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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 14

post #521 of 1299

MM is a versatile machine. Compact and robust. Hardly ever breaks down compared to the MBP and Airs.The price is reasonable also.
 

post #522 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

MM is a versatile machine. Compact and robust. Hardly ever breaks down compared to the MBP and Airs.The price is reasonable also.

Well, it doesn't have the display as a liability. You could buy a Mac mini tomorrow and have it be a lemon and buy a MacBook Pro and have it last you a few years or vice versa.
post #523 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Windows sucks period. To many problems and updates.

 

Those updates are a problem often leading to undefined bahaviour, crashes or forced reboots. Patch Tuesday should be called crap shoot Tuesday.
post #524 of 1299

You can buy anything in life and have it as a lemon.Even marry the wrong woman and be stuck with her.
 

post #525 of 1299

100% agree with you.

post #526 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You can buy anything in life and have it as a lemon.Even marry the wrong woman and be stuck with her.

 

This is all so true. The thing is if your iDevice goes bad you can get a replacement and not have to worry about the old one following you around! 😜😜
post #527 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You can buy anything in life and have it as a lemon.Even marry the wrong woman and be stuck with her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

100% agree with you.

You're agreeing with yourself? Or agreeing with wizard?

At any rate, I think we will have the Mini for several more years at least through Skylake.
post #528 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


You're agreeing with yourself? Or agreeing with wizard?

At any rate, I think we will have the Mini for several more years at least through Skylake.

I'm in York PA this weekend attending Cabin Fever, which if you don't know is a show for model engineers, hobby machinist and people interested in old engine technology. As such there are a number of vendors there with CNC related software and hardware on display. One vendor actually stated that they intend to support their software on Mac OS in the future. The reason being that Windows has gotten so bad and combined with MS no longer supporting older hardware technologies they figure they have to hedge their bets.

The problem as I see it is that Apple doesn't really have an ideal machine for this sort of Application. The Mini comes close but I'm not like you as I'm not convinced it will be around long at all. If it doesn't get some attention this year I'm afraid it could very well be phased out leaving Apple with nothing suitable for this sort of application.

Interestingly one of the reasons they are considering Mac OS and Apples hardware is that of single vendor support. That is when support is needed they know exactly what hardware and software looks like. In the end they think it will be all around easier for them. I'm just not sure the hardware will be there in the future.
post #529 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

If it doesn't get some attention this year I'm afraid it could very well be phased out leaving Apple with nothing suitable for this sort of application.

The fact that they mentioned it at the special event in October to me shows it is still in the cards. Time will tell.
post #530 of 1299
What good does mentioning the hardware do? They need to modernize the machine to stimulate sales. Mini revs have been so minimal that I wouldn't be surprised if the engineers in charge,just phone the changes in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

The fact that they mentioned it at the special event in October to me shows it is still in the cards. Time will tell.
post #531 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What good does mentioning the hardware do? They need to modernize the machine to stimulate sales. Mini revs have been so minimal that I wouldn't be surprised if the engineers in charge,just phone the changes in.

Oh of course they phone it in but I still think the entry level customers are important to Apple. I could be wrong though.
post #532 of 1299

We shall see.
 

post #533 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Oh of course they phone it in but I still think the entry level customers are important to Apple. I could be wrong though.

I look at it this way, they put advance technology into the AIRs and hold decent prices. If they can do that with the AIRs the Mini should not be a problem. Lets face it the Mini has a stiff price tag on it for what you get and it always lags with respect to updates. The only thing in worst shape is the Mac Pro.
post #534 of 1299

A stiff price tag? Are you kidding? Compared to the other crap out there it is sure worth the money.$599.00 for a PC that is versatile is a no brain one.
 

post #535 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Yeah honestly I'm going to have to disagree with wizard. If $599 got you an i3, then yes I'd agree. I do think though that perhaps you should at least get a i7 dual-core instead of an i5 but ah well.
post #536 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Yeah honestly I'm going to have to disagree with wizard. If $599 got you an i3, then yes I'd agree. I do think though that perhaps you should at least get a i7 dual-core instead of an i5 but ah well.


