Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Updates MacBooks and Mac Pro Desktop With Haswell, "Unified Thermal Core"

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the next-cube-on-drugs dept.

Desktops (Apple) 464

MojoKid writes with more detailed information on the new hardware Apple announced earlier today at WWDC "On the hardware side, Apple is updating its two MacBook Air devices; both the 11-inch and 13-inch versions will enjoy better battery life (up to 9 hours and 12 hours, respectively), thanks in no small part to having Intel's new Haswell processors inside. They'll also have 802.11ac WiFi on board. Both models have 1.3GHz Intel Core i5 or i7 (Haswell) processors, Intel HD Graphics 5000, 4GB of RAM, and has 128GB or 256GB of flash storage. Arguably the scene stealer on the desktop side of things is a completely redesigned Mac Pro. The 9.9-inch tall cylindrical computer boasts a new 'unified thermal core' which is designed to conduct heat away from the CPU and GPU while distributing it uniformly and using a single bottom-mounted intake fan. It rocks a 12-core Intel Xeon processor, dual AMD FirePro GPUs (standard), 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory (60GBps), and PCIe flash storage with up to 1.25GBps read speeds. The system promises 7 teraflops of graphics performance, supports 4k displays, and has a host of ports including four USB 3.0, two gigabit Ethernet ports, HDMI 1.4, six Thunderbolt 2 ports that offer super-fast (20Gbps) external connectivity."

cancel ×

464 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

cylindrical (3, Funny)

binarybum (468664) | about a year ago | (#43968823)

Re:cylindrical (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#43968839)

It's a cylinder in taxicab geometry!

Re:cylindrical (3, Funny)

coastal984 (847795) | about a year ago | (#43968859)

Did we just get NeXTcubed?

Re:cylindrical (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968951)

Sorry it's hard to understand what you're saying with all that DICK in your mouth.

Re:cylindrical (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#43968971)

Dihydrogen Iodide Carbopotassium? I think that's ben and jerry's new ice cream flavor. You should try it.

Re:cylindrical (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43969031)

http://helmer.sfe.se/ [helmer.sfe.se] for the 6 motherboard renderfarm in an IKEA Helmer cabinet.
As for Apple we seem to have a big Mac Mini.

Re:cylindrical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969095)

Yah, the link that says "cylindrical" is b0rked. Use the other links and scroll down. The flash presentation on Apple's site makes this look like a really cool machine... but I can't justify purchasing one unless it's with somebody else's money. It sounds great though and I don't even use Macs. I don't actually do scientific computing or intensive video editing though. OK... it would probably compile stuff in a blink but I'm just going to get coffee anyway.

Tassels (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968825)

I wonder the fan is powerful enough for tassels

Not a cylinder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968833)

That looks like a cube

Re:Not a cylinder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969089)

Looks like a prism to me

Re:Not a cylinder (1)

Narrowband (2602733) | about a year ago | (#43969191)

Specifically it looks like a NeXT cube. Something tells me that's the wrong link, and that it doesn't look like that.

Mac Pro DRAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968867)

The images show four quad-ranked regiestered DIMMs. This is not consumer stuff.

and... (4, Insightful)

LodCrappo (705968) | about a year ago | (#43968879)

..PCs will still be more economical, more powerful, more easily upgraded, and uglier.

Some things never seem to change.

Re:and... (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#43968983)

Still better than those 90's beige monstrosities IMO.

Re:and... (1, Informative)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43969233)

those 'monstrosities' allowed upgrades at least.

I hate shiny surfaces.. they show off every scratch and fingerprint

Re:and... (4, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43969125)

It's still a PC.

Innovative board and case designs though.

Re:and... (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#43969349)

Actually the Pros were very upgradable, and much easier to do so than any PC. It was always pull a lever, or pull off the top. No screws, not hassle, and this was all the way back , in many cases, to Apple ][. I recall swapping my hard disk out of my Mac LC in about two minutes. Memory on my Mac G4 was about a minute. And worried about getting thing stolen from inside because it so easy? The pass through for the security cable also automatically locks the case.

