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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 29

post #1121 of 1392
Don't let history influence you. Intel is adapting to the new reality, which is low power and portable. They have already indicated that there will be no major upgrades to the desktop chips this year. The Broadwell initiative is all about lower thermal power, high integration and portability. The Minis potential here is that it has always been a machine built with "laptop" parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

I'm looking to buy a quad-core Mac Mini.  It seems like the logical choice given the choices.
Quad cores make a lot of sense.
Quote:
 Waiting for Broadwell would put us once again at the end of the list because there's no way they'd bring a new chip out in the Mini before the other Macs.
I don't buy that! Some of the initial Broadwell solutions might only be suitable for a low end machine like the Mini. It really comes down to what Intel can squeeze out of the new processes Broadwell will be built upon. That and how aggressively Intel intends to go after low power, because at some point lower power means lower performance.
Quote:
 The current Mini can be built with 16GB memory, which is also the choice I'd make for RAM.  I'm pretty sure any of their graphics cards would do well with the Apple 30" Cinema Display, so I don't think there'd be an issue there (aside from the differences in plugs).
The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
Quote:
 I've heard so much about the Iris Pro that I'd hope we'd have at least one option for it.  You'd think that sooner or later they'd stop handicapping people who don't want all-in-ones.
I've never understood this either. It is one reason why I have supported the idea of an XMac because the Mini is thermally limited. You can't get significantly better performance out of that little box along with its tiny power supply. If people don't like the XMac name you can call it Mac Pro Lite for all I care.
Quote:
 Sadly, I've become jaded as of late with the folks in engineering thinking everyone on the globe only wants all-in-ones.  I'd love to remind them to "Think Different"!
It isn't engineering that is the problem. Read up on some of the history of the Mac, most of the engineers involved tried very hard right from the beginning to think different but where forced by Jobs and company to build closed systems. As of late though the desktop has suffered from neglect. Think about it the Mini hasn't changed drastically since the days of the Power PC. Frankly the entire desktop line up has been in stasis for a long time. I'm actually surprised that they pulled off the Mac Pro overhaul.

However it is the Mac Pro overhaul that gives me hope that the Mini is also being overhauled. I'm expecting a significantly different machine if it ever comes out. An A8 based Mini would certainly be neat if it ran Mac OS and not iOS.
Edited by wizard69 - 2/8/14 at 7:29pm
post #1122 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.

 

You are entitled to whatever opinions you want but please stop spreading FUD about the performance of the Mini.  It drives a 30" ACD just fine today for non-gaming applications as long as you buy the Apple dual link DVI adapter and have a reasonable amount of RAM (8GB will work fine).
 
The HD4000 is much faster than the 7300GT in my very first Mac Pro I had with the 30" ACD.
 
Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.
post #1123 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.

 
I would love to see a quad-core i7 CPU with Iris Pro graphics & PCIe FlashRAM storage. I really need a new machine to hook to my TV and play WoW on…
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #1124 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


The Mini doesn't have graphics cards as the GPU is integrated into the CPU chip. Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.

 

It depends what you're doing. For some things an Iris chip would still be inadequate. If it's just a matter of ensuring against repeated frames on a 60hz display, integrated shouldn't be much different. You would have to get into something that actually taxes OpenGL to see a difference. Integrated stuttering just due to slightly higher resolution basically died out with the GMA chips. The 30" isn't that big a deal at this point unless you're trying to deal with something that relies on pixel shaders, whereas in 2004 it required a specific gpu.

post #1125 of 1392

The Mac Mini is a dam good machine for it's value today.

post #1126 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I doubt that the Mini production is coming state side. You would think that we would have heard about a production line by now if it was.

Would it have to be a different production line from the Mac Pro? Once the Mac Pro orders slow down, they can push the Minis through the same line. It's all hand assembly so they just have a different bucket of parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I could see Apple dropping magnetic drive support altogether.

