Mac mini supply drying up, could signal Ivy Bridge update - Page 4

 

That's not even a question. Those who use the Mac Mini aren't those who use an iPad. The iPad has no power over the Mac Mini save to increase its sales.

 

When I can process RAW and 1080p movies on the iPad in a reasonable amount of time.  I'll accept even the need to dock it to a keyboard mouse and monitor.

Yeah the only use I even see for an iPad is for my cousin who is getting married to her boyfriend next year. Otherwise I don't care.

This is a very important point. The iPad and to a lesser extent the iPhone could potentially shift more Mac Sales to the desktop.

Make a decent mid range desktop Mac and I'll be all over an iPad for the rare mobile needs I might have. I'll never chunk down money for a laptop since I I don't have real need for mobility. But I need a good desktop and I want it to be from Apple.

 

And here we go with the xMac crap again.

It isn't a crap idea at all. Apple has for years given us no choice as far as a midrange performance desktop goes. It isn't surprising that the thought doesn't die.

My need for a laptop plummeted once I got an iPad. It is the best mobile solution going, far better than an iPhone and even my MBP for most of my mobile needs.

The big problem at this point is that Mini performance sucks when compared to Apples MBPs. I'm not sure why people don't recognize that little bit of reality. Holding out hope for something like Haswell to save the Mini is foolish as we will see better performance in a bigger box for the foreseeable future.

I like the size of the Mac mini now though if it gave me more juice, I could take something a bit larger. Having said that, I think I might be able to deal with a mid-range IB mini coming up.

I like the iMac but the AIO is still tough on me despite it offering far more.

Edit: What's wrong with having a celebrity endorse the Mac mini?

Someone who says it's everything you want in one little package and starts at just $599 and already works with the parts you have.
Edited by Winter - 10/15/12 at 5:06pm

 

 

Nothing wrong with dreaming and drooling a little bit, whether or not it will come to be.

 

post #113

 

Count me in for a box that out-operforms an iMac yet isn't as big and heavy as a MacPro. 

 

post #261

 

No harm done in dreaming a little.

 

I'd love it if this concept came to the mini; I have often watched the accessories made for stacking above the mini.  It's fun to toss the idea around.

Edited by Bergermeister - 10/15/12 at 6:13pm

 

Hey, I'm all for the Mac Pro getting smaller and lighter, and I'm for the Mac Mini getting more powerful. But I don't want the former to stop being a workstation machine, and I don't want the latter to price itself out of the reach of partial (or simple-needs) switchers.

 

The iMac does fill everything in between. Thunderbolt helps that along greatly.

An XMac chassis could very well support users of modest needs. All it really needs is a base model and a performance model. Unfortunately that apparently isn't possible in today's Mini or at least Apple hasn't saw fit to offer it up. The whole problem with the Mini is the lack of a real spread in performance where going from the base model to the upper end doesn't really offer a lot.
Maybe if that is your cup of tea. The fact is there are far too many negatives associated with the iMac for many of us to consider.

The main problem with the Mini is the crappy GPU and lack of VRAM. From the company that practically invented/normalized the GUI for Pete's sake!

 

 

 

The current iMac is fantastic.  I have two, one to work on, the other to help out with rendering jobs.  Don't want the display on the 2nd, though, and would love a slightly more compact body, something easy to put on a shelf.  Again, I don't want the display glowing the whole time. 

 

So, I guess I'm all for a headless iMac.  If it was slightly more powerful and had a better graphics card, even better, but size matters.

 

You don't think there's a real performance difference between a 2.3 Ghz dual core Core i5 w/Intel GPU and a 2.0 Ghz quad core i7 w/Intel GPU or a dual 2.7Ghz i7 w/HD6630M?

 

What the mini lacks at the top end is the GPU in the quad i7.

 

Swap one of the HDD bays for a SSD stick slot to hold the OS and a slightly faster quad i7 with GPU option at the top end and the mini is your mid-range headless mac.  Even 2 stick slots and no HDD bay is fine if the space is really needed for cooling.

 

Today the $899 dual 2.7 i7 with 6630M isn't bad.

 

Would you rather have two $1,399 2.7Ghz Quad i5 with 6770M GPU or three $899 2.7 Ghz Dual i7 with 6630M for your mini render farm? I guess the question is whether you can live with 256MB VRAM.

 

I really don't see Apple discounting the headless 21" iMac more than a hundred bucks or so given I can get a 23" eIPS monitor for $183 retail.

