I assume you upgraded its inside like replacing its original RAM, HDD, etc. since it is VERY slow. Too bad the newer MacBooks can't be done easily like the old ones (2008, 2012, etc.).:(
Back to my mid-2012 MBP: No upgrades. Meant to, but never had to so far. It has 4 GB RAM and 500 GB 5400 RPM HDD.
Most processor-intensive thing I've ever done was record a 16-simultaneous-track live performance with Logic Pro 9, then later, mix that down, also in Logic, using several plugins per channel-strip, and then a few overall plugins on the masters. I don't. Elise the CPU ever got above 60% utilization.
You haven't looked very hard, then. I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework for you, because your delusions prevent my efforts from having any effect, but there have been at least two other high profile incidents involving iMac Pro machines Apple could not repair properly; and no, I don't waste my time looking for these, they're headline news that comes across my inbox passively.
I seriously looked at least 3 pages deep in my Google search. All I found were people re-posting Linus' incident. Then I got tired of looking.
If that truly is the case, I agree it's pretty much bullshit. But it's almost impossible to believe that Apple couldn't develop procedures to repair something that they can build. I'm not calling you a liar; but it does seem implausible.
Considering that even Apple can't repair them right now, and the storage is paired to the logic board, I'm gonna say it's a pretty big weenie computer for anyone who needs a reliable machine. There's more to reliability than simply trusting it won't fail; they aren't perfect, and if you happen to have the one that fails and even ghe manufacturer can't fix it, you're kind if fucked into buying another $5000 machine and you'd better hope your backups are current and actually recoverable.
Sorry but no, until Apple can repair them, the iMac Pro is a joke.
No, that Blogger Linus is a joke.
I find NO other references to "iMac Pro" and "repair" other than that whiner. I am surprised you have fallen for that.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish.
A "couple of products languish"? They only have a couple of products! They've got basically three desktop machines (with various configurations) and the iMac is the only one that is even remotely up to date as I write this. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not even close to the best hardware available in their respective market segments right now. They are better on the laptop side of things but their decisions there haven't been universally great either. (16GB max ram on MBP? One USB-C port for the whole machine?) I understand that they sell more laptops than desktops but that's not an acceptable excuse. With the billions Apple has in the bank I'm fairly confident that it isn't a resources problem so that means it is a decision rather than a limitation.
Most damning to my mind is that Apple still can't seem to figure out how to really tightly integrate the software between their Macintosh computers and their phones and tablets and other devices. The Mac has kind of become the bastard step child. Ironic since the real value proposition for any Apple machine is in the software. Put Windows on a Mac without OS X and nobody is going to pay a premium for that. People buy Apple products for the software and Apple really is a software company. If they are going to bundle their software with hardware as they have always done, then the hardware for their Macintosh line needs to be better than it currently is and needs to remain so. Otherwise one can find more value in a Windows or Linux box for a lot of use cases.
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.
Apple charges premium prices for their products and historically they've been good enough to justify that pricing. That's fine but with premium pricing we should fully expect to get a premium product including hardware that is somewhere close to the best available at the time of purchase. With as few products as Apple has in their lineup (by design) they should have NO problem keeping their products at or near the best available in their respective categories. And currently it is undeniable that they routinely fail in this test in their Macintosh division particularly with their desktop machines.
In addition to their Mobile and Home Entertainment Products, Apple has the following "Computing" Products:
1. MacBook (non-Pro) 2. MacBook Air 3. MacBook Pro 4. iMac 5. iMac Pro 6. Mac mini 7. Mac Pro
Out of those SEVEN computing products, only TWO of them have been shown no love for too long a time. What I believe is "too long" at this point is around 3 years; primarily because CPU advancement has slowed WAY down since 2015 or so, and we're getting to the same point now with GPUs, too.