Really with mac it was a design decision. Do you limit capability with internal, at the time, IDE ports or do you provide a high speed external port that is plug and play, before most things were plug and play. I have recounted many time how difficult it was to get a ZIP drive to work on a PC, but that such things were automatic on a Mac. Or that hard drives that were too big of slow on a PC were plug and play on a Mac.

In this case I assume that I would have networked storage through gigabyte Ethernet for archive.

Not Upgradeable? (5, Insightful)

javakah (932230) | about a year ago | (#43968897)

With so much in such a small space/size and an unusual factor as well, I have a very bad feeling about your ability to upgrade practically any parts in this thing.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (5, Funny)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43968919)

But why would you want to do that? Apparently it's perfect.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

tk77 (1774336) | about a year ago | (#43968977)

Ram is upgradable

Then, it has 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports running at 20gbps managed by 3 controllers.

Get whatever external enclosure you want and run whatever you want. Raids, Video cards, etc..

So No then (3, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43969029)

Ram is upgradable

Then, it has 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports running at 20gbps managed by 3 controllers.

Get whatever external enclosure you want and run whatever you want. Raids, Video cards, etc..

The shorter answer would be no. Its not expandable, an incompatible rare expensive *external* interface is simply not a solution. Although I do find it somewhat ironic that you could argue that a raspberry pi costing $25 is upgradable too :).

Re:So No then (4, Informative)

tk77 (1774336) | about a year ago | (#43969113)

The system is targetted towards professional workstation use. Having rare expensive "external" devices is already common place. External enclosures for running multiple video cards for resolve systems, firewire / esata raid arrays, etc its all being done currently. Also makes it a lot easier to swap devices between systems.

While I would like to have at least an upgradable graphics system, having everything external (for meanyway) is already a standard thing. There's only so much storage you can fit inside the system as is, and most of my graphics needs are via additional cards for cuda/opencl processing.

Being able to swap drive arrays like I was using FW800 but with speeds greater then eSATA will be nice. Being able to just plug in an external enclosure and run cuda/opencl accelerated applications more accelerated.. and not having to worry about internal power, additional psu's, etc will be welcome.

Re:So No then (-1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43969357)

the fact it only has one real display connection and it is only hdmi 1.4 puts this firmly into bragging-rights consumer level hardware for me. I have my doubts about the thunderbolt connected displays. Also, cramming a bunch of workstation 'laptop' hardware into a cylinder isn't worth the price premium.

Re:So No then (2)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a year ago | (#43969419)

I wouldn't really call a Xeon or Dual AMD FirePro GPUs "Laptop Hardware", however putting them in a barely serviceable enclosure surely is laptop-esque.

Re:So No then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969241)

incompatible rare expensive *external* interface is simply not a solution

Said the idiot.

Re:So No then (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year ago | (#43969267)

The shorter answer would be no. Its not expandable, an incompatible rare expensive *external* interface is simply not a solution. Although I do find it somewhat ironic that you could argue that a raspberry pi costing $25 is upgradable too :).

Actually, given the new ThunderBolt speeds I wouldn't be surprised if some company ends up selling an external housing for expansion cards. We are moving to a point where so much can be externally expanded at minimal cost.

I am also curious to know when sort of stuff MacPro owners traditionally add in terms of external expansion?

Re:So No then (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43969341)

I remember when I used to crack open a case and put in an ISA card to get Ethernet. Now, I plug in an "external" interface and my USB Ethernet is faster and a much easier install. How was that a bad move?

Re:Not Upgradeable? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969075)

Video cards? Not enough bandwidth. External enclosures? Having five boxes on my desk instead of one is stupid.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

tk77 (1774336) | about a year ago | (#43969195)

Ok, true. At first I forgot the second slot was also x16 and that the cubix enclosure is also x16.

All of a sudden not looking as good as it could have been

Re:Not Upgradeable? (3, Funny)

edremy (36408) | about a year ago | (#43969117)

Amusingly, back in 2007 Apple ran an ad showing how nice and clean the iMac was compared to the mess of cables behind a typical PC

My PC has all of its drives, video cards and the like internal, unlike the new Powermac

Perhaps the PC makers need to update their ads?

