Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #146098 > unrolled thread

iMac Refresh

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  iMac Refresh RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-06 06:16 +0000
    Re: iMac Refresh bob <email@domain.com> - 2020-08-06 10:29 +0200
      Re: iMac Refresh RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-06 08:42 +0000
    Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-06 08:30 -0400
      Re: iMac Refresh bob <email@domain.com> - 2020-08-06 16:51 +0200
        Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-06 12:53 -0400
          Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-06 17:26 +0000
            Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 09:05 -0400
              Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-07 14:06 +0000
                Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 15:20 -0400
                  Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-07 19:35 +0000
        Re: iMac Refresh Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-08-06 21:11 +0100
          Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 09:05 -0400
            Re: iMac Refresh Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2020-08-07 23:27 +0100
              Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 19:36 -0400
      Re: iMac Refresh RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-06 19:30 +0000
        Re: iMac Refresh Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 08:41 +0000
          Re: iMac Refresh Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-08-07 10:03 +0000
            Re: iMac Refresh Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 12:01 +0000
        Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 09:05 -0400
          Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-07 14:06 +0000
            Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 15:20 -0400
              Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-07 19:35 +0000
          Re: iMac Refresh RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2020-08-07 15:06 +0000
            Re: iMac Refresh nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-07 15:20 -0400
              Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-07 19:35 +0000
                Re: iMac Refresh Ray <amos-jones@outlook.com> - 2020-08-08 07:25 +0000
                  Re: iMac Refresh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-08 08:57 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#146098 — iMac Refresh

Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:

https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch

Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).

Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
and upgrading the RAM myself.

Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#146100

On 2020-08-06 06:16:05 +0000, RJH said:

> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
> 
> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
> 
> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
> 
> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
> and upgrading the RAM myself.
> 
> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)

If all you need is the SSD capacity and expandable RAM, is there a 
reason not to go for the cheapest 27" with a BTO option for a bigger 
SSD?

Robin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146102

On 6 Aug 2020 at 09:29:37 BST, "bob" <email@domain.com> wrote:

> On 2020-08-06 06:16:05 +0000, RJH said:
> 
>> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
>> 
>> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
>> 
>> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
>> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
>> 
>> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
>> and upgrading the RAM myself.
>> 
>> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)
> 
> If all you need is the SSD capacity and expandable RAM, is there a 
> reason not to go for the cheapest 27" with a BTO option for a bigger 
> SSD?
> 

Not that I can see. By Apple's standards, the mid-range model processor bump
makes the 500GB SSD a free upgrade, pretty much.


-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146111

In article <rgg775$i4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
> 
> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
> 
> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
> 
> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
> and upgrading the RAM myself.
> 
> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)

it's *already* obsolete.

wait for apple silicon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146113

On 2020-08-06 12:30:58 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <rgg775$i4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
>> 
>> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
>> 
>> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
>> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
>> 
>> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
>> and upgrading the RAM myself.
>> 
>> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)
> 
> it's *already* obsolete.
> 
> wait for apple silicon.

My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
from the iPad chip designs already in hand, and the higher performance 
MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, and I suspect users 
at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
on Rosetta.  I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
works out in the real world before actually committing big money.

Robin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146118

In article <rgh5dk$c72$1@dont-email.me>, bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 

two totally different designs.

> and the higher performance 
> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 

the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
macbook pro.

> and I suspect users 
> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
> on Rosetta. 

almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.

> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.

probably not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146119

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <rgh5dk$c72$1@dont-email.me>, bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> 
>> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
>> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
>> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 
> 
> two totally different designs.

What made you think he suggested otherwise? 
> 
>> and the higher performance 
>> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 
> 
> the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
> macbook pro.

What made you think he suggested otherwise? 

> 
>> and I suspect users 
>> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
>> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
>> on Rosetta. 
> 
> almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.

Elsewhere you tried to sell me on the importance of running Windows. 

>> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
>> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
>> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.
> 
> probably not.

Just a guess — but I would say bigger purchases would be more prone to
people wanting to see how well they work. 



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146130

In article <hp2sq4FjvsrU5@mid.individual.net>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
> >> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
> >> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 
> > 
> > two totally different designs.
> 
> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 

literacy.

> >> and the higher performance 
> >> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 
> > 
> > the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
> > macbook pro.
> 
> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 

literacy.

> >> and I suspect users 
> >> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
> >> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
> >> on Rosetta. 
> > 
> > almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.
> 
> Elsewhere you tried to sell me on the importance of running Windows. 

no i didn't. 

i explained what needs to happen so that windows can run on apple
silicon, not whether or not it's important.

