Apple's New Mac Studio Computer

[sharktooth]

These new M1 Macs are some neat hardware, but Apple has become THE giant ewaste producer of the new millennium. This is due to their blatant and cynical approach to built in operating system obsolescence. You'll get about 5 to 7 years with some level of operating system support with security updates, but after that you'll have a system that's a security risk. This is fine for people who are using their computer for a living, and can justify the expense to upgrade hardware every two or three years, but for the average Joe, these are an awful choice.

Here's how the built in operating system obsolescence scam works. Apple has yearly updates to the operating system, with a new operating system name each year. After 3 years each operating system becomes obsolete, and is no longer supported for any security updates. You can keep updating to newer operating systems to stay up to date, but unfortunately Apple stops allowing any operating system updates to computers that are more than about 5 to 7 years old. So essentially, after about 5 to 7 years you're completely stuck, with no possible way to update the operating system in order to get security updates. This is a complete disgrace, especially since the Mac operating system is completely proprietary to Mac computers. They can't even support their own hardware. The real joke here is that you can run some older Macs on Windows 10 using Bootcamp, and can get all the latest updates and software from Microsoft to run Windows 10 applications on your Mac.

Lack of security updates can cause some major problems. In a professional environment, many places will not allow computers to be attached to their network if the security system is not up to date. For the home user, it means that newer applications may not run on your Mac since the software developer doesn't want to work around the security issues with older Macs. This is highlighted with web browsers, since the latest version of almost every web browser will not run on a Mac operating system that is more than about 6 years old. As an example, Firefox currently needs at least Mac OS Sierra to run the latest version. Sierra came out in 2016, so it's only 5 to 6 years old.

As a long time Mac user, I now see Macs as being a long term liability for the average user, from the perspective of cost and obsolescence. Unless you have to live on the bleeding edge, because your income relies on it, I think you'd be far better served by a competent new or used Windows machine. The only reason Apple gets away with this obsolescence scam is because people keep buying this crap without holding Apple accountable.

[EH21]

I need a new computer since my 2017 late iMac with 64gb RAM just doesn't cut it anymore. I got a microsoft surface pro 6 some years back when they came out and was really impressed with it. That took the pain off of switching since Windows isn't really that bad - it's gotten better and OS has gotten more difficult. Still I was thinking about the Mac Studio Mini but dang! - to get one with more memory than I already have costs $5k and that's just silly for a box that doesn't even have a display. Intel makes the Nuc that's a small computer that configured with 128mb is less than half what the Mac Studio is and I'll bet there are many more. I also looked at the new iMacs with M1 but nothing in it is user upgradeable so why would I buy one? If I can't add my own memory or replace a hard drive it means that within a few years it will be obsolete.

[linhofbiker]

I have 2 macs 1) a late 2009 iMac and 2) early 2013 Macbook Pro.
The Macbook Pro runs 10.15.7 Catalina and was recently updated with security.
Thw iMac runs 10.13.6 High Sierra and no longer has security updates.
I have not noted any issues with security.
Both are working well and will last until I need/get a new Mac Studio.

[r.e.]

These new M1 Macs are some neat hardware, but Apple has become THE giant ewaste producer of the new millennium. This is due to their blatant and cynical approach to built in operating system obsolescence. You'll get about 5 to 7 years with some level of operating system support with security updates, but after that you'll have a system that's a security risk. This is fine for people who are using their computer for a living, and can justify the expense to upgrade hardware every two or three years, but for the average Joe, these are an awful choice.

Here's how the built in operating system obsolescence scam works. Apple has yearly updates to the operating system, with a new operating system name each year. After 3 years each operating system becomes obsolete, and is no longer supported for any security updates. You can keep updating to newer operating systems to stay up to date, but unfortunately Apple stops allowing any operating system updates to computers that are more than about 5 to 7 years old. So essentially, after about 5 to 7 years you're completely stuck, with no possible way to update the operating system in order to get security updates. This is a complete disgrace, especially since the Mac operating system is completely proprietary to Mac computers. They can't even support their own hardware. The real joke here is that you can run some older Macs on Windows 10 using Bootcamp, and can get all the latest updates and software from Microsoft to run Windows 10 applications on your Mac.

Lack of security updates can cause some major problems. In a professional environment, many places will not allow computers to be attached to their network if the security system is not up to date. For the home user, it means that newer applications may not run on your Mac since the software developer doesn't want to work around the security issues with older Macs. This is highlighted with web browsers, since the latest version of almost every web browser will not run on a Mac operating system that is more than about 6 years old. As an example, Firefox currently needs at least Mac OS Sierra to run the latest version. Sierra came out in 2016, so it's only 5 to 6 years old.

As a long time Mac user, I now see Macs as being a long term liability for the average user, from the perspective of cost and obsolescence. Unless you have to live on the bleeding edge, because your income relies on it, I think you'd be far better served by a competent new or used Windows machine. The only reason Apple gets away with this obsolescence scam is because people keep buying this crap without holding Apple accountable.

I'm writing this with Apple's latest Mac operating system on an eight year old 2014 Mac mini. I won't bother addressing the rest of your rant, except to note, with amusement, why you don't claim that owners of Mac computers can use BootCamp to install the current Windows operating system, Windows 11. As I imagine you know, but chose to sidestep, your beloved Microsoft has decided to make it impossible. The only option for people who really want Windows, and have purchased a Windows license, is to install Parallels, which creates a virtual Windows machine, at a subscription cost, depending on use, of US$80 or $100 per year.