Re:Not Upgradeable? (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43969147)

Then, it has 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports running at 20gbps managed by 3 controllers.

Get whatever external enclosure you want and run whatever you want. Raids, Video cards, etc..

PCI-express 16x according to Wikipedia:
v3.0: 15.75 GB/s (128 GT/s)
v4.0: 31.51 GB/s (256 GT/s)

15,75*8/20 = 6,3 times faster.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

tk77 (1774336) | about a year ago | (#43969225)

Ugh, I got my port speeds mixed up. Yeah, the TB2.0 ports still wont be fast enough for running external cards.

SIgh, was getting excited too.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43969133)

They claim it's the most upgradable mac ever.

It's got Thunderbolt 2. And USB.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (3, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#43969387)

the most upgradable mac ever

This notice brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43969167)

I think Apple sees the world as a fibre broadband connected office with the users doing simple manipulations of a digital product for sale.
Your data is captured on some 4-8k video device, camera, music and you combine and envision the final product.
Rendering is done off site or on the Mac Pro as needed, sent on effortlessly via a fast network.
This is an artists tool on a production line like a big Mac mini or iMac, when you start earning, you upgrade hardware as needed over years.
The software is rental or stays with you as 'cloud', drop in the new cylindrical dongle as needed.
The main questions will be how productive will OS X with the ultrafast ECC memory be vs a PC with Windows you can build or buy with ECC memory?

Re:Not Upgradeable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969169)

Remember that it's a Mac, when it gets too slow you just throw it away and get a new one.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43969229)

But, they say it's good for another 10 years. (as long as you ignore 10 Gb networking, I guess)

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43969247)

Well, 8 antenna 802.11ac can push up to 6.7Gbps.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43969281)

In exactly the same way 11n goes to 600 Mb (or not). Why would you want to connect a desktop to shared media, anyway?

Re:Not Upgradeable? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43969355)

The wireless is good to, what, 8G? 10G wired can be had through Thunderbolt by then anyway.

Re:Not Upgradeable? (5, Interesting)

WCLPeter (202497) | about a year ago | (#43969425)

In all the years I've been building computers I can name only twice where I ever had the opportunity to upgrade; once with an old 466 when I went from a DX2-50 to a DX4-100; another time when I upgraded a K6-2 333 to a K6-2 500. Most of the time when it came time to "upgrade" there had been so many changes to the bus types, socket types, memory types, etc... it was just easier to start over from scratch than try to pick an upgrade from a narrow list of parts which often cost a fortune, while often only giving a moderate speed boost, because they were now considered "specialty" equipment for an obsolete architecture.

Granted, there are people who will insist that they've been able to upgrade their systems multiple times - but I'm not talking about those compulsive types who need the newest graphics card every other week. Most people I've talked to will buy a machine and keep it for 2-4 years before thinking its time buy a new one, by then everything has changed and the existing machine is mostly obsolete and so they have to start new.

And where have they put the power button on the Ma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968907)

Yup, it's on the back. I find this quite strange as they've evidently put form over function, yet still trumpet user friendliness as a core design ethic.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

MarkTina (611072) | about a year ago | (#43968975)

You turn off your computers ?

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#43969035)

Most Mac users I know dual boot Windows and OS-X.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43969051)

Since when is rebooting the same thing as turning off ones computer? ... Let alone require the power button every time.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969093)

Most Mac users I know dual boot Windows and OS-X.

You know some very unusual users.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969143)

As a Mac user in a Mac-based office, the third of such I've worked in (I'm in the Bay Area) that seems quite unusual. I'd say less than 20% of the Mac users I know duall boot.

The power button is on the back of existing macs (3)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#43969165)

You turn off your computers ?

Most Mac users I know dual boot Windows and OS-X.

And using the "Restart" menu option works just fine for rebooting. Why is the power button needed?

I believe the power button is on the back of the Mac mini and iMacs.

Re:The power button is on the back of existing mac (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year ago | (#43969275)

Why is the power button needed?

