at idle.

So, if it's on 12 hours a day for a year, my desktop costs me about $45 in power. The mini would cost about $5.
So over a 5 year lifespan of the equipment the mini saves about $200. Hence add that to the price of the desktop and you get a fair comparison.

Re:Not improved

[Blaskowicz]

Fair.
Your desktop uses a lot of power at idle though, by putting together a low end beige desktop without trying hard you can get much lower than that at load.
There's a relative lack of power supplies for low powered PCs. 300W Bronze (way overkill but decent), 360W Gold, PicoPSU (a bit weird), and a handful of motherboard that have a DC in for use with a generic laptop power adapter (for relatively "slow" Atom or Jaguar offerings). We'll hopefully see more of them.

You'll end up idling at higher power than a Mac Mini if you roll your own, but it ought to be reasonable.

Re:Not improved

[pherthyl]

Yeah my desktop is about 4 years old by now so I imagine it is not that efficient.

Re:Not improved

[malvcr]

My mistake ... mm, just put a LGA 1150 CPU there


Intel Core i7-4790K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.40 GHz) (BX80646I74790K) $329.99


Not so big difference in price ... even more, the mini is not improved at all.


... trying a little deeper in apple site ...


Specifications
3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz)
16GB 1600MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
1TB Fusion Drive
Intel Iris Graphics
Apple USB SuperDrive
User's Guide (English)
Accessory Kit


$1,478.00


//
The i7-4790K has an Intel® HD Graphics 4600
So? There IRIS i7 based processor is the 4770R that must be purchased on specific brand motherboards ...
... but the i7-4790K is a better performer CPU, so just add around $150 for an NVIDIA GTX 750tI or similar graphics card, being much more superior than the IRIS.


Many numbers ....


The point is. The mini is a well built machine, but it is overpriced for modern standards.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

*Snore snore*

Still 4:3 aspect ratio

[GodWasAnAlien]

This tablet is still 4:3 aspect ratio, like your parents TV.

If you intend on watching videos, perhaps you should get one of the following:

iphone 6+ tablet/phone
Nexus 6 tablet/phone
Nexus 7 tablet
Nesus 9

Re:Still 4:3 aspect ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

16:9 or 16:10 is the worst possible aspect ratio for any task that's not watching videos.

Re: Still 4:3 aspect ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume your phone is 4:3?

And you are clinging to you old 4:3 CRT at work?

Um...

[rsilvergun]

buy Asus/Acer or even HP for Pete's sake. But Dell has been selling $1200 laptops with laughable specs for 10+ years now.

With a Mac you pay through the nose, but you always get the same thing. With a PC there's so many choices it's easy to drop that kinda money and walk away with something that on paper should rock and in practice it blows. I've got an i7 laptop for work that's like that, and it's the bane of my existence.

Re: iOS 8.1? Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe those version numbers actually mean something other than your simplistic assumption.

Apple Pay vs. Google?

[PapayaSF]

Thank you for that explanation, which got me thinking: Apple Pay could remake the web, in some very good ways. Just expand Apple Pay into the micropayment system I've wanted for over 15 years.

If Apple can "scale this down" (even by losing some money on overhead and transaction costs) and make it painless and worthwhile for a website to charge as little as one cent for something, then many good things happen. I think a vast number of web users would happily click a "1 Cent Apple Pay" button to read the second half of an article or column, or hear a song or a podcast, or watch a funny cat video. If it's good, it's worth one cent. If it wasn't, it was only a penny.

Or think of it as $10 for every 1000 articles read/artworks viewed/songs heard: a trivial expense for weeks or months of web usage for most people, in exchange for the content without registrations, or subscriptions, or pay walls, and without advertising. You know, that annoying stuff you try to block. That stuff that Google sells. (Oh-oh...!)

But this would be much more than a way to drop a pipeline into Google's core revenue source. Creatives and publishers and entrepreneurs of all sorts could just add Apple Pay to a page like a social media button, and then sell or rent their work directly and affordably. One cent transactions may only add up to just a few dollars for some, but what are they making now? Web ads bring them little. Maybe they're happy selling songs for $1, but they might be thrilled by the number of people willing to pay one cent to listen to one song, once.

