or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2014 Mac mini Wishlist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 26

post #1001 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Of course they have; what nonsense is this?
I was in the Apple store yesterday to swap out a broken iPad, nothing has changed, desktops are hidden away out of sight.

By the way they gave me an iPad that doesn't take a charge. ūüėĀūüėĀūüėĀūüėĀūüėĀ. Not happy I have to make another run to the Apple store today.
Quote:

Oh, that’s hilarious. You sure we’re not talking about laptops? That’s the dying market. The future is tablets and multitouch desktops.

No talking about low end desktops such as the Mini or even the iMac. It is painfully obvious no matter if it is an Apple store or one oriented to selling PC's. Many laptops are on display but you are lucky to find more than 4 desktops on display. I'm not even sure why you argue about this, it is pretty obvious.
post #1002 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You sure we’re not talking about laptops? That’s the dying market. The future is tablets and multitouch desktops.

Apple noted in their latest filing that desktops are down again and laptops up. I'd guess they are below 20% now with laptops above 80% and the same goes for the revenue split.

The desktops will continue to wind down over time. I think they'll keep making them until there's no point making some models. The mini may be in the process of being shipped back to the US.
post #1003 of 1394
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
I'm not even sure why you argue about this, it is pretty obvious.

 

Because I’m able to look at more than the present. Yeah, they’re ignoring desktops now. They haven’t always. And they won’t always.

 

Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Apple noted in their latest filing that desktops are down again and laptops up. I'd guess they are below 20% now with laptops above 80% and the same goes for the revenue split.

 

Right, and at one time the iPod had 80% of… what’s the word I’m after…

 

The point is, trends change. I’m not sure how we as a community still aren’t in agreement that the iPad will kill off Apple’s laptop line. It’s the most obvious thing in the world to me. You can’t have two mobile product lines and think that they’ll both stick around forever. Apple is moving to a lineup of products that is entirely touchscreen. As a touchscreen physically cannot work on a laptop, the writing’s on the wall for that product category. The future is powerful iPads for mobile computing and beautiful, convertible multitouch desktops for  when you need something more powerful than your mobile solution, just like when laptops existed. There will always be desktops.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
post #1004 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

There will always be desktops.

This is all that matters to me whether it is in the form of a mini or something more powerful.
post #1005 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

trends change. I’m not sure how we as a community still aren’t in agreement that the iPad will kill off Apple’s laptop line. It’s the most obvious thing in the world to me. You can’t have two mobile product lines and think that they’ll both stick around forever. Apple is moving to a lineup of products that is entirely touchscreen. As a touchscreen physically cannot work on a laptop, the writing’s on the wall for that product category. The future is powerful iPads for mobile computing and beautiful, convertible multitouch desktops for  when you need something more powerful than your mobile solution, just like when laptops existed. There will always be desktops.

iPads won't kill off laptops unless they can work like laptops. People need productive mobile computers and the iPad isn't good enough for this yet.

I think an iPad can be made to be as productive as a Macbook Pro with the right UI but the one they have now doesn't allow it. They'd also need to figure out where to put the ports. Mobile workstations need to connect to mass storage, high-end peripherals, be able to capture video, even connect to other iOS devices to use for testing code.

I don't think the desktop trend is going to reverse. A student studying music, art, computer science, photography etc can't replace a laptop with an iPad if they are going to use a device productively in classes.
post #1006 of 1394
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
…yet.

 

There you go.

 
A student studying music, art, computer science, photography etc can't replace a laptop with an iPad if they are going to use a device productively in classes. 

 

Today.

 

Though why not? You’ve seen the apps it has, yeah?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
post #1007 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Apple noted in their latest filing that desktops are down again and laptops up. I'd guess they are below 20% now with laptops above 80% and the same goes for the revenue split.
I was under the impression that laptops where above 80% for a few years now. Part of that is due to Apples pathetic desktop line up that has been stagnate for year and partly due to the market in general dying.
Quote:
The desktops will continue to wind down over time. I think they'll keep making them until there's no point making some models. The mini may be in the process of being shipped back to the US.