For forcible power-cycling, but if you're doing that a lot, you have bigger problems (or are doing development, especially kernel-mode code development).

(And if you want to power the machine down, rather than reboot, the "Shut Down..." menu option handles that.)

I believe the power button is on the back of the Mac mini and iMacs.

Correct for the iMac, as I remember; I'm not sure about the Mac mini, but I could easily believe it to be the case.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (3, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about a year ago | (#43969365)

Which is done with the reboot option from within the OS, generally. The point was that most computers default to automatically sleeping in a reasonably short time and this has actually worked reliably for the last 5-10 years, so its fairly common to not actually turn a computer entirely off.

My desktop sleeps at five watts. Parasitic draw when entirely off is 1.5 or so. That's just short of 31 kWh in a year. At my electric rates, that means leaving it asleep rather than off for an entire year would add all of $6 to my electric bill. As it's certainly not off/asleep for all that time, the real-world impact is closer to $2-3. Even with a nice SSD, boot is a 30-45 second thing where the longest part of waking from sleep is waiting for my monitors to realize what's happened and turn on.

The cost of a smoothie every year in exchange for convenience every time I return to my computer? Yeah, worth it.

Also, most Mac users don't dual-boot unless they're gaming. VirtualBox works just as well for 95% of uses and adds a lot of features you don't get with bare metal installs like snapshots, plus Parallels and Fusion exist for those with more specific needs who can't get away with VirtualBox. I'll agree that many serious users of Intel Macs run Windows in some form, but the dual boot versus virtualized split has been shifting more and more towards virtualized over the years.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43969397)

Yes. some of us don't like paying extra money to the utilities. I guess that's why we don't buy overpriced designware either.

Re:And where have they put the power button on the (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43969327)

It's a cylinder... where's the "back"? :)

should have at least 2 build in HDD / SDD ports (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43968917)

should have at least 2 build in HDD / SDD ports just one is to small for a system like that.

And why not e-sata that is free and does not eat up bandwidth like a HDD on TB will.

e-sata is slower ... (1, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#43969249)

should have at least 2 build in HDD / SDD ports just one is to small for a system like that.

There are 6 thunderbolt 2 ports.

And why not e-sata that is free and does not eat up bandwidth like a HDD on TB will.

Thunderbolt 2 is 6+ times faster than e-sata.

Re:e-sata is slower ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969335)

Only if they have solved TB Latency.

Dayum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968933)

Apple took their 'rounded corners' patent way too serious...

i dub thee the iDildo.

i hear goatse man approves.

Re:Dayum... (2)

BluBrick (1924) | about a year ago | (#43969271)

Perhaps the iPlanter? It'll look fahhh-bulous next to the Macquarium! But remember to place it to the East or West or it will block the chi from the North.

a problem nobody ever had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43968961)

yet another product very well engineered to fix a problem that nobody ever had - an office with just enough room to fit a smallish cylinder and nothing more.

4Gb? (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year ago | (#43968965)

4Gb or RAM? That's really not a lot today. As for the desktop, the whole point is expandability, but that seems pretty limited with this one. Might have another Cube on our hands.

Re: 4Gb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969099)

You're both wrong. OP wrote 4 gigabytes, you wrote 4 gigabits. I doubt you meant 512 megabytes. But seriously, this will have at least 16 gigabytes standard. My rMBP has 16 GB; this thing surely will.

8GB costs $100 more (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year ago | (#43969149)

You cannot add it later. You have to configure to order.

The Air had 2 or 4GB CTO (configure to order) 2 years ago, 4 or 8GB CTO this year and I think last year was 4GB or 8GB CTO also.

Re:8GB costs $100 more (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year ago | (#43969359)

8GB is better, but still not exactly cutting edge. I got 16BG for my current laptop a year ago, and Id really hate to settle for less. Having two drives is also nice, but at that point I happily admit it's well and truly leaving ultrabook territory, so that would be unreasonable to ask for.

Re:8GB costs $100 more (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#43969385)

You do see the 4 sticks of ram, right? Seriously?

