The official release announcement was in December, but it was shown in the iF Design Awards in September. So actually more like 16 weeks. (For some reason, I incorrectly thought that was in October.)
Either way, as you quite correctly pointed out, there is simply no way...
Second, they only spec 90 dB SPL. That doesn't sound like 50 W to me, unless those speakers are MONDO inefficient.
They most definitely are inefficient. Look at their size. You could pump a lot of juice into something very small without burning it out and still create very little sound. I just don't doubt for a moment that the amp is capable of delivering 50watt RMS total output. On the cheap side of things you can get that kind of output from a single chip amplifier in the $10 category bolted onto a little bit of metal.
I agree,. And the relatively high THD figure make me feel like you're right that it is integrated (chip) amplifiers, plus, that's how cheap shit (and some not-so-cheap) is done these days. Most stuff is nothing more than glorified car stereo shit these days...
When I was into competition class car stereos I had amps rated at 50W that would utterly destroy the kiddies with their 700W and 2500W amps.
Mine were 50W at 0.00005% thd while the garbage that most kiddies buy is rated at "PEAK" and 60%thd.
I also had decent speakers that were highly efficient. Again not the complete garbage kiddies buy... OHHH BIGGER MAGNETS ARE BETTER OOOOH!
Come on back when you have a basic education in electronics and understand what thd is what speaker sensitivity is. Hell I have Klipsch horns at the house that will produce 106db with 1 watt of power.
Listen closely, you insufferable twit:
I do have (much more than) a basic education in electronics, and in sound reproduction, and know full well what THD and IM distortion (which (IM) you didn't even mention) is. I also understand speaker sensitivity (usually expressed as "x" dB SPL at 1W @ 1m, and usually at 1 KHz).
Your gratuitous and snarky comment regarding your Klipshorns (which are most definitely efficient; but sound like... horns) is both snarky and irrelevant. If you had read TFA, you would know that these are simple direct-radiating, not horn-loaded, speakers, and two of them are PASSIVE radiators (so, the best thing this could be was a labyrinth system), and so the sensitivity is likely to be in 80 to 84 dB range.
And although the typical sensitivity figure-of-merit makes it sound like you can get 160 dB SPL out of 10 W with any speaker, the truth is, you need a DOUBLING of Power (Watts) to achieve a measly 3 dB increase in loudness (SPL). So, that 50 W gets eaten-up pretty damned fast. 84 dB SPL @ 1 W, 87 @ 2 W, 90 @ 4 W, 93 @ 8 W, 96 @ 16 W, 99 @ 32 W and, theoretically, 102 @ 64 W.
In fact, TFA also specs a maximum 90 dB SPL from the system; so, even for typical speakers, I kind of doubt that 50W RMS figure. And that at 1% THD (and unspecified IM, which, as you should know, is FAR more objectionable to listeners).
People have excoriating Apple for offering an RX 460 (with 4 GB GDDR5 RAM) in the 2016 MacBook Pro; yet this crappy little AIO, with an R9 M470X (with 2 GB GDDR5 RAM), is supposed to be God's gift to gaming.
I also looks like the RX 460 is indeed better in every way vs. the R9 M470X.
Another example of unbridled Apple Hate, or is there a huge difference between the two GPUs? Because, it looks like the R9 M470X is based on the older "Bonaire" technology, whereas the RX 460 is the newer "Polaris" tech.
One of the most expensive components of your computer is your monitor, but it is also one of the most standardized and longest-lasting. Think about it: pretty much any monitor bought in the last 20+ years* (including CRTs) can be used with any computer or video card on the market, requiring at most a super cheap adapter.
But with an AIO, you lose this major advatage desktop systems have over laptops. You're still paying for the monitor, but have little to no choice in which model it will be, and you will only ever use it with this one computer. And when the computer dies, the monitor is finished too (even if it's in working condition).
* Yeah, I know analog/VGA is starting to go away. I still holds for digital.
