
Assorted thoughts on the Apple event - creativityhurts
http://www.marco.org/2012/10/23/assorted-event-thoughts
======
georgemcbay

      "Fusion Drive might be the most interesting announcement
      today for our day-to-day computing. Similar SSD-as-cache
      arrangements have been kicking around in the Windows PC
      market for a while, and the Seagate Momentus XT brought a
      large cache to laptop drives a few years ago, but these
      have only brought mixed success and mediocre improvements so far.
    
      With tight OS integration, larger performance gains are
      possible."
    

As someone that has used Momentus XTs in a few different systems, they make a
very significant day to day difference when compared to a non-cached standard
HDD of similar RPM. The improvement clearly isn't the same as a true SSD, but
is is very noteworthy, especially given the price per GB of these drives
versus true SSDs.

Also, I don't see how having "tight OS integration" will improve this sort of
drive. The drive already knows which sectors you are accessing the most and
can optimize the cache for that, how is involving the OS supposed to make a
significant difference here?

~~~
seiji
The OS knows about entire applications / resource bundles / documents and can
run stronger heuristics against your usage than a blind block-level
controller.

~~~
onetwothreefour
Fusion Drive is just flashcache with some sort of adaptive caching algo.
There's zero reason to care about what the type of a file is. The reason they
showed it like that in the keynote was because normal people don't know what a
block device is.

~~~
cokernel_hacker
You are not correct, it is _not_ a cache but instead something that provides
the union of storage between two drives. Remember, the examples have stuff
_only_ on the SSD.

Instead, this appears to be an implementation of so-called "tiered storage".
This is novel in that is the first time such an approach has been applied to
consumer grade solutions. Usually, one might find tiered storage as part of an
extremely expensive solution that EMC might give you as part of an elaborate
storage system.

------
Newky
I can't believe they upgraded the iPad to version 4? This seems like only
yesterday that the iPad 3 was announced.

Also Marco says at one point about the six different versions of the macbook
pro for only 3 different size points. Is this a sign of the Jobs touch being
lost?

The iPad mini is different in that the Nexus 7 was the first sub ipad size
tablet to make a mark before Apple. This won't make a huge difference to mini
sales, but it does reek off Apple chasing tails.

------
modeless
The 13" Pro can't be the perfect choice without discrete graphics. The Intel
HD 4000 may be the best Intel graphics to date but a 4 megapixel display is
going to bring that chip to its knees.

~~~
yankcrime
It'll be interesting to see what the reviews are like and how many people play
down the occasionally poor UI performance that seems to plague the 15" model.

I'm itching to replace my MacBook Air with a machine that sports a Retina
display, but as it stands I think I'll have to wait for the next generation
with better performing graphics that can do the resolution justice.

------
latchkey
What would be great is if Apple stops selling spinning platters all together
and just sold SSD drives. This would probably drive the price point of SSD
down further and more quickly. I put an OWC 6g extreme SSD drive in my mbp and
it felt like a whole new 10x faster machine. I'll never go back to spinning
disks.

~~~
jnsaff2
Totally agree: <http://youtu.be/H7PJ1oeEyGg?t=34s>

------
famousactress
_"The Mac Pro will continue to lose customers to the iMac and Retina MacBook
Pros"_

I suppose that's true, but the point that appears lost on Apple is the number
of customers that they're losing to other PC manufacturers altogether.

I really do wish they'd either kill the product so that we all know it's not
part of their landscape moving forward, or upgrade it already.

------
monkeyfacebag
> I don’t mind the lack of a Retina screen in the first version. As we can see
> from the iPad 3 and 4, lighting and driving a 2048x1536 screen just can’t be
> done well in a small, thin, light, inexpensive device yet. Maybe next fall,
> or maybe the year after that.

This is being presented as though the only two choices were "retina" or
1024x768, which is obviously not true. I understand Apple's rationale for
using the previous generation's resolution, but it means they shipped a device
which is inferior to the competition in at least one measurable way. I'm not a
spec-driven purchaser. I don't care that the iPad mini has less RAM or fewer
cores than the Nexus 7 (disclosure: I own this). But a tablet's display is a
critical part of the experience and I find Apple's decision here to be a let
down.

~~~
seiji
Don't over think it. They used the resolution of the original iPad and iPad 2
so no applications need to be modified.

Only low end devices engage in a nerdspec race. Personal status devices are
marketed as experiences and life accessories. Who gives a flip what's inside
if it makes you happy?

~~~
monkeyfacebag
The display is on the outside.

~~~
osukaa
The glass is on the outside, the screen is behind.

------
3amOpsGuy
The retina MacBook is heavier than I expected. Appreciate chopping out an
optical drive doesn't magically shave 1kg off but I'm still slightly
disappointed, despite placing an order regardless.

