2012 Mac Mini Wish List? - Page 7

You and me both!!! I'm not sure what Apple is up to but the delay with the iMac And Mini is getting to be as bad of a joke as the suffering the Mac Pro users are going through. Maybe Apple is trying to kill off the desktop line up completely. Very true, but i really don't believe anybody expects the Mini to be used like that. Well that is highly debatable, the performance drop can be considerable. The problem as I see it is that the hardware investment is substantial taking this route and that is before the performance hit is taken into account. As much as I hate the machine the iMac would be a better route to go for GPU support.

On the other hand what Apple really needs to do is to support a larger power supply in the Mini, even ten watts would open up the machine to better CPU/GPU combos. I'd actually like to see 25 watts but suspect the thermals might get a bit wild.
Me thinks what you really need is the next generation Mac Pro when it comes out next year. Yeah I know, I can't afford one either. That is why you see me pushing the XMac concept here so often. The reality is the Mini will always lag performance wise, and the iMac simply doesn't do it for me as a gap filler.

How are we feeling about an eminent upgrade?  I ask because there are two refurb Mini servers on the Apple website right now - Including one with dual 500 GB drives and 8GB ram.  I'm tempted unless we think an update will come soon.

 

Soon as in September along with the new iPhone and iOS.

This is what is frustrating, nobody knows and frankly the update should have happened by now.

As far as buying now goes that probably depends upon how you look at the investment. If it is specific in nature or short term go for it. However if you look at this as an investment that will be with you for awhile stay away. My primary reason to suggest staying away from the current models is the lack of USB3, followed very closely by the poor integrated GPU.

Think about it USB 3 is very important for a machine you expect to hold for several years, simply put you don't know what you may be using the port for in a couple of years. Further if you don't go the discrete GPU route you really need the improved Ivy Bridge GPU. Think not? Look at how Apple has expanded GPU usage in Mountain Lion, Safari and what have you.

I doubt that the hardware will come with iPhone though. Like I said at the top this is a frustrating year, the iMac and Mini are almost six months past the debut of Ivy Bridge and they where already well past their refresh date six months ago. One can only hope that this is a sign of a major overhaul of both products. That would be another good reason to wait, we may get a dramatically different Mini when it does come.

My impression was that Quadros were actually quite bandwidth intensive. Gaming gpus rely quite a lot on compression. SLI/Crossfire with 2  x16 gpus isn't really running on 32 lanes at all. You don't get 32 lanes in those cpus/chipsets. The Quadro 4000 still outperformed the 5870 by a reasonable margin in applications that properly leverage it. The choice is even more clear if upgrading a slightly older mac pro rather than choosing between a 5770 and 5870. $450~ for a 5870 vs $750 or whatever for a Quadro 4000.  I'm really not sure how it would do over thunderbolt. The 5870 lacks some of the issues in OpenGL applications that it has under Windows. Overall the higher performance workstation gpus are likely to give better performance under Windows compared to OSX, but I find a wider range of gpus to be tolerable under OSX, although it's somewhat anecdotal.

I would agree. USB3 has a lot more available peripherals for it than something like thunderbolt, especially when examining the typical markets where the mini would serve as a primary computing device. The HD3000 was the first step in Intel turning their gpus around. The 4000 is still a significant step up. Next year they may eat much of the low end mobile gpu market. I do like that Apple didn't go quite so cheap on gpus in the $1800 model this year. While they are still a bit wacky on their gpu configurations, it was at least the 650m as opposed to the low end 6490m they used in the cheaper early 2011. Six months is also a bit exaggerated. In terms of cpus that would be appropriate to the imac, they officially launched 4/23 and 5/31. There are a couple more cheap options launching in September, although I don't think Apple will use them in the 21.5". They could have launched the imacs as early as the beginning of June assuming a fast ramp-up in intel's shipping times. The notebook cpus are basically the same thing, so realistically they're almost 3 months past the earliest possible dates.

 

Keep in mind this is Apple. They know they can jerk people around a bit more as their customers are less likely to defect to Windows due to a delay. Haswell also remains pretty far out. It will likely not show until the second half, so Apple likely figures things will be spaced out no matter what. This doesn't mean I see it as a good thing.