The MacBook Air even received a small speed bump and faster Graphics in June 2017. As for the (non-pro) MacBook, I am way less-familiar with that model, but it appears that the mid 2015 and newer models can be upgraded to Mojave; so, it's not out of the game, yet.
You can ALWAYS "fake innovation" like most of the Windows-centric Computers do. But this is a bad joke on the consumer, and amounts to little more than changing the height of the tail-fins on car designs.
As I said to BronsCon, the MacBook Pro, iMac and iMac Pro are ALL using state-of-the-art CPUs and GPUs and I/O. I am tired of this "Macs use obsolete hardware" meme; because it JUST AIN'T SO!!!
I'm just going to stick my "properly researched" Reply here, even though posted after my first reply, below. Sorry for any confusion:
Yes. It was PC tech in 2015.
Unpossible.
The series of CPUs used in the 2017 iMacs, MacBook Pros, and iMac Pro weren't even SAMPLING in 2015!
Same with the GPUs.
And then there's Thunderbolt 3...
Not to reply to my own post; but:
Intel's Kaby Lake M CPUs were not released until January, 2017, and the Kaby Lake R not until August, 2017. So OBVIOUSLY not "2015 PC tech".
Although the first laptop with a Thunderbolt Laptop was indeed a MacBook Pro, Thunderbolt 3 was released in DECEMBER, 2015. Hardly fair to call TB3 "2015 PC tech", and then not mention that 99.999% of "PCs" didn't have TB3 until 2016, same as the 2016 MacBook Pro.
And as far as the GPU is concerned, the AMD Radeon Pro RX 500 series shows a launch date of August, 2017, and even if that is off by some months, it OBVIOUSLY isn't "2015 PC tech", either.
The release date of the mid 2017 MacBook Pro and iMac is listed as June 5, 2017. So, as I said, NOT "two year old PC tech".
As for the iMac Pro, we'll focus on the PCU AND GPU.
The Xeon series W was announced by Intel at IFA in August, 2017.
The AMD RX Vega Series GPUs were released on August 14, 2017.
Both were integrated into the iMac Pro and ON THE SHELF by shortly after December 14, 2017, a scant four months later. That's pretty good, considering the extra effort it takes to design things into an AIO, and get all the logistics together for EVERYTHING, which is a LOT more intense than sticking a chip on a PCIe board and calling a day!
So, I stand by my initial statement, that the 2017 (and 2016) Macs represent state-of-the-art hardware at the time of release, and CERTAINLY could not be characterized as "2015 PC tech".
Thanks. I'll see if I can do a download now, install later and stick with El Capitan for now. We are facing a major upgrade to all software at work. Problem is, management just doesn't get the fact that most of the computers are just too old to be fit for purpose and there is not sufficient budget to replace them! Not my problem as I'm not in IT, but the IT guy is well pissed off. He has been told 'well, you'll just have to figure it out'. I really hate my boss!
Yeah, your IT guy just has to defecate some CPU cycles... (facepalm) When you go to install that High Sierra installer, you MAY have to set your System DateTime to the same as the Installer File's CREATION Date. At least I found that to be true with macOS Installers that I had created USB Install-Sticks for using the most-excellent DiskMakerX Freeware Utility:
> What is different from 2016 technology from 2018?
A few things. If you buy a Skylake (2015-2016) i5 8600k you get 4 cores clocked at 3.5GHz. The Coffee Lake (2017-2018) 8600k gives you 6 cores clocked at 3.6GHz. Not earth shattering on the speed bump, but the 2 extra cores on the "same" part is nice. The Coffee Lake chip also supports a higher turbo clock speed, faster RAM, and has the next bump up in onboard graphics. And generally speaking the mobile chips of each generation usually get more energy efficient over their predecessors while keeping the same or better performance.
So while you're not getting 2-3x the performance in 2 years like the olden days of Moore, you still get improvements and better battery life. Why should consumers be happy leaving that on the table with Apple when they don't from other vendors?
But they DO get better performance!