I can see the potential for desktop sales to be good for years forward. However that won't happen with Apples current desktop line. The entry point on the Mac Pro just sucks and the Mini isn't the machine to inspire those that really need a desktop machine. Personally I can't understand why management at Apple is so dense in this respect. Neither the current Mini nor the new Mac Pro is what most desktop users are looking for.
post #1008 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because I’m able to look at more than the present. Yeah, they’re ignoring desktops now. They haven’t always. And they won’t always.
Maybe a decade ago but it has been at least ten years since they have given a damn about the desktop.
Quote:

Right, and at one time the iPod had 80% of… what’s the word I’m after…

The point is, trends change. I’m not sure how we as a community still aren’t in agreement that the iPad will kill off Apple’s laptop line. It’s the most obvious thing in the world to me.
The problem here is the two product lines serve entirely different customer bases. I might be able to get buy with an iPad for my portable needs in the future but a lot of people won't be able to.
Quote:
You can’t have two mobile product lines and think that they’ll both stick around forever. Apple is moving to a lineup of products that is entirely touchscreen. As a touchscreen physically cannot work on a laptop, the writing’s on the wall for that product category.
If Apple killed the laptops they might as well hose the entire "Mac" product line.
Quote:
The future is powerful iPads for mobile computing and beautiful, convertible multitouch desktops for  when you need something more powerful than your mobile solution, just like when laptops existed. There will always be desktops.

I would tend to agree, there will always be desktops. Honestly though if Apple doesn't get their act together they won't be making them
post #1009 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Today.

Though why not? You’ve seen the apps it has, yeah?

The hardware will improve so the Flash memory in the iPad not being nearly as fast as an SSD and the 1GB of RAM not being enough can work out over time. There's not enough control though like being able to install fonts that are shared between apps for design work, being able to install media codecs, being able to zip a file or folder up to send by email, being able to plug in a hard drive.

For the iPad to replace the laptop, they'd need to go through a productive workflow and offer features to allow every necessary action to have a counterpart. IMO, this requires a shared filespace. Apps can have their own sandboxed area too but I think there needs to be a space to be able to install fonts and shared files. There doesn't have to be a Finder app, this shared space can be managed using the iTunes or settings app on iOS and have a section called documents, with a font and codec folder. You'd be able to save web pages or other documents to it. The items that weren't fonts and codecs would be in a single physical folder that used metadata tagging to create projects and other collections of files. Only collections would be listed and files not belonging to one would be under a special collection. To move something, you'd just replace its collection tag so no drag/drop needed. Swipe to delete collections and files.

I still don't think that can replace a laptop entirely though because you can't run servers on it like SQL servers or Apache. Anything that uses non-Apple code interpreters are not allowed. Productive machines can't have those restrictions. Apple knows this because most of them use Macbook Pros. If they planned for the iPad to replace the MBP, they know they have to build them to do everything they do on a laptop, otherwise it's only good enough for the people who didn't need a laptop in the first place.
post #1010 of 1394
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
If Apple killed the laptops they might as well hose the entire "Mac" product line.

 

Hey. What do you know. That’s exactly what they’ll do. 


The multitouch desktop computer won‚Äôt be a Mac. Nothing running OS XI will be a Mac. Just like nothing with a mouse+keyboard+GUI was an ‚ÄúApple‚ÄĚ.

 

In before Dick reminds us that the ][gs got a retroactive mouse and an update to Mac OS 1. I know; I have one. :p

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
post #1011 of 1394

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Of course they have; what nonsense is this?

 

Oh, that’s hilarious. You sure we’re not talking about laptops? That’s the dying market. The future is tablets and multitouch desktops.

This seems like an attempt to paint esoteric descriptions of a "someday" future rather than what might actually happen over the next few years. Without limiting time frame, I can say that we're likely to see an eventual increase in the use of sophisticated embedded devices. Even  today your coffee maker has a chip.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post
 

 

I had a look at intel's xeon comparison page, but the socket details eluded me. None the less, without drowning myself in technical detail, it's clear from what you're saying we're not going to see the iMac increase its core count via xeons or other chips for years. It isn't exactly bad news, sad maybe, but it clarifies that the Mac Pro is now "it" again. Knowing that much at least, resolves hesitation around shifting back to the Pro.  