The only problem there is the base price. A 500GB hard drive can easily start at $50 but a 128GB entry SSD would be over $100. If the net margin on a $599 Mini is 25%, that's just $150 profit. It doesn't give a lot of room to adjust component prices. I think the SSD + HDD setup like the iMac is the way to go for now if they want to keep the entry price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The Mac Pro has never come close to Mini shipments as far as I can tell. Of course that is historical, right now the Mac Pro is probably feeding pent up demand and the Mini is obviously over due for an upgrade.

The iMac has always taken the bulk of the sales. They were selling about 1.2m desktops per quarter. When the iMac was not for sale for 2 months (November, December), the sales dropped 700,000 units. They were slowed in January too so it's perhaps not 1m units but it's the vast majority of the desktops.

While the following is just a survey and for gamers, it shows the right distribution for desktops at around 29% - Apple reported it to be 25%:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=mac

The Mini has 50% more units there but that's pretty close. If you work that distribution out of the 1.2m, it becomes 960k iMac, 147k Mini, 95k Mac Pro per quarter. I doubt the peak demand goes up very high for the Mini as they rarely have long delays but clearly they do with the Mac Pro. It might be about 200k each peak.

The Mini is one of those problem computer models because it's the largest potential audience due to the price but the price is so low that it's almost not worth bothering unless they get huge sales and because their accessories are so expensive, that's not going to happen and the iMac ends up being the better option for a lot of people.

If you work out the revenue from the Mac Pro and Mini at those volumes and say the Mini averages $700 and the Mac Pro $4000, you get the Mini at $103m revenue and the Mac Pro at $380m and the margins will be much better on the Pro. Net profit is probably $20m and $114m respectively. Pretty laughable relative to their $9b quarterly net income.

Maybe it's time to scrap the entry model. Apple will know customer buying history to tell if the Minis are first buys but I'm skeptical that the Mini convinces a lot of Windows users to switch. If they reduced it to 1 model, they'd save on inventory and having a higher entry price pushes up the revenue. They'd always use the same CPU as the entry 15" MBP.

This single model could then be:

2GHz quad i7-4750HQ, Iris Pro
8GB soldered RAM (this makes 16GB $200)
500GB HDD (PCI SSD optional, 256GB for $200)
$799

Get rid of the i5 altogether and this means never waiting on Intel making dual-core chips.

This can still attract switchers because the assumption is that they have their own peripherals anyway and they get a faster machine. Because of the reduced inventory and higher average selling price, they can price the parts better. It might be pushing it with 8GB RAM but this drops the HDD size from 1TB. If they want a preconfigured server model, they can either bundle the SSD or 16GB soldered RAM for $999.
post #1127 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You are entitled to whatever opinions you want but please stop spreading FUD about the performance of the Mini. It drives a 30" ACD just fine today for non-gaming applications as long as you buy the Apple dual link DVI adapter and have a reasonable amount of RAM (8GB will work fine).

The HD4000 is much faster than the 7300GT in my very first Mac Pro I had with the 30" ACD.

Even for some modern games the current mini is fine as long as you have reasonable expectations.

I'm really perplexed with your non sense in this forum. I specifically excluded less demanding users from the picture. That isn't FUD it is an accurate representation of the product. The reality is the majority of Mini owners fit into that less demanding category.

I really fail to see how anything I've said is FUD, in fact I generally praise the Haswell GPUs as being a big step forward.
post #1128 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

It depends what you're doing. For some things an Iris chip would still be inadequate.
Funny thing here is that, that is exactly what I thought I said, effectively saying it is suitable for less demanding users.
Quote:
If it's just a matter of ensuring against repeated frames on a 60hz display, integrated shouldn't be much different. You would have to get into something that actually taxes OpenGL to see a difference. Integrated stuttering just due to slightly higher resolution basically died out with the GMA chips.
The two work together to produce performance problems that is high resolution and OpenGL can tax a GPU. Things are vastly improved on Haswell but people need to realize it is no Mac Pro. It isn't even in the same class as a desktop with a modern performance discrete GPU. A person responding to such posts really needs to moderate expectations.
Quote:
The 30" isn't that big a deal at this point unless you're trying to deal with something that relies on pixel shaders, whereas in 2004 it required a specific gpu.