That makes less difference than you think as all dual-core chips have hyperthreading enabled, which was one of the big i5 vs i7 points. It's just quad i5s where it is disabled. Those are desktop chips only, and of course their E3 Xeon equivalents.

post #537 of 1299
Thread Starter 
The thing is, they are not putting in a quad-core i7 in a $599 machine.
post #538 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Yeah honestly I'm going to have to disagree with wizard. If $599 got you an i3, then yes I'd agree. I do think though that perhaps you should at least get a i7 dual-core instead of an i5 but ah well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

A stiff price tag? Are you kidding? Compared to the other crap out there it is sure worth the money.$599.00 for a PC that is versatile is a no brain one.

 

Guys in the business world they simply don't care about the specifics of the processor. Mac failure in business has more to do with the unsupportable hardware and a lack of configurability for the task at hand. It is the IT department position to keep basic hardware common and upgrade it to the job's specifics.
post #539 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Would it be possible to (down the line) have a base model quad core and mid level hex core?
post #540 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Would it be possible to (down the line) have a base model quad core and mid level hex core?


Of course. Intel tends to filter things down. but much of their effort has gone into IGPs. Perhaps broadwell or later the 35W configurations will be predominantly quad models.

post #541 of 1299

Mac failure try Asus or Lenovo and than you will see poor quality control. I owned both and they both crapped out on me within a short period of time.
 

post #542 of 1299
Right now for most consumer type applications and even many business applications four cores works out pretty well. Intels weak spot right now is in the GPU and as such I expect them to focus on significant improvements there for the next couple of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Would it be possible to (down the line) have a base model quad core and mid level hex core?

To look at this another way if Apple/Intel ever get OpenCL working on Mac OS then you will immediately have many more cores to use for apps that can exploit them. GPU computing is a big thing that some apps can really leverage and as such needs to be supported in the Intel only hardware. The endgame is full heterogeneous computing and the ability to run a broader array of code effectively on a GPU.

At this point in time I'd prefer four cores and OpenCL support on Intels GPUs. Preferably on a more advanced Intel GPU. It is the best way to address a broad array of performance needs on SoC like systems.
post #543 of 1299
I'm thinking sometime after 14nm. Intel can make use of the transition to 14nm to implement the type of GPU they really need and that frankly Apple really needs for the retina machines. After 14 nm they can look at more i86 type cores. This could be years out though, it could be 2018 or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Of course. Intel tends to filter things down. but much of their effort has gone into IGPs. Perhaps broadwell or later the 35W configurations will be predominantly quad models.

Wattage will become very interesting in the future. Right now leakage is a huge problem, if they can control that we could see some rather interesting 35 watt class processors. Six cores though may be doable at 12 to 17 watts in the not to distance future. It really comes down to just how well the processes can control that leakage. Even so I still see Intel putting a lot of effort into the GPU for the next revision or two after Haswell.
post #544 of 1299
Thread Starter 
The 13" rMBP is going to become what the 13" uMBP was for so many years and be their biggest seller, I can almost feel it. Intel's graphics will just keep getting better and better and includes for machines such as the mini. I still stand by the fact that the 15" rMBP and the iMac should always have discrete and I hope Apple agrees.
post #545 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm thinking sometime after 14nm. Intel can make use of the transition to 14nm to implement the type of GPU they really need and that frankly Apple really needs for the retina machines. After 14 nm they can look at more i86 type cores. This could be years out though, it could be 2018 or later.
Wattage will become very interesting in the future. Right now leakage is a huge problem, if they can control that we could see some rather interesting 35 watt class processors. Six cores though may be doable at 12 to 17 watts in the not to distance future. It really comes down to just how well the processes can control that leakage. Even so I still see Intel putting a lot of effort into the GPU for the next revision or two after Haswell.