Unless you replace your computer every 2 years (which is ridiculous nowadays), by the time your computer is ready for the dustbin, the monitor is not far behind,
And, unless you get a really high-end monitor, replacing a monitor costs less than, or about the same as, replacing a 4 TB internal HD.
What makes you think that? 50W is a pretty pathetically low target to hit. Divided through 10 speakers you could easily put 5W into each small driver.
I have no doubt that it's real 50W RMS. I also have no doubt it sounds like garbage.
First off, it isn't 10 speakers, it's 8. From the review:
Six front-face speakers, two down firing speakers, two passive radiators
Second, they only spec 90 dB SPL. That doesn't sound like 50 W to me, unless those speakers are MONDO inefficient.
And yes, I am SURE it sounds like garbage, with plastic cabinet-resonances and IM distortion (which you notice they don't spec) galore. I certainly LOOKS like garbage, that's for sure...
None of UIKit is part of OS X, and AFAIK, it doesn't share any code with AppKit—it doesn't even use the same coordinate system. That means it wouldn't have been just the home screen, but rather all of the user interface views, touch handling, gesture recognition, etc. Realistically, that's not a few weeks' work.
Besides, the iOS UI is very much the natural evolution of Newton OS. All touchscreen OSes, including the LG Prada, are basically just imitations of that original design with varying degrees of refinement, so it's no surprise that design-wise, the iOS home screen is almost identical to the Newton's, all the way down to the bottom row of icons being reserved for commonly-used features. The only big difference is that the Newton was in black-and-white/greyscale. By contrast, the iOS home screen looks almost nothing like the home screen on the KE850 except to the extent that they both involve a touchscreen containing some icons. It seems pretty obvious that the iOS UI evolved in-house, inspired mainly by the Newton, and that the LG Prada had no meaningful impact on it, unless I missed something subtle.
Not to mention that both the iPhone and the Newton were based on ARM (Apple being one of the originators of ARM), and so, maybe even some of the Newton OS' Assembly code made its way into the prototypes of the iPhone OS.
However, I do take one small exception to your comment about the "bottom row buttons". In 1982-84, I was designing a stage-lighting controller with a rudimentary touchscreen interface. In the "GUI" I designed for it (from scratch!), the bottom-row was taken up with some dedicated "Navigation" buttons. So, I think it's more of a "natural" place to put stuff, rather than an homage to Newton (although I agree that is a possibility).
The software? Well, the demo Jobs presented apparently had very buggy software that was prone to crashing. The demo was heavily scripted to ensure Jobs took a path through the operating system that had been shown not to crash, repeatedly.
Your point being?
Guess you've never had to demo a brand-new, not-yet-released product, then, have you?
Then LG Prada got released, won awards and they probably decided to copy it
I know that's what the LG folks would like to think, but the reality is that nobody—even Apple—could create a working prototype of an entire cell phone OS and hardware in the twelve weeks between when LG announced and when Apple announced (even without the Thanksgiving and Christmas shutdowns cutting into that schedule).
Besides, Apple created the nothing-but-screen PDA form factor when they released the Newton, way back when LG was still called GoldStar and mostly made cheap TVs and VCRs....
According to Wikipedia, the LG Prada was first ANNOUNCED on December 19, 2006, and the original iPhone was first DEMONSTRATED on January 9, 2007.
So, we're not talking TWELVE weeks (which is of course, ridiculous, as you pointed-out), but more like THREE weeks (actually less)...
I've seen the patent for this prior to this release. I was pretty confident it was disinformation so competitors wouldn't know what they were actually doing. I still believe that's case, and what this protype is.
It may have been George Lucas style revisionism, but it's been said the iPhone was a stepping stone to get to Jobs' goal of the iPad. The click wheel wouldn't fly. And I doubt AT&T would have redesigned their network and voicemail system for this either.
It's really fascinating to see that they really didn't invent the modern, big touch screen smart phone. They were going to release something that likely would have been consigned to the annals of history as a failed idea and eventually been forced to go the touch screen route like everyone else.
Jobs was famously honest about stealing good ideas. The iPhone might be the highest value theft ever.