For example, compare what a 2015 MacBook Pro can do, compared with the 2016 or 2017 models. They took those efficiency improvements and turned a laptop that had thermal throttling issues into a laptop that can cruise at 100% CPU all day without throttling.
If you think that doesn't make a difference in the real-world, you're sadly mistaken.
Here's a comparison of Final Cut Pro X processing on the 15" MacBook Pro vs. the 2016 version. Note that the 2017 model is not too much faster, but is between 1.5 and 13% faster than the 2016 model:
If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
What if it doesn't meet your needs? Would you want a better one to be available?
CPUs may not be getting much faster, but they are getting more power efficient, and other components, such as the battery, SSD, RAM, and GPU have improved considerably in the last few years.
...and that's why the 2017 MacBook Pro, iMac and iMac Pro ALL have chipsets, displays, and I/O technology that is state-of-the-art.
You're an idiot. The difference between two years ago and current day is huge because AMD finally got their act together. We now have faster, cheaper, and less buggy processors. Apple should be selling a 32 core threadripper Mac pro in a stylish case.
Who says they don't have one running in the R&D lab right now?
It is NOT "totally fine". "Good enough" from a few years ago is NOT "good enough" here in the future year of 2018. The #1 thing done on a computer is browse the web. Web pages have gotten fatter and slower with JavaScript and parallax scrolling and a bunch of other shit that I don't care about but people insist on doing and the trend is not going away.
Intel is making faster chips. Memory is cheap. I just want a computer in a form factor I like that runs my OS of choice and can keep up with the world that's changing around it.
My mid-2012 MacBook Pro suffers no detectable slowdown or inability to handle complex websites, etc.
Old macs are generally inline with old PC's... you're in denial of you think your comp is running like it did new. Mac, windows and android all slow down over time with updates.
I have definitely experienced that with iOS; but never with macOS.
The real issue here is Intel, not Apple. There is no point in updating any of Apple's computer line as long as Intel can't get their upgrade cycle running smoothly. Add in all the security flaws and you have another reason not to update anything.
Intel can announce all the crap they want and trickle out a small number of chips, but Apple won't jump on board until they can get mass quantities of CPUs...
Apple would be better off doing their own CPUs....
E
Exactly this!
And that's why Apple is obviously looking into doing JUST THAT!
Totally forgot about them. Sure, some useful little tools for some people, but really they are small potatoes. That said, this guy is somewhat right in what he says but my 2009 and 2011 iMacs are running fine. My only concern (and a big one too) is that at some point a future OS upgrade will not be compatible with the aging computers. That I why I avoid upgrading the OS.
That point has come with macOS Mojave. Nothing earlier than mid-2012 need apply.
But you can still install High Sierra on those machines (at least the 2011 one for sure), and get almost all of the benefits that those running Mojave will have. I would suggest doing that, before the High Sierra Installer gets pulled from the Mac App Store...
It's very difficult to recommend much from the current crop of Macs to customers, and that's deeply worrisome to us, as a Mac-based software company.
Apple's Mac division has really kind of gone of the rails in recent years. They've made multiple repeated bizarre design decisions and they seldom update their hardware. While is hasn't been all bad, it's getting hard to recommend the Mac to people I previously would have done so without hesitation. They cater to a fairly specific customer and that's fine but they aren't even doing a very good job of that anymore.
It's pretty clear that the focus of management is on the iPhone. Understandable but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of the value proposition from Apple comes from the tight ecosystem integration. Without that it's not so compelling to buy an iPhone or an iPad. Honestly I don't see a lot of tight integration in ways that are useful to me.
