or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple references unannounced 'mid-2014' Mac mini in Support Pages document
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple references unannounced 'mid-2014' Mac mini in Support Pages document - Page 3

post #81 of 142

I hope you are right. Great value for the money.

post #82 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


I'm sure it will need one after all the hard work you put it through!

 

How do you know that?! I'm starting to get paranoid here.:err:

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #83 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by r4d4 View Post

Buying my dad his first mac when the New Mac mini is released.  Such a great little machine. 

I have two relatives who were PC-only and I recommended the mini to them. They love it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 142

Great little machine to use and have. Very versatile indeed.

post #85 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In an update to a support document regarding Boot Camp compatibility on Monday, Apple added reference to an as-yet-unannounced "mid-2014" Mac mini, suggesting the company is -- or was -- planning a long overdue refresh of its smallest desktop offering.

Popular with a niche audience, the Mac mini has seemingly fallen by the wayside as stronger sellers like the iMac,ac Pro and MacBook lineup continue to expand their capabilities. There is still a market for the Mac mini, as seen in multiple online forums including numerous active threads on Apple's own Support Communities forum, though the company has been slow to upgrade the tiny desktop with new internals.

We are in that niche Mini audience. Apple has nothing else which meets our needs as a desktop.
I'm holding off purchasing used 2012 I7 Mini for now, but if nothing comes from Apple in a week or so, I'll go used I7.
It's about the price of a new I5.
post #86 of 142

Wait a little longer maybe the new MM will come through.

post #87 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Wait a little longer maybe the new MM will come through.

What's with the sudden change of heart? Before, any topic about the mini would result in you saying "It's dead! It's over!" Why the change?
post #88 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

What's with the sudden change of heart? Before, any topic about the mini would result in you saying "It's dead! It's over!" Why the change?

My theory is Marvfox is a robot. A robot that can't manage more than a sentence!

Marvfox might also be a robot controlled by Apple. I have this suspicion that the Mini was indeed dead waiting for the launch of a new Broadwell based machine. We all know what happened to Intel here, so maybe Apple had a crash program to pump out one last variant of the current Mini design.

That is guessing of course but if true it highlights a significant management problem at Apple. They simply can't drag their feet when Intel actually does come out with new chips. Haswell is an ideal chip up grade for the current Mini and to let it slide the way they did is just pathetic. They lost a lot of economic opportunity here based on people holding off waiting for what is an obvious upgrade path to happen. The major stock holders should really be asking what is up here.
post #89 of 142
It is noon on a Tuesday here and no indications of a silent Apple launch yet. I was kinda hoping that the Mini would have launched by now. My old MBP is really becoming difficult.
post #90 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

My theory is Marvfox is a robot. A robot that can't manage more than a sentence!

I figured it was one of those AI programs researchers put online to try and fool people that it's human. I can't decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is guessing of course but if true it highlights a significant management problem at Apple. They simply can't drag their feet when Intel actually does come out with new chips. Haswell is an ideal chip up grade for the current Mini and to let it slide the way they did is just pathetic.

If the Retina displays are coming, it makes sense they'd hold the Mini back for that to increase the chance that people will buy both a Mini and TB display. This would require the Mini to have TB2 but maybe also Iris (Pro) graphics.
post #91 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I figured it was one of those AI programs researchers put online to try and fool people that it's human. I can't decide.
An AI would have smarter responses even today.
Quote:
If the Retina displays are coming, it makes sense they'd hold the Mini back for that to increase the chance that people will buy both a Mini and TB display. This would require the Mini to have TB2 but maybe also Iris (Pro) graphics.
How many people actually hook a Mini up to an Apple display? It can't be a lot considering all the unconventional uses for a Mini. Given that your thought might have some possibility, Intel's slippage on the Broadwell line has to really piss Apple off. The Broadwell GPU is what you would want to drive a retina large screen monitor. I probably ought to say high resolution here as I'm not sure they will move to monitors qualifying as retina. You would have to put a lot of pixels in a 30" monitor to make it retina.
post #92 of 142

Maybe i am a robot you are plain Boring!

post #93 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
That's not how this computer is designed. It's designed for 'switchers'. For 'average' and 'lightweight' users. Don't try to think for Apple in the way that you're doing now, which seems to be based on a preference. One that might be shared by many, but that isn't -to me- how they designed this little guy. It's an entry level model. You want more, they have the iMac, you want full power, with the ability to expand to your hearts' content? Get a Mac Pro. Don't forget the strategy Steve put out when he returned:



Good point!