Now, Please show me where Apple got the iPhone from (and don't say from that barely-similar LG Prada, unless you think Apple could have designed the iPhone in ONE MONTH, since the Prada wasn't even LEAKED until December 12, 2006, and the iPhone was DEBUTED on January 9, 2007, some 25 DAYS later).
It's kind of funny that Android users say that the great thing about Android is that you're not stuck with just one manufacturer and one App Store but if you want security updates and not get infected by malware you're stuck with one manufacturer (Google) and one app store. (Google Play).
But on the other hand, Android is based on Linux, why shouldn't you be able to download apps from anywhere and the OS be able to sandbox it?
I currently can access three different App stores without sideloading or disabling protections. And security updates is a completely different issue that has nothing at all to do with sideloading, since you don't have to root/crack your OS or install custom ROMs to do it like you do with an Apple product.
WRONG! Please try to keep up!
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: Apple has actually ALLOWED "Side-Loading" on iOS WITHOUT JAILBREAKING since iOS 8.
> It was the first UI to feature Blur and Transparency.
Uh... Windows 98 had bit-masked transparency with apps like Winamp 2.x or 3.x.
compiz came out in 2006.
Windows Vista with Aero was completed in November 2006, and released to the general public in January 2007. Almost a full year earlier than Leopard.
Win 98's Transparency was like GIF transparency. Either yes or no. No "percentage". Hardly equivalent.
Compiz is a toy add-on to X11, and doesn't count.
Leopard and Visturd were obviously in development concurrently. And the only reason Visturd was rushed-out in January (half-finished), was because MS was under obligation to a zillion VLA customers to release at that time, or be in default of their part of the agreement. Or did you conveniently forget that little detail?
But since your "challenge" made me think of OS X's Quartz composition engine, which had variable transparency (and likely blur), and has existed in OS X since AT LEAST the beginning (10.0.0 "Cheetah", release to public in March, 2001) up to today, I got looking around. Guess what? There is a nice Screenshot of Cheetah on Wikipedia, clearly showing use of variable transparency for Menus (and I now remember it was used for other UI elements, like "sheets" (Dialogs).
So that's March, 2001, Release To Public, for FULL-ON, VARIABLE TRANSPARENCY use in an OS in a general-purpose "UI Element" sort of way. And quite frankly, I believe that the OS X Public Beta, released in September 2000, had it too, but I can't find a screenshot to prove it.
Oh god, that looks terrible. Good catch. It's an ENTIRE UI based on iTunes for Windows.
No, actually based on OS X 10.5 Leopard, from 2007. It was the first UI to feature Blur and Transparency. But now Apple has had a DECADE to get those two UI elements right. That means that MS should have a mature UI using Transparency and Blur around 2027.
But don't worry; they will continue to play musical paradigms and the Transparency and Blur will be gone in a revision or two.
...and we all thought that Google was the ADHD one...
The cheese grater towers were fantastic machines. I'm still running two myself, albeit with hacks so they'll run Mavericks.
But ya know, I was just looking at the benchmarks for the late 2013 "Trashcan" Mac Pro last evening. It can truly run circles around the Cheese-Graters (as much as I like them).
Yes there are significantly better Xeons around: look here. The best CPU you can buy for the mac pro is number 27 on that list. The top Intel proc has 20 cores compared to 12 and runs 50% faster.
The question is, how many PCI-e lanes do they support? I didn't see that on the list you linked; and don't have time to run-down a bunch of CPU product pages on the Intel site. Perhaps you know...
From what I have read, we are only JUST now, LATER THIS YEAR (2017) going to have a "Skylake"-based Xeon with enough PCI-e lanes to make TB3 worthwhile on the Mac Pro. And if the Mac Pro can't enter the world of USB-C/TB3 yet, it isn't worth upgrading... yet.
So, let's hope Apple has gotten some Engineering Samples of the new "Skylake" Xeons, and is busily incorporating them into an updated Mac Pro...