I have a Mac Mini and I'm about to replace it but probably not with another Mac Mini and the way things are going not with any other type of Mac either. Apple just isn't investing in the Mac and if they cannot be bothered in spite of the massive cash hoard they have then why should I care either? Apple should be making the Mac the best type of PC available and they just aren't. They are nice enough but they're behind the technology curve at this point. I don't think they need to be bleeding edge but they aren't even close to the edge on PCs anymore. Either they are incompetent or they just can't be bothered and I tend to favor the later theory.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish. Apple has already committed to updating the Mac Pro in some sort of completely different direction than the cylinder; so, let's let them do their work, shall we?
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you upgraded its inside like replacing its original RAM, HDD, etc. since it is VERY slow. Too bad the newer MacBooks can't be done easily like the old ones (2008, 2012, etc.). :(
Back to my mid-2012 MBP: No upgrades. Meant to, but never had to so far. It has 4 GB RAM and 500 GB 5400 RPM HDD.
Most processor-intensive thing I've ever done was record a 16-simultaneous-track live performance with Logic Pro 9, then later, mix that down, also in Logic, using several plugins per channel-strip, and then a few overall plugins on the masters. I don't. Elise the CPU ever got above 60% utilization.
You haven't looked very hard, then. I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework for you, because your delusions prevent my efforts from having any effect, but there have been at least two other high profile incidents involving iMac Pro machines Apple could not repair properly; and no, I don't waste my time looking for these, they're headline news that comes across my inbox passively.
I seriously looked at least 3 pages deep in my Google search. All I found were people re-posting Linus' incident. Then I got tired of looking.
If that truly is the case, I agree it's pretty much bullshit. But it's almost impossible to believe that Apple couldn't develop procedures to repair something that they can build. I'm not calling you a liar; but it does seem implausible.
Video can be fake. Let's see it in person and instructions! Prove it basically.
True enough!
Considering that even Apple can't repair them right now, and the storage is paired to the logic board, I'm gonna say it's a pretty big weenie computer for anyone who needs a reliable machine. There's more to reliability than simply trusting it won't fail; they aren't perfect, and if you happen to have the one that fails and even ghe manufacturer can't fix it, you're kind if fucked into buying another $5000 machine and you'd better hope your backups are current and actually recoverable.
Sorry but no, until Apple can repair them, the iMac Pro is a joke.
No, that Blogger Linus is a joke.
I find NO other references to "iMac Pro" and "repair" other than that whiner. I am surprised you have fallen for that.
Sorry.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish.
A "couple of products languish"? They only have a couple of products! They've got basically three desktop machines (with various configurations) and the iMac is the only one that is even remotely up to date as I write this. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are not even close to the best hardware available in their respective market segments right now. They are better on the laptop side of things but their decisions there haven't been universally great either. (16GB max ram on MBP? One USB-C port for the whole machine?) I understand that they sell more laptops than desktops but that's not an acceptable excuse. With the billions Apple has in the bank I'm fairly confident that it isn't a resources problem so that means it is a decision rather than a limitation.
Most damning to my mind is that Apple still can't seem to figure out how to really tightly integrate the software between their Macintosh computers and their phones and tablets and other devices. The Mac has kind of become the bastard step child. Ironic since the real value proposition for any Apple machine is in the software. Put Windows on a Mac without OS X and nobody is going to pay a premium for that. People buy Apple products for the software and Apple really is a software company. If they are going to bundle their software with hardware as they have always done, then the hardware for their Macintosh line needs to be better than it currently is and needs to remain so. Otherwise one can find more value in a Windows or Linux box for a lot of use cases.
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.
Apple charges premium prices for their products and historically they've been good enough to justify that pricing. That's fine but with premium pricing we should fully expect to get a premium product including hardware that is somewhere close to the best available at the time of purchase. With as few products as Apple has in their lineup (by design) they should have NO problem keeping their products at or near the best available in their respective categories. And currently it is undeniable that they routinely fail in this test in their Macintosh division particularly with their desktop machines.
