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

2014 Mac mini Wishlist - Page 3

post #81 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Precisely! The iMacs had an extra internal SATA controller port. You could run some wiring from it to an eSATA port (OWC did this) and get the benefit of an external drive at essentially the same speed an an internal SATA drive. It was faster than FW800 in my experience.

 

There seems to be some confusion about it not being a standard. SATA is a standard. It is just that there are three generations of it and a SATA 3 drive on a SATA 1 controller is only going to transfer data at SATA 1 rates. 

 

 

Firewire has often sucked on the Macs even more than usual. Typically they'd use a single bridgeport that couldn't negotiate different speeds, meaning if you populated both FW400 and 800 ports, both would run at 400 speeds. They had a lot of irritating gotchas like that. SATA 1 would transfer at SATA 1 speeds regardless of where you run it. Anyway its bandwidth is higher than that of firewire, and the lack of data conversion takes away some overhead. It should run faster, but the upper bandwidth limit is also much higher. It's not as fast as thunderbolt or mini-SAS, but it's much cheaper than either of those. If thunderbolt came down in cost and a two port setup became standard, it could edge out the need for eSATA. Firewire stopped being ideal a long time ago. It was just there for stability and lack of a better option.

 

Quote:

There was a combination port I have sen on a few PCs which could physically accept either a USB plug or an eSATA plug. I have not first hand experience with them however.

 

That would be cool, although I've never seen an external device that would be compliant with such a thing unless a special cable that delivers via eSATA with a usb connector at one end and eSATA connector at the other actually exists.

post #82 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
<snip>

That would be cool, although I've never seen an external device that would be compliant with such a thing unless a special cable that delivers via eSATA with a usb connector at one end and eSATA connector at the other actually exists.

The way it was explained to me, you could attach either a USB or eSATA device to this port. As I recall, it was on a laptop and having the combo port saved some space.

post #83 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR 
There was a combination port I have sen on a few PCs which could physically accept either a USB plug or an eSATA plug. I have not first hand experience with them however.

eSATA doesn't provide power so they take the power from the USB port:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESATAp

If it has to be a USB port for power, you'd be as well just using USB IMO. It's faster than FW and USB 2 but with USB 3, it's not important any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter 
How long do you figure it takes for a Mac mini redesign? I like the way it is now though knowing Apple, I think it is only a matter of time before it gets smaller and/or thinner.

They could eventually make it as thin as a rMBP if it goes all Flash. It doesn't need two hard drives if they put the blade SSD on the motherboard. The server would lose the RAID1 option though.
post #84 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They could eventually make it as thin as a rMBP if it goes all Flash. It doesn't need two hard drives if they put the blade SSD on the motherboard. The server would lose the RAID1 option though.

I would be for that even though I love the current option. My only concern would be cooling though with the smaller nm process, it would be fine.
post #85 of 1392

I'd like to see the Mini split into two product lines. 

 

First line:  Thin.  That's it in a word.  Solder in the DIMMs, use mPCIe blade SSDs like in the MBA, and provide no internal HDD bays.  The goal here is a thin slip of aluminium that gives Ive a woody.  Offer it with only the lowest CPU speeds to keep heat minimal.  Integrate the aluminum exterior with the CPU heatsink to really get this thing THIN.  It should be a shiny bauble of the highest order, designed to sucker in rich computer illiterate buyers who can barely use a mouse.  Think up some gimmick for it that's not on anything else in Apple's lineup, like a special pad on top that inductively charges and syncs your iPhone.  Or whatever, it doesn't really matter what the gimmick is, it just needs to be enough to make people waste their money on a thin POS.  