Great fun (5, Funny)

michaelmalak (91262) | about a year ago | (#43968967)

Looks like it'll be great fun for pets and kids alike to roll around on the floor.

What the hell? (4, Interesting)

putaro (235078) | about a year ago | (#43968993)

I wanted to like the new Mac Pro but it makes no sense to me.

Internal FLASH only - that's fine for a MacBook Air, but aren't the target users for this video editors?
Limited RAM - only 4 ram slots. The old one had 8.
Cylindrical - Great, now nothing fits next to it
Exhaust from the top - Can't put anything on top and if you spill a drink on it, it goes straight into the machine.

What are the pluses to this design? Hopefully it runs quiet but beyond that???

This is the new Cube. I wonder if this will be the final Mac Pro - "Well, nobody bought it so it's obvious there's no market here..."

Re:What the hell? (5, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43969071)

I wanted to like the new Mac Pro but it makes no sense to me.

Internal FLASH only - that's fine for a MacBook Air, but aren't the target users for this video editors? Limited RAM - only 4 ram slots. The old one had 8. Cylindrical - Great, now nothing fits next to it Exhaust from the top - Can't put anything on top and if you spill a drink on it, it goes straight into the machine.

What are the pluses to this design? Hopefully it runs quiet but beyond that???

This is the new Cube. I wonder if this will be the final Mac Pro - "Well, nobody bought it so it's obvious there's no market here..."

The pluses are in Apple's bottom line, as they always are. Also, if you put it on the floor and your home is burgalarized the culprit will probably assume it's a wastebin and skip it.

In an office, you might have a problem when the cleaning person tries to empty it. However, no worries since Apple products aren't often found in offices that can afford a cleaning person.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969079)

The only thing you'd do by spilling a drink on it seems to be getting the heat sink wet. At least, that's what it looks like. The center under the fan is all heat sink, the guts are around the perimeter.

Re:What the hell? (1, Flamebait)

phayes (202222) | about a year ago | (#43969081)

Yeah, because integrated spinning hard disks is the future...

Your comment just shows that you still don't understand what thunderbolt has made possible & desirable. Anyone really needing spinning storage can add it through the thunderbolt ports.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#43969297)

RAID is dead Thunderbolt reigns supreme. You heard it here first folks.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about a year ago | (#43969097)

The internal flash doesn't bother me so much. The kinds of folks who are likely to be using this box likely have access to large network based storage. Alot of companies have also figured out that it's easier to move to a NAS or provide some sort of network based storage, than to continue wasting time and money upgrading local storage for a bunch of users.

Re:What the hell? (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about a year ago | (#43969153)

Cylindrical - Great, now nothing fits next to it

I suspect that's partly the point: it means that TV shows and movies can show off the new Apple device as a cool new piece of urban chic. Practicality doesn't enter into it, this isn't for stashing under a desk, it's for showing off.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969155)

Internal FLASH only - that's fine for a MacBook Air, but aren't the target users for this video editors?

External RAID tower via TB. (not the decease)

Limited RAM - only 4 ram slots. The old one had 8.

Likely takes registered memories. (not by the NSA)

Cylindrical - Great, now nothing fits next to it

It can ROFL when you perform a user error.

Exhaust from the top - Can't put anything on top and if you spill a drink on it, it goes straight into the machine.

Soon in the Apple store near you, the Apple Umbrella.
    Just think about the possibilities: a heated tube, with hot air flowing through it. The endless office pranks. Hopefully the fan has a sealed bearing.

Re:What the hell? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#43969173)

Why do you need to put things on top of it and SPILL DRINKS IN IT?!

It's not a cup holder. Though I suppose it could keep your coffee somewhat warmer.

I assume it's not huge either. So complaining about how it's not a massive super expandable machine may not matter that much if it's powerful and small. Because it's not even trying to be.

I assume it may be pretty small and the design stands out (though I don't know how much I like it. But then I would never buy it anyway and I would never recommend anyone to do so either so.. Doesn't matter much.)

I assume we'll see other cases built around "the case is the heatsink" design now. Will be interesting to watch.