The big problem with GPUs is what works well for one is totally unacceptable to another. For one person NVida might have the perforate wanted while another needs the features AMD offers up. The discussion becomes endless due to people only seeing things from their perspective. With the advent of increased use of GPU acceleration itis important though for people not to dismiss the need for good GPU performance. USB 3 is still a low cost interface but with greatly enhanced performance. As such interesting things will continue to come to the port. At this point I just have a very negative opinion of Apple and their dragging out USB 3 implementations on the desktop hardware. Right now it is simply foolish to invest in a general purpose computer without it. Yes a step up for Intel, but AMD is offering up at least 50% more GPU in its APUs. That on older process technologies while still holding reasonable power profiles.

I think the Mac Mini should come with 3 USB 2.0/3.0 ports and come with a new design, instead of a flat surface it should stand up, and the USB Ports should be on the right side.

Like this.



Place Apple Logo in the front and light it up, and add the usb ports on the sides, and the power to cord on the back. It should have a curved square edges like those of the iphone while standing up and a flat surface on top and the bottom. And it should come in different metallic colors like those of the iPod Nano's. (Nanochromatic) With White and Black being the first colors available at launch. And on top of the next iMac Mini should be an iPhone dock charger/ Syncer so users can place their iPhones to charge without the need of cables and an aluminum lid covers it while it isn't in use.

So 2 things on the back. The display/power, cord and fans and 3 USBs on the side as well as one thunderbolt connector. And it should have Wifi AC and run 512mb or higher VRAM graphics with atleast 4 Gigs of RAM and an Ivy Bridge Processor i3 or higher. But no i7 as that is way too high, and useless for this machine.
The Apple logo would be the sleep/wake button with touch sensitivity like that found in the xbox 360's open dvd drive button.
And it should have Bluetooth 4.0 for using the wireless mouse and keyboards, as well as Wifi N or AC
Edited by Strat09 - 8/24/12 at 12:36pm

USB 2.0 is old. USB 3.0 is integrated into Ivy Bridge. I agree with you on the higher VRAM though disagree on the i7. I do not think it is overkill especially when they offer the a 35W i7 (3612QM)

That is a nice sketch and a very interesting idea for a Mini replacement. I wouldn't be thrilled about the ports being on the side. The front needs a couple while the back would be where the rest go. Why? Space is why, if you keep the sides clean the machines can sit side by side on a bookshelf, rack, desk or whatever. This would indeed be a worthwhile feature. The only hope is that it would handle iPads too. That may however look awkward. Two TB connectors would be far better. This gives one the flexibility to use a TB display along side a high performance disk drive if they want and do so without serious degradation of performance. Maybe it is me it I see WiFi on a desktop as a waste. The performance of wired connections is so much better right now that I'd rather save the bucks for a better GPU, more storage or whatever. They might as well move to 1GB of VRAM. More so RAM itself ought to be 8GB. I'm not sure why you say that. Really i7 has become meaningless as Intel seems to allocate it to all sorts of processors without reason. The reality is you can find a number of so called i7 processors that have power profiles suitable for such a machine. Since the box you describe could also handle more power than the current Mini we might actually be able to have an entry level model that is cost effective while at the same time have an upscale model that performs well and is actually worth the money.

Beyond all of that I want a processor in the Mini that supports Intels latest hardware features completely.
I like your idea here and I think your sketch should highlight to people that there are many many physical possibilities for a Mini replacement. Some seem to believe that the Mini has to come in a thin or low profile box yet you demonstrate that it isn't a requirement at all. Frankly I've been thinking more cube like myself but I can see this design being very space efficient given addressing the side ports.

If you take your design a bit further and make the height slightly less than 2U (3.5") and less than say 3" wide six or seven of these could sit on a 19" rack shelf and offer up a reasonable server offering. Just an idea and it would be a tight fit for the electronics.