1. You apparently didn't read so well. "Aggressive throttling" is what the PREVIOUS (2014) MacBook Pro did. Tests of the 2016 model clearly show that the improved THERMAL management have allowed the CPU to run FULL SPEED for far longer periods (maybe even indefinitely) while connected to AC power. OTOH, improved POWER management allow run-times that are better overall, and likely DO throttle the CPU somewhat on battery, which pretty much EVERYONE has done since the dawn of laptops.
2. Because they found that almost no one did that before they wanted to buy another laptop.
3. Just because something doesn't cross YOUR use-case, doesn't mean it doesn't cross MANY others. And besides, it IS an improvement, no matter what.
4. At least we agree that they are major improvements, and the overall effect is that we now have a LAPTOP with nearly TWICE the I/O capacity of the late 2013 Mac Pro. Now, if people would just quit whining about having to buy a piddling $2.50 USB-C to USB-A Adapter...
5. What are you blathering about? I was talking about the "Touch ID" Fingerprint sensor; not the "Force-Touch" Trackpad. Please try and keep up...
Slashdot Mirror
and it's storage would of been harder to get back / have to pay apple shop pricing to use the there recovery cable.
As opposed to the old, socketed version, that would have just been blown to pieces.
And, pray tell, what is the Apple Shop price for data extraction using their magic cable?
The official release announcement was in December, but it was shown in the iF Design Awards in September. So actually more like 16 weeks. (For some reason, I incorrectly thought that was in October.)
Either way, as you quite correctly pointed out, there is simply no way...
Second, they only spec 90 dB SPL. That doesn't sound like 50 W to me, unless those speakers are MONDO inefficient.
They most definitely are inefficient. Look at their size. You could pump a lot of juice into something very small without burning it out and still create very little sound. I just don't doubt for a moment that the amp is capable of delivering 50watt RMS total output. On the cheap side of things you can get that kind of output from a single chip amplifier in the $10 category bolted onto a little bit of metal.
I agree,. And the relatively high THD figure make me feel like you're right that it is integrated (chip) amplifiers, plus, that's how cheap shit (and some not-so-cheap) is done these days. Most stuff is nothing more than glorified car stereo shit these days...
When I was into competition class car stereos I had amps rated at 50W that would utterly destroy the kiddies with their 700W and 2500W amps. Mine were 50W at 0.00005% thd while the garbage that most kiddies buy is rated at "PEAK" and 60%thd.
I also had decent speakers that were highly efficient. Again not the complete garbage kiddies buy... OHHH BIGGER MAGNETS ARE BETTER OOOOH!
Come on back when you have a basic education in electronics and understand what thd is what speaker sensitivity is. Hell I have Klipsch horns at the house that will produce 106db with 1 watt of power.
Listen closely, you insufferable twit:
I do have (much more than) a basic education in electronics, and in sound reproduction, and know full well what THD and IM distortion (which (IM) you didn't even mention) is. I also understand speaker sensitivity (usually expressed as "x" dB SPL at 1W @ 1m, and usually at 1 KHz).
Your gratuitous and snarky comment regarding your Klipshorns (which are most definitely efficient; but sound like... horns) is both snarky and irrelevant. If you had read TFA, you would know that these are simple direct-radiating, not horn-loaded, speakers, and two of them are PASSIVE radiators (so, the best thing this could be was a labyrinth system), and so the sensitivity is likely to be in 80 to 84 dB range.
And although the typical sensitivity figure-of-merit makes it sound like you can get 160 dB SPL out of 10 W with any speaker, the truth is, you need a DOUBLING of Power (Watts) to achieve a measly 3 dB increase in loudness (SPL). So, that 50 W gets eaten-up pretty damned fast. 84 dB SPL @ 1 W, 87 @ 2 W, 90 @ 4 W, 93 @ 8 W, 96 @ 16 W, 99 @ 32 W and, theoretically, 102 @ 64 W.
In fact, TFA also specs a maximum 90 dB SPL from the system; so, even for typical speakers, I kind of doubt that 50W RMS figure. And that at 1% THD (and unspecified IM, which, as you should know, is FAR more objectionable to listeners).