Yeah, seem more like a cube. But powerful. I don't know how powerful the cube was?

the old Mac Pro had 4 RAM slots also (4, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year ago | (#43969203)

In the one CPU config. That is, one CPU socket package, 6 or 8 cores. If you got the two CPU socket version with 12 cores, you got 8 RAM slots.

The model pictured is one with a single CPU socket and has 4 DIMM slots. It's quite possible that the two CPU socket version of this Mac Pro will have 8 RAM slots also.

I checked, there is no 12 core version of Xeon E5, so presumably to get the 12 cores on this one will use two packages as the last one did.

I don't have any problems putting stuff next to cylinders. I have a coffee cup on my desk, it isn't causing any untoward issues.

This thing has no HDDs. No amount of flash would be enough for video editors, and not even 4 internal HDDs would either. So you will use a Thunderbolt external HDD or RAID array. I just hope those get somewhat cheaper soon.

Re:the old Mac Pro had 4 RAM slots also (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969369)

It will use the e5-2600 v2 series cpu that does indeed have 12 core variants (they have not launched yet), so I do not believe there will be a 2 cpu version otherwise I think they would have displayed it.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year ago | (#43969339)

With regards to the RAM, being limited to 4 slots may not be an issue if each of the modules are 32GB and in a year or two the modules could even be 64GB or 128GB each.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969403)

I think with the flash storage the idea is that you use external drives because they aren't going to fit some 5 terabytes in it anyways, and the thunderbolt connections are so fast it doesn't matter that its external.

Bottom-mounted fan? Top-mounted, you mean. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969015)

If you can't get this right, can you get anything right?

Only 4GB of RAM? (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#43969053)

Only 4 GB of RAM for the Air? Even your bottom-barrel throwaway laptop from Walmart tends to have at least 4 GB of RAM, let alone a laptop you're going to be paying $1K for.

Re:Only 4GB of RAM? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969179)

Well to be fair, OS X, like Linux can run just fine in 4GB, while Windows 7/8 struggles.
Not to mention that Apple's site clearly states it can be upgraded to 8GB.

Re:Only 4GB of RAM? (3, Informative)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#43969325)

while Windows 7/8 struggles.

While Win7x64 might struggle on less than 1 gig of RAM I can assure you it is quite happy with 4.

Re:Only 4GB of RAM? 4gb is small for pro apps (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43969343)

Re:Only 4GB of RAM? 4gb is small for pro apps / running lot's of them at the same time.

Re:Only 4GB of RAM? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43969435)

Win 7 struggles but it's not because of RAM. 4GB is plenty of ram for it. I've got a mac mini with 16GB of RAM and the only time it uses more than 3 or 4 GB of that is when I'm editing video. The only reasons I can see for more than 4GB of ram is video editing or running virtual environments. I've run win7, winXP, Linux and AROS all at one time on here. Why? Because I can!

Overshadowed by PRISM (0)

mahler3 (577336) | about a year ago | (#43969067)

Who cares, really? Normally, I should be excited by this set of announcements, but I'm not now. Why? Because Apple is complicit in the largest expansion of government surveillance power in my lifetime... that we know of, at least. (That is, unless you believe their technicality-laden denial with wording nearly identical to several other of the named companies.) Every desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, and personal music player currently in my household is an Apple product, but until we get this sorted out, I'm not buying any more of their gear. And I'm recommending that family and friends do the same.

Re:Overshadowed by PRISM (2)

jurco (2851147) | about a year ago | (#43969115)

Apple is complicit in the largest expansion of government surveillance power in my lifetime...

How dare you. Apple hasn't even heard of PRISM.

Re:Overshadowed by PRISM (4, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#43969209)

I respect and understand how you feel, but the anger should be directed at Washington. When the White House hands down mandates what do you expect these companies to do?

Re:Overshadowed by PRISM (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43969217)

All of your favorite tech companies probably capitulated. You are probably surfing Slashdot over a broadband connection from a major ISP that capitulated. Maybe even your phone company that gave up all of your phone call records. Corporations are just a big extension of government - the source of your trouble is the US Government, not Apple or Verizon.