 

I disagree that the Mac Mini is (just) for switchers.  I know many Mac users that've been waiting an eternity for a new Mac Mini including some that want to transition from the iMac or MacBook to a Mac Mini.

 

The Mac mini has a particular appeal for those who don't need a lot of power and graphics capability but want to choose their own display and the audience I'm thinking of in particular here are photographers but as discussed there are plenty of other potential users including programmers and app developers, HTPC, etc etc.

 

Apple seems to intentionally cripple and neglect the Mac Mini in order to protect its beloved (and no doubt profitable) iMac range but Apple have long stated publicly that there's nothing wrong with internal competition and one product cannibalising another so they've been somewhat hypocritical on this issue.

 

Basically Apple seem to be pushing the iMac because they get to bundle the screen and they know that the longevity and lifespan of the device is shorter than most of its other products.

post #94 of 142
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

...the longevity and lifespan of the device is shorter than most of its other products.

 

In no way I’ve ever seen.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #95 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

I know many Mac users that've been waiting an eternity for a new Mac Mini including some that want to transition from the iMac or MacBook to a Mac Mini.

One should never wait for new tech to arrive; you'll end up waiting forever. If you need a new computer, buy it. If the current one still works one has the option to wait. But since it may take years for a new model to arrive, should that model line not be EOL'd, don't blame the supplier on their timeline. Rather, think about what a pleasant surprise it would be if you just let yourself be surprised by the new model that just came out.
Quote:
The Mac mini has a particular appeal for those who don't need a lot of power and graphics capability but want to choose their own display and the audience I'm thinking of in particular here are photographers but as discussed there are plenty of other potential users including programmers and app developers, HTPC, etc etc.

I'm a hobbyist photographer myself, end possibly can relate to your stance on the display. So, yes, I agree. And the screen on an iMac is not for me. Too glossy, even though the gloss has been reduced from earlier models. I also never use my iPad outside. Summer, winter, the reflection is too irritating for me. Anyway, I could've chosen a Mini as my main machine, but then I would've needed up maxing it out, plus I'd need the Dual DVI adapter for my 30" ACD (totalling $1616). Then I say the Mac Pro, which truthfully I also kinda maxed out ($3600 or something, don't remember), but doubling the price of the Mini was worth it for me due to 4 HDD bays and also knowing this Mac would last me way longer than a Mini would have.
Quote:
Apple seems to intentionally cripple and neglect the Mac Mini in order to protect its beloved (and no doubt profitable) iMac range but Apple have long stated publicly that there's nothing wrong with internal competition and one product cannibalising another so they've been somewhat hypocritical on this issue.

Hmm, they can't cripple a model that is already been released, and it wasn't considered crippled when it came out in Oct 2012. I wouldn't know on the profit margin of the Mini ($599) and iMac ($1099), but looking at the cheapest models I'd presume the markup on the Mini is larger, percentage wise, than that of the iMac.

As for their hypocrisy, they do that all the time. Or every now and then. I don't know. With all this talk about Beats and headphones I just remembered the iPod HiFi. Steve said upon its introduction that he spent crazy amounts of money on stereos, but was going to throw it out as he now had this fantastic new device, for just $349. Killed after 19 months.



Quote:
Basically Apple seem to be pushing the iMac because they get to bundle the screen and they know that the longevity and lifespan of the device is shorter than most of its other products.

It's a populair machine and gets a lot of attention from Apple. No doubt about that.

Usually when Apple releases something I go: "well, duh, of course they choose blad-di-blah" because it all makes sense. Then. Not before; I usually don't see the benefits of 'waiting' 3 years to come with something. But I never minded them holding off for the release of Leopart in order to finish up on releasing the iPhone.

