[PB PM]

I'm not talking about the MBP, never have been, and still not. I'm talking about the iMac, just I have since my first post.

Anyway, since Apple is apparently held hostage by the "industry" I guess we'd better just give up wanting better computers.

[Eugene]

It's true though. Apple probably wants 3200x1800 21.5" panel that nobody is making or they are making wholesale changes to the dimensions of the smaller iMac. Skylake should also appear by the end of October, a traditional Intel and Apple launch window.

Since no updates have been made to the display resolution, why is a GPU bump desperately needed? The smaller iMac is also automatically worse at heat removal, so don't assume something like a 970M would even work out.

I should also repeat that I am an early adopter / habitual PC upgrader and I'm still running an 2600K and HD 7970 because the advancements in the past 4 years have almost entirely focused on battery life and not increasing maximum performance in desktop PCs.

[PB PM]

I'm not holding out for a retina display, the 1440p display of the mid-range 27" model is more than enough for my needs. I'm not a resolution whore. There are more reasons than higher resolution to have a newer GPU, like the fact that I would likely use the machine for at least four to five years and apps like Lightroom take advantage of the GPU. As a result I'd like to have a modern one that will remain compatible for the life of the machine. Getting a machine with an already 2+ year old GPU doesn't do much for me with that in mind. I'd also much rather have a AMD GPU, I'm not a big fan of Nvidia, but I won't wait just to get one if the next generation mid-range 27" model doesn't have one.

Originally Posted by Eugene Since no updates have been made to the display resolution, why is a GPU bump desperately needed? The smaller iMac is also automatically worse at heat removal, so don't assume something like a 970M would even work out.

The mid-range 27" non-retina model is smaller than the retina machine? Since when?

I understand, I'm a hold out as well, using a 2011 27" iMac with the 2.7Ghz Core i5 (2400). I'm kind of wanting UBS3, but until there is a meaningful GPU and CPU upgrade I'm waiting. I'm also considering just building my own Windows desktop again, although one thing I like about the Apple machines I've owned is the lower draw from the wall than the custom PC's I've built in the past.

[Eugene]

The smaller iMac as in the 21.5" model that would have to be updated or discontinued along with the 27"

And no, Lightroom CC/6.0 on and Iris integrated GPU vs GeForce Titan X makes almost no difference at all. We're talking about a couple milliseconds' difference in Develop module settings changes.

Nvidia has trounced AMD in PPW and absolute performance for over half a decade. There are brief periods where AMD pulls ahead, but only because they have staggered update cycles. There's no reason to be loyal to one or the other, just know that rumors point at AMD's next-gen GPUs still gulping down a lot more power to keep up with Nvidia's counterparts.

[PB PM]

The 21" models already use Iris GPU's, so no issue there. I would't buy a machine with an IGP if the price tag is over $1k, period. Don't care about the performance, I don't want to waste system memory on it. IN any case, you are talking about performance, today as of 2015. I'm talking about how it will do in 2018 or 2019. Those IGP's get support dropped rather quickly by software, maybe 2-3 years after release.

I have no interest in a Titan X. Why are on earth are making such outlandish comments? There is more to a GPU than raw performance and you darn well know it. Newer mid-range units tend to have better power savings, along with improved mid-range performance, support for newer Open GL codes and whatnots. I do play games as well. And no I don't want a console or a separate gaming PC for the type of gaming I do.

I am aware Nvidia performance is better, I don't like the company and it's approach to the market.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PB PM The 21" models already use Iris GPU's, so no issue there. I would't buy a machine with an IGP if the price tag is over $1k, period. Don't care about the performance, I don't want to waste system memory on it. IN any case, you are talking about performance, today as of 2015. I'm talking about how it will do in 2018 or 2019. Those IGP's get support dropped rather quickly by software, maybe 2-3 years after release. I have no interest in a Titan X. Why are on earth are making such outlandish comments? There is more to a GPU than raw performance and you darn well know it. Newer mid-range units tend to have better power savings, along with improved mid-range performance, support for newer Open GL codes and whatnots. I do play games as well. And no I don't want a console or a separate gaming PC for the type of gaming I do. I am aware Nvidia performance is better, I don't like the company and it's approach to the market.

It's safe to assume that Iris is really not good enough for 3200x1800, especially with non-native resolution scaling enabled.

I mentioned the Titan X because it's the extreme opposite of an Iris, and it won't improve your Lightroom experience one bit. What games do you play? I can tell you that a 750M or 960M are adequate for virtually any game available on OS X.

In your eyes, what is Nvidia's approach to the market? Also how much do you think Apple cares? Frankly the 3-4 people on the Mac team at Nvidia are way more hands-on and accessible than their AMD counterparts. "Asgorath" has been known to lurk on various Mac forums as well as staying updated with the Hackintosh community.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by PB PM Anyway, since Apple is apparently held hostage by the "industry" I guess we'd better just give up wanting better computers.

You're smarter than this.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by 709 Because you could see through all the fanfare that Apple was putting out about these updates that explained why the lower-end models weren't updated. And didn't give you a >1K iMac but did give you a >2K 5K iMac. Wait what no fanfare? Excuse me while I don't clutch my pearls. Stop-gap. All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. /bsg

Exactly. Back in the innovative Steve Jobs era, Apple had a Mac mini update that was so modest they didn't even announce it.