> >> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
> >> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
> >> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.
> > 
> > probably not.
> 
> Just a guess ‹ but I would say bigger purchases would be more prone to
> people wanting to see how well they work.

how well they work will be known within days of their release, if not
well before then.

also, very few people will want to spend large sums of money on dead
end technology that's obsolete before they even buy it.

<https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/wayne_gretzky_383282>
  I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
  Wayne Gretzky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146133

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hp2sq4FjvsrU5@mid.individual.net>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
>>>> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
>>>> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 
>>> 
>>> two totally different designs.
>> 
>> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 

You gave no support for your view. You made up the claim he tried to equate
the two designs. 

> literacy.
> 
>>>> and the higher performance 
>>>> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 
>>> 
>>> the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
>>> macbook pro.
>> 
>> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 

Again no support from you. You made up the claim he said otherwise. 

> literacy.
> 
>>>> and I suspect users 
>>>> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
>>>> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
>>>> on Rosetta. 
>>> 
>>> almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.
>> 
>> Elsewhere you tried to sell me on the importance of running Windows. 
> 
> no i didn't. 

Direct lie on your part. 

> i explained what needs to happen so that windows can run on apple
> silicon, not whether or not it's important.

I never asked what was needed nor suggested I did not know. 

>>>> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
>>>> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
>>>> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.
>>> 
>>> probably not.
>> 
>> Just a guess ‹ but I would say bigger purchases would be more prone to
>> people wanting to see how well they work.
> 
> how well they work will be known within days of their release, if not
> well before then.

In many areas. But not for everyone’s specific workflows and skill sets. 

> also, very few people will want to spend large sums of money on dead
> end technology that's obsolete before they even buy it.

There will be some who hold off. Sure. 

> <https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/wayne_gretzky_383282>
>   I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
>   Wayne Gretzky





-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146137

In article <hp55g1F3s4pU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>>> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
> >>>> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
> >>>> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 
> >>> 
> >>> two totally different designs.
> >> 
> >> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 
> 
> You gave no support for your view. You made up the claim he tried to equate
> the two designs. 

you're trolling. the support is there, plain as can be. don't blame
others for your failure to understand basic english.

> > literacy.
> > 
> >>>> and the higher performance 
> >>>> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 
> >>> 
> >>> the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
> >>> macbook pro.
> >> 
> >> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 
> 
> Again no support from you. You made up the claim he said otherwise. 

more of your trolling. again, the support is there, plain as can be.
don't blame others for your failure to understand basic english.

> > literacy.
> > 
> >>>> and I suspect users 
> >>>> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
> >>>> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
> >>>> on Rosetta. 
> >>> 
> >>> almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.
> >> 
> >> Elsewhere you tried to sell me on the importance of running Windows. 
> > 
> > no i didn't. 
> 
> Direct lie on your part. 

nope. you're making up stuff just to troll.

> > i explained what needs to happen so that windows can run on apple
> > silicon, not whether or not it's important.
> 
> I never asked what was needed nor suggested I did not know. 

it was blatantly clear that you did not know, so much so that you
didn't even understand the difference between virtualization and
emulation and apparently still don't.

> >>>> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
> >>>> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
> >>>> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.
> >>> 
> >>> probably not.
> >> 
> >> Just a guess ? but I would say bigger purchases would be more prone to
> >> people wanting to see how well they work.
> > 
> > how well they work will be known within days of their release, if not
> > well before then.
> 
> In many areas. But not for everyone¹s specific workflows and skill sets. 

almost everyone. nothing is 100%, nor does it need to be.

> > also, very few people will want to spend large sums of money on dead
> > end technology that's obsolete before they even buy it.
> 
> There will be some who hold off. Sure. 

a small minority. nothing is 100%, nor does it need to be.

> > <https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/wayne_gretzky_383282>
> >   I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
> >   Wayne Gretzky