 

Second line:  Functional.  No mobile components for this one, just cheap, fast desktop processors, chipsets, and components.  Four 3.5" HDD bays.  Two mPCIe slots for blade type SSDs with logic board RAID support.  One double wide x16 PCIe slot for a video card, one x16 PCIe slot, and one x4 PCIe slot.  Four DIMM sockets, and a desktop Ivy Bridge quad core i7 CPU installed in an honest CPU socket.  Hearken back to the Power Mac Minitower and call it a Mac Mini Tower.  Style should be a miniature version of the Mac Pro with a removable side panel, lots of slow fans for quiet cooling, and ports on both the back and FRONT of the tower for USB, Thunderbolt, a card reader, and maybe Firewire.  Obviously the tower will need to be large enough to house a full length PCIe video card - NOT some custom Apple low profile card or some such nonsense.  No fanless bullsh!t either, this needs to be an honest desktop tower computer, something that expands as a user's needs grow.

 

Of course only the thin Mini is realistic, which is why the Mini line doesn't interest me.  It's a stupid computer.  Why use more expensive, slower laptop components in a computer that sits on a desk?  Why solder the CPU to the logic board?  Why make it so hard to access all of the internal drive bays?  And no discrete GPU on a desktop computer?  The Mini is designed to be just enough computer for the moment it's purchased, but to require disposal within 2-3 years.  Landfill fodder.  It is ultimately one of the most immoral computers on the market today.

post #86 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

Of course only the thin Mini is realistic, which is why the Mini line doesn't interest me.  It's a stupid computer.  Why use more expensive, slower laptop components in a computer that sits on a desk?  Why solder the CPU to the logic board?  Why make it so hard to access all of the internal drive bays?  And no discrete GPU on a desktop computer?  The Mini is designed to be just enough computer for the moment it's purchased, but to require disposal within 2-3 years.  Landfill fodder.  It is ultimately one of the most immoral computers on the market today.

No way! 100% disagree. Does it need more for the cost? Yes absolutely no question. If I can get 2-3 years out of the 2011 Mac mini that I have now, I feel that's good.

I don't want the Mini to be made any thinner but perhaps you give the $599 model (which hopefully it stays at or decreases) a dual-core i7 and then give the others quad-core i7s as before. Integrated graphics are becoming better on Intel's part though it is a shame they are not including a discrete GPU in at least one of them as an option.

I totally disagree that the mini is a waste because Apple's computers are still too expensive for the average consumer. The fact that you can buy a cheap HDTV from Best Buy or Wal Mart to use as a monitor is grand.

You're getting the specs of the $1,200 MBP in the $600 Mini. It makes great business sense.
post #87 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


No way! 100% disagree. Does it need more for the cost? Yes absolutely no question. If I can get 2-3 years out of the 2011 Mac mini that I have now, I feel that's good.
I don't want the Mini to be made any thinner but perhaps you give the $599 model (which hopefully it stays at or decreases) a dual-core i7 and then give the others quad-core i7s as before. Integrated graphics are becoming better on Intel's part though it is a shame they are not including a discrete GPU in at least one of them as an option.
I totally disagree that the mini is a waste because Apple's computers are still too expensive for the average consumer. The fact that you can buy a cheap HDTV from Best Buy or Wal Mart to use as a monitor is grand.
You're getting the specs of the $1,200 MBP in the $600 Mini. It makes great business sense.


He's trying to make what he wants in a machine out of the existing options. That is unlikely to ever happen. I'd prefer they were all quad core machines.

post #88 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I personally wouldn't mind that. A quad-core mobile processor starting at $599 would be great, adding in at least the Fusion drive as a BTO.
post #89 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


He's trying to make what he wants in a machine out of the existing options. That is unlikely to ever happen. I'd prefer they were all quad core machines.

All quad-cores now, when the max for consumer desktop processors is quad-core, would contradict the purpose of the Mini.  It's not supposed to be a desktop computing solution for serious users, Apple wants those users to buy a new iMac every 2-3 years.  The most likely path for the Mini is thinner, with soldered DIMMs and SSDs, and no HDDs because thin.  Optimally it would just be a sealed slip of aluminum with a USB and Thunderbolt port on the back.  No power button, just a proximity sensor so you can wave your hand over it, lol.  

 

From a design and technical standpoint, the Mini could easily be everything we all want it to be.  Apple views the Mini from a product strategy perspective, not "how can we make the best sub-$1000 desktop computer" but "how can we suck the most cash out of our loyal user base in the sub-$1000 desktop segment?"  Once this design goal is appreciated, it becomes clear why the mini is so gimped.  