I like the idea of putting USB Ports on the front as it is useful for easier access to them rather than having to flip the device over to put the accesory cable in. But I find that Jony Ives would find it obtrusive towards it's elegance and would rather place everything on the back like the old Minis. I still think your idea is great as I did love the PS2 design when it was vertically standing. I don't think it should be a flat surface and instead the model should operate with other future iDevices as shown in the image because they are all made by Apple and should act like they belong together. And because it has the iPhone dock built in people would buy it because it looks like a great iPhone dock from the front. PERFECT PRODUCT.

Edited by Strat09 - 8/24/12 at 2:28pm

OK the parts for an updated Mini are available.  WTF is Apple waiting for?

 

The iPhone.

 

I imagine the iMac/Mac Mini update will be that "second keynote", but that's only if the iMac gets a FULL redesign. It wouldn't need one otherwise.

 

Anyway, they'd be fools to let a holiday quarter go without updated desktops… 

They could update them quietly. I think Marvin is right on this one. They don't want to update the mini without updating the imac.

I'm of the opinion that form should follow function. Placement like that would have some weird effects on board design. If anything I wish phone charging/docking would take on a unified standard.

 

Sure, and that's the most logical thing to happen. No redesign beyond dropping the ODD, no need for an event.

Nope, taking out the optical and laminating the panel will ensure a big redesign. The Mini will be quietly updated because there's nothing to mention.

It doesn't need an event to itself but I wouldn't expect a quiet launch of the iMac. One thing I've noticed is that Steve was able to fill time, I'm not confident the rest of the team can hold an event without a lot of material to talk about. They packed WWDC full of things and I expect we'll see that in future events.

The iPhone plus iOS 6 can fill an event but the iMac couldn't - it's pretty much a case of 'here it is, thanks for coming' so they have to tack it onto something else.

 

And that's what I mean. Drop the ODD = thinner. Laminating the panel = thinner. But without a retina display to tout, it's less than 2/3 the content of the newest MacBook Pro's event… And with the Mac Mini not changing at all, rather only getting a mention of update, what else can really be said, you know?

 

In the past, Apple has mentioned updates to the Mac Mini only as a one sentence response to a Q&A session, of all things!

While Apple is the poster child for anorexia nervosa and references to bad literature, the imac has a lot of thermal issues that could be better addressed. Density isn't its main problem. I know you'll probably disagree with me, but you should take note of the placement of thermal sensors. A bit less heat could help with the longevity of some components given differences in possible working environments and the inherently imperfect nature of things manufactured for consumer electronics.

I'd gladly swap a pointlessly thinner iMac for a desktop GPU… 

This is unlikely, and "desktop GPU" has become an issue of semantics in the top model. The 6970m pushes out around 100W. For a decent desktop gpu, you would need to at least double the power which must be dissipated. I don't see it given Apple's attraction to shiny things. In terms of functionality, not everyone seems to understand the entire misalignment here. It's an issue what tasks must be accomplished at what resolution. Typical things that the OS serves to the gpu are sufficiently handled by their current options. When looking at specialty use cases that are likely to be prevalent among OSX users, it's mostly split between those who want to play recent games at high settings and workstation users. The requirements are a bit different for each. Gaming would benefit from desktop gpus to a degree, but much of it is the match between a 2560x1600 display and a very moderate gpu. It's an awkward combination, but I don't think Apple cares. It's not a market they actively pursue outside of possibly iOS. For CAD/animation/paint programs, you wouldn't see that great a difference in many things. Workstation drivers often provide better performance with fewer bugs, but few of those cards make it to OSX, usually in a stripped down state. On the 2D end these cards have no trouble. The issues in these areas are more like OSX has no option for 10 bit displayport, and if you go down as far as something like the mini, it doesn't have enough vram to handle certain things, which are then disabled in their respective applications. I see little chance of Apple actively catering to either of these groups of users. The computers are largely at a point where if the user wants a Mac, it is "good enough" for the majority of things. Outside of the realm, they would need many more changes to bring certain things into complete alignment. An example would be macbook pros. If run hard enough, you can drain the battery while plugged into the wall. Not many users will experience this, but it is true. There are notebooks that lack this issue, but the power adapters tend to be significantly larger. That's a design choice. In the case of the imac, I think going thinner is the least imaginative thing they could do here if any better use of space exists. Imacs are not likely to be wall mounted. I just see such a change as placing further restrictions on future design options without any real benefit beyond pandering to mindless idiots.