Re:Overshadowed by PRISM (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#43969261)

Who cares, really? Normally, I should be excited by this set of announcements, but I'm not now. Why? Because Apple is complicit in the largest expansion of government surveillance power in my lifetime... that we know of, at least. (That is, unless you believe their technicality-laden denial with wording nearly identical to several other of the named companies.) Every desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, and personal music player currently in my household is an Apple product, but until we get this sorted out, I'm not buying any more of their gear. And I'm recommending that family and friends do the same.

FFS, this stuff is not new, the allies have been doing active SigInt for decades, you just noticed?

Re:Overshadowed by PRISM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969287)

All the tech companies are complicit, and if you look at the timeline Apple only signed on last October, Microsoft signed on in 2007 - and who knows what sort of pressure the government was leveraging on these companies to get them on board.

Mac Pro Updated: FINALLY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969105)

While in some respects the 'not yet' Mac Pro has finally gotten updated hardware, this is Apple too little and TOO LATE.

ASUS and Gigabit have boards that match and EXCEED Apple's 'not yet' Mac Pro !

In addition the 'not yet' Mac Pro has NO, i.e. nada, PCI, PCIe or any other high bandwidth high clock rate expansion ports !

Can we read "Twentieth Century Mac" and do we remember the failure of it ! Oh Yes ! I suppose that Mr. Cook would announce
"Twenty First Century Mac" to the masturbations of the faithful audience in a Road House abode.

"Build In America" ! Well, Costa Rica is in America, just not the United States of America. Hardy Har Har. Nudge nudge wink wink;
err I should put a Mr. Cook superlative 'oink oink'.

Oh well. Apple rightfully gets its income from iPhone and iPad sales; iPod sales are dying quickly ... thus to move to a iRadio Service.

"Cloud" ? Well well. A certain news flash over the weekend just very well dented the 'Cloud' Culture and ... the Titanic sinks yet again !

Hardy Har Har

Re:Mac Pro Updated: FINALLY (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43969269)

In addition the 'not yet' Mac Pro has NO, i.e. nada, PCI, PCIe or any other high bandwidth high clock rate expansion ports !

Technically, each Thunderbolt port should be just as capable as a 4x PCIe. Presumably, Thunderbolt 2 can do a 8x since it uses both lanes, but this is speculation on my part.

The thing that I don't understand is the ports and power cord are all on the same side - along with the power button. That seems awkward.

Re:Mac Pro Updated: FINALLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969291)

Notwithstanding the rest of your idiocy, Apple has no manufacturing plants in Costa Rica, or anywhere else in Central America. I doubt they have anything in S. Am. either. In point of fact (and as much as I hate to defend them) they're bringing production back to the US.

Now all of you Mac addicts and the haters, go eat a bag of dicks.

7tflops = dual AMD FirePro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969121)

According to Apple's website [apple.com] :

Not only does it feature a state-of-the-art AMD FirePro workstation-class GPU with up to 6GB of dedicated VRAM — it features two of them.

I was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969183)

When this story [slashdot.org] came out I posted that it sounded like Intel was targeting MacBook Air first and foremost and were banking on that other devices could follow from that a well-received deployment there.

My post was immediately modded down to -1. With determined fracking, you'll be able to find it.

Receptacle? (2)

Fierlo (842860) | about a year ago | (#43969235)

Is it just me, or does the Mac Pro look like a really fancy garbage can? That's the first thought I had when I saw the pictures in the article.

Sigh (2)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#43969245)

It "rocks" a 12-core Intel Xeon processor

sigh

Apple isn't even trying anymore (1)

Dutchmang (74300) | about a year ago | (#43969329)

From the NYT coverage: “You can watch the entire trilogy of ‘Lord of the Rings,’ ” on a single charge, Mr. Schiller said.

Two incredibly boring hipster co-opted concepts combined in one sentence.

Looks like a rubbish bin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43969379)

Am I the only one who saw the new Mac Pro and thought it looks like an ashtray or a rubbish bin?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?