In addition to their Mobile and Home Entertainment Products, Apple has the following "Computing" Products:
1. MacBook (non-Pro)
2. MacBook Air
3. MacBook Pro
4. iMac
5. iMac Pro
6. Mac mini
7. Mac Pro
Out of those SEVEN computing products, only TWO of them have been shown no love for too long a time. What I believe is "too long" at this point is around 3 years; primarily because CPU advancement has slowed WAY down since 2015 or so, and we're getting to the same point now with GPUs, too.
The MacBook Air even received a small speed bump and faster Graphics in June 2017. As for the (non-pro) MacBook, I am way less-familiar with that model, but it appears that the mid 2015 and newer models can be upgraded to Mojave; so, it's not out of the game, yet.
You can ALWAYS "fake innovation" like most of the Windows-centric Computers do. But this is a bad joke on the consumer, and amounts to little more than changing the height of the tail-fins on car designs.
As I said to BronsCon, the MacBook Pro, iMac and iMac Pro are ALL using state-of-the-art CPUs and GPUs and I/O. I am tired of this "Macs use obsolete hardware" meme; because it JUST AIN'T SO!!!
I'm just going to stick my "properly researched" Reply here, even though posted after my first reply, below. Sorry for any confusion:
Yes. It was PC tech in 2015.
Unpossible.
The series of CPUs used in the 2017 iMacs, MacBook Pros, and iMac Pro weren't even SAMPLING in 2015!
Same with the GPUs.
And then there's Thunderbolt 3...
Not to reply to my own post; but:
Intel's Kaby Lake M CPUs were not released until January, 2017, and the Kaby Lake R not until August, 2017. So OBVIOUSLY not "2015 PC tech".
Although the first laptop with a Thunderbolt Laptop was indeed a MacBook Pro, Thunderbolt 3 was released in DECEMBER, 2015. Hardly fair to call TB3 "2015 PC tech", and then not mention that 99.999% of "PCs" didn't have TB3 until 2016, same as the 2016 MacBook Pro.
And as far as the GPU is concerned, the AMD Radeon Pro RX 500 series shows a launch date of August, 2017, and even if that is off by some months, it OBVIOUSLY isn't "2015 PC tech", either.
The release date of the mid 2017 MacBook Pro and iMac is listed as June 5, 2017. So, as I said, NOT "two year old PC tech".
As for the iMac Pro, we'll focus on the PCU AND GPU.
The Xeon series W was announced by Intel at IFA in August, 2017.
The AMD RX Vega Series GPUs were released on August 14, 2017.
Both were integrated into the iMac Pro and ON THE SHELF by shortly after December 14, 2017, a scant four months later. That's pretty good, considering the extra effort it takes to design things into an AIO, and get all the logistics together for EVERYTHING, which is a LOT more intense than sticking a chip on a PCIe board and calling a day!
So, I stand by my initial statement, that the 2017 (and 2016) Macs represent state-of-the-art hardware at the time of release, and CERTAINLY could not be characterized as "2015 PC tech".
Sorry.
I would fucking jump with joy.
I think a lot of people would be right there with you.
But honestly, the iMac Pro isn't exactly a weenie computer. Yes, there are more powerful; but it isn't laughable...
Yes. It was PC tech in 2015.
Unpossible.
The series of CPUs used in the 2017 iMacs, MacBook Pros, and iMac Pro weren't even SAMPLING in 2015!
Same with the GPUs.
And then there's Thunderbolt 3...
They never (or almost never) announce HW at WWDC.
Mmm...
WWDC 2008: iPhone 3G.
WWDC 2009: MacBook Pro, iPhone 3GS.
WWDC 2010: iPhone 4G
WWDC 2012: MacBook Pro
WWDC 2013: MacBook Air, Mac Pro
WWDC 2017: iMac Pro, iPad Pro
So, 6 out of the last 10 years they've announced hardware at WWDC. Not sure I'd call that "almost never."
Hmmm. I will verify.