 

For $139 ($39 for the VESA mount) cost difference for the headless version I'd just remove the stand and mount them on the wall, route the cables to wherever they need to go and turn off the screens (control shift eject).  Zero desktop footprint.  Just need some drywall skills and some conduit for cabling if size and not price is the primary issue.  In a pinch you can use some decorative HDTV cable conduit on the wall surface if you don't want to do a lot of drywall patching.

 

When guests are over turn the screens back on and put in a slide show and have the coolest home office among all your friends.  

 

If you are an uber geek then get four and lay them out like this around your NEST thermostat:

 

 

Installing the VESA Mount: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D5_uMBMaCY&feature=related

 

The current iMac (the top end one) is fantastic.  i7.  Solid GPU with 2 Gig vram.  BUT, it's out of date.  Long time passing.

 

In no way can you call it a joke.  ...and with a beautiful 27 inch monitor.  The entry pro?  Yes.  A joke.  A pish take on price and specs and value.  The mini's pricing?  A joke (irony, no kb or mouse or monitor for that price...).  Sure.  But the iMac has been the reigning champ of AiOs for years.  I couldn't say it was poorly engineered.  But if you want to access it for HD failure.  Sure.  That's a valid complaint.  If you want to upgrade the GPU?  It's a valid complaint.  If  you want a mid range machine without a monitor glued on...I guess you can complain about that.

 

But that's what Apple offers.  2 years is a long time in the computer industry.  Can the iMac design be moved on?  I think so.  Mine does get hot.  But what AiO won't when you push it on a hot summers day in an Attic...?  Playing games or rendering?  Apple's iMac used to be an entry machine.  Now it's prosumer mid range power.  (in the context of Apple land.)  It's not a tinker box.  But those people are in the minority.  And I don't expect Apple to offer any tinker boxes short of 2k.  Nothing they've done in the last ten years suggests they will.

 

Expect things to get locked down, glued...and thinner.  Those new iMacs will look good in the stores.

 

You could argue that the desktop line is a joke.  It hasn't been updated in years if it's a Mac Pro.  *(Bloody shame, that...)  and the iMac is getting on for two years.  The mini has been ages with out an update.  When we had PPC, we knew why the updates were slow.  But now Apple has plenty of choice for cpus and gpus.

 

Desktop sales will slow if you don't update them. :P  

 

iMac is Apple's mid range machine.  It is capable.  ...in the context of what APPLE OFFERS.  However...there's a caveat to that.

 

...if you're looking for the PC side for a comparison of affordable power it will drive you insane.  Apple's desktops are comparatively poor value for money.  Head on over to any average PC builder and you can put together a machine that will smash the pro, iMac or Mini for less money.  It's not even a contest.  AND HOW COULD IT BE WHEN Apple's desktops haven't been updates in years?  (May as well round it up.  We're there for the pro, and about there for the iMac and mini.)  Now, the apparent neglect or contempt for the desktop is a 'joke'.  Though the actually machines may not be.  If the Pro, iMac and Mini were updated they wouldn't be considered jokes.  But their specs might considered an out of date 'joke' or their prices a 'JOKE!' for such outdated tech.  (and it is.)

 

But the i7 should be standard in machines over  a grand by now.  It can certainly kick around an entry mac pro which looks poor, poor value by comparison.

 

It's a prosumer to pro machine.  The days of iMacs struggling to do photoshop, video or other demanding 3D rendering tasks are over.  Games too.  

 

Hopefully the top end iMac's power will be democratised into the rest of the line up to a degree with the new iVy Bridge update.

 

As for the Mini.  A nice little machine when it was priced below £500.  But add a crap dedicated gpu option and it's ridiculously pricey with no keyboard, mouse or monitor.

 

Even if we got the Pro, imac and mini of our dreams...could Apple get sales of even 2 million for the lot worth the R&D?

 

I'm sure we'll get updates to them all in time.  But don't expect Pro sales to rebound past 100k. (Not at the insane prices apple charges...)  Don't expect the iMac to bound much beyond 1 million.  Don't expect the mini to get more than 200k-ish.  (It's poor value.)

 

Haswell may well help the mini's power.  'Knight' may help the Pro be baptised...  A retina iMac with Haswell may offer a cool running and sharp looking pro/prosumer rig.

 

But I don't see the tide of any improvements making a dint on the tide of laptop sales for APple given that they pioneered the move away from Laptops.  It's been done by design and you can see Apple's effort right there in the Air and the Macbook Pro...and the iPads...and iPhones...and iPods...(Given more love than desktop macs...)

 

I'm a desktop guy.  But what a desktop 'is' or 'isn't' has changed.  Overall mac sales have dipped.  We're in a double dip world recession despite what the minority owned western press are or aren't telling us.  Apple only grew it's pie relative to a shrinking market.  ie Apple's sales fell a bit too?

