or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2012 Mac Mini Wish List?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 Mac Mini Wish List? - Page 4

post #121 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It'll still fall short of some expectations, I think it will be:
Core i5, HD4000
Core i5, GT 640M
Core i7 quad, HD 4000
4x USB 3.0, HDMI, single TB.

I would love to see them put in the full 640M, although I think the LE is more likely knowing Apple. I'd love to be wrong though.
post #122 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

We sure install a lot of Cat 5 and Cat 6 cable and data jacks in new businesses, stores, schools, hospitals, etc for ethernet to be going away like some people think. Sure we install more wireless nodes now but we haven't seen any business willing to trust wireless completely.

Cat 5.....why are you still installing Cat 5, Cat 6, I've heard some building going all fiber (not economical).


Edited by AandcMedia - 7/23/12 at 6:41pm
post #123 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The iMac has actually gone longer without an update, which is unusual. It makes sense for them to spread the releases out though as the next event will likely be the iPhone launch on the anniversary of Steve's death (October 5th), given that the last one was Oct 4th.
They wouldn't update the Mini before the iMac either and we know Mountain Lion is coming in July. They may as well do all 3 this week.
I don't care about the iMac in its current form, so it can stay un updated for awhile longer. 😜
Quote:
It'll still fall short of some expectations, I think it will be:
Core i5, HD4000
Core i5, GT 640M
Core i7 quad, HD 4000
I'd rather see i7s across the board. Unlike many making use of more cores isn't a problem for me! As to the GPU card I'd rather see AMD solutions. I know a few prefer NVidia but I really don't like their approach to open source. Even though my Mac is my primary machine I still use Linux and prefer companies that aren't so up tight about open source.
Quote:
4x USB 3.0, HDMI, single TB.
I'd rather see a Mini with dual TB ports. While it hasn't been realized yet TB has significant potential for future applications. As to USB 3 I'm a little out of touch as to what Intel is supporting in their chip sets. If 4 is a possibility then yes that is what they should support.

There is one gotcha with the TB and USB 3 ports, that is the impact on the power supply. Each of these ports can support supplying more power than the previous machine had to manage. What this means is that they may have to bump up power supply capacity or use power management on the ports.
Quote:
I wonder if they will drop FW800 from the desktop machines. I don't think it makes sense to drop ethernet as they have plenty of room but dropping FW800 will save some money and push adoption of USB 3.
At this point FW has zero impact on purchases as nobody with a half a brain would be investing in new hardware with a FW requirement. Dropping Ethernet in a desktop would be absolutely stupid.
Quote:
A 5th USB 3 port would be nice if they did this though.
The iMac is their best selling desktop so while it hasn't been left without a major update as long as their best selling machine - the MBP (473 days), I expect an update soon.

Yeah you would think so in the next few days. At some point Apples dragging of its feet will impact their sales. Right now I have a fairly negative opinion of the iMac, I'm really hoping they address some of those issues that bother so many.
post #124 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

We sure install a lot of Cat 5 and Cat 6 cable and data jacks in new businesses, stores, schools, hospitals, etc for ethernet to be going away like some people think. Sure we install more wireless nodes now but we haven't seen any business willing to trust wireless completely.

If people think Ethernet is going away, they simply don't have a clue. Performance alone is good enough reason to support Ethernet. Security is another. Coverage and reliability is another problem with WiFi. In the end I've yet to see a viable replacement for Ethernet.
post #125 of 391
i7's across the board would be great although it might increase cost. If they do it for at least 2 out of 3 models, that would work. The one in the 2012 13" MBP and then the 3612QM in the server.

Also I'm fine with AMD or nVidia. I have no preference other than quality discrete graphics and both companies have cards than can be used so who knows.
post #126 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Some people believe in the tooth fairy too. Personally I always believed that Apple was held up by Intel when it came to USB 3 support. I was under the impression that many engineers at Apple where frustrated buy the lack of USB 3 just like the rest of us.
Somethings like eSATA crop up due to a failure to fill a need with other products. FireWire, in the projected faster standards, could have filled that roll but it was already on the way out as a standard. So eSATA slips in to fill a whole with regard to external connectivity. ESATA being dirt cheap to implement was likely a factor too.
Yes but my storage needs grow every year. It has gotten to the point that I'm thinking about a RAID of some sort for fat storage.
In this case I think they simply where cheap. Apple didn't want to bother with engineering drivers for a chipset for a year or two of use and didn't want to solder extra hardware on their motherboards. Third party chips became very stable and power efficient at least a year and a half ago, so there are no other technical reasons not to implement USB 3.
Apple might have had an arguement in that they would have to support those third party chips for a very long time. The problem with that is that they screw with the good will of their users. The need for USB 3 support is legitimate and to ignore that support for almost two years after viable solutions exist just infuriates customers.
Yep they are cheap. That and they seemingly have ignored the Mac hardware lineup for a long time. I mean really the Mac Pro was turned into an industry joke with the last so called update. Sadly no USB 3 there either. If the Mini doesn't update soon it will become another joke. Seriously selling a Mini these days without USB 3 support is so anti consummer that even Apple will start to suffer.

Cheap is the reason for it. When I said conservative in these things, I was referring to their actual behavior. They're slow to adopt anything new unless it will push large numbers of units. Given that Ivy is a softer refresh, things such as the rMBP and usb3 help push sales in what might otherwise be a slower year. While they could be more proactive about adoption, I kind of expected this. They'll have to engineer some kind of driver stack either way for at least one third party chipset if the thunderbolt display will take on usb3. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The iMac has actually gone longer without an update, which is unusual. It makes sense for them to spread the releases out though as the next event will likely be the iPhone launch on the anniversary of Steve's death (October 5th), given that the last one was Oct 4th.
They wouldn't update the Mini before the iMac either and we know Mountain Lion is coming in July. They may as well do all 3 this week.
It'll still fall short of some expectations, I think it will be:
Core i5, HD4000
Core i5, GT 640M
Core i7 quad, HD 4000
4x USB 3.0, HDMI, single TB.
I wonder if they will drop FW800 from the desktop machines. I don't think it makes sense to drop ethernet as they have plenty of room but dropping FW800 will save some money and push adoption of USB 3. A 5th USB 3 port would be nice if they did this though.
The iMac is their best selling desktop so while it hasn't been left without a major update as long as their best selling machine - the MBP (473 days), I expect an update soon.