Edited by Junkyard Dawg - 12/4/12 at 8:23am
post #90 of 1392
Thread Starter 
While I do snicker at the thought of JD's suggestions, I don't think the Mini is going to be anorexic thin quite yet. They probably will never go with discrete graphics though again as they want people to buy the iMac but they will move to soldered RAM and flash as was suggested.

Someone on another forum suggested an idea of something called a Mac micro which was about half the size of the mini but the same thickness.
post #91 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

While I do snicker at the thought of JD's suggestions, I don't think the Mini is going to be anorexic thin quite yet. They probably will never go with discrete graphics though again as they want people to buy the iMac but they will move to soldered RAM and flash as was suggested.
I expect that by next year Intels integrated GPU performance should be to the point where there will be less noise about it being "integrated". However people need to be aware that higher performance video or GPU's if you will, put massive demands upon the RAM subsystem. This performance demand will likely lead to soldered RAM simply to get the speeds required.

Someone on another forum suggested an idea of something called a Mac micro which was about half the size of the mini but the same thickness.

 

The Mini could stay around in this form factor for years. I really don't have a problem with the Mini concept other than Apple seems to damn quick to introduce models with marginal performance.
post #92 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The Mini could stay around in this form factor for years. I really don't have a problem with the Mini concept other than Apple seems to damn quick to introduce models with marginal performance.

Too damn quick? I say the opposite.

Also I would love the Mini staying in its current form factor, I think it is perfect.
post #93 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The Mini could stay around in this form factor for years. I really don't have a problem with the Mini concept other than Apple seems to damn quick to introduce models with marginal performance.

Too damn quick? I say the opposite.

Also I would love the Mini staying in its current form factor, I think it is perfect.

Haswell, hopefully with six cores, would make a very nice Mini. That mainly due to the speculated much better GPUs.

As much as I complain about the Mini I must admit it has come a long way in recent years. The coming Mac Pro retooling makes me wonder if the Mini will get a work over too. I don't really think the current Mini is perfect, it is good but it could be better.
post #94 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Haswell, hopefully with six cores, would make a very nice Mini.

With the planned gpu changes, I don't think the cpu package will be organized in such a manner. The cpus used in the mini are primarily designed for notebooks. Trying to cram on more cores would most likely mean severely limited clock speeds. I think rather than more cpu cores, properly implemented OpenCL 1.2 would be a nice gain. Right now you can't even get 6 core chips without using LGA2011/Sandy Bridge E which does not allocate space to integrated graphics. I see it as more likely in desktop cpus if they want to implement 6 core E3s. In that case you might also see an i7 version in the typical desktop socket type.

post #95 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I'm happy with the quad-core mini now. I just wish they would add for options for the dual-core one including at least fusion drive and/or SSD.
post #96 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Haswell, hopefully with six cores, would make a very nice Mini.
With the planned gpu changes, I don't think the cpu package will be organized in such a manner.
It is hard to tell. Intel is actually rumored to be in a position to lower the thermal profiles of Ivy Bridge. Apparently continuous improvement is alive and well at Intel. Given that Intel is still making power improvements and that Haswell is still in flux I could see a six core machine.
Quote:
The cpus used in the mini are primarily designed for notebooks. Trying to cram on more cores would most likely mean severely limited clock speeds.
This is certainly true overall in the industry but intel is still improving its 22nm process. If they continue to make these strides two additional cores could end up with only a modest impact on the power profile.
Quote:
I think rather than more cpu cores, properly implemented OpenCL 1.2 would be a nice gain.
This is very true.
Quote:
http://www.machinetools.com/us/listings/type/1261Right now you can't even get 6 core chips without using LGA2011/Sandy Bridge E which does not allocate space to integrated graphics. I see it as more likely in desktop cpus if they want to implement 6 core E3s. In that case you might also see an i7 version in the typical desktop socket type.
Actually here is where I wish AMD was doing a bit better. If nothing else they do push Intel along.
post #97 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Do you now expect integrated graphics in all three models? Do they revert back to dual-core/discrete as with 2011? Do they dare try and use dual-core/integrated on the $799 model? This is Apple don't forget.
post #98 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Do you now expect integrated graphics in all three models? Do they revert back to dual-core/discrete as with 2011? Do they dare try and use dual-core/integrated on the $799 model? This is Apple don't forget.