 

Laptop sales of 4:1.  Ipads putting the boot into desktop and laptop pc sales.  I even had one friend who wants to sell her Air for an iPad.

 

That's the way the wind is blowing.

 

I guess I wouldn't care what the box looks like.  I'm not bothered about getting inside a machine as long as it's capable.  A decent gpu and cpu relative to the market...and I'm happy.  Whether that is pro, iMac or Mini.  But I'm not being but rubbed for Apple's insane pricing either.

 

I think I'd prefer to buy used all things considered.  eg an iMac bundled with photoshop and save several hundred.  Some deals get you Apple care all the same. vs Being rhubarbed for a new Apple desktop with any notable power.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

nht: That is an idea I had not thought of!

 

- - - - -

 

Waiting for the invites to go out...

 

I think that'd be tomorrow at the earliest.

 

 

When I try turning off the screens they pop back on when I remote access... ??  I use either Remote Desktop or Share Screen.

 

All the key combo does is invoke the energy saver screen power-off.  The iMac isn't sleeping but anything that normally makes the screen active again will turn the screen on.  I don't Remote Desktop or Share Screen so I dunno what might trigger the screen.

 

You can try SwitchResX.  That might work on the iMac but typically it's for turning off the internal screen of the MBP.

 

http://www.madrau.com/indexSRX4.html

 

 

It is out.

 

October 23rd, "We've got a little more to show you."

The reason I think it matters is about numbers. There will come a point when the number of sales doesn't justify the continued production of an item. When Mini sales are so low that the effort put into them isn't as profitable as an iDevice, then it would make more sense to shift Mini resources to iDevice production. Hypothetically if only ten Mac Mini's were sold per year you can bet Apple would dump that product and build something else.

 

Somewhere in the Apple accounting world is a cutoff point where a product just isn't doing well enough to justify its existence. An executive decision could maintain that product if it had public relations value. Ford recreated the Ford GT and sold a few at a loss. It was a good PR move. I wish I could have bought one. Maybe Apple treats its Mac Pro like that. I don't know.

 

The Mini isn't the PR baby it once was because it costs a lot for what is delivered. Sure it looks better than other computers in its power range but it still costs more. It isn't a good value. The iPad is the new Apple PR weapon. The iPhone is the bread and butter of the company now with the iPad doing a great job too. EVERYBODY knows what an iPad is. How many people by comparison know what a Mac Pro or Mac Mini are?

 

If an iPad becomes nearly as powerful as a Mac Mini then why keep the Mini around at all? IPads have proven that most people only need what the iPad offers. All of us non-professional computer users probably could keep our five year old computers for doing word processing and spreadsheets. How high tech must a machine be to accomplish those tasks? I could do everything I regularly do on my 2003 Gateway (if it still worked). I do make and edit videos now on my 2008 and 2009 computers. I don't need more power. IPads could probably work for my needs. It would just take a little more time.

 

About a year ago I believed Apple would switch to all hand held touch screen devices by the end of 2014. I still think this might be the case. 

 

That's nonsense. Easiest possible way to completely bankrupt the company again. 

I'll say TS. All touch screen would undoubtedbly and completely suck.

 

Oh, I didn't say that. "All touchscreen handheld devices" is what I'm against. And particularly with that timeframe, but personally overall. It's just wrong to do. 

 

We need big guns. We'll always need big guns.

 

Doing what he's proposing would have an impact on Apple akin to what would happen to the structural integrity of 1 World Trade Center if its bottom 100 feet spontaneously disappeared. 

If I read you correctly, I was agreeing with you the first time though may have worded it wrong.

 

I just mean I'm against killing off computers for only iPod, iPhone, and iPad. That's crazy talk. I believe desktops will go multitouch.

Let me be clearer. By 2014 the tablets will be powerful enough to equal Mac Books and iMacs. There will be no loss of power. The improved iPads or tablets running OS X variants will be able to connect to remote keyboards and sit on stands for those who need to type. What we'll be getting is a larger touch screen with the power of a desktop. It will be like an all-in-one iMac with touch capabilities. The users can choose whether or not to use a remote keyboard and mouse.

 

This fits with Apple's obsession with making things thinner and lighter. Take an iMac all-in-one and remove the stand. Make it thinner with a few ports on the side. Then make the screen a touch screen retina display. Of course a 21 inch screen would be too much to carry around but it would sit in a stand very easily or hang on a wall. It could lay flat on a table too.