 

While that may be disappointing, it would be in line with a general spec bump to bring the current model to 2012 hardware. USB3 and the HD4000 are compelling there. Two TB ports would be great, but I doubt it. this would allow your choice of display on its own port without more costly hardware to split the connection. I mention that as this is somewhat of a budget machine in Apple terms. I wonder if the FW800 chip really costs much. In terms of usb3, I don't expect them to add anything beyond what intel provides. They will be forced to support some third party chipsets to keep the thunderbolt display current. Beyond that I don't see it happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


If people think Ethernet is going away, they simply don't have a clue. Performance alone is good enough reason to support Ethernet. Security is another. Coverage and reliability is another problem with WiFi. In the end I've yet to see a viable replacement for Ethernet.


Apple is notorious for calling anything they don't want to include "legacy technology". They intentionally spin it that way to keep people from considering whether they might use the port at some point. If you absolutely need it, it's kind of an issue, especially as dongles carry a much higher failure rate and can be flaky. I went through some issues finding a good mini displayport to displayport cable a while back. In the case of dongles, some display manufacturers reported issues. I prefer a solid cable and one less connection in the chain. My hatred of dongles can be summarized by many of the Apple Store reviews on the various adapters. Some just don't work with certain things, and I did this research in advance as I hate returning things. If mini displayport had better overall adoption, this would be an easier task. The Apple thunderbolt cables don't work in many displays.

post #127 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

We sure install a lot of Cat 5 and Cat 6 cable and data jacks in new businesses, stores, schools, hospitals, etc for ethernet to be going away like some people think. Sure we install more wireless nodes now but we haven't seen any business willing to trust wireless completely.

Removing the port doesn't mean it's going away though. If they replace ethernet and FW800 with a second Thunderbolt port, which would actually be quite good, ethernet/FW800 is just an adaptor away:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD463ZM/A

You could even have dual ethernet ports, previously exclusive to the Pro and run the display over HDMI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter 
I would love to see them put in the full 640M, although I think the LE is more likely knowing Apple. I'd love to be wrong though.

I think I'd prefer the LE model. It's 10W less (2/3 the 640M) and still 80% of the performance. I don't think they'd be able to fit a higher than 20W GPU in alongside the 35W i5 CPU. The 6630M was 10-15W. The quad-i7 is 45W so they are pretty much working to the 45W range total. This makes sense as they have an 85W PSU and up to 10W per port for Thunderbolt and 5W per USB port x 4 and 7 watts for FW800.

Still, they can dynamically underclock the CPU and GPU as needed and ultra-books are getting the full 640M so if Apple can't match the thermal limits of an ultra-book, they're doing something very wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I don't care about the iMac in its current form, so it can stay un updated for awhile longer.

If they didn't purposely hold the Mini back until the iMac gets an update, I'd feel the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I'd rather see i7s across the board.

Yeah that would be good but the i7s are $120 more in the best case, Apple only currently charges $100 for the i7 upgrade but guaranteed they aren't making a huge profit on that. Consider the $599 Mini, the CPU in that alone is $225. If Apple makes a 25% margin, that only leaves $255 to pay for everything else.

One thing they could do is:

Core i5, HD 4000 - $599
Core i7, HD 4000 - $749
Core i7 quad, HD 4000 - $999

but I'd value the dedicated GPU much higher than the i7 for $799 and they can still offer i7 BTO for $899.

The 640M GT pulls up on par with the 8800GT. This was a high-end GPU that launched late 07/ early 08 - 4.5 years later, the entry mobile GPU is the same speed. That's not bad. The quad-i7 Mini should also nearly equal an 8-core 2008 Xeon. If they were able to combine the quad-i7 with the 640M, that would be a pretty neat machine but that's what the iMac is for.
post #128 of 391

We install according to the specs when we bid the jobs. There is a little thing called a contract.

We do install a lot of fiber but most of that is between buildings. Inside is still mostly copper.

post #129 of 391

What I meant was why would anyone want to be installing Cat 5 in new buildings.......
 

post #130 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

i7's across the board would be great although it might increase cost. If they do it for at least 2 out of 3 models, that would work. The one in the 2012 13" MBP and then the 3612QM in the server.
I have no problem with Apple offering a cheap as dirt model. The problem with the Mini is that the charge a hell of a lot more for the midrange model and leave use with very little in return. Also I see Apples marketing of one model as a server as a bit bogus. I'd rather see them simply offer three models maybe even just two with significant performance differences between the models so that the cost is actually justified. Leave the server functionality as an upgrade to Mac OS/X.
Quote:
Also I'm fine with AMD or nVidia. I have no preference other than quality discrete graphics and both companies have cards than can be used so who knows.

Like I said my preference for AMD is mostly due to their more open nature to the hardware. They also seem to be doing really well with OpenCL. AMD just appears to have a higher level of commitment to Apples direction than NVidia does. I'd actually would like to know what happened with the switch, I had pretty much thought NVidia had burnt the last bridge across the river between them and Apple.