this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146140

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <hp2sq4FjvsrU5@mid.individual.net>, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
>>>>> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference 
>>>>> from the iPad chip designs already in hand, 
>>>> 
>>>> two totally different designs.
>>> 
>>> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 
> 
> You gave no support for your view. You made up the claim he tried to equate
> the two designs. 
> 
>> literacy.
>> 
>>>>> and the higher performance 
>>>>> MBP and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, 
>>>> 
>>>> the latest iphone and ipad pro already benchmarks better than the
>>>> macbook pro.
>>> 
>>> What made you think he suggested otherwise? 
> 
> Again no support from you. You made up the claim he said otherwise. 
> 
>> literacy.
>> 
>>>>> and I suspect users 
>>>>> at that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software 
>>>>> that will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying 
>>>>> on Rosetta. 
>>>> 
>>>> almost certainly not an issue for nearly everyone.
>>> 
>>> Elsewhere you tried to sell me on the importance of running Windows. 
>> 
>> no i didn't. 
> 
> Direct lie on your part. 
> 
>> i explained what needs to happen so that windows can run on apple
>> silicon, not whether or not it's important.
> 
> I never asked what was needed nor suggested I did not know. 
> 
>>>>> I also suspect that people looking to buy the more 
>>>>> expensive hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon 
>>>>> works out in the real world before actually committing big money.
>>>> 
>>>> probably not.
>>> 
>>> Just a guess ‹ but I would say bigger purchases would be more prone to
>>> people wanting to see how well they work.
>> 
>> how well they work will be known within days of their release, if not
>> well before then.
> 
> In many areas. But not for everyone’s specific workflows and skill sets. 
> 
>> also, very few people will want to spend large sums of money on dead
>> end technology that's obsolete before they even buy it.
> 
> There will be some who hold off. Sure. 

Nospam offered nothing but whining and trolling in response. 

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146121

On 06/08/2020 15:51, bob wrote:
> My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
> Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference from 
> the iPad chip designs already in hand, and the higher performance MBP 

You could just as easily argue that a new iMac will be first with Apple 
Silicon because the all-in-one design is little more than a large iPad.

My bet is on a dual announcement: MacBook Pro and a MacPro.

The MacBook pro will be a top of the range machine - has to from a 
marketing perspective - but will take advantage of being able to turn 
off unneeded cores to save power when the user is idle. This could be 
used to extend battery life or put in a thinner battery and make a 
lighter machine.

The "MacPro Apple Silicon Edition" will have multiple chips to provide 
maybe 128 or more cores for parallel rendering type jobs. Not sure what 
technology Apple have in the way of RAM interconnect-type stuff to allow 
efficient RAM access though.


> and iMac designs will take longer to bring out, and I suspect users at 
> that market segment are more likely to have need of x86 software that 
> will take longer to port, and will be less interested in relying on 
> Rosetta.  I also suspect that people looking to buy the more expensive 
> hardware are more likely to want to see how the apple silicon works out 
> in the real world before actually committing big money.
> 
> Robin

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146132

In article <fec65cec-cb3b-1519-66c8-69a1ecae07b9@scorecrow.com>, Bruce
Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

> > My guess is the apple silicon macs will start with something like the 
> > Macbook and the Mac Mini as these will require the least difference from 
> > the iPad chip designs already in hand, and the higher performance MBP 
> 
> You could just as easily argue that a new iMac will be first with Apple 
> Silicon because the all-in-one design is little more than a large iPad.

no it isn't, therefore that argument is not compelling.

> My bet is on a dual announcement: MacBook Pro and a MacPro.

highly unlikely, to the point where it can be safely ruled out.

the mac pro is far too recent to have an update so soon and it's also
intended for a niche audience, making it unsuitable to be first.

> The MacBook pro will be a top of the range machine - has to from a 
> marketing perspective - but will take advantage of being able to turn 
> off unneeded cores to save power when the user is idle. This could be 
> used to extend battery life or put in a thinner battery and make a 
> lighter machine.

the macbook pro is a likely possibility, especially since the 2-port
13" model was not updated this past spring.

the imac pro is another possibility since it was not updated this past
week.

another possibility is a return of the retina macbook 12", which
screamed apple silicon from the start.

it's also possible it could be something entirely new, given that apple
has stated that apple silicon will allow them to make products that
were not previously possible.

> The "MacPro Apple Silicon Edition" will have multiple chips to provide 
> maybe 128 or more cores for parallel rendering type jobs. Not sure what 
> technology Apple have in the way of RAM interconnect-type stuff to allow 
> efficient RAM access though.

no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146143

On 07/08/2020 14:05, nospam wrote:
>> The "MacPro Apple Silicon Edition" will have multiple chips to provide
>> maybe 128 or more cores for parallel rendering type jobs. Not sure what
>> technology Apple have in the way of RAM interconnect-type stuff to allow
>> efficient RAM access though.
> no.

Dreams-quasher!