Well they did release one 35W quad with Sandy. The trend continued with Ivy. The earlier Ivy's had a 35W version with a different sku, but so far intel hasn't released many 35W quad cpus. They could be the 45W versions simply clocked lower.

post #546 of 1299
I know many wonder what I'm talking about when I mention new technology. So for memory I have these links to offer up:

http://www.hybridmemorycube.org/
http://electronicdesign.com/memory/hybrid-memory-cube-shows-new-direction-high-performance-storage

The last link states that the spec has been finalized. Initially this product seems to be destined for servers but I see it as having great benefit for the Mac Pro at introduction. Once mass production kicks in technology like this would be awesome in Mini class machines and maybe even more importantly in Apple laptops. The technology offered up two huge benefits for Apple hardware, they are reduced power usage and much faster transfer speeds. This could greatly reduce the need for GT3 like buffer chips in the processor package.

The transfer speeds are important because both Intel and AMD have issues with the bottleneck to main memory for their APUs. This isn't the only attempt at faster memory systems but it does have very broad interest in the engineering community. There are some big players publically involved including ARM, the real question is are Apple and Intel involved. Interesting concepts pop up with this technology including the thought of iPhones with 8GB of main memory (RAM).
post #547 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Well they did release one 35W quad with Sandy. The trend continued with Ivy. The earlier Ivy's had a 35W version with a different sku, but so far intel hasn't released many 35W quad cpus. They could be the 45W versions simply clocked lower.

Quads are certainly possible, in the lower power variants, but I still see a strong demand for much better graphics in machines like the Mini or AIRs. Thus I suspect big vendors like Apple are still pushing Intel to drive GPU improvements at the expense of the i86 complex. Lets face it Intels GPUs still effectively suck and don't even effectively compete with what AMD offers on year old chips. If Intel does address the GPU it will have a dramatic impact on low end hardware. This is good stuff.

On the flip side running an i86 core in a SoC doesn't really take a lot of power these days. The support circuitry and GPU are sucking up a great deal of power. This is especially the case in cache memory and the interface to main memory. So who knows maybe the transition to 14 nm will leave Intel with a massive surplus of transistors.
post #548 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Quads are certainly possible, in the lower power variants, but I still see a strong demand for much better graphics in machines like the Mini or AIRs. Thus I suspect big vendors like Apple are still pushing Intel to drive GPU improvements at the expense of the i86 complex. Lets face it Intels GPUs still effectively suck and don't even effectively compete with what AMD offers on year old chips. If Intel does address the GPU it will have a dramatic impact on low end hardware. This is good stuff.
 

Well it has been that way for some time now. Expanding upon the capability of an ipad or macbook air can address a lot of people. Intel talks things up quite a bit, but they seem to be putting more effort into power management and integrated graphics. Their E/EP variants have gone the other way. Those are going further and further on core counts with ivy bridge EP supposedly going as high as 12 per chip, up from 8 with sandy. I had a leaked slide link before, but they all basically predict the same thing. A 50% increase in max core count is significant, although I could probably never afford one based on it without building it myself. I personally hope that more new tools start to leverage GPGPU functionality, as it's well suited to highly parallel workloads.

 

 

Quote:
On the flip side running an i86 core in a SoC doesn't really take a lot of power these days. The support circuitry and GPU are sucking up a great deal of power. This is especially the case in cache memory and the interface to main memory. So who knows maybe the transition to 14 nm will leave Intel with a massive surplus of transistors.

 

I wish I knew enough about engineering to write a decent response to that.

post #549 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Well it has been that way for some time now. Expanding upon the capability of an ipad or macbook air can address a lot of people.
This is why it is a widely known "secrete" that Apple has been pushing Intel hard with respect to GPU performance. relative to the rest of the industry Intels GPU's have been just terrible, both hardware and driver wise. Industry pressure from basically all sides has driven Intel to rectify these issues. At this point Intel actually has pretty good drivers for just about all hardware except oddly Apple hardware. Even in Open source land they have basically went from trailing the pack to advancing to the lead position.
Quote:
Intel talks things up quite a bit, but they seem to be putting more effort into power management and integrated graphics.
They do talk a good game but that has hurt them a lot. People still have a negative attitude with respect ot Intel drivers and GPU hardware. Some of that is well earned over the years.
Quote:
Their E/EP variants have gone the other way. Those are going further and further on core counts with ivy bridge EP supposedly going as high as 12 per chip, up from 8 with sandy. I had a leaked slide link before, but they all basically predict the same thing. A 50% increase in max core count is significant, although I could probably never afford one based on it without building it myself. I personally hope that more new tools start to leverage GPGPU functionality, as it's well suited to highly parallel workloads.
Right, If you don't have to worry about supporting a GPU you are basically freeing up space to add another complete set of processors. Just look at the space taken up by GPUs on Intel or AMD APU's
Quote:
I wish I knew enough about engineering to write a decent response to that.