As another point; I really wish Apple would look into AMDs APUs. In machines like the Mini they would offer a more balanced performance profile. In fact with Trinity I'm not to sure I'd need a descrete GPU. Yes I realize the CPU performance isn't as good as Intels but on the other hand Apple snubs Intels better performing processors in the Mini anyways. apple could stick Trimity in the Mini with a wash as far as CPU performance goes. On the flip side anything supporting OpenCL would go much faster.
post #131 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Cheap is the reason for it. When I said conservative in these things, I was referring to their actual behavior. They're slow to adopt anything new unless it will push large numbers of units. Given that Ivy is a softer refresh, things such as the rMBP and usb3 help push sales in what might otherwise be a slower year. While they could be more proactive about adoption, I kind of expected this. They'll have to engineer some kind of driver stack either way for at least one third party chipset if the thunderbolt display will take on usb3. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen.
I don't see it that way when discussing the laptop lineup. From my perspective they are anything but conservative with that product line. The whole rest of the industry is following them.
Quote:

While that may be disappointing, it would be in line with a general spec bump to bring the current model to 2012 hardware. USB3 and the HD4000 are compelling there. Two TB ports would be great, but I doubt it. this would allow your choice of display on its own port without more costly hardware to split the connection. I mention that as this is somewhat of a budget machine in Apple terms. I wonder if the FW800 chip really costs much. In terms of usb3, I don't expect them to add anything beyond what intel provides. They will be forced to support some third party chipsets to keep the thunderbolt display current. Beyond that I don't see it happening.
The problem with the Mini is that it tries to be a budget machine which is OK as there is a market for that. However it isn't the machine most users want out of a desktop thus it misses the mark for most users. Technology is getting to the point where that might not be an issue and frankly 2 TB ports would go a long way to making a much more acceptable machine for many users. It just makes it easier to configure the machine for a specific usage.
Quote:

Apple is notorious for calling anything they don't want to include "legacy technology". They intentionally spin it that way to keep people from considering whether they might use the port at some point. If you absolutely need it, it's kind of an issue, especially as dongles carry a much higher failure rate and can be flaky. I went through some issues finding a good mini displayport to displayport cable a while back. In the case of dongles, some display manufacturers reported issues. I prefer a solid cable and one less connection in the chain. My hatred of dongles can be summarized by many of the Apple Store reviews on the various adapters.
I'm with you on this 100%, this based on my experience with dongles under windows at work and my efforts with private projects at home on my Mac. At work we are talking a manufacturing environment where there is hardly a day that goes buy without the need to reset a USB dongle of some sort. It is pretty terrible and doesn't seem to manner which manufacture you try. At home dongle support for RS232 conversion is pretty bad under Mac OS. Terrible drivers and really bad support, it is Prolific.
Quote:
Some just don't work with certain things, and I did this research in advance as I hate returning things. If mini displayport had better overall adoption, this would be an easier task. The Apple thunderbolt cables don't work in many displays.

Luckily my Mac video issues are currently wrapped around a 2008 MBP which actually does well with its video port. I guess we can call that the good ole days. However I'm not surprised one bit at the issues you are finding. The proble is the companies making these things just slap them out with little testing and frankly with no concern about their users. Even Apples dongles don't seem to be of the quality they should be.
post #132 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Removing the port doesn't mean it's going away though. If they replace ethernet and FW800 with a second Thunderbolt port, which would actually be quite good, ethernet/FW800 is just an adaptor away:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD463ZM/A
You could even have dual ethernet ports, previously exclusive to the Pro and run the display over HDMI.
If HDMI stays around. That is a real concern.

However your faith in adapters is far stronger than mine. Time will tell how well those TB adapters will work. I'm actually hoping for far more reliability than what is had with USB adapters.
Quote:
I think I'd prefer the LE model. It's 10W less (2/3 the 640M) and still 80% of the performance. I don't think they'd be able to fit a higher than 20W GPU in alongside the 35W i5 CPU. The 6630M was 10-15W. The quad-i7 is 45W so they are pretty much working to the 45W range total. This makes sense as they have an 85W PSU and up to 10W per port for Thunderbolt and 5W per USB port x 4 and 7 watts for FW800.
Killing FW will almost balance one TB port when it comes to power budgeting. That is a good reason to remove FW right there. In the end I'd rather see a beefier power supply that would allow for a significant performance delta between the base model and the Descrete GPU model. In the end I'm just not a fan of the one size fits all mentality. This is why I'd rather see Apple offer an XMac, leave the Mini low end and give us a $1000 desktop with a real GPU. Instead of an 85 watt total power budget make it 150 watts which is more than enough to support a respectable GPU, processor, drive bays and I/O. I wouldn't mind one bit if they used a 45/55 watt mobile processor though Ivy Bridge has some really nice solutions if you go up the power ladder a bit.

The obvious problem here is that today 85 watts is a tight squeeze. If you want a better GPU along with a respectable main processor the Mini really can't do it. One problem that crops up when I mention XMac is the notion of a tower which frankly has nothing to do with XMac. It is more the idea of getting rational performance and a few drive bays that one can actually access.
Quote:
Still, they can dynamically underclock the CPU and GPU as needed and ultra-books are getting the full 640M so if Apple can't match the thermal limits of an ultra-book, they're doing something very wrong.
If they didn't purposely hold the Mini back until the iMac gets an update, I'd feel the same.
Yeah that sucks! It is another emotional issue that Apples marketing team needs to get over. Each machine needs to be salable on its own merits. As to the Mini at this point I can't see what is holding it back. The lack of rumors bothers me a lot and makes me think something is up.
Quote:
Yeah that would be good but the i7s are $120 more in the best case, Apple only currently charges $100 for the i7 upgrade but guaranteed they aren't making a huge profit on that. Consider the $599 Mini, the CPU in that alone is $225. If Apple makes a 25% margin, that only leaves $255 to pay for everything else.
One thing they could do is:
Core i5, HD 4000 - $599
Core i7, HD 4000 - $749
Core i7 quad, HD 4000 - $999
but I'd value the dedicated GPU much higher than the i7 for $799 and they can still offer i7 BTO for $899.
Quad core is important to me as some things I do get very good speed ups from additional cores. The frustration with HD4000 is that it is almost good enough for today's needs.
Quote:
The 640M GT pulls up on par with the 8800GT. This was a high-end GPU that launched late 07/ early 08 - 4.5 years later, the entry mobile GPU is the same speed. That's not bad. The quad-i7 Mini should also nearly equal an 8-core 2008 Xeon. If they were able to combine the quad-i7 with the 640M, that would be a pretty neat machine but that's what the iMac is for.