It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but there is a difference between installing a current operating system and making it work properly on older computers. One reason that Linux became popular was that owners of ageing Windows desktops and laptops were erasing their hard drives and installing Linux to give their computers a new lease on life. I did precisely that with a very expensive, top specced IBM ThinkPad laptop* that started struggling with Windows. It became my introduction to Linux, and to Arch Linux in particular. So far, I've been able to install Apple's latest operating system on my 2014 Mac mini, and have it work well, for eight years. I have no complaints.

* IBM made personal computers until 2005, when it sold the business to Lenovo.

[Oren Grad]

This isn't the place for general religious wars between Mac believers and skeptics - we reserve the right to delete such posts as irrelevant, inflammatory and unconstructive.

Thoughtful discussion of the utility of this new product line for the kinds of digital photographic processing tasks we deal with here - processing big scan files is an obvious example - is certainly welcome.

[r.e.]

This isn't the place for general religious wars between Mac believers and skeptics - we reserve the right to delete such posts as irrelevant, inflammatory and unconstructive.

Thoughtful discussion of the utility of this new product line for the kinds of digital photographic processing tasks we deal with here - processing big scan files is an obvious example - is certainly welcome.

I couldn't agree more. This was about the product line and its potential utility for image processing, and it would be nice to continue in that vein.

[Corran]

If the primary use-case is editing LF scans I'm not sure there is value in such a powerful computer over something that will be much cheaper. Of course you may have other uses that are heavier, or you may have a workflow or specific reason for needing such a computer. I know one user here mentioned using dozens of layers on his LF images when editing. I don't use more than a few generally and personally my old i7 3770 computer with 16gb of ram handles 2gb 16bit scan files with aplomb (not to mention 6-camera HD video projects at times). It's admittedly reaching EOL and I'll probably build another custom with a Ryzen or newer Intel chip and 32-64gb of RAM, at least when it's easier to buy anything (supply chains...).

[nbagno]

If the primary use-case is editing LF scans I'm not sure there is value in such a powerful computer over something that will be much cheaper. Of course you may have other uses that are heavier, or you may have a workflow or specific reason for needing such a computer. I know one user here mentioned using dozens of layers on his LF images when editing. I don't use more than a few generally and personally my old i7 3770 computer with 16gb of ram handles 2gb 16bit scan files with aplomb (not to mention 6-camera HD video projects at times). It's admittedly reaching EOL and I'll probably build another custom with a Ryzen or newer Intel chip and 32-64gb of RAM, at least when it's easier to buy anything (supply chains...).

I tend to agree. As much as a shiny new mac would be so much fun, my (I forget how many years old) Asus Z97K with an Intel i5 and 32 gig of Ram handle Photoshop and multi-gig scans with ease. I've tried to press the button on a computer many times, but, I just can't when mine runs so well. Now, it sucks at flight simulator, but I decided I don't have time for that anymore so there goes that reason to upgrade.

[r.e.]

I largely agree with @Corran and @nbagno.

As Dave Lee says in the video linked in post #10, and as Marques Brownlee has also said, the Mac Studio/M1 Ultra computers (base, US$4,000) are aimed at professionals with serious CPU and GPU needs. I think that the $2,000 M1 Max straddles a need/want market. Within Apple's own lineup, not to mention what Windows makes available, a Mac mini with the "basic" M1 chip and 16GB of memory, at $1100, surely meets the actual needs of most people making still photographs and videos; especially, in the case of videos, people who are using Apple's Final Cut Pro or Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve (by all accounts, Blackmagic has done a great job of coding for M1 chips). In post #5, @Drew Saunders suggests that Apple may still release a Mac mini with the M1 Pro chip. This is liable to happen, and at a cost that is still well below $2,000.

When I purchased the then new Mac mini in 2018, there was pretty much a consensus on MacRumors, the main Mac forum, that for most photographers and video-makers 32GB of RAM, let alone 64GB, was more a desire than a need. In 2022, I wonder whether we're seeng RAM inflation, and whether 32GB is the new 16GB, needed or not. There's enough demand for these Mac Studio computers, which start at 32GB of memory and can accommodate up to 128GB, that delivery is now backed up to May. Unlike four years ago, there's practically no discussion on MacRumors about how much memory is needed for specific tasks.

I do intend to purchase a Mac Studio, but I'd be hard pressed to argue that one is "needed" for ordinary processing of a 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 image. I sometimes use my 2018 Mac mini with an external GPU (AMD Vega 56), but I don't actually need it for processing of single still images. For me, one attraction of the Mac Studio is that I can dispense with an external graphics card in cases where it does add significant value.

[Corran]

I'm interested to see how my processing of astrophotography images changes when I do finally upgrade. Stacking and processing thousands of images with complex denoising and other algorithms usually takes 4-6 hours on my machine. In the realm of LF photography, the only thing that makes my computer sweat is combining multiple strips from high-rez scans (stitched using Microsoft ICE). My 12x20 images at 1500 DPI amounts to 18,000 x 30,000 pixels, scanned at 16-bit and in color. Once processed down to greyscale they are manageable. I generally have no need for such crazy-high resolutions though but it's fun.