You are concerning yourself with the wrong things. E3 Xeons like those used in the Z1 are comparable to what is in the imac, which is why I suggested their page. You can get as far as 6 cores with some oems without getting so far into quadratic price scaling. Beyond 6 cores, they're all expensive. There is absolutely no way you'll see that on an imac when the mac pro still starts at 4. You already have that overlap at the low end of the mac pro line. I suspect the imac will gain it a year after the mac pro goes to 6 cores standard, but that has more to do with Intel than Apple. Intel tends to trickle these things down over 1-2 years, and Appe just goes by cpu price. Note that while I'm a little disappointed on the price, it's not that surprising. They have built in moderate price increases over the last 3 refreshes. There was one in 2009, one in 2010, and sort of one in the 2012 reshuffling.

post #1012 of 1394
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This seems like an attempt to paint esoteric descriptions of a "someday" future rather than what might actually happen over the next few years.

 

I peg the removal of laptops from Apple’s lineup as before 2020. Is that few enough?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
post #1013 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Again, what are my alternatives if Apple eventually kills off the Mac mini for an HTPC to plug into either my HDTV or a separate monitor?

I'd say the biggest downside is not the price of the Pro so much but the amount of storage it has at that price. Only 256 GB? It should be at least 512 GB or even 1 TB.

The only thing worse is the paltry 128 GB SSD and 4 GB of memory in the $1,299 base retina MacBook Pro or that they're still selling the other non-retina MBP without a price drop.

I disagree on the mini not being able to inspire, because I think if you give it a few ads it'll work.
post #1014 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I peg the removal of laptops from Apple’s lineup as before 2020. Is that few enough?

 

I'll have to bookmark this thread, although now that I think about it, that is in line with your prior guesses. Do keep in mind I actually like the iPads. I have fewer complaints with them compared to anything else Apple currently makes including the two machines that I use on a daily basis. I put in time learning some objective-C almost solely due to the iPad. There's that and I have yet to find a comfortable way to implement C++ there. It would be interesting to me to see what macbook pro sales would be like if iOS contained a full productivity suite, and scriptable extensions. Having read quite a few of the articles, I get the impression that a lot of business use cases rely on internal distribution rather than "shopping" for software when it comes to the iPad. Other tablets might be similar due to the inherent resource restrictions when compared to OSX.

post #1015 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

You are concerning yourself with the wrong things. E3 Xeons like those used in the Z1 are comparable to what is in the imac, which is why I suggested their page. You can get as far as 6 cores with some oems without getting so far into quadratic price scaling. Beyond 6 cores, they're all expensive. There is absolutely no way you'll see that on an imac when the mac pro still starts at 4. You already have that overlap at the low end of the mac pro line. I suspect the imac will gain it a year after the mac pro goes to 6 cores standard, but that has more to do with Intel than Apple. Intel tends to trickle these things down over 1-2 years, and Appe just goes by cpu price. Note that while I'm a little disappointed on the price, it's not that surprising. They have built in moderate price increases over the last 3 refreshes. There was one in 2009, one in 2010, and sort of one in the 2012 reshuffling.

 

 

I'd like the iMac to get more processing power, that's all.  Intel's 4 core ceiling with ever increasing integrated graphics that are redundant(?) in the iMac, seems like an odd situation that has ensnared the iMac's evolution as an excellent workstation. They're great machines, the top model is now very popular with users of the software I work on and for me at least it's more about the package than the price. If Apple evolved the upper end of the iMac more as a workstation with the lower two Xeons used in the Mac Pro, assuming they'd fit within the iMac's envelope, I'm sure they'd get gobbled up by the markets that have adopted them as workstations in recent years. 

 

The beauty of the iMac is, it's a very quiet one piece workhorse that's had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, and every two or so years it makes for a great hand-me-down when upgrading. Power Macs and Mac Pros aren't, and never have been, so simple. The new format of the Mac Pro is much better however, but I'd still choose an iMac over a Mac Pro with an equivalent increase in the iMac's price tag, if it got Xeons to match those in the stock new Mac Pros. 

 

I get that it's not going to happen, I was just questioning and hopeful I guess, that there may have been something else on the iMac's horizon.   

