Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
I think the Studio Display is quite attractive and probably more so in the flesh, but point taken. This brings up another aspect of their design choices historically. They're of paramount importance in Apple's brand management. A lot of companies make similar looking devices. Though Apple's products are very minimal, they are often easily identifiable.
......................................... |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
What an absolute mess, and why not just put an iMac in there already?
Or, better yet, take the intentionally dysfunctional baby iMac out of it? |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Did they find any evidence of wireless antennae in there? That would certainly point to more standalone "smart" features...
|
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
I saw this machine in person today.
That is such an odd sight to behold. It really does remind me of Herman Munster’s head. Seeing a 2U mini us just odd. They should have spaced the ports out so it would be more like a winking face with the power indicator being in the middle like a white nose. I didn’t try to do anything with it because there wasn’t a point really. This is a display with nothing I could really “demo” for any value other than browsing the web. I would need to know a site that runs Prime95 or something like that in the background to see if run. The Display did look good with it and visually it displayed well. Again though, I just looked at a stock desktop not something that pushed the limit. Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
An interview with Apple engineers.
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
They have to define reasonably priced. What does $1599 buy from other vendors? How does that compare?
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
‽
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
|
Can anybody out there recommend the best speakers (within reason) for use with the Mac Mini/Studio?
(Assuming of course, you don't buy the Display-with-iPhone-Inside.) Asking for a friend, who will likely be editing video on his machine. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Very subjective. If he’s monitoring audio along with editing video he may have more specific needs. A lot depends on his space and desk layout as well.
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
My brain is always figuring these things out in local rather than US pricing. studio display is $1649 here, and the 27” has started at around for the last $2300 for 3-5 years hear. It was $1999 before that.
|
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Quote:
If you use analog then you can control the volume with the keyboard/speaker icon. However, if you go optical out then you have to control it on the amp. This makes sense, but if you go analog then you end up having two places where you can adjust the volume. Not a big deal but something to be aware of. Edit: oh yeah! I just remembered that I did have go digital-to-analog from the CalDigit. I used a discontinued "Avinair Spitfire Pro Digital to Analog Audio Converter" to bridge that gap. It isn't available anymore, but that means you could skip that if you went analog to the amp. I wanted to use optical for my setup and had this converter already so it worked for me. Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Well, we just got our first Studio Display in the shop and we put it on the floor.
Beautiful! Why this thing is not the new 27" iMac I cannot fathom. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
|
Yes, they could have done 5% more engineering and just made it the new iMac. It's pretty much got a computer inside already.
Then, of course, it would have the M1 Pro, instead of the Max and Ultra, but it would have been okay. Power users would have to wait for the Mac Pro this fall. The big disappointment for me is that the screen doesn't pivot. Maybe they're working on a 4th stand option. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Just get a VESA mount if you want pivot and rotating, much better than the bulky Apple stands anyway.
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
I’m telling you. If Apple 2022 existed in 2002, that articulating chrome arm on the iMac G4 would be an optional $169 add-on. The stock model would have the display on a non-moving, vertical chrome arm, guaranteed. Everyone here knows this.
Fact is, we now pay extra for stuff that used to just come in the box. In fact, I’m waiting for them to go back to where an AirPort card is a separate $99 purchase for those who want get online wirelessly. That’s the only thing I can think of where they went in the other direction. Everything else - cables, adapters, chargers, cleaning cloths, adjustability, etc. - have been slowly eliminated over time and made into separate, additional accessory purchases. I know it’s gotten their packaging sizes/weight down some, but let’s not pretend that was the primary driving factor. Apple has eleventy gazillion $$$ because they give nothing away. They don’t leave money in the table. I figure we’re about 5-6 years away from when you buy a MacBook, you just get the bottom part in the box. The display will cost extra and you hinge it together yourself. Remember this post when it happens. “Holy smokes, that Paul idiot joked about this back in 2022…”. PS - For any pedants and humor-challenged present, I’m joking. I think. Check back with me in five years…. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
While the 15-inch iMac G4 was $1299 just like the original iMac G3, things got pricier than that fast. 17-inch? $1999. 20-inch? $2199. Meanwhile, at the end of the iMac G3's life, it had been at $999. I think they had real trouble getting the price of the G4 down. And once you have a display that's 27 inches rather than 15, the mechanics to make that worse become very non-trivial. That panel is simply a lot heavier. That's also why even the insane $999 stand on the $4999 Pro Display XDR isn't as flexible as the built-in stand of the $1299 15-inch iMac G4 was: it's too heavy to accomplish that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
That iMac G4 - like the Cube and trash can Macs - was probably “doomed” from the start…designed for initial impact and a generation or two of upgrades/support, but just couldn’t progress too far along due to weight, sizing, thermal, etc. issues.