Well the can shove the iMac where the sun don't shine. Until they clean up that machine I'm not interested.

As to Mini performance when running on mobile chip sets there is the opportunity for bottle necks to get in the way. RAM, lots of it, can go a long way to alleviate the problem though. Configuration is important though, I'm hoping that the new Mini gets a make over that makes it far more attractive for a person wanting decent performance and not be limited by I/O.
post #133 of 391
Cost is always a factor!

Beyond that you can often have a number of networks in a complex, some with very defined usage. It would be a waste to install a network that will never be exploited by the capabilities of the hardware connecting to it. If you ever have to install networks for manufacturing cells this would become obvious. That cell might be semi independent of the rest of the networking hardware in a building.

The same thing might apply to a management office or QC office where desktop PCs are serviced. None of these machines will need advanced networking capabilities, they are managers after all, so you install the hardware needed to support them for the 5 or 10 years they might be in place.

An interesting point here is that these installations don't last long at all. I've worked in the same building for almost 30 years now and have seen manufacturing and office areas completely gutted more than a couple of times. Gutted as right down to the bare concrete. So you install what is needed or cost effective at the time as it might be gone in 5 to 10 years. By the way that doesn't mean there isn't optical backbones in the building, it is just that it is rational To minimize costs of hardware if you have a well defined use in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AandcMedia View Post

What I meant was why would anyone want to be installing Cat 5 in new buildings....... 

Sometimes it is the right thing to do!
post #134 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 The frustration with HD4000 is that it is almost good enough for today's needs.
 

Next year should be a similar effort in terms of integrated graphics.  I'm curious of their direction with the 13" mbp. If they're going for the high resolution display concept across that line too, a discrete gpu in place of the ODD could be a good move. In the case of the 13", it takes up a much larger percentage of the total space than it did with the 15". In terms of what will fit, some ultrabook manufacturers have pulled it off as Marvin mentioned. Ivy also has a single 35W quad cpu. It's more expensive than Apple's current 13" choices. Next year they max expand upon this, although I don't fully expect such a thing for at least two years. Apple doesn't like things that may decrease battery life due to higher peak power consumption (even if tdp is listed as the same value), so they may be conservative on that one. Overall the 13" could see a lot of cool options if they don't intentionally hold it back.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I don't see it that way when discussing the laptop lineup. From my perspective they are anything but conservative with that product line. The whole rest of the industry is following them.
 

They are conservative on things that do not add coolness factor, such as usb2 to usb3. The machine will appear the same either way, and not everyone will know. If they really wanted it, they could have pushed it into an update at least by last year. As to external chipsets, they will update the thunderbolt display at some point with usb3, and that will also require a third party chipset. It's possible that they could push that further out to a point when thunderbolt sees a more definitive update and implement a display based on whatever panel comes out then. Most of the panels currently on the market in that size are from 2009-2010. I think the generation officially launched in 2009. Anyway resolution is a good way to go right now as contrast makes little sense until you can get to at least 10 bit displayport levels. Otherwise you're just spreading out the addressable colors further and further thus becoming more reliant on dithering to give the impression of visual continuity.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


 This is why I'd rather see Apple offer an XMac, leave the Mini low end and give us a $1000 desktop with a real GPU. Instead of an 85 watt total power budget make it 150 watts which is more than enough to support a respectable GPU, processor, drive bays and I/O. I wouldn't mind one bit if they used a 45/55 watt mobile processor though Ivy Bridge has some really nice solutions if you go up the power ladder a bit.
The obvious problem here is that today 85 watts is a tight squeeze. If you want a better GPU along with a respectable main processor the Mini really can't do it. One problem that crops up when I mention XMac is the notion of a tower which frankly has nothing to do with XMac. It is more the idea of getting rational performance and a few drive bays that one can actually access.
 

I get your desire for an Xmac. You want a decent modern stationary computer as the ipad can take over a lot of mobile needs, and a stationary one could offer more than a docked laptop if someone actually brought out such a thing. Apple with the ipad is in a decent spot to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 Even Apples dongles don't seem to be of the quality they should be.

They aren't high in quality. They always have terrible reviews at the Apple Store. The chargers and batteries are the same, but a percentage of that comes from the fact that those are expensive replacement parts. People will naturally be irritated when they have to buy these things. In the case of dongles, they're spare parts. In my experience the seams are always uneven where they are put together. The connection is never snug. Many of them are not as reliable as a real cable, so sometimes you need a backup if they support a critical function. In the case of thunderbolt on my laptop, I ordered a specific mini displayport to displayport cable in case I wanted to view something from my laptop on the larger display (other computer still has dvi... ugh). A thunderbolt cable isn't necessarily backwards compatible with a displayport monitor (it has multiple outputs, but displayport is best), and dongles add an unnecessary and sometimes unstable connection to the chain. It's almost like they're only carried more as a sign of assurance in case a buyer is unsure about purchasing a mac with missing ports.

post #135 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
If HDMI stays around. That is a real concern.