And it could scale up really well. Charities and activists could raise real money in tiny, painless increments. Even one cent per page view adds up to a big chunk of change for newspapers and magazines that now struggle to survive on advertising and/or subscriptions. I think the New York Times website would be thrilled if their 17 million page views a day made them one cent each: that's over $62 million a year. Or maybe some big players get "greedy," and decide to charge a whole five cents for that big story, or virtual art show, or for your first listen to that new song from your favorite band: a million nickels is $50,000.

Now think of ebook sellers who don't need Amazon any more. Think about PayPal, and streaming music services. And why not Bitcoin via Apple Pay....

I'm sure some of you will see this as a dystopian vision, but I think Apple could do a lot of good and (eventually) make a lot of money with my distributed digital free market daydream.

Re:Apple Pay vs. Google?

[shilly]

Strikes me as a clever and interesting idea

By the way, where's mavericks?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just supposed to upgrade some older macs to mavericks and thanks to some application incompatibilities yosemite is as no go for now. Am i totally out of options as I can't find mavericks on app store and it seems to have vanished from the download sections?!

Does this one bend too?

[Anonymous Coward]

serious question.

Re:My Anecdote:

[captjc]

I bought my white Macbook in 2007, paid $1200. One of my family members made the remark that they only ever buy the Walmart special, (whatever is on sale for around $300) and told me that $1200 for a computer was a crime and I was stupid to ever pay that much. In that time, the longest they have ever had a computer was 2 years meanwhile my Macbook is not only still kicking, it still works pretty damn well, though I did max out the RAM a few years ago, install Lion, and am on my third battery.

After all these years, it still works great as my portable computer, Software Radio terminal, and music server though my desktop PC is my primary computer.

yosemite breaks a lot of apps, i am not interested

[Anonymous Coward]

Yosemite breaks a lot of apps. I had to jump through some hoops to get Mavericks to run on my Macpro 2,1 8 core with 32gb of ram.

I had to rewrite boot.efi. My bootloader does not care what model of mac you have, as long as it's 64bit capable.
I took it a step further too. I have an old EFI32 GT120 graphics card just in case I run into an issue... this card is my secondary. My primary is a Nvidia GTX 560. The card works fine. The only issue I had was with vmware fusion. vmware fusion sometime on occasion locks up the ui. it's a bug because I can get out of it with ctl-option-f.

I created a usb install image for efi32 macs. just opy your favorite distro to the usb and name it boot.iso.
I installed Mint 17 and successfully installed on my macpro internal hard drive. I am in the process of creating a mac boot installer tool.
this weekend i will be testing my disaster recovery tools for it. basically I created another usb key that boots the latest clonezilla. I am basically doing the same as carbon copy cloner... disk to disk. After I install my ESATA connector on my old mac pro I should be good to go.
I'm not running the generic kernel.. I optimized the kernel, removed what I didn't need. all memory is detected. My test system has 20gb.
I'm moving on. my 2 mac pros have a lot of life left in them. Hopefully this weekend I will test the video editing capabilities.

i don't know if I am going to release my own optimized distribution for old x86 macs, or just release the efi32 booter/installer.

I do know there are a lot of old mac pros out there that are perfectly fine. And the linux community can pick purchase them pretty cheap.

Re: My Anecdote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but now his bargain laptop special will be more powerful and a current OS than your 7 year old one with usb3 and longer battery life and no additional maintenance hassles and costs. You're not really coming out ahead.

Sounds similar to buy vs lease arguments. Some people want something current and new, others want investment. Sometimes economics swing both ways.

Re:iOS 8.1? Already?

[Plumpaquatsch]

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If you're releasing a major version a month or so before you launch new products, you'd hope you have the OS for those products squared away.

This sounds like they pushed out iOS 8, ran into problems and released iOS 8.0.1, and apparently 8.0.2, and then 8.0.3.

And now they're rolling out 8.1.

That is a lot of churn in a relatively short period of time. Which tells me I'm still going to wait a while, because I expect 8.1.1 or 8.2 to appear within a month or so.

Well, that's nothing on Google. Supposedly Android 5.0 Lollipop will launch 11/3 - but 5.0.1 was already reported in the wild over a year ago: http://www.phonearena.com/news...