They all looked great and made a nice front-end splash, but, big picture/long run, they really didn’t make a true dent in any real day-to-day way. Probably too funky and “different” to make it as long term computers. Maybe things are different now with the AS, and more adventurous designs are possible…more power (and room to grow) in smaller, interesting enclosures. Sometimes it seems like Apple just hates towers, even though they sold zillions of them over the years (G3, G4, G5, Mac Pro). It’s only when they’ve tried to get cute with it - Cube, trash can - did things go a little off. If this little Studio is that powerful, I’m curious to see what the next Mac Pro is like. It’ll either be dramatically smaller (because it can), OR they’ll go absolutely nuts and make it even bigger/roomier and start at $11K. I can imagine either one, honestly. To me, that Mac Pro desktop just kinda exists in its own category where money/budgets don’t matter and people don’t want one ounce of compromise/hold back. I think the MacBook Pro’s desktop counterpart is actually the Mac Studio, and the pro tower just exists off in its own little specialized niche, apart from the mini, iMac, studio and the notebooks. I kinda see the new Mac Studio as the 2022 take on the G4 Cube. Same basic approach, but smaller and more powerful (and I assume it has some headroom to where it’s not discontinued in 18-24 months because it “had nowhere to go”. Surely they’ve learned those lessons after a few high-profile “oops”. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
We know the Cube was a bit of a Jobs vanity project, and the iMac G4 probably was, too. The 2013 Mac Pro, well, same for Jony Ive. (I ironically think it might be a good design substitute for the Mac Studio. It looks much better, and seems to have better heat dissipation as well. Oh well.) Quote:
Like, I don't think anyone at Apple is under the illusion that the Studio looks attractive. But the Cube did. Except once the plastic started cracking. Oops. |
||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Well, looks-wise, the Studio is just a taller Mac mini. It’s clunkier for sure. I wasn’t talking about looks (the Cube is more attractive than the Studio), but just in that in-between space of an iMac and a full-blown tower. It’s a Cube that’s been whacked horizontally and wrapped in aluminum instead of acrylic.
It’s something about heights and proportions. The Mac mini looks nice, wide and flat. The Cube looked nice, taller. Those flatter AirPort and Time Capsule devices were nice, along with the later taller ones (smaller footprint, but they went vertical). Something about big/wide and “kinda taller, but not by much” can look a bit squatty/clunky, which I think the Studio suffers from a bit. It just kinda looks like an uninspired…lump. And that’s just something odd from Apple. I said, on release day, that had it been smaller in area (4” inches square?) but taller (8-10”…even 12”?) it might look a little more elegant and Apple-y (and not like someone simply Photoshop-stretched a Mac mini, which just comes across as a bit lazy). I know serious work went into it. It just looks like there hasn’t. “Well, shit…I could’ve designed that…”. We’ve been so spoiled for 20+ years that when Apple comes out with a brand-new product that’s a tad pedestrian and expected (“just make a taller Mac mini),, it’s a bit of a weird jolt. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
You know, I still have my Cube somewhere. I wonder if I could mod a Studio into its case.
The G4 Cube remains one of the most gorgeous computers ever designed. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
No doubt. Paired with one of those silver/clear Acrylic Studio Displays (flat panel or CRT*), it was quite a thing.