I think it's useful and the Retina MBP got it. 3rd party display manufacturers just haven't switched to displayport so HDMI means you don't need an adaptor. If they went with dual TB, you could even drive 3 displays that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
In the end I'd rather see a beefier power supply that would allow for a significant performance delta between the base model and the Descrete GPU model.

Thing is, a MBP only has a 95 Watt Hour battery. To manage 7 hours of battery life, it would have to use an average of just 13.5 Watts and that's with a quad-core i7 and a 650M. I can't imagine it being harder to cool a Mini than a laptop.

During gaming, someone reported 1h40 on the rMBP:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4088147?start=0&tstart=0

That would put the power draw while gaming at 57 Watts but that's also driving the Retina display so there's a chance they could fit as much as a quad-i7 and 650M into a 45W budget. There is a lot more ports on the Mini but they can always ramp things up and down as needed. I doubt someone would run 6 bus-powered devices while doing OpenCL compute maxing out the CPU and GPU.

Cost is perhaps the biggest factor here. A quad-i7 plus dGPU would drive the price to about $1200. Maybe they don't feel enough people would buy a small PC like the Mini (even a bigger machine to accomodate more power) at $1200 without a display when the iMac costs that with a display.

The i5 dGPU Mini isn't vastly different from the i5 iMac - CPU is 30% difference, GPU is a bit more at 100% but it's $799 vs $1299. I think that's the right compromise to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Quad core is important to me as some things I do get very good speed ups from additional cores.

I'd say the hyper-threaded dual-cores are good enough. I know some prefer 4 physical cores but the i5 iMacs are 4-core 4-thread and as I say, they only get 30% more performance at the same clock speed. It would be different if 4-core/4-thread 2.5GHz desktop i5 was double 2-core/4-thread mobile 2.5GHz i5 but I think 30% is negligible.

Question now is, where the hell are they? C'mon Apple it's Wednesday, you know the rules.
post #136 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Cost is perhaps the biggest factor here. A quad-i7 plus dGPU would drive the price to about $1200. Maybe they don't feel enough people would buy a small PC like the Mini (even a bigger machine to accomodate more power) at $1200 without a display when the iMac costs that with a display.
 

I can play the Marvin pricing game. Keep in mind a degree of rounding in the numbers will always exist. Most of the time they go in even hundreds rounding up or down to the nearest $99 mark. I don't know which side of that they're on with the discrete mini. The cto option on the dgpu model is the 2620m. If they can go up $30 (less wholesale unless I'm reading it wrong) they can use  the 3612QM at 35W and maintain a discrete gpu. I'd be surprised if they can't cool that in a stationary form factor. Currently the server is their only quad option. This would give you quad + dgpu. The cpus are expensive as they're mobile parts, but Apple has used cpus in the upper minis that cost more than some of the mac pro cpus in the past. This is true with two current models. As to the desktop, Wizard's concepts are always interesting. I know desktops aren't doing well overall, but Apple always goes in wherever they think they can make a difference. Most television margins suck, yet we constantly read stories that Apple will build one. I'm a little surprised the current Apple TV hasn't morphed into an IOS device.They obviously have their reasons. It might cost too much for suitable hardware or be a support headache. Overall I don't think the success of those devices lies solely in hardware sales. They must drive itunes purchases too.

post #137 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The cto option on the dgpu model is the 2620m. If they can go up $30 (less wholesale unless I'm reading it wrong) they can use  the 3612QM at 35W and maintain a discrete gpu. I'd be surprised if they can't cool that in a stationary form factor.

That would make a good option for the middle Mini. As long as they keep it a non-server so the extra drive and 7200rpm drives and OS X Server software aren't padding out the cost. If they kept the quad for the Server model, it just adds the cost of the dGPU to the price of the current Server model as the CPU is the same price.

That chip would double the performance vs the current i5 - much better than the dual-i7 upgrade.

A Mini with the 3612QM and 640M would be largely equivalent to a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 8800GT.

I don't think they'll do this though because it would probably be priced around $849 so people would just buy that, get OS X Server from the App Store and forget the extra hard drive.

It would be better (for consumers) if Apple gave up the idea of having separate server models. People who know they need OS X Server can figure out what spec they need and buy a software license from the App Store.
post #138 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


That would make a good option for the middle Mini. As long as they keep it a non-server so the extra drive and 7200rpm drives and OS X Server software aren't padding out the cost. If they kept the quad for the Server model, it just adds the cost of the dGPU to the price of the current Server model as the CPU is the same price.
That chip would double the performance vs the current i5 - much better than the dual-i7 upgrade.
A Mini with the 3612QM and 640M would be largely equivalent to a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 8800GT.
I don't think they'll do this though because it would probably be priced around $849 so people would just buy that, get OS X Server from the App Store and forget the extra hard drive.
It would be better (for consumers) if Apple gave up the idea of having separate server models. People who know they need OS X Server can figure out what spec they need and buy a software license from the App Store.


Server software should be a non-issue. I am not up to speed on Mountain Lion, but Lion included a number of server licenses along with the regular OS. When you take that out of the equation, the $999 price point can include vastly improved hardware compared to the ones that were factoring in the price of server software...OK, I realize that Apple actually has to pay something for additional hardware whereas the server software did not actually cost them anything and so any price they charged for it was essentially pure profit, notwithstanding amortized costs.

 

The problem with the present Mini is the form factor. It just does not have adequate cooling for decent hardware. People who want "small" don't necessarily want absurdly small. If there were to be a separate form factor for a server mini (Mini-Max?) it should be possible to use a 3 1/2 inch HD which will provide better performance (and capacity) at a more competitive cost than a 2 1/2 inch HD and space for a PCIe slot graphics card. Perhaps even a 65 watt CPU (and its cooling). Maybe even a few other goodies.

post #139 of 391

Found that geekbench entry yesterday, the Mac mini would be much better with desktop cpus.