I've probably said this dozens of times but I will say it again, Haswell is the first integrated GPU that I'd consider good enough for my own needs. At least this is my experience (a few minutes at a time) with Haswell based Macs in the Apple store. That probably puts me into the category of the less demanding user. However that isn't long term exposure to such machines.

In the end I hate lag!
post #1129 of 1392
I have heard zip about a US made Mini or a replacement for the Mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Would it have to be a different production line from the Mac Pro?
Most likely yes. The exception would be if the new Mini borrows much of the Mac Pros new design. Look at it this way, a new iPhone requires complete reworking of the production line.
Quote:
Once the Mac Pro orders slow down, they can push the Minis through the same line. It's all hand assembly so they just have a different bucket of parts.
No buckets in an Apple factory!😜. Seriously though parts handling is a big factor in the success of modern production lines. Often the mechanical systems are custom tailored to the parts in question.
Quote:
The only problem there is the base price. A 500GB hard drive can easily start at $50 but a 128GB entry SSD would be over $100.
True there is a price differential but it isn't as large as retail prices seem to imply. Beyond that the design of Apples blade SSDs is about as cheap as you can get. So with the continual slide in the price of flash devices I don't think it is an impossibility. Further an SSD gives them several advantages especially in thermal needs and power budget. Not to mention space.

If (it is a big if) Apple continues its trend of ever smaller machines I can see them dropping the bulky mechanical drives. They would have to be able to do that with a 256GB device though. To keep margins I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Apple bump the price a bit.
Quote:
If the net margin on a $599 Mini is 25%, that's just $150 profit. It doesn't give a lot of room to adjust component prices. I think the SSD + HDD setup like the iMac is the way to go for now if they want to keep the entry price.
The iMac has always taken the bulk of the sales. They were selling about 1.2m desktops per quarter. When the iMac was not for sale for 2 months (November, December), the sales dropped 700,000 units. They were slowed in January too so it's perhaps not 1m units but it's the vast majority of the desktops.

While the following is just a survey and for gamers, it shows the right distribution for desktops at around 29% - Apple reported it to be 25%:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=mac

The Mini has 50% more units there but that's pretty close. If you work that distribution out of the 1.2m, it becomes 960k iMac, 147k Mini, 95k Mac Pro per quarter. I doubt the peak demand goes up very high for the Mini as they rarely have long delays but clearly they do with the Mac Pro. It might be about 200k each peak.
As far as Mac Pro sales go this year I'm taking no bets at all. I simply don't know if delays are are the result of pent up demand, slow ramp up or something else. Further it is almost impossible to judge overall acceptance of the machine. It is a radical design after all, thus it may take people time to adjust or feel comfortable with a purchase.
Quote:
The Mini is one of those problem computer models because it's the largest potential audience due to the price but the price is so low that it's almost not worth bothering unless they get huge sales and because their accessories are so expensive, that's not going to happen and the iMac ends up being the better option for a lot of people.
I still see significantly reduced demand for Apples low end desktops because of the iPad effect. Thus the idea that Apple might see fit to offer only one low end device and instead fill out the rest of the line up with a more robust platform. The iMac is only a good option if an all in one works for you.
Quote:

If you work out the revenue from the Mac Pro and Mini at those volumes and say the Mini averages $700 and the Mac Pro $4000, you get the Mini at $103m revenue and the Mac Pro at $380m and the margins will be much better on the Pro. Net profit is probably $20m and $114m respectively. Pretty laughable relative to their $9b quarterly net income.
Yes it is a significant problem. However for whatever reason sales aren't that bad for Mac hardware. This is a surprise actually though most of that volume appears to be laptops.
Quote:
Maybe it's time to scrap the entry model. Apple will know customer buying history to tell if the Minis are first buys but I'm skeptical that the Mini convinces a lot of Windows users to switch.
The idea that the Mini is a switchers machine has always been a joke in my mind. All it is is a machine that Apple can market at a reasonable price point. Because of the importance of having a play at the lower price points I don't think the "Mini" will go away completely, Apple will have a low cost option. It might be something different though. If you buy that the market for low end hardware is shrinking fast and that the majority of desktop sales are now balanced to more powerful machines I can see Apple having a lot of success with a machine that is half the cost of the entry level Mac Pro. Call it the XMac, Mac Pro Lite or whatever you want but they are missing significant opportunity here in my opinion. The Mac Pro is excellent for the markets it serves but not every professional needs such a machine.
Quote:
If they reduced it to 1 model, they'd save on inventory and having a higher entry price pushes up the revenue. They'd always use the same CPU as the entry 15" MBP.
I suspect that a single model is the short term goal simply to have a play in the low end market. However the chips due this year from Intel and frankly the possibility of an A8 SoC have me thinking about whole new approaches to an entry level machine.

For example, build the computer into a keyboard. If the chip power is kept low enough this can be done. Apple already has a monitor that functions as a dock so you wouldn't need a lot of I/O cables. An SSD in the keyboard would promote reliability and control size. This deals effectively with the unbundled nature of the current iMac and the associated extra costs. A keyboard big enough to support Apples trackpad would have plenty of space right on the keyboard PCB for the CPU/GPU SoC. People may laugh at such a suggestion but Apple has history here with the Apple 2 and the IPad demonstrates how easily one can put a powerful PC into a keyboard type device.

There are a bunch of other form factor options that could lead to a smaller machine. Or the could go more radical to a cube like the new networking hardware or even to a scaled down cylinder ala the Mac Pro.
Quote:
This single model could then be:

2GHz quad i7-4750HQ, Iris Pro
8GB soldered RAM (this makes 16GB $200)
500GB HDD (PCI SSD optional, 256GB for $200)
$799
Nice machine but a single model would need to come in at a much lower price point.
Quote:
Get rid of the i5 altogether and this means never waiting on Intel making dual-core chips.
This year will be very interesting just to see how Intels mobile plans unfold. I just see the potential for a radical Mini make over.
Quote:
This can still attract switchers because the assumption is that they have their own peripherals anyway and they get a faster machine. Because of the reduced inventory and higher average selling price, they can price the parts better. It might be pushing it with 8GB RAM but this drops the HDD size from 1TB. If they want a preconfigured server model, they can either bundle the SSD or 16GB soldered RAM for $999.

In my estimation the Mini is a terrible server machine. It just looks like they didn't have a good option but needed a platform to offer a server on.
Edited by wizard69 - 2/9/14 at 8:36am
post #1130 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I have heard zip about a US made Mini or a replacement for the Mini.

Same with the Mac Pro redesign though. There were no leaks at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Look at it this way, a new iPhone requires complete reworking of the production line.

That's because they have to ship 100 million units a year though, not 0.5 million and there's a display process involved. With the Mac Pro and Mini, it's just machining the cases separately and then the conveyer belt moves them down the line for hand-assembly.

The easiest setup would be to have it so that most parts connect to a small metal frame like the PSU, motherboard with soldered RAM and HDD. Then slot this into the case, screw on the back, screw on the fan, Airport and cover and that's it ready to ship. Each one should take under 10 minutes to assemble. If they allow 20 minutes per unit, say 8 hour shifts, that's just over 200 staff needed to handle assembly.

They are really proud of their "Assembled in the USA" mark and I reckon they'll try to get this on their products wherever they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In my estimation the Mini is a terrible server machine. It just looks like they didn't have a good option but needed a platform to offer a server on.

I think it's a great option as a dedicated server. With the PCI SSD, it would stand up to a lot of traffic:

http://www.macminiserver.com/can-a-mac-mini-handle-high-traffic-sites/

There's not much point in having things like redundant PSUs because it has to be taken offline to replace it anyway.
post #1131 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I like everything except the 500 GB HDD. I would rather have just Iris graphics and 128 GB of SSD storage as opposed to Iris Pro and a hard drive.
post #1132 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm really perplexed with your non sense in this forum. I specifically excluded less demanding users from the picture. That isn't FUD it is an accurate representation of the product. The reality is the majority of Mini owners fit into that less demanding category.