 

Yes, the company that now can't count phone models and who has always skimped on the graphics. 

 

No level of pessimism about future specs is too low.

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 #99 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Do you have enough pessimism that they wouldn't offer at least a dual-core i7 (being that the i7 has hyperthreading) as a BTO as they did in 2011?
post #100 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Do you have enough pessimism that they wouldn't offer at least a dual-core i7 (being that the i7 has hyperthreading) as a BTO as they did in 2011?

 

Not unless it were to get yet another redesign, making it even smaller. lol.gif

 

I dream huge and reasonable, but never expect any of my predictions to ever come true, being too outlandish.

 

Apply that thinking only to specs of products we already know exist and it works out really well; if I'm wrong, it's always a welcome surprise, as the specifications are higher than I thought they'd be.

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 #101 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Wow that was a fast response. : P

Yeah I honestly don't want it to get any thinner until they have onboard flash storage. I don't see that happening until Broadwell or worse possibly into Skylake or even Skymont.
post #102 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Yeah I honestly don't want it to get any thinner until they have onboard flash storage. I don't see that happening until Broadwell or worse possibly into Skylake or even Skymont.

 

Really? Fusion Drive sort of makes me think that will be sooner rather than later. 


"Is that your final usual pessimism or an unfiltered optimistic outlook?"

 

…I'm not sure. You're probably right about the timeframe, actually. Broadwell is, what, slated for 2014 right now? A lot can happen in two years.

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 #103 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Yes, Broadwell used to be known as Rockwell. It will be the successor to Haswell and start the 14nm process.
post #104 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
Yes, Broadwell used to be known as Rockwell. It will be the successor to Haswell…

 

Ugh, that's confusing. Just call them versions 10 and 11 (and market them as versions 10.5 and 13). 1wink.gif

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 #105 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

No way! 100% disagree. Does it need more for the cost? Yes absolutely no question. If I can get 2-3 years out of the 2011 Mac mini that I have now, I feel that's good.
See here is the problem, if I buy a Mini (I'm tempted to do so) it can't be justified if it only remains viable for 2-3 years. In fact to put it bluntly the short shelf life of the Mini counter indicates it for many uses.
Quote:
I don't want the Mini to be made any thinner but perhaps you give the $599 model (which hopefully it stays at or decreases) a dual-core i7 and then give the others quad-core i7s as before. Integrated graphics are becoming better on Intel's part though it is a shame they are not including a discrete GPU in at least one of them as an option.
The lack of a discrete GPU is a significant factor in that life span issue described above. Intel GPUs simply don't cut the mustard as software becomes more and more GPU dependent. The poor performance in any thing other than 2D is one issue but Intels inability to fix HDMI output really insults the buying public. Now ideally Intel can fix the driver issues, that would be good. But then you end up with performance issues with things like 3D and OpenCL. The reliance on Intel hardware, the GPU, makes for a very disposable short term computer which is extremely frustrating.
Quote:

I totally disagree that the mini is a waste because Apple's computers are still too expensive for the average consumer. The fact that you can buy a cheap HDTV from Best Buy or Wal Mart to use as a monitor is grand.
You're getting the specs of the $1,200 MBP in the $600 Mini. It makes great business sense.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Mini has the specs of a MBP, frankly it isn't even close performance wise

Here is my take. The Mini will need a discrete GPU in one or more models until Intel can demonstrate that it has resolved its performance, driver and hardware support issues. With Ivy Bridge they may resolve the driver issues, but they can't fix the hardware issues. The hardware issues being crap 3D and OpenCL support. The pathetic nature of the GPU hardware/software makes justifying the Mini as a long term purchase difficult. Personally I'm waiting for a sign that the HDMI issues are resolved so that the Mini becomes passable for at least one use I have in mind. Otherwise the machine is useless or at the very least a poor investment.
post #106 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I know it seems extraneous though right now my only concern (and it is a minor one) is to be able to play Gauntlet Dark Legacy on MAME and then maybe a few other games if they happen to appear interesting. There might be some other things I do with my mini besides just use it to browse the internet, listen to music, etc. that regular peon consumers do. I want to take the next step though I need a solid interest and I haven't found it yet.