 

The Core i7-3770T is a 2.50GHz 4C/8T 45W desktop cpu ($294 vs $378 for the cheapest mobile quad-core cpu from Intel) and it has HD 4000 graphics. So even just for the server model, it would be great. There are a few other T series chips from Intel, maybe Apple could use the 35W 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i5-3470T ($184, it has HD 2500 graphics only), in the regular model along with a 20W nvidia GT 640M LE gpu. The savings on the cpu (the cheapest mobile dual-core cpu from Intel cost $225) could be used towards the dedicated gpu.

 

Apple doesn't need many models of Mac mini, just good ones:

$599/699 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i5-3470T, nvidia GT 640M LE gpu, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD

$899/999 2.50GHz 4C/8T Core i7-3770T, Intel HD 4000, 8GB RAM, dual 7200 rpm 750GB HDD

BTO: RAM, storage

 

FYI the mobile 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i7-3520M costs $346. And mobile quad-core cpus from 2.1GHz to 2.6Ghz cost at least $378 (depending on the other specs).

 

I don't see Apple using more than a 20W gpu along the 35W cpu (the previous 6630M was a 15W gpu at full speed), so people should forget about the 32W 640M (let alone the 45W 650M) in the current design.

post #140 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


That would make a good option for the middle Mini. As long as they keep it a non-server so the extra drive and 7200rpm drives and OS X Server software aren't padding out the cost. If they kept the quad for the Server model, it just adds the cost of the dGPU to the price of the current Server model as the CPU is the same price.
That chip would double the performance vs the current i5 - much better than the dual-i7 upgrade.
A Mini with the 3612QM and 640M would be largely equivalent to a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro with 8800GT.
I don't think they'll do this though because it would probably be priced around $849 so people would just buy that, get OS X Server from the App Store and forget the extra hard drive.
It would be better (for consumers) if Apple gave up the idea of having separate server models. People who know they need OS X Server can figure out what spec they need and buy a software license from the App Store.

The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.

post #141 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The "server" model is a bit awkward overall. I don't think it's necessary. It may benefit them from a marketing standpoint, but obviously I don't have their internal data to review. Mjteix makes a good point in that low power desktop variants are not a bad option, although I'm not sure what that would change. I'm also not feeling like looking up reference micro-ATX boards or researching peak power draw between the two at the moment. My example was to fit seamlessly with their current design.

The server model resulted from a shock Apple received. Customers (corporate and EDU among others) were making use of the Mini in ways Apple had never envisioned and were reportedly buy substantial numbers of them to do so. The server model was simply a response to customer request.

 

The use of mobile components results in greater costs without any particular benefit. If a revised Mini form factor were developed to deal with the greater thermal envelope, the less expensive components could easily be accomodated.

post #142 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Found that geekbench entry yesterday, the Mac mini would be much better with desktop cpus.
Technology is making the distinction between Mobile and desktop processors very interesting. The problem is the overall chip set power profile, which I'm not sure is even a problem any more. In any event I do think a bit of rethinking on Apples part would be worthwhile.
Quote:
The Core i7-3770T is a 2.50GHz 4C/8T 45W desktop cpu ($294 vs $378 for the cheapest mobile quad-core cpu from Intel) and it has HD 4000 graphics. So even just for the server model, it would be great. There are a few other T series chips from Intel, maybe Apple could use the 35W 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i5-3470T ($184, it has HD 2500 graphics only), in the regular model along with a 20W nvidia GT 640M LE gpu. The savings on the cpu (the cheapest mobile dual-core cpu from Intel cost $225) could be used towards the dedicated gpu.
One role the Mini has to play is that of the low cost entry point into the Apple world. Apple really needs to focus on pricing and performance of its low end model. Right now it is a terrible value price performance wise no matter how you look at the machine. It is something that people recognize these days when money is tight and people are forced to evaluate value equations. In many cases Apples own laptops end up being better values for many users, especially if such users are new to the platform.
Quote:

Apple doesn't need many models of Mac mini, just good ones:
Apple doesn't need many models this is true but they also don't need a line up where stiff price jumps end up offering very little over the base model.
Quote:
$599/699 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i5-3470T, nvidia GT 640M LE gpu, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD
$899/999 2.50GHz 4C/8T Core i7-3770T, Intel HD 4000, 8GB RAM, dual 7200 rpm 750GB HDD
I think you mis the point Apples base model should be integrated GPU only in part to hit the lowest possible price. In that regard Apple should really be shooting for $499 on the base configuration.

The Quad core is the model that needs the GPU support. This reflects upon my frustration with the current Mini in the severe compromises that are made in the upper end configurations. If I'm going to pay extra for a performance machine, in essence this is what the second choice should be then I want something for that. In this case that means both a quad core and a decent midrange GPU. Yes a lot to pack in the box, but that is why we pay the extra $500 or whatever for.

The frustration with the current Mini Line up is that you pay extra (too much extra) for a GPU and then get clipped processor wise. Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder what the hell is up at Apple, if we are to fork out the cash for a performance Mini it damn well ought to be a significant step up from the base line model.
Quote:
BTO: RAM, storage

FYI the mobile 2.90GHz 2C/4T Core i7-3520M costs $346. And mobile quad-core cpus from 2.1GHz to 2.6Ghz cost at least $378 (depending on the other specs).

I don't see Apple using more than a 20W gpu along the 35W cpu (the previous 6630M was a 15W gpu at full speed), so people should forget about the 32W 640M (let alone the 45W 650M) in the current design.

This comes back to the desire for a bigger Mini or an XMac. Remove the restrictions size cause so tht we can get performance that at least matches a MBP.
post #143 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

The server model resulted from a shock Apple received. Customers (corporate and EDU among others) were making use of the Mini in ways Apple had never envisioned and were reportedly buy substantial numbers of them to do so. The server model was simply a response to customer request.
People using the Mini as a server or special purpose machine is all well and good, it is their hardware after all. The problem with Apples marketing of the Mini as a server is that it isn't ideal for mainstream server usage. This mostly due to serviceability.

