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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 10

post #361 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

750 GB I could see happening and I think is long overdue. Intel HD 4600 across the board? 512 GB single SSD possibility?

 

Apple charges a lot on ssds, yet you can find one under $400.

post #362 of 1394
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Intel HD 4600 across the board? 512 GB single SSD possibility?

 

Well, yeah. That's the new iGPU name, right? But an SSD that large would hinge on prices thereof.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #363 of 1394
Thread Starter 
I keep forgetting to add this. I meant do they include a 512 GB SSD as a possible BTO option or do they stay at a max of 256 GB?
post #364 of 1394

On the iMac they really do need to offer better storage options due to the DIY difficulties that machine has.  The main problem though is that Apple needs to get with the program as far as SSD storage goes, it is priced way to high and they are trailing common storage sizes.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I keep forgetting to add this. I meant do they include a 512 GB SSD as a possible BTO option or do they stay at a max of 256 GB?
post #365 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

On the iMac they really do need to offer better storage options due to the DIY difficulties that machine has.  The main problem though is that Apple needs to get with the program as far as SSD storage goes, it is priced way to high and they are trailing common storage sizes.   

The Fusion drive is probably the future. They probably won't add flash storage smaller than 768 GB although the price will eventually decrease I hope.

I don't think the Mac mini is getting a redesign until Broadwell hits if even then. If they do offer soldered flash storage on the mini and the size is acceptable (512 GB), I may have to go for it. I think they are still going to use plain drives though.
post #366 of 1394

Fusion Drive is more of an interim solution to the fast storage problem than a long term solution. 

 

As to a Mac Mini redesign this is something I have mixed feelings on.  The Mini certainly has its niche, but the small case does significantly limit options as far as future innovation goes.   Solid state storage has to move to PCI Express faily quickly for the user community to really benefit from the speed potential.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


The Fusion drive is probably the future. They probably won't add flash storage smaller than 768 GB although the price will eventually decrease I hope.

I don't think the Mac mini is getting a redesign until Broadwell hits if even then. If they do offer soldered flash storage on the mini and the size is acceptable (512 GB), I may have to go for it. I think they are still going to use plain drives though.
post #367 of 1394

I think it is called Haswell you are referring to.Intel will be coming out with soon.
 

post #368 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I think it is called Haswell you are referring to. Intel will be coming out with soon. 

Incorrect. I don't think the Mac mini is getting a redesign for 2013. I think if it is going to get a redesign, it will begin in 2014 when Intel releases it's 14nm Broadwell processors. The Mac mini will be the last of Apple computers to receive soldered on flash storage in opinion.
post #369 of 1394

The biggest problem with the Mini right now is the lack of a 20-21" third-party IPS Thunderbolt monitor option. Anyone working on that?

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 #370 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The biggest problem with the Mini right now is the lack of a 20-21" third-party IPS Thunderbolt monitor option. Anyone working on that?


If they did that it would be a 21.5". Apple always tends to reuse parts whenever. Look at the smaller imac. If they roll out something, expect it to be basically that. They may just not want to to do so. A 21" display is normally extremely cheap. Given that it's Apple they might be able to get away with $600, especially with the extra ports. I think Belkin wanted $300 for a dock, which I still haven't seen available at the retail level. Apple also sells the mini without a mouse or keyboard by default, so it's not really sold strictly for typical PC use.

post #371 of 1394
Thread Starter 
I heard the 27" Thunderbolt monitors aren't even that great given their price so they should work on those before introducing another one to the lineup.

Let me get some thoughts from others: Is a redesign possible in 2013?
post #372 of 1394

I don't know about that.   There is a good argument for coming out with a new Mini this year especially if the Pro gets updated dramatically.    The coming new Mac Pro could redefine how Apple sees the desktop.   If the new Mac Pro goes even higher end then they will have to do something about the midrange.   That could mean a beefed up Mini or a new midrange machine.  

 

As to soldered in flash Apples doesn't have any machines with soldered in flash so why would they do that to the Mini?    Frankly having upgradable secondary storage is far more important than having upgradable RAM.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


Incorrect. I don't think the Mac mini is getting a redesign for 2013. I think if it is going to get a redesign, it will begin in 2014 when Intel releases it's 14nm Broadwell processors. The Mac mini will be the last of Apple computers to receive soldered on flash storage in opinion.
post #373 of 1394

A redesign really depends upon where they go with the Mac Pro.   The Mini is a good machine but it simply isn't a viable midrange solution.    I'd go far as to say the Mini is Apples best desktop for the role it is expected to fill. 