The 2012 offerings while decent (if you're upgrading from 2010 or earlier say) are not enough to cause me to pony up the cash.

Getting back to processors, I would guess with Broadwell the minimum offering on RAM MHz speed would be 1866 if Haswell is remaining at 1600 like Ivy Bridge is. By then, we should have lower voltage/more power efficient RAM.
post #107 of 1392
At this point Apple is so disinterested in the Mini that they could end up using the same box for years. As for onboard flash or other solid state solution they could do that at any time. They only limitation is board space so the most likely interim solution is a daughter card like in the notebooks.

As to thinner, in the dark deep recesses of my mind I can see Apple producing the Mini in the USA after a long DFM engineering effort. DFM being Design For Manufacturing. The out come of that would be a highly automated manufacturing line that eliminates as many employees as possible. Since the current Minis, in fact just about all of them suck as far as DFM goes, the new Mini could look very different from today's models.

So maybe the 2013 Mini will look different, not because of Haswell, Broadwell, SkyLake or whatever, but because it will be engineered to be produced on highly automated production lines here in the US. In that regard expect to see a lot of robotics in the production line and components optimized for mechanical handling. Frankly I don't see how Apple could even begin to be successful with a US made Mini without a complete overhaul of the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Wow that was a fast response. : P
Yeah I honestly don't want it to get any thinner until they have onboard flash storage. I don't see that happening until Broadwell or worse possibly into Skylake or even Skymont.
post #108 of 1392
Thread Starter 
As long as they are not disinterested enough that they cancel the machine, I am happy.
post #109 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I know it seems extraneous though right now my only concern (and it is a minor one) is to be able to play Gauntlet Dark Legacy on MAME and then maybe a few other games if they happen to appear interesting.
Sadly if you are a gamer the Mini right now is a very poor choice. You might get away with it for certain games, but what if your interest change to a game that is even mildly 3D? I'm willing to bet that even you yourself can't guess what your interest will be a year or two down the line, thus a purchase of today's Mini has a high degree of likely hood of being useless for you with any random software relates that interests you. Now it is reasonable to say that the discrete GPU that did come in the Minis wasn't all that great, but the point here is that it was well ahead of what Intel could offer up. Ideally that GPU would have been improved in the 2012 MIni to make it even more desirable.
Quote:
There might be some other things I do with my mini besides just use it to browse the internet, listen to music, etc. that regular peon consumers do. I want to take the next step though I need a solid interest and I haven't found it yet.
The best advice offered in these forums is to buy a machine when you need it not because some marketing slut has convinced you to fork over the cash. If your current machine is taking care of your workload then don't sweat it.

Apple has offered up in the Mini one of those perplexing offers that come our way from Apple every so often. That is hardware that offers a lot of new and valuable features that at the same time deletes rather significant features. Frankly it is almost like this is an interim solution of some sort to hold Apple over until it has something new and improved to deliver.
Quote:
The 2012 offerings while decent (if you're upgrading from 2010 or earlier say) are not enough to cause me to pony up the cash.
If you exclude the lack of a GPU option I'd have to say that the new Minis are a bit more than decent. Just the inclusion of USB 3 makes them a far more interesting machine and a far better investment. The current state of the Intel drivers makes them a no buy though and no I don't trust Intel to correct the issue. Until I see verified proof that they have corrected the HDMI issue and possibly have a viable OpenCL solution I have to wait.
Quote:
Getting back to processors, I would guess with Broadwell the minimum offering on RAM MHz speed would be 1866 if Haswell is remaining at 1600 like Ivy Bridge is. By then, we should have lower voltage/more power efficient RAM.