Absolutely - every iMac anyone has owned has either melted or at least caught fire within the first 3 months of ownership. Fact.

Or is it the case that people have been using iMacs just fine for years on end without any problems even under heavy load?

For that you'd need something the size of a box Steve can't believe you'd put up with on the desktop:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t-rnWNZxKu8#t=26s

You don't gain much from desktop GPUs in the way of general 3D performance. For compute you do but not overall performance. The 7970 is listed as being just 40% faster than the 7970M:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html

7970 = 250W, 7970M = 100W, iMac PSU = 310W

 

That I didn't know. By 'decent' do you mean 'a performance improvement over the aforementioned chip'? 

 

Is there not as big a push anymore into GPGPU as there was just a few years ago? Not that OS X takes advantage of it yet, anyway.

I didn't say caught fire. You're a very silly person. I mean the idea does amuse me, but almost every imac I've ever seen has developed problems within its second year, and the use of non standard drives to track temperatures should give you some indication that the thermals are pretty tight. Beyond that consumer devices aren't all manufactured perfectly. These are mass market components, so you need to allow for some amount of manufacturing deficiency in the design.  Your numbers are also off. The 7970 can draw more than 250W at peak load. In both power source and consumption, these numbers are often fuzzy. Stated tdp doesn't mean it will never go beyond that. The numbers used by power supplies don't fully account for efficiency, so figuring out what should work is not always simple arithmetic. Typically if someone was custom building, they'd go for a slightly beefier power supply to be safe.

The latest report is apparently that DRAM prices will go down in the third quarter of this year. I wonder if Apple will delay the mini based on this or lower cost on BTO options.

Aren't we in the third quarter of this year?

I'd love to see a Mac Mini that starts at $499 again… 

WELL SINCE THERE'S Slight chances of the iMac and Mac Mini being ready before the iPhone event I suggest that later next year there will be an event where both the iMac and Mac Mini are updated alongside iOS Devices like the iPod Touch (gets more ram, in cell touch screens, new gorilla glass 2, new screen size, new Dock, and a larger memory capacity)... or they'll keep the same screen size but add more ram and memory) and as I've mentioned before there will be some screen antiglare issues fixed and it will be thinner without the dvd drives and soldered memory modules inside the iMac and the Cinema Displays.

But if I'm wrong maybe they'll make smaller iMac Models with retina screens. Fingers crossed. I want to play super realistic games on it like the Macbook Pro with Retina display.

If anything I think Apple is working on a wireless charger with built in Bluetooth or Wifi that syncs the iDevices by placing it on top of a pad like square rectangle. If they're smart about it, maybe well see an iPhone without a dock next year. It's too late already... and if they're smarter they'll build the charger on top of the Mac Mini.

Very sad if true. I suspect they re waiting on some technology for the iMac in the mistaken opinion that delivering a new Mini before a new iMac is a bad idea. The problem is I'm not one to even consider the iMac as it is currently designed so I see no harm to sales. Like the other poster I see Apple as extremely mis guided in dragging out such revisions.

That being said maybe the Mini is dead as a model. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the updated iMac came with an XMac instead of a new Mini. XMac being a platform that delivers credible midrange performance and doesn't suffer from the Minis design limitations. Tying the Mini update to the iMac update is just asinine even if I suspect you are right. This is especially the case when the Mini is so outdated. I just went out and purchased a 3TB drive with USB 3 support, so there is no way I'm going to buy a desktop that can't support that drive. This drag out of releases has to be killing sales, it happens to the laptops and the situation is only worst with the desktops.
Yes, I agree here but have you noticed just how quiet the rumor mill is with anything desktop related? We have had nothing of value rumored about a new Mini nor iMac so you would have to think they are a ways off.

In the case of the Mini or whatever replaces it, as noted by the poster above you, all the tech is there for such a desktop. So repeating the obvious; where the hell is the Mini? It is extremely frustrating to see such behavior on Apples part. I want to believe there is a reasonable explanation, like they are still on allocation from Intel, but I don't see that as a problem right now as processor sales are in decline.