I'm not saying these updates are massive and everybody should be bowled over by them, I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious what they are— stopgaps that were probably only added to the roadmap after Broadwell was delayed—and I don't really understand the "why isn't Apple innovating" comments. Apple can only work with what Apple can get. Should Apple have decimated their war chest six years ago to start development of their first attempt at bespoke desktop CPUs that would only just now be coming out and might not be any better than what Intel has now anyway? Because, like, there's your alternative.

[Eugene]

PB PM wants a non-retina 27" iMac update.

I have doubts it will ever come since the retina model now starts at $2000. What are they going to do, update it now only to discontinue it around October when the smaller iMac goes retina?

Does anyone really think Apple will sell 21.5" retina iMacs alongside a 27" non-retina iMac?

He also wants R9 M3xx series or similarly updated graphics even though it's just a rebrand of an old GPU which offers no substantial improvements. Stuff like OGL support has not moved in years.

[alcimedes]

Something I'd love to see?

Go back to the iMac design with the hinged metal arm. Make the display a touch screen. Have it attach to the arm with a strong magnet. Make it detachable so you can have a nice, large format style iPad to work with that connects to the "base" station when it needs extra power or a keyboard or second screen.

Something at least different than the rinse/repeat we have today.

[Eugene]

A 21.5" tablet seems excessive and logistically impossible. Everything is already behind the display and the pedestal is already a single piece of aluminum. Additionally, the iMacs 3-4x as much power an a retina MacBook Pro. The battery required would be enormous. Like most people have been saying, Apple is very much at the mercy of the currently available technology.

Asus has tried it, sort of. Nobody bought it. http://www.asus.com/us/AllinOne_PCs/...mer_AiO_P1801/

Instead of making hybrid devices like Microsoft Surface, I prefer Apple's approach right now. You're supposed to buy a MacBook [Pro], possibly an iMac, an iPad, iPhone and Apple Watch. Hell, some people even buy both an iPad and iPad mini. For example I use my iPad mini almost exclusively mounted to my car's center stack. What's the most common complaint about the current MacBook? It's too slow, too iPad-like, but chained to OS X and a physical keyboard. It's a revision or two away from being an acceptable MacBook Air replacement.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Eugene And no, PB PM. You aren't expected to buy the one machine with a single Type-C port if you constantly use 5 external drives. I'll just gloss over the fact that USB 3 sustains >600MB/s, which is likely more than the sum of the sustained throughput on those 5 drives. My hunch is Type-C will be adopted as the standard ThunderBolt connector in the future as well.

Well there you go. Thunderbolt 3 is officially adopting the USB Type-C connector. 40Gbps, 100W charging, 15W to devices. It even has built-in 10GbE, so kiss RJ45 good-bye on desktop Macs. That pretty much means it's the only port we'll see on any future Apple device.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Eugene Well there you go. Thunderbolt 3 is officially adopting the USB Type-C connector. 40Gbps, 100W charging, 15W to devices. It even has built-in 10GbE, so kiss RJ45 good-bye on desktop Macs. That pretty much means it's the only port we'll see on any future Apple device.

I suspect you're probably right, but I'd still prefer they put an RJ45 on the thunderbolt bus (or keep it on a dedicated controller, to save the TB bandwidth). I'm getting tired of all this dongle garbage on the laptops; I'd hate to see the desktops go that way too.

[Eugene]

Oh and it also supports 2x 4K/60Hz displays per port or one 5K/60Hz display. So we'll see an Apple branded 5K display/dock along with updated everything by Q1'16.

[709]

Pretty exciting stuff. Hopefully this will get the third-party hub/dock/enclosure balls rolling a little sooner and quicker.

Full article (with Intel's presentation slides) for those interested: ArsLinky

[kscherer]

Looks like cables will be interchangeable, which is fantastic! Plug in a Thunderbolt 3 cable and you get Thunderbolt to whatever you're plugging into. Plug in a USB-C cable and you get USB to whatever you're plugging into. A USB-C cable will charge your laptop from a USB-C brick, and a Thunderbolt 3 cable will charge your laptop from the same brick. This kind of "does it all" connector is what the entire industry has been waiting for. I think this is brilliant news. And, if I were an iPhone owner (I'm not, but if I was) I would begin preparing myself for a whole new slew of cables/adapters, because I think this bad-boy is gonna wind up in i-Things in the not too distant future.

[Eugene]

Whether it replaces Lightning right away is a bit murky for me. Apple may keep Lightning, but bump its speeds to USB 3.0 or 3.1 just because it wants 1) Lightning's tongued male connector design on small portables and 2) forced isolation from random peripherals that aren't meant to be used with it.

If you stick a Type-C cable on an iPhone, all of a sudden you've got people trying to use it for GbE, DisplayPort, ThunerBolt, etc.

[kscherer]

That would be kinda fun for our service guys.

"No ma'am. You cannot plug your iPhone into the USB-C power brick."

"Wa waa waaaa wa wa waaa!"

"You already did that?"

"Wa wa waa waa waaaa WAAAAWW!!"

"Well why the #$*&@ are you calling me? Call the %$#* fire department!"

[Eugene]

Actually I don't think that would ever be a problem. A power brick with a Type-C connector is protocol agnostic. The power pins are the same regardless.