Intel and AMD are in the same bait with respect to RAM, the faster they can get RAM to operate the faster and more robust the GPU performance. To get around this issue there are rumors that the GPU in one of the coming Haswell processors will have a separate path to RAM in the CPU module itself. That is GPU RAM will either be stacked on top of or beside the CPU SoC. This is supposedly only in a top end Haswell and could well be a rumor built on baloney. It does however reflect the reality that right now the faster your RAM the better the GPU performance on these APUs. The industry has a number of initiatives in place to address the RAM speed issue so it is hard to tell what a Broadwell based Minis RAM array will look like.
post #110 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

As long as they are not disinterested enough that they cancel the machine, I am happy.

Right now I have this belief that if the rumor of a US made Mini is true, it will be a somewhat radically different machine. Automated assembly will play a part in the machines design. Thus the Mini might no be so much canceled as replaced with a new machine design.

That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon what we end up with. Think about the current Mini for a bit, it is a bit ugly if you look at it from the assembly point of view. It will be real interesting to see what we get if the rumors turn out to be true.
post #111 of 1392
Thread Starter 
This is off topic but Dark Legacy is a fairly old game. The problem is that the PS2 version is not quite like the arcade version and there is a pit inside me that wants to play it. It is a decent game though and even the Gamecube and original Xbox versions aren't terrible. I completed it's predecessor known as Gauntlet Legends and the versions released on PS1, N64, and Dreamcast (with Dreamcast being the best of the three) are vastly inferior to the arcade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUf1HW4W5dM <--- Here it is.

Now keep in mind, I can rent a machine for a week for half the cost of a base model Mini. Though I don't want to rent or buy a big arcade machine. I would rather keep it on my computer which is a fraction of its size.

As for games, I am not much of a gamer though playing a few games would be cool. The problem is that there is lot a lot of games that capture the same magic as Diablo and Diablo II did for me back 12 years ago. Diablo III just doesn't cut it. It's not dark enough.

I'm not sure if I have to bump up to an iMac to get it to full speed as you see in the video. If I do, it will have to wait as I have a lot of other stuff to pay for ahead of time.

The base model iMac now might cut it for me but I have no way to test it short of buying one which I don't have the funds for.

I (like a doofus) went into my local Best Buy thinking I could test it on their machines briefly. I couldn't because the folder with everything in it has to be in the Applications section and I didn't know the user name and password and wasn't allowed to do it anyway.
post #112 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Too damn quick? I say the opposite.
Also I would love the Mini staying in its current form factor, I think it is perfect.
Nothing is perfect. Believing so is how many companies get stuck in a rut.

Come to think of it, one of Apples recent successes the AIR, was considered by many to be perfect in each revision that came out. I rather saw major improvements with each revision and maybe in a revision or two more I might even consider an AIR as something I would buy. Nothing is beyond improvement even the Mini.
post #113 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I just mean with the size. I would like to see onboard flash and the return of discrete graphics to play games at medium resolution. I just am not necessarily on the whole thin and light bandwagon. That is not an improvement in my view. Work first on the inside THEN work on the outside.
post #114 of 1392
You see this is the thing I actually think that the Mini needs to get bigger. Big enough so that at least one model can consistently come with a GPU with reasonable amounts of VRam.

As a side note I went down to Staples to get some three ring binders today. I haven't been there in months but noticed one thing, desktop PC are practically non existent in the store. The three models they had sat UNDER a counter. Almost as an after thought. Lots of crappy laptops though. No granted Staples isn't exactly a store for techno geeks but it highlights just how hard it is to move desktop PCs these days. People that think that the Mini and Mac Pro are on firm ground are kidding themselves. If Apple can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and really excite people about the Mini and Mac Pro we won't have a desktop lineup outside of the iMac.

The writing is on the wall. Apple really needs to find a way to demonstrate the value of desktops in an iOS economy. By the way it isn't just staples that is an issue, independent PC merchants aren't doing to well around here either. The 2013 offering of the Mini and Mac Pro may very well seal the fate of these machines if they can't spur sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I just mean with the size. I would like to see onboard flash and the return of discrete graphics to play games at medium resolution. I just am not necessarily on the whole thin and light bandwagon. That is not an improvement in my view. Work first on the inside THEN work on the outside.
post #115 of 1392
Thread Starter 
Commercials. I'm telling you right now that a commercial for the Mac mini would work. Call me crazy but I'd be willing to throw the dice.