 

    


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/27/13 at 10:37pm
post #1016 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post


I'd like the iMac to get more processing power, that's all.  Intel's 4 core ceiling with ever increasing integrated graphics that are redundant(?) in the iMac,
I have nothing against more CPU power but the idea that GPU power is redundant in an iMac is asinine. I'd go so far as to say Apples pulling head from ass and putting decent GPUs in the iMac is what has driven sales of the machine over the last few years. GPUs are extremely important as they directly support the OS and in many cases significantly reduce CPU load.
Quote:
seems like an odd situation that has ensnared the iMac's evolution as an excellent workstation. They're great machines, the top model is now very popular with users of the software I work on and for me at least it's more about the package than the price.
I'd hardly call them great machines but everybody has their own metrics when it comes to what is acceptable. You seem to think cores is an issue but I don't see that as a problem. The reality is four cores today is the sweet spot for most users.
Quote:
 If Apple evolved the upper end of the iMac more as a workstation with the lower two Xeons used in the Mac Pro, assuming they'd fit within the iMac's envelope, I'm sure they'd get gobbled up by the markets that have adopted them as workstations in recent years. 
They don't even have to go XEON to get six cores. The problem is supporting multiple motherboards which is never ideal.
Quote:
The beauty of the iMac is, it's a very quiet one piece workhorse that's had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end,
So now the GPU is important?
Quote:
 and every two or so years it makes for a great hand-me-down when upgrading. Power Macs and Mac Pros aren't, and never have been, so simple. The new format of the Mac Pro is much better however, but I'd still choose an iMac over a Mac Pro with an equivalent increase in the iMac's price tag, if it got Xeons to match those in the stock new Mac Pros. 
You would likely be the only one. The iMac and Mac Pro serve entirely different markets.
Quote:
I get that it's not going to happen, I was just questioning and hopeful I guess, that there may have been something else on the iMac's horizon.   
Sure something else is on the horizon, that is likely to be replacement by a new concept in computing. I've never really liked the iMac mostly due to serviceability which is related directly to its industrial design. If Apple addresses these issues the iMac might have a better future. I still think putting the "computer half" of the iMac into the bases makes more sense than the current approach. Yes that means reverting to an old concept but that doesn't mean appearances have too remain the same. Imagine the Mac Pro with a weighted base and a monitor mounting /height adjusting capability built into that tower. Of course Ive would have to morph that into something visually pleasing but such a design could go a long way to a more acceptable iMac.
post #1017 of 1394

The new i mac has very few service problems than the older models which had many .Much better machine all around now.

post #1018 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I have nothing against more CPU power but the idea that GPU power is redundant in an iMac is asinine. 

 

 

You might want to read what I wrote again in context with the discussion above. Graphics power is 'very' important to the BIM/CAD market. The software I use requires dedicated graphics, machines relying on integrated graphics are currently not 'officially' supported. If I understand hmm correctly, the iMac will be stuck at 4 cores for years to come, while Intel throws everything at the integrated graphics side of their desktop chips. I "assume" (hence the question mark in brackets) that the Intel integrated graphics inside our current iMacs are somehow turned off / redundant(?).  

 

The desire for more cores I've been expressing, has to do with wanting to see rendering times improve alongside the rest of the machines evolution. I said the iMacs have had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, which is true for our uses. Over recent years they've become a very popular BIM workstation on the Mac. From  98 until a little over six years ago, I used Power Macs. It was a noisy, lumpy, expensive ride. When to buy, poor graphics, software support all caused us headaches through that period, for machines with a lot of bulk / internal space we never used. 

 

Naturally, everything I've been discussing pertains to my usage of Macs for architecture. I wasn't trying to engage in the academic musing over what defines the perfect computer that you frequently obsess on. I'll happily buy iMacs infinitum if Apple manages to progress them  as a whole in terms of their current balance of processing and graphics power. It's an excellent form factor that I've worked just as hard as any of my previous Power Macs. None have required the maintenance you seem to think is their Achilles heel, the retired machines (still in the family and one of which is approaching 7 years of age) are still working fine. Honestly though, who'd give a stuff if any work computer kicked the bucket after 3 or so years? 

 


Edited by Mode 5 - 11/28/13 at 4:01am
post #1019 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post


