Discussion in 'Apple Desktop Hardware/Software' started by elvis, Apr 5, 2017.
my 09 macbook runs sierra fine, SSD upgrade made a huge difference.
Yep,, running a SSD and had 4GB of ram during my initial install but it kept rebooting, found I had a flacky 2GB stick so removed it and now stable and even upgraded to 10.12.4 without issues..once I find another stick I will put it back to 4GB..I'm sure I could get 6 or 8GB to work, but hit and miss and not worth the headache
I've set it up for the kids to do their school apps on Reading Eggs and Mathletics and with time feature for each to use the MB, I love that feature of parental control - shits all over any windoz can offer!
One thing I hated about the newer MB was RAM was soldered onboard and if it was ordered with just 8GB that was it stuck for life @ 8GB
Folks keep recommending we buy iMacs, but as you mentioned they're still just "laptop parts in a desktop form factor". Good enough for spreadsheet jockeys, but rubbish for the sort of work we do at scale.
And as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Apple's worrying trend towards soldered-on parts is not a business model I want to be a part of. Modern computers are all about chasing bottlenecks. If I can't buy a new video card, new hard disk or new RAM and remove old bottlenecks a year after release, I won't buy the product. The flippant response is that Apple would rather I buy a whole new computer, and they're in it for the profits not for my convenience. But my simple counter is that I'd rather not buy Apple products at all than buy a product of theirs that can't be upgraded. With that in mind, their "put Apple first, and the customer second" mindset will lose them sales.
That all assumes Apple cares about computer sales, of course. Considering the lion's share of their profits comes from everything non-Mac these days. All the same, the interviews with Apple executive management back on page one seem to indicate they do very much care (or at least are pretending to), so I guess we'll see what these new systems offer.
They speak of "molecularity", but that could mean anything. Technically speaking, the current trashcan Mac Pro is "modular" in that you can buy a $1000 Thunderbolt-to-PCIE converter and plug a few cards in that way. This is pretty much what we're forced to do on a frequent basis. And considering the off-the-shelf price for a fully specced Mac Pro to begin with, that modularity means I can buy 2 (almost 3) highly specced HP workstations for the same dollar cost, which outperform the trashcan on day one *and* can be easily upgraded later to boost them some more. As far as software goes, there's nothing exclusive to Mac that we need any more that can't be handled by either Windows or Linux (even when it comes to interacting with other non-Mac Apple hardware).
There is no way a macOS user is going to think Windows 10 is as good as macOS. But the point is that Win10 is now good enough.
When your traditional heartland drifts to another platform it's an indicator that there might be a wider problem.
I have an i7 on my desk that I'm trying out Linux Mint on, and you know what, for many things it's actually OK. Not as good as macOS, but free and fast and works on interesting hardware.
There's a huge world of interesting hardware out there and macOS users are missing out.
Without trying to derail the thread, I've used a lot of computers (and much more than just boring old x86) for a lot more "operational hours" than most. When I hear people tell me that "OS A is better than OS B because workflow", I have to scoff.
Pick any business you like in 2017, and watch what "workflow" means to the average employee. For most, it means logging on to a computer, opening the 3-4 applications they need, and working in them all day.
What an OS does in the background is such a moot point for business today. I mean, I still hear people on the daily tell me "Finder is better than Explorer" and other nonsense, but in that case they really don't mean "objectively better", but "subjectively more pleasing to the individual", which nobody can argue with (each to their own). But when it comes to actually working inside applications, we have folks in our offices who don't know the difference between Linux, macOS and Windows once they're in a maximised application.
Heck, one of our lead compositors here runs a Linux desktop with a Mac keyboard, and all his key bindings set to use the Apple keys like a Mac. While he's operational day to day, his x86/Linux workstation is 1/3 the cost of a Mac Pro, twice as powerful, and to him feels exactly like macOS with his key bindings. We keep costs down, he gets the performance he wants, and his "workflow" is suited perfectly to his needs.
But anyways, again, not trying to derail the thread. In 2017 Apple have a big challenge on their hands when cross-platform use is standard. They're going to have to do something better than just "being Mac" if they want to keep their audience, who by and large were built in an older era, and haven't yet figured out that moving on is trivial.
Excatly. Totally agree.
