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

651–660 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#651

Post by kronks »

sprkwd wrote: post #512
neogodless wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#652

Post by abdulhaq »

enoch2090 wrote: post #609
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.…

As a programmer, data scientist and macOS user, I have to say I'm just annoyed by Apple these years. They've built a preset of users who may use their products, on that list are "Creative producers", etc. I'm not saying creative works aren't important - I personally enjoy poems, movies and photography very much. But just imagine how many MacBook Pros and other products Apple sell each year - does the world need that…

Apple aren't just selling a tool, they're selling a lifestyle. Apple customers like to feel part of that artist/architect/film producer vibe, with the expensive weird glasses and green trousers. That's the marketing pitch and has been for two decades. The current Apple product engineers grew up on that marketing diet and came to believe that that was really who they should design the product for.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#653

Post by llampx »

gigatexal wrote: post #591
MisterTea wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have different use-cases ... Likely mostly running the same workloads such as web browsing. > ... and run different software. Maybe if Apple wrote it. Otherwise you can run the same Chrome/Firefox, Photoshop and Office on a Windows or even Linux Machine. Most software is shared between platforms nowadays with posix/windows being the lowest common denominator in terms of "cross platform".

Professionals are highly paid because of the tools they know. A Final Cut Pro pro isn’t going to switch to an off the shelf Linux or windows workstation and learn a whole new paradigm just because it’s cheaper. What I’m saying is the Mac platform is o be seen as a whole since some popular and useful Mac software like Final Cut isn’t cross platform. Same goes if you prefer pages to word. Or software from Panic vs some…

I dabble in video editing and it seems most people work with Adobe Premiere Pro or Davinci Resolve. FCP has not been getting the love from Apple that it used to get. Same with Aperture vs Lightroom. I could be wrong though, but many people seem to be using cross-platform software on Macs, much more than a decade or two ago when it really was two different worlds.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#654

Post by llampx »

gigatexal wrote: post #259
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a 512 gb ssd is kinda inexcusable in a machine that costs more than $1000 1tb of ssd is only around $100.

But ssd is not 100 usd gumstick from of the shelf it’s integrated and sports speeds of 7.4GB/s at the top end. Shrug

That gumstick can be replaced in two minutes with a single screw if and when it goes bad. As opposed to spending your day at the Genius Bar. I like Apple stuff but let's not make specious comparisons. Unless you think Apple SSDs are magic and can never go bad just because they are soldered in.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#655

Post by littlecranky67 »

iainmerrick wrote: post #638
G3rn0ti wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My jaw hit the floor when I saw USB A ports. Don‘t forget the headphone jack!

But (to be picky) why is it on the back??? I mean, if you're going to break with Apple tradition and have visible ports on the front, seems like you'd want the headphone jack to be one of them.

Probably because Studio/Professional Headphones come with long coords by default.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#657

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

chaostheory wrote: post #603
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect will perform better on standard benchmarks. I wouldn't be so sure about that. These M1 chips have some crazy benchmark performance. What they don't have, is a standard x86 ISA, which means that a lot of applications run emulated (and still tend to beat many Intel specs, anyway). I keep reading people complaining that "It's faster, but not that much faster. What's the big deal?", when they are talking abou…

I feel that the M chips are awesome at saving power while providing performance which makes them perfect for laptops and portables. I’m not seeing their value proposition for desktops though. I don’t care about something that saves space. The only time I care about that is for portables.

Remember when people were talking about "ARM rack servers"? The idea was to have dozens of daughterboards, jammed into a 2U chassis, providing massive parallelism. The low power draw would make this possible.

Wouldn't surprise me, if Apple is thinking about doing something like this, maybe with a new API/SDK, focused on this. They would probably sell it as an ML machine.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#658

Post by nicoburns »

msk-lywenn wrote: post #478
nicoburns wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Workstations don't really care about HDMI, that's for TVs. And people who only have HDMI cables! I was using display port on my old MacBook, but I'm using HDMI on the new one as I already had an HDMI cable, but not a USB-C to DisplayPort one.

I guess they thought that someone buying a 2000~5000$ machine wouldn't mind buying an extra 20$ video cable...

It's still useful to have at least one HDMI port. For things presenting at other people's offices, where you don't want to be carrying a cable or dongle around with you.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#659

Post by thirdsun »

duped wrote: post #574
nicoburns wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Workstations don't really care about HDMI, that's for TVs. And people who only have HDMI cables! I was using display port on my old MacBook, but I'm using HDMI on the new one as I already had an HDMI cable, but not a USB-C to DisplayPort one.

I haven't found a reliable HDMI setup for 4k at 60 FPS yet, while OTS display port has been fine. TBQH in this price point and market segment that's the minimum requirement, so I can understand why they don't ship with HDMI.

For standard lengths up to 10m any HDMI 2.0 cable from decent manufacturers, like AmazonBasics or Monoprice will be fine. For longer lengths it gets tricky and you have to be quite selective but that's a niche use case.

Also, the Mac Studio actually has an HDMI port.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#660

Post by aldanor »

wyclif wrote: post #647
aldanor wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish they focused on bigger displays too. For music/video production having at least 2x27'' screen size is crucial. But two is kind of weird because you can't centre any app. And there is kind of too much...

I've never understood why 2x27" is supposedly "crucial" for music/video production. I had two large monitors for a while; eventually I went back to one slightly larger monitor because I found it was more comfortable and ergonomic to be staring at a single surface perpendicular to my eyes.

Note that I mentioned "2x27'' screen size", not "2x27''". I would very much prefer if they just just glued two 27'' studio displays together, effectively making it a single 32:9 10K 49'' screen.
Post reply on HN