I'd hate to think Apple needs a management shake up already but the place has been overwhelmed with real stupid decisions relative to the desktop lately.

Power usage in GPUs is a moving target. The big problem with iMac, if it goes retina, is avoiding a graphics related performance regression. Frankly I'm not sure how they will deal with this in an iMac, one can hope that modern GPUs would be cool enough at the performance point required. At this point though I think that is too much to hope for. OpenCL is one of Apples great successes frankly it is a bit of a surprise to me but it is heavily adopted. The problem here is that people really don't understand GPGPU computing, GPGPU computing only works for a class of problems that can exploit the parallel nature of a GPU, so the benefits are limited to those problems that mesh well with a GPU architecture. Now you have frustrated me even more with this statement as OS X does make use of GPU computing and has apparently significantly expanded upon its use in Mountain Lion. I know for certain that visually my 2008 MBP is snappier than it was before the Mountain Lion update.

Yes although we still have September.

I think there is a push towards heterogeneous computing but GPUs in their current form aren't ideal as they don't share memory. The ideal is to have them on the same chip, which obviously requires an IGP. Some people disagree with this but I don't feel that raw performnce is an issue any more. A desktop GPU offering 40% more performance just doesn't matter when it means significantly compromising the entire form factor. As the CEO of AMD said, every laptop on the planet has enough processing power, meaning the performance race is over. The focus now is design.

Every iMac I've ever seen hasn't so where does that leave us?

Total system power is not the GPU power.

No but it's a good estimate. If it was meaningless, they wouldn't bother.

I don't think the resolution matters much for games, or at least games with fully dynamic content. It's more for print quality with static content because printed pages are made at a higher resolution than standard screens. With dynamic games, you get motion blur and anti-aliasing to help the visuals. It doesn't hurt of course and it allows you to disable anti-aliasing but smooth gameplay is more important.

What are Apple waiting for?

 

Good question.

 

The desktop, as Wizard oft laments, has been stagnating for a good while now.

 

Apple have really taken their eye of the ball re: desktops.  

 

The Mac Pro tower is beyond an expensive joke with the last 'hhahahahahahahh' 'update' a face losing disaster (even Apple had to take down the 'new' p*ss take sign off the 'ahahhahaahahhahha' 'update.'

 

You can get quad core towers with 2 gig GPUs and 8 gigs of ram with 3 TB HDs with the 'bag of hurt' blue ray for £800 ish.  That's £1200 cheaper than Apple's tower p*ss take.  I guess Aloooooooominum must be really expensive at the moment...

 

Lenovo now have a 27 inch 'iMac' (made from Alu?), quad core i7, 8 gigs of ram, bigger HD and a gpu with 2 gigs of Vram (i think...) for £1500 in a PC world sale right now.  Actually, I think it's a bit cheaper than that.  In fact, I think it's slimmer than the current iMac design...(which is getting on a bit...)

 

There are cheap towers, with 20+ monitor, bigger HDs, more ram better GPUs than the current mini at far less than £550 or whatever Apple is charging for a box without a monitor or P8ss take, a keyboard or mouse.

 

That's Apple's train wreck of a desktop line.

 

It's Air, it's Pro, it's iPad, it's iPhone.

 

Their desktops are overpriced, out of date, out of spec and out of update.

 

It's an indefensible joke.

 

Lemon Bon Bon. 

It's not like Ivy and the workstation processors, cheap ram, cheap gpu, cheap HD, cheap components aren't there.  (Apple have greater supply side than when they only sold 1 million cpus per quarter.  They now sell 4-5 million Macs per quarter.  Desktop components are dirty dirt cheap.  Yet Apple still wants to nickle and dime you for a keyboard with a Mini.  Yeeeeeeesh.  Apple's desktops cost wayyyy more than they did in the PPC days.)

 

Desktops.

 

Hubris comes to mind.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Despite my rant at the desktop line...

 

Maybe the AMD CEO is onto something with 'laptops' are powerful enough.

 

Apple's current 'best Mac' is without a doubt, the stunning Retina Macbook Pro.

 

Played with one today in PC World.  I thought I wanted a 27 inch iMac until I played with one of these babies.  Going back to the resolution of the iMac 27 incher after the Retina Pro Macbook is a downer.  