That 17”(?) CRT Studio Display with the Möbius strip clear acrylic base is in my top three Apple designs ever, before LCDs took over. I thought it would’ve made a gorgeous 17” iMac housing, complete with tilt/swivel, which no jellybean iMac had (without a third-party base/stand).. I kept waiting for them to stick an iMac in that. Man, that was a sexy design. Even now I’d proudly have one - with modern AS guts - on my desk. This is exactly why I sometimes wish Apple, like Fender, had a custom shop. |
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
I've been thinking about that as well, but more likely using the guts of a M(x) mini - and a Blu-ray drive that pops out of the top slot, natch. It's on my list of eventual projects.
So it goes. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Quote:
(But also, even if you take "we want the same footprint as the Mac mini, just taller", there's the additional oddity that that Mac mini design is rather dated, too. Nor does the design fit the Studio Display all that much. And they didn't even make it Darker Silver™.) Not to overanalyze it (as I proceed to totally overanalyze it), but that may have even been intentional. "This is just what it says on the tin. Nothing fancy. Just a beefy Mac desktop." |
||
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
It's already a machine that few Mac users think about owning. I'd love to own the top-end iPhone, iPad or Watch - even the $700 headphones. But I don't know what I'd do with the Pro if I had one. The machine starts too high-end to even become a realistic want for me. All it would do is raise my electricity bills. I presume when it debuts in the fall it will have upgradable dual Ultras and PCI 5.0 SSDs, along with Thunderbolt 5. All really cutting edge, but of little practical help to my workflow. |
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
I must be the only one here who thinks the G4 cube looked like a cobbled together POS.
As for the rest, added costs for add-on bits, that’s just par for the course with any big company today. Apple’s leaderships job is to please shareholders by increasing profits, anything else is just a happy side deal. |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
That said, yeah, makes sense for the M2 to go PCIe 5. Might be too early for Thunderbolt 5, though. An "M2 Extreme" — four (instead of two) M2 Maxs stuck together in a 2x2 grid seems like a given. That does raise a question about the RAM, though. I imagine the M2 line will generally double current capacities, so the M2 will go up to 32 GiB, the Pro up to 64, the Max up to 128, the Ultra up to 256, and the Extreme up to 512. Whereas the current Mac Pro already goes up to 1.5 TiB. Maybe Apple is OK with that, and maybe they're not. There's a rumor Apple is going to do a hybrid approach where you get both the SoC's RAM and additional slots. In a sense, this adds to the cache hierarchy; the SoC RAM sort of becomes a level 4 cache. But it's not clear to me what that looks like on a process level. If each process can access both RAM, surely you lose the speed benefits of the SoC RAM? After all, the OS has to work to keep the two in sync for a shared address space. Instead, it's probably easiest if each process gets either the SoC RAM or the slot RAM. But how does the OS decide that? Does Finder come with radio buttons? Memory: (•) Built-in Unified Memory (512 GiB) ( ) Expanded Memory (1536 GiB installed) (Yes, I know Apple won't use correct units. ) Kind of a throwback to System 7! Lastly, there's the GPU, and ATP discussed a rumor where Apple will flat-out offer their own card with ASi GPU chips. But that way, you lose the performance benefits of the shared unified memory. And once you do that, why bother with your own GPU cards at all — just offer AMD's? In short, the ARM Mac Pro is both very interesting (in that there's quite a few unanswered questions) and boring (in that I would never ever buy such a machine anyway). |
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 5 of 7 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Capella's Doodlings | Capella | Creative Endeavors | 13 | 2010-10-09 19:57 |
Final Cut Pro 6 (and studio?) - NAB | Moogs | Speculation and Rumors | 22 | 2007-03-20 14:49 |
As if the Possibility of Bird Flu wasn't Enough | Moogs | AppleOutsider | 0 | 2007-03-01 08:18 |
that wasn't nice | usurp | General Discussion | 1 | 2004-08-05 11:33 |
Whoever said Word wasn't professional? | ast3r3x | Third-Party Products | 4 | 2004-05-26 23:03 |