I spent a while reconfiguring my workflow to be as cloud based as possible. I can now login to Chrome from anywhere and have almost all files. It's trivial. I can pick up a new box and be working in under an hour.
I'm a die hard Mac User and using Linux Mint feels much the same when I'm working in Chrome and Google Docs or Atom etc..
Sure, once you get in the nitty gritty of it macOS is nicer, but when I'm busy and working I dont notice.
If the Adobe suite was formally supported on Linux that would be the end of Windows and macOS for me.
Damn now I know why people complain so much about Apple lately.
My flatmate is designer / art director. Spent most of his career on Windows but when we moved to Singapore was forced to use a iMac and Mac Pro.
Because of this he bought an iMac for home. 16GB of ram and a fast SSD.
For years he's complained about using a Mac.
Last week I built him a new computer because to get the Mac Pro fully speced is about 12k SGD.
So built him:
Samsung 960 Pro (1TB m.2)
64gb Ram (4x16gb)
Dell 32" 4k monitor
(tower cost $4500 and screen was $2200, Singapore dollars)
Among some other parts.
His photoshop files are about 200-600MB in size. If he opened them on his iMac and dragged the assets, all at once, it would crash the mac entirely. The Mac Pro at work would result in the same.
On the MBP 15" 2017 model fully speced out. It would be super super super laggy to drag.
After we fired up the new computer, we opened up the 250mb file, this expanded to 18gb of memory usage. Dragging stuff around was instant.
Opening up a 600mb file expanded to around 26gb.
Opening up 3 files used 44gb, but he could drag assets between the different files instantly.
For 'pros', 16gb of ram simply is not enough.
ArsTechnica writes: ' Modern “Hackintoshes” show that Apple should probably just build a Mac tower ':
600mb photoshop files have been the norm for the last decade and a half. something else is weird there. we were doing files like that on mac's 10 years ago with no trouble. they are not incapable machines, just not top-end or value-oriented.
apple, were thinking of the future in a sense with gpu's...they just chose very poorly by going amd, instead of nvidia/cuda. hopefully they'll re-introduce a proper desktop, with all the slots and ports...but we all know that wont happen.
At this point they should license Mac OS.
While I agree as a customer, I can't see a company with a quarter of a trillion dollars in the bank doing this.
They seem to be entirely myopic to (1) profts and (2) mobile as a vehicle to profits. The desktop interests them less and less.
Despite the quotes from the original post, I'm still sceptical that their desktop offering will be up to scratch. I too think a licensed OS would be a better move for end users (and let the hardware vendors squabble over it), but I fear Apple just don't give a shit.
On his laptop he can open these photoshop files but its very slow to scrub. With the new computer there's literally no lag at all.
Photoshop no longer crashes either. (photoshop is pretty bad on OSX)
There's pros and cons to using OSX or Windows, but man Apple has dropped the ball.
Apple have been focusing on thin and light, non upgradeable. Clearly trying to blur the lines between iPad and OSX. Apple have been trying to make the shift to tablet happen. Instead of a macbook air they want you to buy an iPad Pro.
Meanwhile Windows 10 has inproved, it works out of the box and isn't a virus laden bag of shite. Even things like Linux Mint is good.
Hardware in the PC space is interesting and has variety. Apple came up with a magic track bar no one wanted and sells insanely expensive magic track pads no one buys.
For a business laptop the new MacBooks are a nightmare. I have to pay 3k to get a half decent spec and then cart around a ton of adapters to get on the network or make a presentation.
As a long term apple user I look at the Apole Store and am exasperated.
This approach isn't unique (RJ45 jacks are becoming somewhat of a rarity on PC laptops) and the reality is that for most people, it isn't a requirement to be plugged into anything, ever.
There are organisations that are saving money and offering a better user experience to staff by rolling out Macs. IBM is a great example, even though they're a fairly unique case, its hard to argue with their scale and conclusions.
Well put more ram in it??
For personal high end use, it's almost impossible to make a cost argument against a hackintosh, but what you've described there is not a Mac - ram issue. Photoshop is designed to use the HDD for scratch space when it runs out of ram, and whilst it's an order of magnitude slower than having more ram, it doesn't cause outright crashes.
The latest iMacs support 64gb ram, more expensive than your typical PC as SO-DIMMS, but certainly within the realm of affordability for someone whos computer is their business.