 

The Retina Mac is stunningly razor sharp.  Awesome stuff.  I don't know the resolution on it.  Maybe I don't care.  It's so crisp.

 

Oh for an iMac with a crisp retina.  

 

Even a 24 inch retina vs a normal 27 incher?  I'd be happy with a 24 inch retina after seeing the Macbook Pro.  I'm no laptop fan...but the 15 Retina was awesome on web browsing...photos...

 

Like Marv' says, for game play...you drop the resolution somewhat...and get your FPS.  I did notice 'some' beach balling in the finder.  

 

Otherwise?

 

I won't buy another Mac desktop until it's retina.

 

I suspect many others may do likewise.

 

I await the next iMac and 'Pro' with great interest.

 

I think Apple needs to give their entire desktop line a re-think.  The imac is Apple's current flag ship...but it's not a cure all for all consumers.  But I'd sell my...aha...well...not my soul, but maybe Wizard's soul for a 24 inch retina iMac with hot swap SSD drive and hot swap MxM gpu Radeon 8000 class capability...and...uhm....uh....a sex core i7...and...8 gigs of ram standard...and...no...no...I'm good for now.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple have been caught up and passed on their desktop line.

 

They need to go back to square one in my view.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

I think that's just because we already know what is happening.

 

ODD gets dropped, case gets a little thinner, hardware gets updated. We already know the hardware they're both getting because we can match up the TDPs of current chips to new ones. 

 

If the iMac was getting a full redesign, we would have heard that at about the same time we started hearing "guarantees" again of the iPad mini. So it'll just be the usual update. The only real variable is if they can manage to surprise us with retina displays. 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Okay, but can that really be attributed to GPGPU? And is yours pre or post unibody?

 

I hope they start to kick the legs out from underneath the gFLOP/w ratio. 

Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/26/12 at 8:12am

The issue with pricing reminds me of the days when the original Mac was introduced and the several years following when ever Mac was grossly over priced. The technology lag just makes the high prices look much worst.
Frankly a simple Mini upgrade doesn't even require Ivy's input. All you really need is an internal mother board upgrade. Get a little radical and you would put in a bigger power supply, stronger fan and give us ten or 15 watts better performance. The only thing that might be an issue is that Apple is on allocation for Ivy Bridge processors. In the case of an issue like this I try to find reason for objectionable behavior and this is about the only thing I can come up with. A remote second is that the Mini is dead about to be reborn as a new model, but even that isn't a justification to keep customers on old hardware. Well yeah desktop components are but Apple doesn't use a lot of desktop components. This is one reason why the Mini appears to be more expensive relative to other desktops. Honestly though the processor isn't the issue with the apparent expense it is the utter lack of a reasonable amount of RAM, storage space and other short comings that make the Mini look expensive. Well this can be argued. PPC was a dirt bag of a processor with extremely poor integer performance. The machines where extremely expensive at the time, I know that back then I couldn't justify PPC hardware at all. Those where my deep into Linux years.

Today the hardware line up at Apple is highly mixed as far as value goes. When released the iMac is often a good deal if you can stomach the design and it's shortcomings. The problem is the obvious dragging out of updates for the iMac really makes the computer a poor value a year down the road. Ignoring the importance of USB 3 and other hardware advances just makes the machine look ancient and highly over priced. I'd like to think that Apple has something up it's collective sleeve and is about ready to release ground breaking new hardware across the desktop line up. That is new concepts for the iMac, Mini and Pro. Sadly history here isn't on our side. Instead we have been getting absolutely terrible updates that in some cases are an insult to potential customers (Mac Pro users). The iMac has become a technical disaster with its need for special hardware that frankly isn't accessible anyways. The Min is a great concept except for the fact that it is severely castrated just to make the iMac look good.

Taken all together this highlights a massive disdain for Apples customers. It is like they really don't give a damn and simply offer a take it or leave it attitude that amounts to flipping the customer base a finger. I mean really the hardware line up hasn't changed or really improved in years now, even Ford updates it's F150 once in awhile. To add to the misery desktop users have to look at all the innovation going on in the laptop lineup. This all extremely frustrating when you see it happening and Apple sits with billions in the bank. In the end the desktop line up is stagnet and too limited in models to generate strong interest thus the lagging sales.