I tend to agree with others in that Apple should just sell their server pack for people to install where ever and take it upon themselves to judge the machines suitability as a server. One thing I've seen in industry is the reuse of old hardware for specific server duties such as print serving. So a server doesn't have to be a mammoth rack mounted unit, in many cases it shouldn't be. Still if Apple wants to sell the Mini as a server they really should address service and access. In that regard I don't know why the chassis was never designed to give slide out access to the power supply and drives.
Quote:
The use of mobile components results in greater costs without any particular benefit. If a revised Mini form factor were developed to deal with the greater thermal envelope, the less expensive components could easily be accomodated.

There are a few green people that would argue that. I've actually have seen the Mini reccomended for its low power profile. These days though I'm not convinced there would be a huge difference in power profile with careful selection of desktop chips. As long as they support power savings idle performance should be manageable.

Another point with power usage and access and where Apple is dragging its feet is SSD technology. Imagine flash blade cards like Apple is using on its laptops but designed to plug into a Mini like chassis. You almost instantly solve the issue of "drive" access and lower the system power usage some. Actually plug in drives would be nice in laptops too. In many ways the Mini is a stale design, it has been around a very long time and has seen zero innovation. As such I'm really waiting to see what comes next as it is really due for an update.
post #144 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


 

I get your desire for an Xmac. You want a decent modern stationary computer as the ipad can take over a lot of mobile needs, and a stationary one could offer more than a docked laptop if someone actually brought out such a thing.

 

Now if only Apple would understand this.

post #145 of 391
Has Apple ever used a desktop processor in the Mini? Would they ever make a radical change like this going from a mobile to desktop processor?
post #146 of 391
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Has Apple ever used a desktop processor in the Mini? Would they ever make a radical change like this going from a mobile to desktop processor?

 

Depends if you consider the PowerPC 7447A a desktop processor.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #147 of 391
I mean it would be interesting change though I see them using just what's in the 13" MBPs and base model 15" MBP. Not sure what's on the horizon for Haswell and Rockwell.
post #148 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Has Apple ever used a desktop processor in the Mini? Would they ever make a radical change like this going from a mobile to desktop processor?

They've always used mobile chips - desktop CPUs didn't really go to such low power as 45W. Core 2 Duos were 65W. Original Core i5s were 73W. 2nd gen i5s had a 45W model but really poor graphics. The 3770T is the first desktop CPU that could be feasibly used in a Mini.

It would still need a different socket but there are ITX boards with that socket:

http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=76

On the entry model, they'd have to use the dedicated GPU alongside a 35W i5 (as mentioned earlier) as the i5 comes with poor graphics but that's not such a big deal as the CPU price is lower. It may mean the entry model can't be $599.

I think they'll stick to mobile CPUs though as the Mini shares similar chips with the MBP so if the Mini doesn't sell well, the chips can be sold in the laptops. Plus the mobile chips will have some benefits for small form factor machines otherwise Intel wouldn't bother having distinct lines.

Over time, Intel will probably only make a single set of chips and it looks like AMD might too:

http://www.techspot.com/news/48704-amd-ceo-says-every-laptop-on-the-planet-has-enough-processing-power.html

It would benefit Apple to use desktop chips in the Mini though, even if they wanted to make an extra $85 margin and leave the price the same. Everybody wins, the buyer gets a faster machine for the same price and Apple makes $85 more or the machines are cheaper and Apple hits a higher volume of users.

Whatever they choose to do, it doesn't look like it will be happening until they clear the Retina MBP backlog. Once that shipping time gets down to 2-3 days or less, we can expect an update.

Half of all the Macs they sell are to MBP owners. This much was clear even from their own marketing vids. There's a Steam survey here too that shows a distribution of Mac hardware:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

It breaks down as:
50% MBP
28% iMac
16% MB
3% Mini
3% Mac Pro

While it is a voluntary survey and in the gaming sector, which will skew some stats (e.g Mini in server use), other polls have shown similar results. Laptops vs desktops are around 70:30 and the most popular desktop by far is the iMac. So that pretty much explains why the laptops and iMacs get the priority with the MBP always getting the first updates. I don't really see a more powerful Mini changing that until Apple starts stocking affordable 23-24" displays and they'd have to build them or they'll keep pushing the iMac where they make the margins.
post #149 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Depends if you consider the PowerPC 7447A a desktop processor.

Some would see those processors as Mobiles trying to be desktop processors. It should be noted that Ivy Bridge brings what at one time would have been mobile processors, wattage wise, to the desktop market. Unfortunately I don't track this stuff in detail anymore but AI and others followed Intels release in detail. So with Ivy Bridge it is certainly possible to shoehorn a "desktop" processor into the case. The interesting question here is the difference in processor performance if any at similar wattages.

In any even I still see the Minis case as a big obstacle to overcome to get a desktop machine out the door with decent performance. The last thing you would want in a desktop is a model that throttles performance due an inability to cool itself. To a certain extent you expect that in a laptop, if you run laptops hard they do get hot and will throttle. A decent desktop should run at least 8 hours a day loaded and not over heat.
post #150 of 391
The percentages make sense. The unibody MacBook was going to be my first Mac back in 2008. I wanted the one with the backlit keyboard but couldn't afford the $1,599 cost. Over time I waited and settled for a $599 mini about 3 years later.
post #151 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

A year ago people were doubtful over whether Apple would even release usb3 drivers and suggested that thunderbolt was the only thing needed.

If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption.  My prediction was wrong.  On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.

 

I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option.  I'm also hoping for an SSD slot.  The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.

Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #152 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption.  My prediction was wrong.  On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.

 

I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option.  I'm also hoping for an SSD slot.  The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.

I wasn't referring to anyone specific. Lots of people shared your usb3 sentiment. Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness? Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something. If you know more than me about board design, which is extremely probable (I'm eyeballing the layouts of the past couple models as well as the Air, rMBP, etc.). In both cases the soldering has come into play where the machine is constrained by height. The mini is constrained by logic board surface area, so even if they wanted to seal them in, I can't see Apple laying them down flat as they do with the rMBP. The Air doesn't use standard sodimms at all.

post #153 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Regarding soldered ram, what real benefit is granted if you aren't constrained by thickness?

 

We've been over this before.  The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space.  I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

Assuming you're just soldering regular sodimms to the board as is the case with the rMBP, you would occupy more surface area on the board. Right now it mounts in a perpendicular manner to the board, yet surface area is more constrained than a notebook. They wouldn't be able to fit it in a similar manner unless I'm missing something.

 

The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard.  Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini.  The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high.  Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.

Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #154 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

We've been over this before.  The advantages of soldered RAM are: price, performance, reliability, and space.  I grant that space is less of a constraint in the Mini compared to the MacBooks.

 

 

 

The rMBP does not have SO-DIMMs soldered to the motherboard.  Take a look at the motherboard of a Mini.  The connector for the SO-DIMMs takes up nearly as much space as 16 DRAM chips soldered directly to the motherboard and even more space if the soldered DRAM chips were stacked two high.  Integration of other chips would probably leave enough space on the motherboard to avoid stacking.


I found a picture of the macbook pro 13" logic board. It doesn't have a lot of free space on the logic board. You'd pick up some dropping the optical drive in a non tapered body, but those dimms are still significant. They would have to be laid out side by side for Apple's soldering as you see in the rMBP.

 

1000

 

 

700

Note how it's laid out.

 

700

I guess you could squeeze it in there if the width shrinks, but it's still silly. You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway. Looking at Air + rMBP, they haven't stacked soldered memory. It's laid flat across the board.

 

I'm reiterating the same few points here, but you haven't shown any real advantage other than Apple trying to sell ram upgrades :P. Also note that in both prior cases vertical restrictions could be noted as the reason for the use of soldered ram. It likely wasn't a design priority when determining placement and case height in those regions.

post #155 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

You mention reliability. It has one of the lowest failure rates of any part of the system. If you're having ram failure issues, stop buying cheap ram. Those components may well outlive the rest of the system. What signs have you seen on price and performance? Memory benchmarks from geekbench are lower by 100 points or so comparing the top ones on the retina macbook pro to the 2012 cMBP. It provided no distinct performance benefit in drag racing volatile storage. It won't save you space as you'll have to lie them side by side. It's more like they could probably cram them in if they want, and since when has the memory contact area been a common reason for a logic board replacement? Dimms rarely fail with quality memory. If they do with soldered, you can't replace them anyway.

Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps.  These improve both price and reliability.  Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU.  The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration.  Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.

Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #156 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

Switching from SO-DIMMs to directly soldered DRAM means fewer components and, more important perhaps, fewer manufacturing steps.  These improve both price and reliability.  Future JEDEC specs will offer higher bandwidth and lower latency by requiring direct soldering of DRAM chips onto the same board as the CPU.  The difference in space is negligible compared to the advancements in integration.  Just dropping FireWire support probably frees up enough marginal space on the Mini motherboard.

They really need to add another thunderbolt port. The current one port thing is asinine given that one may be dedicated to displayport functions. I realize it doesn't support the bandwidth or functions of displayport 1.2 either way. I'd say that belongs in place of a firewire port if peripherals really start to roll out. It sounded like you were allocating a current performance advantage to soldered ram. Future specs do not mean much in terms of performance relative to a 2012 mini. It's silly that one hasn't surfaced for the current year. Do they plan to wait for bumped ivy bridge chips and roll it out at the end of the year for some bizarre reason? I find Apple's logic to be irritating at times.

post #157 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I find Apple's logic to be irritating at times.

You and me both! I can't stand going on news sites and just seeing news on the newest iPhone.
post #158 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

If you're referring to me, what I suggested was the Thunderbolt plus USB2 would suffice and that Apple might not support USB3 to further the strategic objective of wider Thunderbolt adoption.  My prediction was wrong.  On the other hand, my prediction that the 2012 MacBook Pro would have the RAM soldered directly on the motherboard was correct.

 

I'm hoping that Apple will drop the SO-DIMM slots on the Mac Mini and offer 8GB as the baseline soldered directly onto the motherboard with 16GB as a BTO option.  I'm also hoping for an SSD slot.  The rest of it seems relatively predictable: Ivy Bridge, USB3, 2nd Thunderbolt port, no FireWire.

There is no sound reason to use USB 2 over USB 3 (it is backwards compatible).

 

Why on earth would you want RAM soldered to the motherboard?

post #159 of 391
I definitely don't want RAM soldered to the motherboard although I unfortunately see Apple going in that direction even the mini down the line.
post #160 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I definitely don't want RAM soldered to the motherboard although I unfortunately see Apple going in that direction even the mini down the line.


My point was that his suggestions aren't reality today. He later explained that they would be advantageous when measured by future standards. In terms of space, it takes up at least slightly more space in a mini. In terms of performance the rMBP doesn't exceed the cMBP in memory performance. In reliability, that's debatable. I've never seen the connection there become a primary point of failure. If it's ram, stop buying cheap dimms. Most 3rd party ram carries a lifetime warranty anyway. If it goes bad with age, just take advantage of that. I'm relatively certain McCarling knows more about this stuff than me, but none of those suggestions reflect anything that would be implemented today.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2012 Mac Mini Wish List?