I really fail to see how anything I've said is FUD, in fact I generally praise the Haswell GPUs as being a big step forward.

 

The bolded part is FUD.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Right now the Minis have only adequate GPU performance for less demanding users. If you want to drive a 30" display I'd highly recommend waiting for a Mini with an Iris or Iris Pro or better GPU. It isn't a given that the Mini is good enough for that display or will be even with Haswell or something better. Rather it depends very much upon how you intend to use that machine.
 

The mini can drive the 30" ACD today.  There are always use cases that will drive any machine to it's knees. The HD4000 is not a gaming GPU. This is well known but the resolution of the 30" ACD is not an issue.  

 

Implying that he cannot use his 30" ACD with the current Mini is FUD  Implying that even a Haswell mini with a HD4600 might not be capable of driving a 30" ACD is FUD.  It IS a given that a 4600 equipped Mini will be able to drive a 30" ACD.

 

Christ.  Given that folks regularly run Photoshop on their older 2012 13" MBPrs the Mini GPU is good enough for many uses cases beyond "less demanding".  Granted out of the box it's pixel doubled but folks have forced their MBPr into native by various means.  Like in some games:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3o3mIDvZzw

 

Now the game might be scaling too or just lying to him but it's playing.

post #1133 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


No buckets in an Apple factory!😜. Seriously though parts handling is a big factor in the success of modern production lines. Often the mechanical systems are custom tailored to the parts in question.

It's funny. I'm such a nerd that when I read buckets, I thought of renderers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Funny thing here is that, that is exactly what I thought I said, effectively saying it is suitable for less demanding users.
 

 

My point was that I wouldn't be concerned with what display the user intends to use. If they wanted to game at high settings on that thing or move around a really heavy CAD file, that could easily displace a number of machine options. I don't know that I would feel any different suggesting an iris pro mini vs an HD 4000 mini just based on the display they intend to use. The one exception would be when it's a matter of whether a feature is supported. If the user intends to purchase a 4K display over the life of that machine, they won't find it supported at 60Hz. There have been things like 10 bit displayport 1.2 drivers on Windows. Only certain cards supported them. Outside of that kind of stuff, it's at a point where I focus more on the software used, and it's really really divided in terms of what makes good use of certain features like OpenCL as opposed to little nice to have things that are sped up for maybe 3% of the time you spend in a given application.

post #1134 of 1392

I think the Mac Mini will still be assembled in China unfortunately.That stinks!

post #1135 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

I think the Mac Mini will still be assembled in China unfortunately.That stinks!

 

At one point Jobs said he was as proud of his automated NeXT factory in California as the machines.

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/02/26/73121/

 

Of course it only made 60 machines a day...

post #1136 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I think the Mac Mini will still be assembled in China unfortunately.That stinks!

You're right although while I am a huge proponent of buying American whenever possible, I realize that not everything can be made in America and that yes many things will still be made in China.
post #1137 of 1392

Unfortunately you are right about that. MADE IN AMERICA That is what we want here.

post #1138 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Unfortunately you are right about that. MADE IN AMERICA That is what we want here.

I 100% agree and maybe Apple will change that in the future as wages rise in China.
post #1139 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

At one point Jobs said he was as proud of his automated NeXT factory in California as the machines.

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1990/02/26/73121/

 

Of course it only made 60 machines a day...


That was a fun read. Thanks for the link.

post #1140 of 1392

I hope so. I understand the new Mac Pro is being made in the states now.Is this correct?

post #1141 of 1392

Seems like the mini-desktop form factor is starting to take off and is also impacting corporate sales in tough economic times.

 

Does Apple not want a piece of this action? Where's the new Mini?

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 #1142 of 1392

Have patience okay. It will be coming soon.Life is to short to worry about this.

post #1143 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

I hope so. I understand the new Mac Pro is being made in the states now.Is this correct?

 

Assembled here. Big difference.