Thanks. I'll see if I can do a download now, install later and stick with El Capitan for now. We are facing a major upgrade to all software at work. Problem is, management just doesn't get the fact that most of the computers are just too old to be fit for purpose and there is not sufficient budget to replace them! Not my problem as I'm not in IT, but the IT guy is well pissed off. He has been told 'well, you'll just have to figure it out'. I really hate my boss!
Yeah, your IT guy just has to defecate some CPU cycles...
(facepalm)
When you go to install that High Sierra installer, you MAY have to set your System DateTime to the same as the Installer File's CREATION Date. At least I found that to be true with macOS Installers that I had created USB Install-Sticks for using the most-excellent DiskMakerX Freeware Utility:
https://www.macupdate.com/app/...
Of course they do. But it's not to switch vendors - it's to push for lower pricing with Intel.
Or possibly a little of both... ;-)
And that's because a 2012 Macbook Pro is at least as fast as a consumer-level $500 Windows laptop from today (likely faster if i7).
It is. I don't have it in front of me right now; but IIRC, it is a 2.4 GHz quad-core i7.
> What is different from 2016 technology from 2018?
A few things. If you buy a Skylake (2015-2016) i5 8600k you get 4 cores clocked at 3.5GHz. The Coffee Lake (2017-2018) 8600k gives you 6 cores clocked at 3.6GHz. Not earth shattering on the speed bump, but the 2 extra cores on the "same" part is nice. The Coffee Lake chip also supports a higher turbo clock speed, faster RAM, and has the next bump up in onboard graphics. And generally speaking the mobile chips of each generation usually get more energy efficient over their predecessors while keeping the same or better performance.
So while you're not getting 2-3x the performance in 2 years like the olden days of Moore, you still get improvements and better battery life. Why should consumers be happy leaving that on the table with Apple when they don't from other vendors?
But they DO get better performance!
For example, compare what a 2015 MacBook Pro can do, compared with the 2016 or 2017 models. They took those efficiency improvements and turned a laptop that had thermal throttling issues into a laptop that can cruise at 100% CPU all day without throttling.
If you think that doesn't make a difference in the real-world, you're sadly mistaken.
Here's a comparison of Final Cut Pro X processing on the 15" MacBook Pro vs. the 2016 version. Note that the 2017 model is not too much faster, but is between 1.5 and 13% faster than the 2016 model:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
What if it doesn't meet your needs? Would you want a better one to be available?
CPUs may not be getting much faster, but they are getting more power efficient, and other components, such as the battery, SSD, RAM, and GPU have improved considerably in the last few years.
...and that's why the 2017 MacBook Pro, iMac and iMac Pro ALL have chipsets, displays, and I/O technology that is state-of-the-art.
You're an idiot. The difference between two years ago and current day is huge because AMD finally got their act together. We now have faster, cheaper, and less buggy processors. Apple should be selling a 32 core threadripper Mac pro in a stylish case.
Who says they don't have one running in the R&D lab right now?
I think the point is charging 2018 money for 2016 tech.
If the tech is older, the price should drop.
WHAT tech in a 2017 iMac or MacBook Pro is "old"?
Seriously, you people are ridiculous.
It is NOT "totally fine". "Good enough" from a few years ago is NOT "good enough" here in the future year of 2018. The #1 thing done on a computer is browse the web. Web pages have gotten fatter and slower with JavaScript and parallax scrolling and a bunch of other shit that I don't care about but people insist on doing and the trend is not going away.
Intel is making faster chips. Memory is cheap. I just want a computer in a form factor I like that runs my OS of choice and can keep up with the world that's changing around it.
My mid-2012 MacBook Pro suffers no detectable slowdown or inability to handle complex websites, etc.
incremental OS updates and things like 1st party battery service have to not arbitrarily drop support just because machines are 4-5 years old.
The latest iOS and OSX operating system updates both announced they would support exactly the same devices as the previous OS versions.