Well if you still have that link look at the chips with chips with 10 to 12 cores on them. They aren't hugely larger than todays APU's in some cases. Ultimately the size of the cache and supporting circuitry does impact size. Those EP chips also start out at about the same wattage range as top of the end desktop chips. You are paying extra to get cores that all run at a much higher top clock rate without the heavy throttling seen in some of Intels desktop chips.

As to a product that one would like to have, sure I'd go for one if I could afford it. There is light at the end of the tunnel though as ARM based servers will soon be putting Intel under a lot of pressure. The cost of hardware will drop along with a significant reduction in power usage in the data center. Expect ARM servers to be a big hit if they deliver on the promise of power savings. The fact is the data center for the most part doesn't concern itself with the name on the box nor the Intel inside sticker. So maybe a 12 core mac on your desk won't be out of reach in 2 years or so.
post #550 of 1299

Maybe the cost is to high to make it.Still you can always dream.

post #551 of 1299
Thread Starter 
I am hoping that Apple would never consider putting integrated graphics in anything more than the base model 21.5" iMac and even then, discrete graphics should be a BTO option. GT3e or not, not at $1,299. $999 yes.
post #552 of 1299

Apple want to save money by doing this to their graphics.They care more about themselves than their customers.
 

post #553 of 1299
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
Apple want to save money by doing this to their graphics.They care more about themselves than their customers.

 

That conclusion cannot be drawn from that premise, and the premise is faulty.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #554 of 1299
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Apple want to save money by doing this to their graphics.They care more about themselves than their customers.

 

Then they are undercutting sales of those models I feel.
post #555 of 1299
A point in time will come when it doesn't make sense to put a discrete GPU on anything other than maybe a high end work station. That isn't today but Haswell will be very close. The reality is process shrinks out so much space on the average chip that the performance of the integrated GPUs will only go up. Further that integration will lead to heterogeneous systems where the GPU is an equal on the memory bus. This will lead to much more interesting use of the GPU in future operating systems.

As to under cutting sales, yes that is happening. I was very interested in picking up a new Mini with a discrete GPU this year but that was not to be. The current GPU just doesn't cut the mustard and Apple has yet to deliver support for OpenCL on Intels GPU. So no new Mini this year for me. Apple basically blew it with the current rev Mini.

So the question in my mind is this will Apple deliver a suitable Haswell based Mini? Frankly due to their seemingly overwhelming desire to castrate the machine I don't hold out a lot of hope for the Haswell based Mini. That doesn't mean Apple couldn't produce a viable Mini just that their history with the Mini isn't good. So it is really a question of what could be produced against what Apple does produce. If a Haswell Mini comes out without the GT3 in one model, without OpenCL support and without a strong driver update in the first place; then yeah they are limiting sales significantly.

It will be very interesting to see where Apples earnings report goes because honestly I think the marketing team needs to be slapped senseless. The biggest problem Apple has with the Mini right now is that the high end machines simply don't justify their expense over the entry level machine. I mean really what is in the "server" model that justifies the $1000 price tag. Don't even get me started on the middle of the road model. Part of this nonsense is Apples history of undervaluing the GPU in their machines. The only way to address this is for customers to vote with their feet and buy alternative hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Then they are undercutting sales of those models I feel.
post #556 of 1299
Thread Starter 
I know I will be buying a mini this year because I want one and I will probably give my old one to my mother since she wants a computer herself. I will probably purchase a quad core i7 mini with an SSD and expect it to come with the HD4600 or GT2 graphics which will be a nice jump over my dual core i5 with HD3000 graphics.