That GPU isn't going to run games well at 4k.
I was wondering about that.
People have excoriating Apple for offering an RX 460 (with 4 GB GDDR5 RAM) in the 2016 MacBook Pro; yet this crappy little AIO, with an R9 M470X (with 2 GB GDDR5 RAM), is supposed to be God's gift to gaming.
I also looks like the RX 460 is indeed better in every way vs. the R9 M470X. Another example of unbridled Apple Hate, or is there a huge difference between the two GPUs? Because, it looks like the R9 M470X is based on the older "Bonaire" technology, whereas the RX 460 is the newer "Polaris" tech.
One of the most expensive components of your computer is your monitor, but it is also one of the most standardized and longest-lasting. Think about it: pretty much any monitor bought in the last 20+ years* (including CRTs) can be used with any computer or video card on the market, requiring at most a super cheap adapter.
But with an AIO, you lose this major advatage desktop systems have over laptops. You're still paying for the monitor, but have little to no choice in which model it will be, and you will only ever use it with this one computer. And when the computer dies, the monitor is finished too (even if it's in working condition).
* Yeah, I know analog/VGA is starting to go away. I still holds for digital.
Unless you replace your computer every 2 years (which is ridiculous nowadays), by the time your computer is ready for the dustbin, the monitor is not far behind,
And, unless you get a really high-end monitor, replacing a monitor costs less than, or about the same as, replacing a 4 TB internal HD.
You mean, $15 Earbuds will smack its peepee.
What makes you think that? 50W is a pretty pathetically low target to hit. Divided through 10 speakers you could easily put 5W into each small driver.
I have no doubt that it's real 50W RMS. I also have no doubt it sounds like garbage.
First off, it isn't 10 speakers, it's 8. From the review:
Six front-face speakers, two down firing speakers, two passive radiators
Second, they only spec 90 dB SPL. That doesn't sound like 50 W to me, unless those speakers are MONDO inefficient.
And yes, I am SURE it sounds like garbage, with plastic cabinet-resonances and IM distortion (which you notice they don't spec) galore. I certainly LOOKS like garbage, that's for sure...
Well it's over a decade old, so I assume it includes outdated technology.
Oooo. SNAP!
None of UIKit is part of OS X, and AFAIK, it doesn't share any code with AppKit—it doesn't even use the same coordinate system. That means it wouldn't have been just the home screen, but rather all of the user interface views, touch handling, gesture recognition, etc. Realistically, that's not a few weeks' work.
Besides, the iOS UI is very much the natural evolution of Newton OS. All touchscreen OSes, including the LG Prada, are basically just imitations of that original design with varying degrees of refinement, so it's no surprise that design-wise, the iOS home screen is almost identical to the Newton's, all the way down to the bottom row of icons being reserved for commonly-used features. The only big difference is that the Newton was in black-and-white/greyscale. By contrast, the iOS home screen looks almost nothing like the home screen on the KE850 except to the extent that they both involve a touchscreen containing some icons. It seems pretty obvious that the iOS UI evolved in-house, inspired mainly by the Newton, and that the LG Prada had no meaningful impact on it, unless I missed something subtle.
Not to mention that both the iPhone and the Newton were based on ARM (Apple being one of the originators of ARM), and so, maybe even some of the Newton OS' Assembly code made its way into the prototypes of the iPhone OS.
However, I do take one small exception to your comment about the "bottom row buttons". In 1982-84, I was designing a stage-lighting controller with a rudimentary touchscreen interface. In the "GUI" I designed for it (from scratch!), the bottom-row was taken up with some dedicated "Navigation" buttons. So, I think it's more of a "natural" place to put stuff, rather than an homage to Newton (although I agree that is a possibility).
The software? Well, the demo Jobs presented apparently had very buggy software that was prone to crashing. The demo was heavily scripted to ensure Jobs took a path through the operating system that had been shown not to crash, repeatedly.
Your point being?
Guess you've never had to demo a brand-new, not-yet-released product, then, have you?