Think of it as Taco Bell.

All the food is made somewhere else. Your taco and burrito are only assembled at your local restaurant.

Except with Apple all the food plants are in China.

post #1144 of 1392

Dam shame most of their products are assembled in China.

post #1145 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I bought a Nintendo 2DS and it was made in China. Nintendo products used to be made in Japan although I have learned from people that at one time post World War II, Japan was basically the China of today (minus the unhealthy food they shipped) in terms of appliances.
post #1146 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
I bought a Nintendo 2DS and it was made in China.

 

Funny, particularly since Nintendo products are banned in China.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #1147 of 1392

Yet we are stupid enough to buy their products here from electronics to clothing.

post #1148 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I bought a Nintendo 2DS and it was made in China. Nintendo products used to be made in Japan although I have learned from people that at one time post World War II, Japan was basically the China of today (minus the unhealthy food they shipped) in terms of appliances.


That isn't a good comparison really. Japan had to completely rebuild their economy after WW2. China's march to industrialization has come about due to other factors but they have always had some amount of industry there. You don't have a country of billions without industry. The difference with China is the almost unlimited amounts of labor they have, labor that is willing to leave the country side to better themselves. The only thing China did, that is unique for China, is to open up that massive labor pool to outside corporations. Since many of those corporation use to have reputations for quality, the lack of quality is a sign of a lack of ethics from these corporations. In a real sense many have basically punted on quality to enjoy the massive profits possible As can be seen with Apples products, quality in China is very possible, it is a matter of the company being willing.

In a nut shell if you believe that poor quality is the result of the products being built in China it might be a good idea to ask who owns the companies building those products. If the company transferred the production from the US or Europe and quality went down who is really to blame?
post #1149 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Yet we are stupid enough to buy their products here from electronics to clothing.

Buying from China is no where near as stupid as buying products from Pakistan or any number of countries that fuel hate for America. For the most part the Chinese people don't hate us and in fact admire us. Frankly they don't like their government anymore than we do.
post #1150 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In a nut shell if you believe that poor quality is the result of the products being built in China it might be a good idea to ask who owns the companies building those products. If the company transferred the production from the US or Europe and quality went down who is really to blame?

I try and avoid companies (within limits) that trade US jobs for overseas profits. Computers and TVs I can't really avoid.

Getting back more on topic, has there been anything on the new mini or has news died down?
post #1151 of 1392

No news on mac mini yet.

post #1152 of 1392
Thread Starter 
post #1153 of 1392

It's time for Apple to start the preparation to migrate a portion of Macs away from Intel. 

 

ARM 64-bit will make for a nice lower cost mini in 2-3 years IMO. 

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #1154 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I try and avoid companies (within limits) that trade US jobs for overseas profits. Computers and TVs I can't really avoid.
It has happened to a number of electronics industry segments and frankly the companies aren't to blame. The consumers are the ones demanding ever cheaper PCs, televisions and the like. Look at stereo equipment, a number of American companies try to hang on but at best create niches for themselves. You don't see their products on the mass market retailer shelves.
Quote:
Getting back more on topic, has there been anything on the new mini or has news died down?

I've heard nothing and frankly find that frustrating. Based upon rational delays after Intel started shipping hardware we should have seen something by now. The Mini is getting a little old for the price being asked.

On slightly different news Intel did announce today a new high performance XEON, 15 core chip. This chip was delayed by several months so Intel appears to be getting a free ride in the media even if they have screwed up royally. This chip would be ideal as the basis for a new chip in the Mac Pro. I say basis because the core and cache architecture is very nice the rest of the chip is too server specific. Intel screwed up the current implementation by not providing enough PCI Express lanes for the Mac Pro. Lately I've been under the impression that Intels engineering and marketing teams are on two different planets.

In any event that side tracks your question, I've heard nothing at all.
post #1155 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It's time for Apple to start the preparation to migrate a portion of Macs away from Intel. 
I wouldn't be surprised if efforts are already underway!
Quote:
ARM 64-bit will make for a nice lower cost mini in 2-3 years IMO. 