As for the iMac, I don't know what is going to happen there. To me, they need to increase the standard video memory for me to consider purchasing one.

Let me ask this, how are iMacs in terms of dead pixels?
post #557 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

A point in time will come when it doesn't make sense to put a discrete GPU on anything other than maybe a high end work station. That isn't today but Haswell will be very close. The reality is process shrinks out so much space on the average chip that the performance of the integrated GPUs will only go up. Further that integration will lead to heterogeneous systems where the GPU is an equal on the memory bus. This will lead to much more interesting use of the GPU in future operating systems.

As to under cutting sales, yes that is happening. I was very interested in picking up a new Mini with a discrete GPU this year but that was not to be. The current GPU just doesn't cut the mustard and Apple has yet to deliver support for OpenCL on Intels GPU. So no new Mini this year for me. Apple basically blew it with the current rev Mini.

So the question in my mind is this will Apple deliver a suitable Haswell based Mini? Frankly due to their seemingly overwhelming desire to castrate the machine I don't hold out a lot of hope for the Haswell based Mini. That doesn't mean Apple couldn't produce a viable Mini just that their history with the Mini isn't good. So it is really a question of what could be produced against what Apple does produce. If a Haswell Mini comes out without the GT3 in one model, without OpenCL support and without a strong driver update in the first place; then yeah they are limiting sales significantly.

It will be very interesting to see where Apples earnings report goes because honestly I think the marketing team needs to be slapped senseless. The biggest problem Apple has with the Mini right now is that the high end machines simply don't justify their expense over the entry level machine. I mean really what is in the "server" model that justifies the $1000 price tag. Don't even get me started on the middle of the road model. Part of this nonsense is Apples history of undervaluing the GPU in their machines. The only way to address this is for customers to vote with their feet and buy alternative hardware.

 

Apple are all about the upsell.  Otherwise they wouldn't have castrated the Mini's GPU's (or lack of) capabilities.

 

You can think the marketing team needs slapping.  But Apple have reaped Billions in profit...

 

...after long since leaving the notion behind of an upgradable tower or cube concept.  (The G3 Blue and White tower and the Cube are: history.)

 

...and it doesn't look like those days are coming back.  We've been on overpriced Mac Pros for ten years now.  That's your tinker box, Wizard.

 

It's out of date and it will cost you.

 

Keep hoping for something else though...hope is part of the human condition.

 

The closest you're going to get is an overpriced Mini with integrated crappics that will be a 'bit' better with Haswell or an over (heh) Pro if Apple gets around to updating it.

 

Apple's all about the AIO.  (But weren't they always?)  And that's the bulk of 'Macs' they sell.  Almost 5 million like Apple Mac AIOs.  

 

 And they perform 'just fine' for the majority...otherwise I'd guess they'd throw together an overclocked, sli-rage machine for a cheaper price.

 

Just buy yourself a Windows tower and stick Linux on it.  You can have whatever gpu you like.  And there's plenty of 'cube' style shuttle cases for you to wonder re: form factor.  Add a screw driver and you'll be happy.

 

Rather than wishing Apple would cater just to you and a 'few' others re: a Cube concept they left behind years ago...

 

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 #558 of 1299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I know I will be buying a mini this year because I want one and I will probably give my old one to my mother since she wants a computer herself. I will probably purchase a quad core i7 mini with an SSD and expect it to come with the HD4600 or GT2 graphics which will be a nice jump over my dual core i5 with HD3000 graphics.

As for the iMac, I don't know what is going to happen there. To me, they need to increase the standard video memory for me to consider purchasing one.

Let me ask this, how are iMacs in terms of dead pixels?

 

I don't like Apple's sharp business practices which apply to their 'keen' pricing on Mini, iMac or Pro.

 

They're overpriced.  And they skin you for extra vram or gpu upgrades or fusion upgrades...and skin you harder for a DVD option they just dropped.  Bloody cheek?  Well, they're sitting on billions and I'm not...

 

I've had two iMacs.  One of which I just sold to my cousin £450.  Which went towards my top of the line iMac purchase so my new iMac cost me £1800 instead of £2250.  I think it was over priced.  But I wanted the fusion, i7, dvd and 680mx.