Actually, they only announced that for iOS 12. MacOS Mojave has contracted the "supported" Mac base to basically those released mid-2012 or newer.
The issue seems to be Apple's decision to go all "Metal", and Macs earlier than mid-2012 do not have a Metal-Capable GPU.
Old macs are generally inline with old PC's... you're in denial of you think your comp is running like it did new. Mac, windows and android all slow down over time with updates.
I have definitely experienced that with iOS; but never with macOS.
Talk is cheap.
Show us a video, or it's just bullshit.
The real issue here is Intel, not Apple. There is no point in updating any of Apple's computer line as long as Intel can't get their upgrade cycle running smoothly. Add in all the security flaws and you have another reason not to update anything.
Intel can announce all the crap they want and trickle out a small number of chips, but Apple won't jump on board until they can get mass quantities of CPUs...
Apple would be better off doing their own CPUs....
E
Exactly this!
And that's why Apple is obviously looking into doing JUST THAT!
Also the $5K imac pro sucks to thin / storage locked to the MB / over priced upgrades and it's hard to change the ram on your own.
And the T2 chip is chained off the DMI bus and not some of the open CPU pci-e lanes.
Because they dedicated the PCI lanes to Thunderbolt.
Imagine a Mac with the newly announced 32 core Threadripper in an ATX case that can be fully upgraded.
But instead we will get four core 16gb MBPs with inadequate ports again. They didn’t even announce hardware at WWDC because they are so weak at it.
WWDC is a software-focused conference. They never (or almost never) announce HW at WWDC.
Totally forgot about them. Sure, some useful little tools for some people, but really they are small potatoes. That said, this guy is somewhat right in what he says but my 2009 and 2011 iMacs are running fine. My only concern (and a big one too) is that at some point a future OS upgrade will not be compatible with the aging computers. That I why I avoid upgrading the OS.
That point has come with macOS Mojave. Nothing earlier than mid-2012 need apply.
But you can still install High Sierra on those machines (at least the 2011 one for sure), and get almost all of the benefits that those running Mojave will have. I would suggest doing that, before the High Sierra Installer gets pulled from the Mac App Store...
It's very difficult to recommend much from the current crop of Macs to customers, and that's deeply worrisome to us, as a Mac-based software company.
Apple's Mac division has really kind of gone of the rails in recent years. They've made multiple repeated bizarre design decisions and they seldom update their hardware. While is hasn't been all bad, it's getting hard to recommend the Mac to people I previously would have done so without hesitation. They cater to a fairly specific customer and that's fine but they aren't even doing a very good job of that anymore.
It's pretty clear that the focus of management is on the iPhone. Understandable but I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. A lot of the value proposition from Apple comes from the tight ecosystem integration. Without that it's not so compelling to buy an iPhone or an iPad. Honestly I don't see a lot of tight integration in ways that are useful to me.
I have a Mac Mini and I'm about to replace it but probably not with another Mac Mini and the way things are going not with any other type of Mac either. Apple just isn't investing in the Mac and if they cannot be bothered in spite of the massive cash hoard they have then why should I care either? Apple should be making the Mac the best type of PC available and they just aren't. They are nice enough but they're behind the technology curve at this point. I don't think they need to be bleeding edge but they aren't even close to the edge on PCs anymore. Either they are incompetent or they just can't be bothered and I tend to favor the later theory.
I'm not sure what you think is "behind the technology curve" with the iMac Pro or the 2017 MBP. Even the 2017 iMacs are up-to-date, too.
Yes, we ALL know the Mac mini and Mac Pro are SADLY in need of a refresh; but don't damn the entire BRAND, just because they have let a couple of products languish. Apple has already committed to updating the Mac Pro in some sort of completely different direction than the cylinder; so, let's let them do their work, shall we?
Apple has no been a company that believes they need to release a new Mac "just because" for several years now, and it isn't as if Intel has made great SIGNIFICANT progress on their "roadmap" in recent years.