Or likely not any product, eh?
I know that's what the LG folks would like to think, but the reality is that nobody—even Apple—could create a working prototype of an entire cell phone OS and hardware in the twelve weeks between when LG announced and when Apple announced (even without the Thanksgiving and Christmas shutdowns cutting into that schedule).
Besides, Apple created the nothing-but-screen PDA form factor when they released the Newton, way back when LG was still called GoldStar and mostly made cheap TVs and VCRs....
According to Wikipedia, the LG Prada was first ANNOUNCED on December 19, 2006, and the original iPhone was first DEMONSTRATED on January 9, 2007.
So, we're not talking TWELVE weeks (which is of course, ridiculous, as you pointed-out), but more like THREE weeks (actually less)...
I've seen the patent for this prior to this release. I was pretty confident it was disinformation so competitors wouldn't know what they were actually doing. I still believe that's case, and what this protype is.
It may have been George Lucas style revisionism, but it's been said the iPhone was a stepping stone to get to Jobs' goal of the iPad. The click wheel wouldn't fly. And I doubt AT&T would have redesigned their network and voicemail system for this either.
I actually heard that they designed the iPad FIRST. (Sorry for the obnoxious link).
It's really fascinating to see that they really didn't invent the modern, big touch screen smart phone. They were going to release something that likely would have been consigned to the annals of history as a failed idea and eventually been forced to go the touch screen route like everyone else.
Jobs was famously honest about stealing good ideas. The iPhone might be the highest value theft ever.
I can show you where Samsung got their smartphone design from.
Now, Please show me where Apple got the iPhone from (and don't say from that barely-similar LG Prada, unless you think Apple could have designed the iPhone in ONE MONTH, since the Prada wasn't even LEAKED until December 12, 2006, and the iPhone was DEBUTED on January 9, 2007, some 25 DAYS later).
Look up "Peak Music Power" - marketing numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I seriously doubt it's a real 50W RMS of audio power.
The maximum power supply available is 12v, P = v^2/r comes to about 28W. Yes, there is a -12V but it's usually very low draw.
O.K. you could get 50W with 4 ohm speakers, I'm still very cynical about the numbers.
This is 50W just like all those car stereo amps are 700W.
Watt a joke!
It's kind of funny that Android users say that the great thing about Android is that you're not stuck with just one manufacturer and one App Store but if you want security updates and not get infected by malware you're stuck with one manufacturer (Google) and one app store. (Google Play).
But on the other hand, Android is based on Linux, why shouldn't you be able to download apps from anywhere and the OS be able to sandbox it?
I currently can access three different App stores without sideloading or disabling protections. And security updates is a completely different issue that has nothing at all to do with sideloading, since you don't have to root/crack your OS or install custom ROMs to do it like you do with an Apple product.
WRONG! Please try to keep up!
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: Apple has actually ALLOWED "Side-Loading" on iOS WITHOUT JAILBREAKING since iOS 8.
Here's how you do it.
And you don't even have to use XCode (and from Windows and Linux computers). Just use the handy Cydia Impactor.
And here's a list of F/OSS iOS Apps on github that can be Sideloaded.
And here's an example of a NON F/OSS App that can be Sideloaded with Impactor.
Another day, another piece of Android Malware...
> It was the first UI to feature Blur and Transparency.
Uh... Windows 98 had bit-masked transparency with apps like Winamp 2.x or 3.x.
compiz came out in 2006.
Windows Vista with Aero was completed in November 2006, and released to the general public in January 2007. Almost a full year earlier than Leopard.
Win 98's Transparency was like GIF transparency. Either yes or no. No "percentage". Hardly equivalent .
Compiz is a toy add-on to X11, and doesn't count.
Leopard and Visturd were obviously in development concurrently. And the only reason Visturd was rushed-out in January (half-finished), was because MS was under obligation to a zillion VLA customers to release at that time, or be in default of their part of the agreement. Or did you conveniently forget that little detail?