If that was so, I don't think you would be hearing the universal frustration expressed in this thread. The processors are only part of the concern with the lack of updates. The same old update really isn't going to cut it. At least not in an iMac which is strongly showing its age and dysfunctional design. Retina is almost a given, it is addressing the design failures in the iMac that I'm wondering about. The reality is that retina won't get me to buy a new iMac if they can't demonstrate a remarkable refactoring of the machine. By that I mean addressing the heat issues and the reliance on special parts. Sadly pre-unibody! It needs work and I'm not thrilled about tearing it apart.

By the way I was using otool to look for libraries linking to OpenCL yesterday and had trouble finding any. This surprised me, so I'm not as sure as I was with previous Mac OS releases where one of the graphics libs did link to OpenCL. That could be me and the use of otool, I didn't spend a lot of time on it.

As to the current behavior of Mountain Lion on the old MBP it does seem snappier graphically. The dock is very snappy compared to how it behaved with Lion. Scrolling is far nicer too. I attribute this to improved use of the GPU based on the graphics nature of the problem and indications in Apples developer related forums of increased use of GPU acceleration. Maybe I can look into this later.
We will eventually get there.

 

Really? Eh. At any rate, I'm also hoping for "sooner rather than later" on that. I'm mystified myself as to why they haven't already if there wasn't going to be some big upheaval.

 

Oh! I've found the same to be true on mine (same series), so I guess I'm just flat out wrong about GPGPU benefits. I've not paid much attention to that field recently.

 

As to the iMac, it seems to me that they'll only be using more special parts than ever before. Dropping the ODD would hopefully give us the option of two HDDs+SSD or three SSDs, but I'm not getting my hopes up. And don't be surprised at all if they try to get away with soldered RAM on the new one. 

The BTO option? They could hold it at 4GB again. 4GB costs nothing, and the machine will boot off it. There is also no reason to suggest that 8GB for $100 should not meet their desired margins. As for 16, Apple only certified it on the rMBP. I don't expect they'll certify it on the mini. We're also in the third quarter.

 

Without doing something ridiculous like overclocking, it's entirely possible to push 200+ W on a lot of cards. Stress testing tools can push many of them into the 300-400W realm. AMD's top cards are consistently rated around 190W~ tdp, although their peak loads can be significantly higher without doing anything weird. I can tell you the use of some of the mobile cards, especially the 6970m would not have been for cost reasons. If anything it's a combination of size, power consumption, and heat relative to performance. These things are moving targets anyway. If it becomes harder to sell 200W cards, they'll eventually go away.  I've mentioned this before, but many of the workstation cards actually suck up a bit less power until you hit the ones that cost $2000 or more.

 

At some point I expect to see wires become a thing of the past, at least in consumer grade technology. That is probably decades off, as right now wireless charging is ridiculously inefficient.  As to the alignment between a mini and docking type iphone charger, I disagree completely. It's an odd feature to stick on your low end model, and a mini is too expensive to sell specifically as a charger. This is something I see as a novelty concept. The drawings were really really cool though.

 

The performance race on cpus could have been over a decade ago. Things move to smaller form factors. Interpreted programming languages become practical for a wider range of tasks. Software finds a way to use power overall. I've mentioned some of the various paint programs before (photoshop, manga studio, Painter, etc.). The increase in system power allows them to redraw faster and improve brush sampling rates. These things were much rougher years ago.

 

Either you're not visually observant or you haven't seen many imacs with considerable hours on them? You are using a mini, so it can't be your computer.

 

 

 

Marvin you know this is a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Even looking at potential gpu power consumption alone you can see the potential for a problem. My point was to indicate that some of these are quite high relative to what is currently supplied and dissipated. If anything it was in agreement with your prior statements.

 

 

 

3d Motion blur is ridiculously expensive to render, so it's not always done in excess. I want to see intel raytrace duke nukem next time.

See my earlier post on us still having another month in the quarter. We're probably due for another drop. Maybe not huge but one nonetheless.