You might want to read what I wrote again in context with the discussion above. Graphics power is 'very' important to the BIM/CAD market. The software I use requires dedicated graphics, machines relying on integrated graphics are currently not 'officially' supported. If I understand hmm correctly, the iMac will be stuck at 4 cores for years to come, while Intel throws everything at the integrated graphics side of their desktop chips. I "assume" (hence the question mark in brackets) that the Intel integrated graphics inside our current iMacs are somehow turned off / redundant(?).  
That is a good question, I don't think they are turned off completely as they can still be used for compute. As for being stock at four cores Apple could go Six cores today if they switched sockets and found a way to handle 130 watts of power out of the CPU. I just think they have other priorities for the desktop right now so six core probably isn't in the future. The future being next year. However they may have unannounced plans.
Quote:
The desire for more cores I've been expressing, has to do with wanting to see rendering times improve alongside the rest of the machines evolution. I said the iMacs have had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, which is true for our uses.
I understand what you are asking for but let's face it this isn't the market that Apple targets for these machines. It is only technologies advancement that let's the iMac even compete in this arena. As for rendering times are you sure that is a CPU issue and not a GPU issue?
Quote:
Over recent years they've become a very popular BIM workstation on the Mac. From  98 until a little over six years ago, I used Power Macs. It was a noisy, lumpy, expensive ride. When to buy, poor graphics, software support all caused us headaches through that period, for machines with a lot of bulk / internal space we never used. 
Sounds like the new Mac Pros might address those issues. In any event I glad you stated the above, people don't believe me when I say most professionals don't need or want all that internal space in the old Mac Pros.

The other thing you have to watch out for is this, if Intel did come out with a six core processor for their desktop sockets it might not give you the performance you expect due to bandwidth limitations.
Quote:

Naturally, everything I've been discussing pertains to my usage of Macs for architecture. I wasn't trying to engage in the academic musing on what defines the perfect computer that you frequently obsess over.
I wouldn't say it is an obsession. The problem is Apples lineup puts people like you into a tight situation where the iMac is the only reasonable choice but less than the optimal one. As you note the jump to the Mac Pro is expensive. The problem with the iMac is that it is so damn thin that there is literally no possibility of a performance machine. We should consider ourselves lucky that Intel has gotten performance way up while controlling power otherwise the iMac wouldn't be able to do half of what it can do now. My problem is this, if one dismisses the iMac due to it being an all in one, something many companies do, then you are basically screwed as a professional user of Apples products. The Mini is way to limited and the Mac Pro is grossly over priced.
Quote:
I'll happily buy iMacs infinitum if Apple manages to progress them  as a whole in terms of their current balance of processing and graphics power. It's an excellent form factor that I've worked just as hard as any of my previous Power Macs. 
Unfortunately it isn't up to Apple to increase the iMacs performance, they only have AMDs and Intels catalogs to pick from and then have very real thermal limits on top of that. Here is the big problem, it is pretty well known that Apple pushed Intel real hard on better integrated GPUs. As such the lack of a six core low power solution is probably directly related to Apples demands. By the way I believe Apple was completely justified here because some of the latest Macs with these integrated solutions are pretty impressive.

The other bit of ugliness here is that it appears that Intel is emphasizing the desktop processor market to keep a handle on mobile. Like it or not you will not be seeing the rapid evolution of desktop processors like you have in the past. I'm not going to completely dismiss the idea of a six core processor in 2014 suitable for the iMac but it is unlikely considering what Intel has said so far.
Quote:
None have required the maintenance you seem to think is their Achilles heel, the retired machines (still in the family and one of which is approaching 7 years of age) are still working fine. Honestly though, who'd give a stuff if any work computer kicked the bucket after 3 or so years? 
I would. At work you would not believe how long they stretch out computer upgrades, it doesn't matter how skilled you are as an engineer, designer or whatever. I believe the majority of the machines in the facility are far more than 3 years old. At home I've tried to get a few years out of a machine and then try to use it for other things in the house.
post #1020 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


That is a good question, I don't think they are turned off completely as they can still be used for compute. As for being stock at four cores Apple could go Six cores today if they switched sockets and found a way to handle 130 watts of power out of the CPU. 
 

 

My interest in what's likely to happen with the iMac next year stems partly from the new Mac Pro being an attractive option again. Do we know if the upcoming quad and hex core E5 Xeons are still 130 watt chips? 

 

I'm not complaining about the current iMac, but the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


 As for rendering times are you sure that is a CPU issue and not a GPU issue?

 

Are you referring to Open CL? Open GL is used for working, but neither of the software I use utilise the GPU for final rendering as yet. All the GPU power in the new Mac Pro will hopefully push the use of Open CL along. I assume it will make a big difference once software uses the GPU this way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #1021 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post

My interest in what's likely to happen with the iMac next year stems partly from the new Mac Pro being an attractive option again. Do we know if the upcoming quad and hex core E5 Xeons are still 130 watt chips? 
I really haven't looked into what would come next year in depth. Intel can do two things to lower power. They can shrink the process or they can improve the architecture. With Intel deemphasis of the desktop CPUs we might not get much of anything next year other than minor tweaks.