But since your "challenge" made me think of OS X's Quartz composition engine, which had variable transparency (and likely blur), and has existed in OS X since AT LEAST the beginning (10.0.0 "Cheetah", release to public in March, 2001) up to today, I got looking around. Guess what? There is a nice Screenshot of Cheetah on Wikipedia, clearly showing use of variable transparency for Menus (and I now remember it was used for other UI elements, like "sheets" (Dialogs).
So that's March, 2001, Release To Public, for FULL-ON, VARIABLE TRANSPARENCY use in an OS in a general-purpose "UI Element" sort of way. And quite frankly, I believe that the OS X Public Beta, released in September 2000, had it too, but I can't find a screenshot to prove it.
Apple is STILL first, and by a wide margin.
Oh god, that looks terrible. Good catch. It's an ENTIRE UI based on iTunes for Windows.
No, actually based on OS X 10.5 Leopard, from 2007. It was the first UI to feature Blur and Transparency. But now Apple has had a DECADE to get those two UI elements right. That means that MS should have a mature UI using Transparency and Blur around 2027.
...and we all thought that Google was the ADHD one...
But don't worry; they will continue to play musical paradigms and the Transparency and Blur will be gone in a revision or two.
Hmmm. Blur and Transparency. HOW many years ago did Apple do that with OS X?
Oh, wait! It was introduced in 2007, in OS X 10.5 LEOPARD, which was STILL BACK IN THE POWERPC DAYS!!!
I guess "Redmond, Start Your Copiers" still applies...
What is that, like FOUR in as many versions?
Way to demonstrate "Persistance of Vision".
Say what you will about macOS; but Sierra looks and works a HELLUVA lot more like Mac OS 1.0 than Windows 10 looks like Windows 1.0
Sigh.
The cheese grater towers were fantastic machines. I'm still running two myself, albeit with hacks so they'll run Mavericks.
But ya know, I was just looking at the benchmarks for the late 2013 "Trashcan" Mac Pro last evening. It can truly run circles around the Cheese-Graters (as much as I like them).
The cheese grater towers were fantastic machines. I'm still running two myself, albeit with hacks so they'll run Mavericks.
What "hacks" for Mavericks? I didn't think you needed any hacks for those until you got to El Capitan or Sierra.
Yes there are significantly better Xeons around: look here. The best CPU you can buy for the mac pro is number 27 on that list. The top Intel proc has 20 cores compared to 12 and runs 50% faster.
The question is, how many PCI-e lanes do they support? I didn't see that on the list you linked; and don't have time to run-down a bunch of CPU product pages on the Intel site. Perhaps you know...
.
From what I have read, we are only JUST now, LATER THIS YEAR (2017) going to have a "Skylake"-based Xeon with enough PCI-e lanes to make TB3 worthwhile on the Mac Pro. And if the Mac Pro can't enter the world of USB-C/TB3 yet, it isn't worth upgrading... yet
So, let's hope Apple has gotten some Engineering Samples of the new "Skylake" Xeons, and is busily incorporating them into an updated Mac Pro...
1. You apparently didn't read so well. "Aggressive throttling" is what the PREVIOUS (2014) MacBook Pro did. Tests of the 2016 model clearly show that the improved THERMAL management have allowed the CPU to run FULL SPEED for far longer periods (maybe even indefinitely) while connected to AC power. OTOH, improved POWER management allow run-times that are better overall, and likely DO throttle the CPU somewhat on battery, which pretty much EVERYONE has done since the dawn of laptops.
2. Because they found that almost no one did that before they wanted to buy another laptop.
3. Just because something doesn't cross YOUR use-case, doesn't mean it doesn't cross MANY others. And besides, it IS an improvement, no matter what.
4. At least we agree that they are major improvements, and the overall effect is that we now have a LAPTOP with nearly TWICE the I/O capacity of the late 2013 Mac Pro. Now, if people would just quit whining about having to buy a piddling $2.50 USB-C to USB-A Adapter...
5. What are you blathering about? I was talking about the "Touch ID" Fingerprint sensor; not the "Force-Touch" Trackpad. Please try and keep up...