 

I see two possibilities for the Mac Pro replacement.   One is that they look at the price issue squarely in the face and refactor the Pro into a cheaper machine.   If they do this the Mini can remain as it is for a very long time.    The second possibility for the Mac Pro is that Apple goes all out for the workstation  market leaving even a bigger gulf between the Mini and the Pro.   At that point Apple either beefs up the Mini or introduces a XMac.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I heard the 27" Thunderbolt monitors aren't even that great given their price so they should work on those before introducing another one to the lineup.

Let me get some thoughts from others: Is a redesign possible in 2013?
post #374 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


If they did that it would be a 21.5". Apple always tends to reuse parts whenever. Look at the smaller imac. If they roll out something, expect it to be basically that. They may just not want to to do so. A 21" display is normally extremely cheap. Given that it's Apple they might be able to get away with $600, especially with the extra ports.

 

I know Apple's not going to do a smaller monitor for the Mini. I was really asking if any third-parties have Thunderbolt monitors in the pipeline.

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 #375 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?

I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?
post #376 of 1394
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?

 

I see the possibility of the next Mac Mini having ~1:1 the chips with whatever TDP the current model does. 

 

I don't tend to speculate beyond that. It's usually correct. lol.gif


I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?

 

I would, but Apple tends to be more conservative in their ideas than me. Though I really like the idea of being able to drop it by $100 again… 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #377 of 1394
Thread Starter 
So yeah if I'm on stage in front of everyone, I'm saying the following. We have decided to reposition the Mac mini to specifically a quad-core machine. The dual-core machine is going away.

$699 gets you

i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)

$899 gets you

i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)

Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
post #378 of 1394

In the $599 machine, not likely.     It might get a lower power quad core, that would actually make for a nice entry level machine.    This assumes a more or less static design but I'm not too sure the Mini could handle a 37 watt processor.  They cut it pretty close power supply wise but also benefit from power savings on all other components.  This based on my foggy memory but I thought the current server was asked on a 35 watt part.   

 

Frankly I'd like to see another TB port in the Mini and that is another 10 watts out of the power budget.     So you need to consider the whole platform and the power capability of the power supply.   Gain some here lose some there.  The other interesting thing is Intel hasn't released all of their laptop parts yet, it isn't certain what the final line up will look like.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Let me throw this out there... does anyone see the possibility of a 37W quad-core going into the $599 Mac mini?

I forgot if I mentioned this already. Would you kill off the dual-core and keep only one quad-core and the "server" model? Dare I say drop the regular quad-core by $100?

The current Mini line up is crap.   They need to find a way to drive a true value machine to the market.   Delivering a quad core at a better price is one avenue or they could do a dual core at $499.  Haswell might just give Apple that option as they might be able to put a dual core desktop chip in the Mini and shave a $100 of the entry model.    Of course then they have to deal with how to deliver quad core models.  

 

This comes back to why I'd like to see an XMac, with a bigger power budget you really end up with far more options to a cost effective machine.   Drop the high cost laptop parts and enjoy a price cut and higher margins at the same time.  

post #379 of 1394

It is not the line up for me.  

 

First; even with these configs the Mini is overpriced.   Yeah I know lap top parts mean more dollars but that is something Apple needs to deal with.   

 

As for RAM Apple needs to go beyond 16GB.   When it comes to storage you never have enough, in that regard I'd like to keep the two bays and put the fusion SSD on a PC Card plugged into a socket.   Actually the same SSDs seen in the AIRs would be nice.  

 

Finally the upper end model would be a lot more appealing with GT3 graphics.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

So yeah if I'm on stage in front of everyone, I'm saying the following. We have decided to reposition the Mac mini to specifically a quad-core machine. The dual-core machine is going away.

$699 gets you

i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 1 TB Fusion, 256 GB SSD, or 512 GB SSD)

$899 gets you

i7-4800MQ at 2.7 GHz (option for i7-4900MQ at 2.8 GHz)
8 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM (option for 16 GB)
Intel HD 4600
1 TB HDD (options for 2x1 TB HDD, 2x512 GB SSD)

Maybe you even drop it to $599 and $799 instead. It's crazy but it might be enough to work.
post #380 of 1394
Thread Starter 
I agree with you wizard however what I am trying to manage is to see what parts can go into the Mini that Apple would most likely put in. I am thinking within their closed ecosystem and not being open-minded.
post #381 of 1394

This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply.    According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts.    You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts.    A  few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts.   So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.  