You might want to search around a bit on the net to see if you can find news articles about this. It didn't seem to get wide reporting. In any event Intel has gone all in with respect to mobile. The other thing is the chips come in multiple versions, lower performance chips are often using far less power. I doubt you would be interested in those chips if you want to go six core for better rendering performance.
Quote:

I'm not complaining about the current iMac, but the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.   
Yes it will but desktops simply aren't moving like before. There is always the possibility that Intel pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but I think mobile has them running scared.
Quote:

Are you referring to Open CL? Open GL is used for working, but neither of the software I use utilise the GPU for final rendering as yet. All the GPU power in the new Mac Pro will hopefully push the use of Open CL along. I assume it will make a big difference once software uses the GPU this way?

You can't assume anything when it comes to GPU compute. Sometimes the speed up is extreme other times it isn't worth the developers tIme. I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro assuming that the software will get OpenCL support in the future. I wouldn't even do so if the developers said it was coming. Instead wait until they actually deliver OpenCL support if you want to leverage GPU compute. The idea of buying a Mac Pro based on vapor ware just doesn't appeal to my senses. However if you buy due to the extra CPU cores in the machine that is a different story, at least here you don't have to worry about vapor ware.
post #1022 of 1394

Who really gives a dam !

post #1023 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Who really gives a dam !

This guy does:



Probably has little interest in computers though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 
the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.

That's why it's smart having a display attached because even if the performance improvements are lacking, they can make a Retina iMac. Locking in the storage also means that people looking for storage upgrades to larger SSDs will buy new machines.
post #1024 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

This guy does:

Hey a where did you get that picture of me!
Quote:
Probably has little interest in computers though.
That's why it's smart having a display attached because even if the performance improvements are lacking, they can make a Retina iMac.
That is an interesting thought. I was sitting in the Apple the other day waiting to get my iPad exchanged and they had us (lots of people in line) waiting at one of the desks. There was set up a retina MBP - nice, makes my old MBP look sick in comparison. I could see such an advance driving iMac sales.
Quote:
Locking in the storage also means that people looking for storage upgrades to larger SSDs will buy new machines.

See this I have a problem with and is why I'd probably not buy an iMac. The problem is going to a retina screen is a technology advancement that is positive. Making the SSDs near impossible to get too is just mean. I mean really these SSDs slide into a socket, if Apple can't manage to design an acceptable pocket / door to access the SSD then they have some pretty poor designers. Of course we all know that Apple excels at design so I have to think something evil raises its head in the corporate structure and says screw the user.
post #1025 of 1394
Thread Starter 
I hope at least next year the iMac comes standard with PCIe SSDs, the fact that they came with 5,400rpm HDDs is atrocious.
post #1026 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I hope at least next year the iMac comes standard with PCIe SSDs, the fact that they came with 5,400rpm HDDs is atrocious.

Yes it is and likely is due to thermal issues. This is especially frustrating because price wise the iMac is of debatable value in its current form. Then again I'm really hoping for a Mini that implements an SSD. However my reasoning for the Mini is more about opening up a bit more thermal capacity for better GPU performance.
post #1027 of 1394

Like many others, I'd like a 'Mini Pro' (with the same goodies that an iMac has) connected to a separate 27" IPS monitor. I like my 27" iMac; however, I don't think an AIO is practical in the long term.

ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #1028 of 1394
Thread Starter 
One simple mini is all I want. They can continue to treat it as last in line in my view but continue to update it. Let me use my own damn monitor if I choose. Let people fully customize it. I said this before.

Either dual core i5 (default) or quad-core i7 (BTO), 8 GB of memory, 256 GB SSD.
post #1029 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Yes it is and likely is due to thermal issues.

 

I'm totally ignorant about these things, so I'm just asking: An SSD would generate more heat than a 5400rpm drive?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1030 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I'm totally ignorant about these things, so I'm just asking: An SSD would generate more heat than a 5400rpm drive?

The response was with respect to the slow magnetic drives in the iMac and the possibility that the iMac can't handle the thermal loads of faster drives. It really had nothing to do with SSDs.

That being said most SSDs are fairly power efficient. Older SSDs especially though could pull some significant power during writes. In any event SSDs have evolved real fast and if you consider the performance offered there is no contest when comparing to magnetic drives.
post #1031 of 1394
Frustrated are we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

One simple mini is all I want. They can continue to treat it as last in line in my view but continue to update it. Let me use my own damn monitor if I choose. Let people fully customize it. I said this before.

