Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Mac Studio

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#511

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

canuckintime wrote: post #495
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

Apple still doesn’t want to allow expandable internal storage. That’s my core requirement for a pro/sumer desktop

I would also never buy such a machine. Still, in 25 years of owning my own computing resources, I have never actually expanded the internal storage of the 6-8 systems I've built.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#512

Post by sprkwd »

neogodless wrote: post #206
SamuelAdams wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of support for M1. See these lists. Please note though that "playable" does not mean "on par with other platforms", ie, Windows and Xbox / Playstation. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1er-NivvuIheDmIKBVRu3... https://applesilicongames.com/

Games I've played over the past two years: Valheim - not in database ARK: Survival Evolved - "game won't launch" Conan: Exiles - not in database Grounded - not in database Civ V and Civ VI - each shows one record and seems it ran for that person (30-60 fps - for comparison, both run 144 fps on my $1000 Lenovo laptop.) It Takes Two - not in database That's all anecdotal, i.e. the games this one person likes to play ar…

Not sure why you need a turn based game to run at 144fps. But I guess that’s a different conservation.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#513

Post by azinman2 »

ejb999 wrote: post #385
gzer0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Parallels? It works incredibly well on the M1 macs. https://www.parallels.com/

Yes, but AFAIK, M1's will not support emulation of x86 based regardless of software vendor - and unfortunately, I still have to run some old VM's several times a week - include a very old Windows XP environment, and I don't think anyone's in any rush to support that anytime soon. Who knows, maybe get a Mac studio for my Mac work, and keep my MacBook Pro for when I need to run non-arm VM's

Why wouldn’t it support it? Rosetta is built to do exactly that?

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#514

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

whiteboardr wrote: post #286
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

This. I don’t care if a laptop is a tad thicker, or the aesthetics would allow the device to sit in a museum - Ive helped make them desireable objects, the iPhone provided the scale and momentum and Apple silicon in macs at last allows for focus on actual usability. This set of kit will pave the way for a revolution in how we think about computing. Indeed, Bravo!

Revolution? What revolution? NN's for everything? Something else?

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#515

Post by azinman2 »

randcraw wrote: post #319
jsz0 wrote: post #81

Apple finally releases a powerful affordable desktop computer. Now I am worried it's the start of WW3 or otherwise the end of the world. Going outside now to look for flying pigs

What? $2000 for the Studio plus $1600 for their 5K display means Apple's new entry level workstation now costs $3600. That's a LOT more expensive than the old iMac 27 i7 at about $2400. To sum up, Apple just hiked their entry level workstation's price by $1200. AND they convinced you they performed magic. No, I think that flying pig you saw was proof that Jobs' reality distortion field is still alive and well.

The Mac mini is more equivalent to the iMac. This is a step beyond, a bit more like the iMac Pro, which was always more expensive.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#516

Post by dylan604 »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #484
dylan604 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just connect that USB-A hub you know you already have and plug in all the USB-A thumb drives you can fit.

Apple is one of the world's biggest proliferators of e-waste through indirect means. No charger with the new phone huh? Well it's USB-C cable won't fit your old charger or computer either. USB-A is the de-facto standard for thumb drives. Are we all just supposed to throw them away overnight because Apple blessed us with computers without USB-A ports? Or, they'll sell you a dongle for $19 which can be had on Aliexpres…

Okay, so don't give them your business. I'm sure you're protest with your wallet will have Apple contemplating their "0 thought applied to their decision" for the next go round.

If you are willing to buy a $0.75 anything from Alibaba and trust it with your precious data, you do you. As I've already suggested, you more than likely already have everything you need in a drawer, on your desktop, etc that will allow multiple USB-A devices to connect through a single port.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#517

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

londons_explore wrote: post #150
yewenjie wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how and why did Apple suddenly become cost-effective?

Apples stuff has been cost competitive since the M1 came out... Although it's partly because there isn't much else in the same performance envelope, so there isn't much to compare to.

uh, performance/power-consumption/volume combined, perhaps. But there are plenty of systems that can easily beat the apple M1 systems on a purely performance basis, both before they came out, and since. Especially true if you're working on CPUs not GPUs.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#518

Post by madrox »

quadcore wrote: post #503
madrox wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked with Apple on games, I can tell you that as an engineer they work fine. Metal isn't bad. The problem isn't technical. The problem is how Apple approves apps and thinks about the gaming experience. For example, a game I worked on got rejected from the App AND Mac store because (in Apple's opinion) the texture download was too large. There's no analogue for this in other game ecosystems. As a developer, i…

Thing is, as a former engine and graphics programmer, I have to say I agree with them, we got gaming software wrong. It took me years to actually see it but we do it wrong. A game like all software should be incredibly light and fast. A game that examplaries that is World of Warcraft which is incredibly light for a game of its stature. It took me years to understand that, you can picture a performance red line, and i…

If that was really a consideration that correlated strongly to success, the market would've shown that a while ago and the most successful projects would sail through Apple approvals. However, this is not reality, and when our philosophy fails to describe reality, only one of those two things is capable of changing.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#519

Post by JohnTHaller »

yborg wrote: post #339
JohnTHaller wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 10-core CPU with a performance advantage of 23% over an M1 Max in Cinebench R23 (AMD 5800x) and a 1,280 CUDA core GPU (GTX 1060 6GB) that cost a little over $1,000 US total. UPDATE - Sorry, I originally listed this as a 5900x by accident. I need more sleep.

Your setup is also probably 5x larger and uses 100W more power. It's a question of priorities.

I've never talked to someone who was worried about 100 watts give or take in a desktop. The 100 watt difference, if you ran 24/7 is about 26 cents a day. A laptop would be a different story, of course, but these aren't laptops.

As for the footprint, it's usually not enough of a concern at the desktop to double or triple the price to go from a standard mini ATX down to a double height Mac Mini, but I'm sure there are some locations where that would be a concern.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#520

Post by dylan604 »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #480
dylan604 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because nobody outside hardcore computer nerds wants a beige box tower with 14 drive bays sitting on their desk. People want quite little boxes that gets work done without having to have dedicated room for loud machines.

There is plenty of room for a second HDMI port (or mini DP) especially if they went to a vertical configuration for HDMI.

So your opinion is that you want it. My opinion is I don't. HDMI is much more limiting.

Say that you're a manufacturer trying to keep an eye towards wants new vs supporting what's old, what decisions do you make to support new and retro without increasing the costs? At some point, having backseat decision makers giving input results in the car designed by Homer.

Of all of the things I've personally railed on Apple about in the past as well as others, their most recent HW offerings have been a great compromise. They've brought back some USB-A, SD card reader, HDMI, etc. They realized they've gone too far in certain areas, but some how they had a come to Jeebus meeting that reigned them back in.

Post reply on HN