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146144

In article <1aa85e14-0edb-9099-ccc4-66d297d8751b@scorecrow.com>, Bruce
Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

> >> The "MacPro Apple Silicon Edition" will have multiple chips to provide
> >> maybe 128 or more cores for parallel rendering type jobs. Not sure what
> >> technology Apple have in the way of RAM interconnect-type stuff to allow
> >> efficient RAM access though.
> > no.
> 
> Dreams-quasher!

dream about a single chip with a very high core count.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146120

On 6 Aug 2020 at 13:30:58 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <rgg775$i4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
>> 
>> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
>> 
>> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
>> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
>> 
>> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
>> and upgrading the RAM myself.
>> 
>> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)
> 
> it's *already* obsolete.

In the sense that I expect it to work, to do the things I want it to do, it
won't be obsolete for me. Or I suspect pretty much everyone else who buys one.
And I'm not sure how something can become obsolete before the replacement is
announced.

> wait for apple silicon.

Yes, I would have done if it was due in the next year. But really, I'm not
that curious.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146127

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2020 at 13:30:58 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <rgg775$i4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks like the final pre-silicon iMac update:
>>> 
>>> https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
>>> 
>>> Now including SSD, and some useful updates to the processor, graphics, and
>>> camera/mic (using Zoom more, obvs).
>>> 
>>> Seriously thinking of the mid-of-the-range (because I'd need the 500GB SSD),
>>> and upgrading the RAM myself.
>>> 
>>> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)
>> 
>> it's *already* obsolete.
> 
> In the sense that I expect it to work, to do the things I want it to do, it
> won't be obsolete for me. Or I suspect pretty much everyone else who buys one.

Yep. It'll keep working and be supported by Apple for the usual 5+ years.
It'll also be familiar and stable. However, it'll unlikely benefit from any
new features. Swings and roundabouts :)

> And I'm not sure how something can become obsolete before the replacement is
> announced.
> 
>> wait for apple silicon.
> 
> Yes, I would have done if it was due in the next year. 

It is. The announcement stated that the first models will be here by the
end of 2020. 

> But really, I'm not
> that curious.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146128

On 7 Aug 2020 at 09:41:56 BST, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2020 at 13:30:58 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> wait for apple silicon.
>> 
>> Yes, I would have done if it was due in the next year. 
> 
> It is. The announcement stated that the first models will be here by the
> end of 2020. 

Seems unlikely they'll do an Apple Silicon release of the iMac any time soon
though. I'd always expected the laptops to be first and then Mini, iMac, iMac
Pro, Mac Pro in that order.

I'm very much hoping the rumoured MacBook happens. That's the one I want.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
                                               -- Charles Darwin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146129

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2020 at 09:41:56 BST, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 Aug 2020 at 13:30:58 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> wait for apple silicon.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I would have done if it was due in the next year. 
>> 
>> It is. The announcement stated that the first models will be here by the
>> end of 2020. 
> 
> Seems unlikely they'll do an Apple Silicon release of the iMac any time soon
> though. I'd always expected the laptops to be first and then Mini, iMac, iMac
> Pro, Mac Pro in that order.

Really hard to say. It'd be really interesting to be a fly in the wall in
apple's discussions. They'll have to balance volume, demand, and
performance. 

Whatever they do it'll end up affecting the remaining Intel line-ups. If
it's a "failure" ppl will run out to get existing models. If it's hugely
popular they might not meet demand and if it's hugely performative over
intel no one's going to want an "obsolete" - as nospam puts it - model. 

> I'm very much hoping the rumoured MacBook happens. That's the one I want.

I guess we could do a sweep stake?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146131

In article <rghlnu$t73$1@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
wrote:

> >> 
> >> Anyone like to talk me out of it? :-)
> > 
> > it's *already* obsolete.
> 
> In the sense that I expect it to work, to do the things I want it to do, it
> won't be obsolete for me. Or I suspect pretty much everyone else who buys one.
> And I'm not sure how something can become obsolete before the replacement is
> announced.

it will certainly work, however, based on past transitions, it won't be
supported as long, won't be as fast and will have fewer features than
apple silicon macs. some software will require apple silicon, with no
intel counterpart.

the future is apple silicon. intel is the past (and in more ways than
one).

the only reason to buy an intel mac is if you absolutely need something
*now* and cannot wait under any circumstances (e.g., existing mac
failed and it must be replaced *today*), or for some reason, you need
to natively run both windows and mac os.

> > wait for apple silicon.
> 
> Yes, I would have done if it was due in the next year. But really, I'm not
> that curious.

the first apple silicon mac(s) will be released by the end of 2020,
likely announced in october, approximately 2.5 months from now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web