 

No dead pixels on my last iMac after 4+ years.  None on my new purchase.  Very cool under load.  The last run ran wayyyyyy hotter.  This new beast is very cool to the touch.

 

I've helped a PC user over to the Apple side.  They bought an iMac 21incher.  Up from the base model.  512megs vram.  Sounds annoying.  But in practice?  650GT very impressive performer.  Plenty of ram.  Gorgeous 21 inch screen.  I rate the iMac screens.  This one seems less reflective.  But I didn't really notice the last one.  I have the screen away from facing windows.

 

Why don't you and your Mum go halves on a non base iMac 21incher.  Trust me, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

I doubt the Haswell mini will quite catch the 650GT.  But it may offer more than the 4000.

 

I'm sure if you are used to the mini 'graphics' you have, Haswell's 'gpu' improvements will seem significant.

 

If you're prepared to wait it out, see what the mini offers.  Otherwise...go halves with you Mum on a 21inch iMac non base model.  

 

2 gigs of vram?  Less of an issue than you might think...for a good many things.  (But that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't improve Vram amounts.  I've long been a critic of their sharp penny pinching re: this and ram...)

 

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 #559 of 1299

Yeah, if you went halves with your Mum on the non-base iMac it would cost you what?  £600-ish pounds?

 

For me, an integrated monitor is a non-issue (I didn't always think that...as an ex-Power Tower users...) but in practice, the screens have been great.  Vibrant and elegant machines with far less wires.  (The wires around my Power Tower could be a bit tiresome with cables everywhere...)

 

The new iMac with wireless set up looks light years ahead of all that.

 

It's called progress.

 

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 #560 of 1299

As for where the iMac is going...

 

?

 

After the GPU power of the 680MX (for a while making the iMac a top ten gpu performer - simply amazing!) being included anything could happen.

 

Look at the introduction of the iMac all those years ago.  A curvy if dumpy and plucky G3 performer for around £1k.  Apple drove the price as low as £545 here in the UK!

 

Suddenly the Mini doesn't look so good value these days?  No keyboard, mouse or screen!  And about the same price from all those years ago.

 

The iMac these days?  Has grown up.  So much so, no single model under 1K!!!  (A mistake, I think...)

 

But performance wise?  The i7, 8 gigs of ram, 1 tb fusion drive with 680mx look light years ahead of the iMac G3 range from years ago.

 

The iMac has moved up the performance ladder and slid in value to a degree.  But a 27 inch screen is included and adds great value.  Sure, some would like the screen removed and sold as a box they could 'tinker' with.

 

So it goes.

 

I think as far as desktop models goes?  Apple shows its hand for the desktop with the iMac.

 

The computer disappears.  (Steve said as much in the keynotes all those years ago...)

 

It's just a screen with a control method k/b and mouse.

 

...and they next logical conclusion or extension of that is the iPad....

 

...to the Mac in your pocket, the iPhone.

 

Apple are all about making the traditional 'nerd' designs disappear and focus on what it is you're doing.

 

If you want a couple of SSDs to expand your iMac or a RAID array Thunderbolt set up...plug it in.

 

I don't need the DVD player all the time.  I can just plug it in.  I've used mine once to install Win 7 on bootcamp.  Uhm.  That's it.

 

A handful of people lamenting the Pro or Cube or 'mid range' desktop on here are dwarfed by the sales of a million iMacs and 4 million laptop (new desktop/AIOs).  

 

The iMac and the Macbook Pro are Apple's desktop 'mid tower.'

 

Typically Apple, they don't look like boxes with cables...or have separate screens.

 

They reflect the original 'Mac.'

 

It's back to 1984 with Apple's desktop future.  It's flatter, thinner, cooler and value added.

 

Any 'fuss' is removed.  Outmoded features are dropped.  Cables vanish.

 

Look in any Apple store and the reality of Apple's computing for the rest of 'us' is staring us in the face.

 

You'll be lucky to see a Pro (even before the Euro ban) and even the iMacs are further back in the store...you may see the 'odd' mini...

 

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
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