Either dual core i5 (default) or quad-core i7 (BTO), 8 GB of memory, 256 GB SSD.

I just wish Apple would come clean and just announce what the hell is up with the Mini, its update or replacement. I'm really thinking something new is coming but the desktop market is so dead they could just kill it outright. I was also thinking a debut along with the Mac Pro was possible, sort of a refresh of the entire desktop line but I'm not even sure about that.

Sadly I haven't heard, seen or otherwise noted any rumors at all about the machine. That is strange in and of itself.
post #1032 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



Sadly I haven't heard, seen or otherwise noted any rumors at all about the machine. That is strange in and of itself.

 

They always hold back the mini refresh to some degree. It's like initial cpu purchases are earmarked for the macbook pros. The mini is typically the last thing refreshed, possibly to avoid the risk of undercutting the other lines with confused buyers. I suspect it'll debut alongside the mac pro. Broadwell won't ship in anything until most likely Q4 next year.

post #1033 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Frustrated are we?

Don't you know it!
post #1034 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Don't you know it!

Here is something to tweak your mind: http://store.apple.com/fi/product/HD971ZM/A/sharp-32-inch-pn-k321-4k-ultra-hd-led-monitor. Look at the LCD screen images especially the one on the right. They have the machine sitting next to something that looks like an Airport of some type. Maybe the new Mini?
post #1035 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Look at the LCD screen images especially the one on the right. They have the machine sitting next to something that looks like an Airport of some type. Maybe the new Mini?

It's the Airport Extreme. Just a size reference for the display. You'd think they'd put a Mac Pro next to it but I guess they wanted something that was shipping that people might own to be able to tell how big it was. The current mini isn't a very good comparison as it's so small. This way you can see it's just over twice the height of the Airport. It helps when you try to fit it into a tight desk space.
post #1036 of 1394
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
They have the machine sitting next to something that looks like an Airport of some type.

 

It’s just an AirPort Extreme.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5‚ÄĚ iPhone exists], it doesn‚Äôt deserve to.
Reply
post #1037 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's the Airport Extreme. Just a size reference for the display. You'd think they'd put a Mac Pro next to it but I guess they wanted something that was shipping that people might own to be able to tell how big it was. The current mini isn't a very good comparison as it's so small. This way you can see it's just over twice the height of the Airport. It helps when you try to fit it into a tight desk space.


Yeah. What I wonder is whether it's a sign that Apple isn't going to come out with their own 4K display in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes some time. Typically they like to share parts with the imac, but that's still seemingly way outside of imac territory.

post #1038 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


Yeah. What I wonder is whether it's a sign that Apple isn't going to come out with their own 4K display in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes some time. Typically they like to share parts with the imac, but that's still seemingly way outside of imac territory.

 

That's fine, the 4K market is in its infancy and time is on their side. They'll go 4K when it makes sense.

 

But it would be nice to know when the 27" will be updated and the cost. Apple's not big on roadmaps, but we're in unique economic times here.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1039 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
 

 

That's fine, the 4K market is in its infancy and time is on their side. They'll go 4K when it makes sense.

 

But it would be nice to know when the 27" will be updated and the cost. Apple's not big on roadmaps, but we're in unique economic times here.


Dell has a 24".  They also have a 28" that is cheaper for whatever reason. It's probably a lower panel grade, B grade, or something of that sort. I think the 24" is around $1500. I like 24" displays. When I used a 3:4 display, it was 21", which is basically the same height as a 24" 16:10. If NEC comes out with one, I'll probably buy it at some point. They did update some of their higher end displays to LED backlighting. That actually took off on the low end initially, as while it has advantages, the color reproduction was initially inferior. It also took some time for colorimeters to catch up.

post #1040 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Yeah. What I wonder is whether it's a sign that Apple isn't going to come out with their own 4K display in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes some time. Typically they like to share parts with the imac, but that's still seemingly way outside of imac territory.

It could be a sign it'll be delayed and people can still buy the current Thunderbolt display for the Mac Pro. I don't see Apple going back to $3000+ displays, the market is just too small for it. Dell is bringing their sub-$1000 28" out early next year - if it's just a TN panel, I'm not sure what market it's aimed at but if it's MVA rather than IPS or IGZO, it'll still be pretty competitive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 2014 Mac mini Wishlist