It might not do that bad at all right now, put a fat heat sink on the chip and bump the clock rate up a GHZ or two. Even now the chip at the current clock rate does as well as a machine form 2010. Global foundries and others have had ARM cores running at 2.5 GHZ years ago so it is possible to run Apples chip faster. That is if the low power optimizations haven't slowed the chip down. I'd go for the machine if it came out in the $300 to $400 range and gave me respectable performance.
post #1156 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I wouldn't be surprised if efforts are already underway!

It might not do that bad at all right now, put a fat heat sink on the chip and bump the clock rate up a GHZ or two. Even now the chip at the current clock rate does as well as a machine form 2010. Global foundries and others have had ARM cores running at 2.5 GHZ years ago so it is possible to run Apples chip faster. That is if the low power optimizations haven't slowed the chip down. I'd go for the machine if it came out in the $300 to $400 range and gave me respectable performance.

Right. And destroy the only headless desktop other than the very expensive Mac Pro since it would have virtually no software and insufficient horse power to run desktop apps at a reasonable speed anyway.

Even worse if you try to do something like Rosetta.
post #1157 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

On slightly different news Intel did announce today a new high performance XEON, 15 core chip. This chip was delayed by several months so Intel appears to be getting a free ride in the media even if they have screwed up royally. This chip would be ideal as the basis for a new chip in the Mac Pro. I say basis because the core and cache architecture is very nice the rest of the chip is too server specific. Intel screwed up the current implementation by not providing enough PCI Express lanes for the Mac Pro.

In what way did Intel screw up the Xeon in the Mac Pro. Of course there's a server focus because it's a server chip and the vast majority of Xeons will go into servers and not workstations with far less need for extra PCIe lanes.

And since when was it late? Did intel promise a launch date before?

"In October of last year we reported on new Xeon E7-2800 v2, E7-4800 v2 and E7-8800 v2 CPUs, expected to launch this quarter. The processors will utilize Ivy Bridge architecture, and will have 50% more cores and 25% more cache than the first generation of Xeon E7 products, that were built on Nehalem architecture. In total, there will be 21 different models. Using multiple sources, like this one (PD file), we were able to come up with specifications for most of these processors."

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/2014020201_Specifications_of_Xeon_E7_v2_processors.html

No mention of them being months late but rather appearing as expected.
post #1158 of 1392

Disappointing but 14nm is hard and frankly with AMD not executing and providing much competition this go around intel has the ability to release conservatively as opposed to pushing the envelope. Even the ARM threat into servers and ultra books has receded somewhat.

So they are pushing their mobile chips harder to see if they can't get take some mobile design wins away from ARM (windows tablets don't count in that regard).
post #1159 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


Right. And destroy the only headless desktop other than the very expensive Mac Pro since it would have virtually no software and insufficient horse power to run desktop apps at a reasonable speed anyway.

Even worse if you try to do something like Rosetta.

 

OS X on ARM is really close. Most API run on both ARM (iOS) & OS X and Xcode targets them just fine. Rosetta is dead

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #1160 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Right. And destroy the only headless desktop other than the very expensive Mac Pro since it would have virtually no software and insufficient horse power to run desktop apps at a reasonable speed anyway.
Apple can address the no software issue with a simple deadline. In XCode a simple recompile would take care of that. Frankly I think most developers would be happy to support Apple with this sort of initiative.

As to performance iPad Air already performs to the level of a 2010 computer. Up the clock rate a bit and Apple can be very closer to today's best chips and a lot better than many of the discount computers selling in that price range. At this point they might as well wait for A8 too.
Quote:
Even worse if you try to do something like Rosetta.

Well of course, but let's be honest Apples developer tools are very good at targeting multiple architectures.

Obviously success here depends upon how far Apple can up the clock rate of the current A7 and future A8. That ability depends a bit upon how much they are restricting clock rate simply to manage power usage. There is enough evidence, based on 64 bit hardware announced by AMD, that ARMs 64 bit architecture can be clocked much higher and give respectable performance.
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