 

Apple has almost gotten rid of built in optical discs and they're moving toward soldiered in flash storage for everything. Moving to all touch screen devices that can be hand held makes sense, even if they aren't all called iPads. The Airplay feature enables devices to send their video to larger screen TVs. If Apple does build a TV you can bet it would be capable of accepting feeds from other Apple devices.

 

What do you think about this now?
 

 

Not unless the laws of physics change to make Haswell impossible and all current Intel chips break.

 

 

Sounds like you moved from your original premise of "handheld touchscreen devices". I believe wholeheartedly the laptop will be dead very soon, replaced by tablets, but desktops will then fill the gap, not also go away.

Ever since I bought a Mac mini, I am no longer interested in laptops. While the rMBP is awesome, I far prefer my separation of monitors and computers themselves.

Make or break on this one will be video memory on the discrete model. Otherwise I am fine with the Sandy Bridge model and Samsung 470. I might get a cheap gaming PC but I'm not sure.

 

The future of computing is not a one-size-fits-all touch focused world. Instead, the future is a wide array of devices and interactions. Of course, some will be more popular than others.

It is simply ludicrous to suggest that a battery powered, handheld device is a suitable replacement for consumer desktops. Some people need as much memory and processing power as possible given a particular budget. Some people need ports and input devices that don't make sense on a portable, handheld device.

For example, an iPad does not work well as home theater computer, DVR or home server. There are many other examples but this one is applicable to me. While I use airplay every day, the iPad/ATV combo isn't optimal or even possible for many tasks.

Put simply, there will always be a market for non-battery powered and non-handheld devices.

Yes, obviously everyone's needs exactly match yours. I guess you fit the big brother role in the 1984 commercial. Everyone is the same and everyone gets the same computer.

You seem to have not digested the facts correctly. For some tasks they already are equal or better than Macs. It all depends upon how you measure power, but I reach for my iPad now more than my Mac. This is garbage!! I'm not sire why this hasn't been grasped all these years on but iOS is a variant of Mac OS. It runs on the same basic kernel, uses the same basic libraries and in some cases exactly the same libraries. It varies only in the UI toolkit and the ability to run multiple apps at the same time.

Really this idea that iOS is some how vastly different than Mac OS has to die. You can do that today. Don't forget Intel isn't standing still. The spread between ARM processors and Intel processors will still be there. In fact ARM is such a significant threat to Intel that I would imagine there is a renewed interest at intel with respect to performance. Yep it is possible to do this, one can't argue the physical reality. The problem is humans, you can substitute a Touch only screen for human interaction on the desktop because it sucks from the human factors standpoint. Nope! Different use cases require different devices. It really is that simple. The only rational move for desktop devices, interface wise, is voice input. Touch on the desktop would only be useful in limited cases.
I think you are a dreamer. By the way that isn't a bad thing at all. However in this case I think you have too many things wrong to have what you project become reality in the future. There isn't a wide spread demand for touch on the desktop because it isn't compatible with the way humans work at the desktop. Even using an iPad on the desktop, with a keyboard, right now is less than satisfactory.

What would you guys prefer at the conference? A silent update or a good sized portion of the conference to announce the specs? Do people care as much about it as the iPad mini, iMac, and 13" retina?

I would like them to though I think it's going to take a major overhaul that Apple doesn't feel is necessary for the MM.

I think Apple's version for multitouch on the desktop is the Magic trackpad.  I have a 2011 mini and an iPad 1 and sometimes I find myself trying to do gestures from the trackpad on my iPad (to no avail).

 

We'll have direct touch before long, don't you worry. The Magic Trackpad and iOS-esque UI are merely transitions to the true multitouch desktop solution they have planned.

While I agree that they will move to Multi-touch in the future, I don't think it will be with OS X. Using Multi-touch is a completely different UI than what is used in OS X. I think that the full support and capability will be included in OS XI. They may include a "Preview" version in later versions of OS X, but the main support will be in OS XI.


edit:

What I mean by a completely different UI is that OS X is designed around Mouse and Keyboard. While there is some support with the Magic Track-pad, that seems like it would be more teasing, and R&D on what gestures would work best in a full Multi-touch computer. I think that they would still support keyboard and mouse/Magic Track-pad unless they removed the Mac Mini/Mac Pro or disabled support for using third party monitors somehow.

 

That's what they're doing now.

That is what I said in my above post after I edited it.

I agree with this but I think Apple is going for the "a-la-carte" method where you can get AIO, boxes with semi-custom monitors (TVs - Apple TV, mini and airplay, traditional monitors, "headless" vnc with choice of device) and mobile (laptops, phones and iPads).  Many of the gestures overlap and I think this makes the ecosystem unified "enough" to maintain desktop computing.