 

Now today that is a limited range of processors.  With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities.    I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement.    You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I agree with you wizard however what I am trying to manage is to see what parts can go into the Mini that Apple would most likely put in. I am thinking within their closed ecosystem and not being open-minded.
post #382 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Well I'm thinking the current i7 quad-cores that are revealed as of now can be put into the Mini no? GT3 graphics as well?
post #383 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This is pretty simple, the current Mini is limited by its power supply.    According to Apple the power supply maxes out at 85 watts.    You can immediately subtract the power budgeted for TB and USB which might leave us with 55 watts.    A  few more watts to go to support internal components and you probably max out at 45 watts.   So with today's Mini probably anything in Intels line up that is less that 45 watts will do.  

 

Now today that is a limited range of processors.  With Haswell and beyond you have a wider array of possibilities.    I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a very significant performance improvement.    You can't however project beyond that until Intel has its full array of Haswell processors on the market. 

They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.

post #384 of 1394

Well 45 watts is better than 35.   This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power.   Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations.  As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU.   I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.  

 

As for the power supply I think apple seriously needs to consider an upgrade anyways.  The goal should be support of 45 watt chips (desktop or laptop) along with a decent GPU chip.  

 

As to QM chips that is almost a requirement in any Mac above a base model.  Quad core support just makes sense for today's software demands.   It is just totally unknown if the GPUs that will be available in the Mini will be good enough.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They used 45W cpus in the quad models this year. Last year that price territory was covered by a 35W + discrete graphics. If it's just a couple watts worth of difference in tdp, they will likely test if it works properly and limit turbo slightly if there is a risk of drawing too much power. I suspect they have to leave a little headroom either way. I'm also unsure what their power supply can handle in extended use rather than peak use. As to 35-37W QM chips that Winter mentioned, my guess there is it depends on price.

post #385 of 1394
Thread Starter 
The thing is, I like the idea of an xMac and I don't want to shoot it down. I just want to kind of fence myself in and draw up what I think will most likely be in the next model mini and also the iMac.

I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
post #386 of 1394

post #267

 
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to see both the current Mini and a larger tweakable 'mini' (housing the same internal structure of the iMac) to be paired with a cinema display.  The larger 'Midi-Mac' and display could be the same price as, but eliminate the iMac (with its heat problem) and Apples ongoing attempts to make it thinner. When the hardware becomes obsolete, a new 'Midi-Mac' could be used with the older display. 
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #387 of 1394

Well that is simple an intel processor in the 35 to 45 watt range.   That given that the Mini isn't completely redesigned.     I'm still of the opinion that there is a good possibility of an all new Mini to go along with the all new Mac Pro.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

The thing is, I like the idea of an xMac and I don't want to shoot it down. I just want to kind of fence myself in and draw up what I think will most likely be in the next model mini and also the iMac.

I would love to set my expectations as high as possible and have them met or exceeded though if I do that, I will walk away very disappointed.
post #388 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well 45 watts is better than 35.   This would certainly out some of the Haswell desktop processor in the right power range however I'm not certain that the desktop North Brisges are of low enough power.   Further the desktop chips don't always have the best GPU configurations.  As to Winters question about GT3 graphics Intel hasn't even revealed chips containing that GPU.   I would suspect that we will see higher power demands for GT3 support.  

I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They absorbed sound cards in the past. They absorbed the entire northbridge into the cpu package. This seems like a natural evolution. It's possible discrete options will hold out for a while depending on performance, but the cost would most likely be higher due to the lack of ability to sink development costs through volume sales.

post #389 of 1394
Thread Starter 
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
post #390 of 1394
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?

 

If anything, it will be the last Mac to get it, and in the smallest amounts. It's supposed to be "the cheap one", remember. Those proprietary cards probably don't fit that bill right now.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #391 of 1394

Why is the MM always the last to get any new improvements?
 

post #392 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I know Apple's not going to do a smaller monitor for the Mini. I was really asking if any third-parties have Thunderbolt monitors in the pipeline.

Your best best is a thunderbolt dock and a hdmi display. That's not as clean but gives you a few more ports.

I'm waiting for the Belkin to arrive. The Matrox is too limited for the price.
post #393 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?

It's a minor pain but you can easily install a SSD if you want. For Apple the fusion option makes more sense since selling a 128gb SSD for $200 is more palatable as part of fusion than standalone.
post #394 of 1394

This question sparked some searching because I know Intel would like to go the SOC route.   What I found here: http://vr-zone.com/articles/detailed-intel-haswell-specs-revealed/13908-1.html is that PCH chips are still to be used.   In some cases the PCH is part of a multi chip module.  