I would actually be willing to gamble $4 million or whatever it costs on a Super Bowl commercial just to generate some buzz.
post #116 of 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You see this is the thing I actually think that the Mini needs to get bigger. Big enough so that at least one model can consistently come with a GPU with reasonable amounts of VRam.
As a side note I went down to Staples to get some three ring binders today. I haven't been there in months but noticed one thing, desktop PC are practically non existent in the store. The three models they had sat UNDER a counter. Almost as an after thought. Lots of crappy laptops though. No granted Staples isn't exactly a store for techno geeks but it highlights just how hard it is to move desktop PCs these days. People that think that the Mini and Mac Pro are on firm ground are kidding themselves. If Apple can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and really excite people about the Mini and Mac Pro we won't have a desktop lineup outside of the iMac.
The writing is on the wall. Apple really needs to find a way to demonstrate the value of desktops in an iOS economy. By the way it isn't just staples that is an issue, independent PC merchants aren't doing to well around here either. The 2013 offering of the Mini and Mac Pro may very well seal the fate of these machines if they can't spur sales.


I'll add my own conjecture. I'm not sure if Apple views the mini as a desktop or just a general budget machine. If it's just a budget machine, I wouldn't expect it to go away unless Apple feels the iPad can take most of that. It is slightly clunky as a budget machine in some ways, as it doesn't align well with users that want to walk out with a complete machine. Mouse, keyboard, and display must be added, which isn't a big deal. It's just you can't show it off as one box ready to set up at that price level. If a workload doesn't extensively leverage the gpu, the mid mini is capable of being a reasonably powerful machine. This does fit a smaller market where display quality is an issue. I could see it as a decent option for graphic designers as long as they don't deal with heavy motion graphics work. The mac pro has been on rocky ground for a long time, but this doesn't mean workstations in general will disappear in the near future. Dell, HP, and a number of the smaller system builders compete pretty fiercely for that market as it carries much higher margins than their cheaper products. I don't see computers in general as a huge brick and mortar item at this point. Apple is kind of an exception there.

post #117 of 1392

Apple has this weird fetish with making things as thin and compact as they possibly can. 

 

They eventually learned their lesson with the iPod series, ie people were buying shuffles to work out with and when they made it super tiny it was no long convenient. The nano's became a bit larger than the shuffle with just a touch screen and learned people wanted something smaller than an iPod touch but not super tiny.

 

When will they learn the desktops don't need to be ungodly thin...probably in a matter of time. Removing the cd/dvd drive from the iMac fine, but the mac mini...leave one of them with it. The mini being about 1/2in taller isn't going to bother anyone, add in the CD/DVD. Having it as a media PC would be nice or when I burn things for my parents or a friend. 

post #118 of 1392
Originally Posted by AandcMedia View Post
Apple has this weird fetish with making things as thin and compact as they possibly can. 

 

Yeah, making computers smaller than an entire room was one of our civilization's greatest blunders¡

 

When will they learn the desktops don't need to be ungodly thin...

 

Someone will be learning something, at least. You got that part right.


…the mac mini…leave one of them with it.

 

The Mac Mini has been without it for longer than the iMac. No, there's no reason to leave one.


Having it as a media PC would be nice or when I burn things for my parents or a friend. 

 

$25 nets you a faster drive than Apple would ever have possibly given you. And you'll even be able to burn Blu-ray.

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 #119 of 1392
Thread Starter 
I feel the base mini should have a few more BTO options. I know Apple wants people to buy the higher priced models but that sort of defeats the purpose of a lower model.
post #120 of 1392
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
I feel the base mini should have a few more BTO options. I know Apple wants people to buy the higher priced models but that sort of defeats the purpose of a lower model.

 

I get what they're doing by not offering the Fusion Drive on either low-end models, but as a consumer I have to say, "Come on."

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
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