The anti Apple sentiment in this thread is ridiculous. Yes, there is plenty Apple does wrong, and no, a Mac is definitely not always the best tool for the job, and Apple have done a very poor job of catering to the Pro user niche. Judge each use for its requirements and the compromise that every single platform entails in each situation.
We tested the PSD's on the latest iMac 5k with 32gb of ram (since they can only be configured to 32gb before you need to go after market) and a single PSD file still lags.
So no it's not as simple as just adding more ram.
The options from Apple are limited and expensive, period.
Pro tower maxed out = $9900 sgd
Custom built PC = $4400 sgd
Apple has been dropping the ball for years now. I still rock an iPhone 7+, but sold my MBP and 12" Macbook for Dell XPS 15. Was hoping to get the new MBP but it's just an expensive brick.
As per the countless other threads, emphasis on "Pro". That means people who need high bandwidth access to very fast storage.
We have 2.5PB (yes, PetaBytes) of online, active production storage with 40Gbit/s of bandwidth out of it. Our staff simply won't put up with WiFi access to their 100TB+ projects. Gigabit Ethernet is a minimum standard. 10GbE is now available to 25% of our fleet at the desktop. (And before anyone says "802.11ac is good enough" - nope, not with more than 5 users it isn't. Your single user home setup is not my busy production network).
This is not the "Mac Grandma" or the "Mac Facebook" we're talking about here. This is the "Mac Pro".
Our SOE calls for 64GB RAM. I can't buy a Macbook Pro with 64GB RAM. Only recently has the Mac Pro offered 64GB first party (previously it was 32GB max supported, and we had to go third party for 64GB, which was a pain for support).
96-128GB will likely be our SOE very soon. For Linux/Windows workstations, that's trivial. Not for Mac.
I think you'll find many of us want macOS for one reason or another (specific to my business, it's the only UNIX-like operating system [something we need for a lot of reasons] that supports Adobe and AVID). And many of us have been using Mac for a long time (like, decades).
For us, we want to stay with Mac, but Mac have shifted away from a market they've traditionally supported well. I don't think you'll find that it's "anti-Apple sentiment" per se. Rather a once enthusiastic user base who got used to great hardware, and saw the company who offered it slowly turn their back on the Pro market for an entirely low-end consumer focus.
That was exactly me. I originally started using OSX because I wanted a UNIX-like OS with good application support, and OSX fit the bill perfectly. But then the iPhone happened and OSX Lion came out along with the trashcan Mac Pro and it all started going down hill from then. So I just switched to Linux exclusively and never looked back. My ancient 2008 Macbook still runs Linux like a champ, indecently.
Congratulations, you have a huge penis. I've also worked on huge fibre (yes, fibre!) and 10gbe (yes, Gigabit ethernet!) production environments using Macs (Platform agnostic generally, but including Macs).
What a ridiculous argument for a suggestion I clearly didn't make, this is a tiny niche, and certainly don't fit into the use case for most Mac users, as per my post.
Pick the right tool for the job, if a Mac doesn't fit move on with your life and don't admonish the platform for every other use case, because a large number of people are able to successfully integrate Macs into their lives/businesses, in increasing numbers.
You're welcome to argue semantics about the word "Pro", but again you could probably do more useful things with your life.
Congratulations on missing the point.
(But yes, I do).
Literally nobody is doing that. Apple offer a number of products that suit "every other use case" well. All we want is the product that *used to* suit our use case well back again. That's it.
There are millions of vendors we don't use, and don't care about. The difference with Apple is that they had a great product that filled our needs, and then just didn't update it for 3-4 years, and didn't say why. Sure, we can move away to other platforms (we're planning that currently). But it would at least be nice to have a dialogue with our vendors as to why they just started ignoring it. Every other vendor at least gives notice when they EOL a product. Apple just stop returning your calls, which is quite bizarre in this market.
You're worried about using aftermarket ram for your iMac but you're okay with a custom built PC? That logic doesn't check out to me.
It lags or it crashes? Lag is expected from not having enough ram, crashes are a different story.
Not that it really matters, because it sounds like a PC suits fine, so great!
(But your reasoning shouldn't be 'Apple suck and iMacs are shit and can't run Photoshop'.. it should be 'a PC suited my requirements better, and was cheaper')