 

So it doesn't look like Intel has dropped the PCH at all.   Worst it looks like the multi chip variant of Haswell is going to be a performance power house that we would all love to see.  It is a two core chip which really doesn't look like it is suitable for the Mini.   

 

Now you may ask what is the power profile of the PCH.   That is a good question and honestly I hope there is a process shrink there.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. Do you see a discrete north bridge on any of the ivy boards?

 

post #395 of 1394

It probably depends upon when we get a significantly revised Mini.   If they can stuff 256GB of flash onto a PCI Express interfaced card they would dramatically change the nature of the machine.   With the advent of Intel only graphics such a card would make the up sell model very interesting.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

When do we see flash storage come to the mini? Next year?
post #396 of 1394
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It probably depends upon when we get a significantly revised Mini.   If they can stuff 256GB of flash onto a PCI Express interfaced card they would dramatically change the nature of the machine.   With the advent of Intel only graphics such a card would make the up sell model very interesting.  

I was just thinking onboard flash as in the Air, rMBP, and I guess the 27" iMac.
post #397 of 1394

The flash in those machines is still on a plug in card.   Smaller cards than what would be needed in a Mini and SATA last I knew.   In the case of the iMac I believe it is a SSD module of laptop size.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


I was just thinking onboard flash as in the Air, rMBP, and I guess the 27" iMac.
post #398 of 1394
Thread Starter 
I almost feel as though I am running out steam for this at least on the mini side so let me switch over to the iMac and hit back upon a subject I had asked upon before and that is graphics memory.

Does Apple finally leave the MB territory with at least more than one model and go into the GB territory?

Between 2007 and into 2009, we got from 128 MB eventually into 512 MB discrete whether it be standard or CTO and this is going back all the way to GDDR3.

Late to 2009 to 2011 hits and we go from 256 MB all the way up to 1 GB and the lone 1 GB has GDDR5 memory.

2012 hits and we know the specs there... 512/512/512/1 (option for 2)

What does 2013 bring? Can we max it out?

Does the casual user buying an iMac not need max video memory? The consumer overruling the prosumer?
post #399 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

post #267

 
At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to see both the current Mini and a larger tweakable 'mini' (housing the same internal structure of the iMac) to be paired with a cinema display.  The larger 'Midi-Mac' and display could be the same price as, but eliminate the iMac (with its heat problem) and Apples ongoing attempts to make it thinner. When the hardware becomes obsolete, a new 'Midi-Mac' could be used with the older display. 

 

There's no reason we couldn't just have a mid mac cube box x2 the size of the Mini with the innards of my BTO iMac.

 

It would make more sense of 1 stack, x2 stack x4 stack minis for mini, midi and maxi aka Pro Mac Cube.  More sense than the current line up you might say.  The common thread?  Apple display.

 

However, the iMac is here.  It's beautiful.  Wireless.  I have one cable for the power.  That's it....oh, and the DVD external.  Shucks.

 

Midi Mac. Yes.  But you could argue that's what you have in an iMac anyhow.  i7, 680mx, 8 gigs of ram.  All in the back of a beautiful monitor.  Sound.

 

Best hope for a 'midi' Mac is the redux of the Pro dinosaur case and a sanely priced entry model around £1295-1450 with my BTO iMac's specs.  aka i7 and 680 mx.  ie you forgo the monitor of the iMac.

 

But the new iMac's heat problem?  yeah? :P

 

Mine has been 'ice cold' since I got it. 

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #400 of 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Midi Mac. Yes.  But you could argue that's what you have in an iMac anyhow.  i7, 680mx, 8 gigs of ram.  All in the back of a beautiful monitor.  Sound.

 

Best hope for a 'midi' Mac is the redux of the Pro dinosaur case and a sanely priced entry model around £1295-1450 with my BTO iMac's specs.  aka i7 and 680 mx.  ie you forgo the monitor of the iMac.


Lemon Bon Bon.

 

I don't want my computer built onto the back of my monitor, no matter how beautiful anyone thinks it is.
Put the iMac parts in an easy to open case, that offers a little bit of expansion, room for an optional ODD and let me choose my monitor and I would gladly pay $1500 for it.

 

I'd bust down one of Apple's $100,000 doors to get it. (Okay, maybe I wouldn't go that far.)1smile.gif

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