Wiki
"Apple missed Mac OS X v10.5’s release time frame as originally announced by Apple CEO Steve Jobs. When first discussed in June 2005, Jobs had stated that Apple intended to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007. A year later, this was amended to "Spring 2007"; however on April 12, 2007, Apple issued a statement that its release would be delayed until October 2007 because of the development of the iPhone."
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #96 of 142

You are 100% right. Not enough profit for the greedy Apple Company and T. Cook to introduce a new MM machine.If Steve was alive he would have by now for sure.

post #97 of 142
Ah the iPod Hi-Fi! That will be a collectors item for sure one day because I doubt they sold too many if they killed it off so quickly. I have vague memories of hearing it and thought it sounded pretty good for the price but it was a bit too bulky and not all that attractive, certainly nothing like the beautiful B&W Zeppelin dock!

Yes I'm thinking of course of amateur photographers that can't really afford to step up to a base Mac Pro, and there are more of them than ever it seems. You just have to walk past a camera shop and see how busy they always are as evidence of that. It's an incredibly popular and growing hobby. That's why I'm so shocked at Apple's decision on Aperture. I hope they've got a cool replacement in the works.

I shouldn't have been too quick to bash longevity of the iMac and I'm sure they do ok compared to laptops but not by much cause they kind of are a big oversized laptop on a stand. I was burnt by my iMac G5 experience so I won't go back.
post #98 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are 100% right. Not enough profit for the greedy Apple Company and T. Cook to introduce a new MM machine.If Steve was alive he would have by now for sure.

About as much chance of Steve Jobs bringing out a new Mac Mini as there is of Cook renaming it the Mac Foxi.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #99 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Ah the iPod Hi-Fi! That will be a collectors item for sure one day because I doubt they sold too many if they killed it off so quickly. I have vague memories of hearing it and thought it sounded pretty good for the price but it was a bit too bulky and not all that attractive, certainly nothing like the beautiful B&W Zeppelin dock!

Yes I'm thinking of course of amateur photographers that can't really afford to step up to a base Mac Pro, and there are more of them than ever it seems. You just have to walk past a camera shop and see how busy they always are as evidence of that. It's an incredibly popular and growing hobby. That's why I'm so shocked at Apple's decision on Aperture. I hope they've got a cool replacement in the works.

I shouldn't have been too quick to bash longevity of the iMac and I'm sure they do ok compared to laptops but not by much cause they kind of are a big oversized laptop on a stand. I was burnt by my iMac G5 experience so I won't go back.

Why do you frequent Apple Insider? This site's not for you.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #100 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

You are 100% right. Not enough profit for the greedy Apple Company and T. Cook to introduce a new MM machine.If Steve was alive he would have by now for sure.

I wouldn't bet on that one. In 2007 I wanted a new Mini. It was a year and nine months between refreshes. I couldn't wait any longer so in September 2008 I bought a Mac Book. The tech in the Mini at the time was getting old and I didn't want that. So I went for a Mac Book with better components for just a little more than the top of the line Mini at the time. To this day I still would have preferred a Mini. 

post #101 of 142

no thanks to the flash.  It means they put in their proprietary crap.   In the current Mini, I can raid two 1TB SSDs faster than anything Apple has dreamed of.

 

My fear is that they solder the memory and put in the proprietary items like flash.  Then I guess I but the best 2012 model and make it last.

 

Apple is definitely reverting to the failed old proprietary Apple with respect to their Mac products.  Its not a good path.

post #102 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

In the current Mini, I can raid two 1TB SSDs faster than anything Apple has dreamed of.

What are your sequential and random, and read and write speeds for your setup? What kind of 1TB SSDs are you using in a RAID 0 configuration?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #103 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
 

no thanks to the flash.  It means they put in their proprietary crap.

 

I have mixed feelings about that.

 

I *HATE* Apple's practice of using their own storage modules instead of industry-standard designs because it makes buying replacements and upgrades difficult and expensive. First, very few vendors offer them. In the case of the 2013 MacBook Pro I've only found ONE supplier (OWC). The largest capacity they offer is 480GB so there's no way to get a larger module at any price. Second, what one CAN buy costs more than equivalent SATA products because unique specialty designs don't enjoy the economies of scale realized with "industry standard" designs.

 

That said, Apple's approach bypasses SATA altogether and ties storage directly to the PCIe bus. I have no idea whether or not SATA actually imposes a bottleneck, but it's at least a theoretical advantage to remove it. I also don't know if the NAND Apple is using is as fast as other manufacturers, but if it is, it has the potential to be a better design. The Apple module is also smaller and lighter than "conventional" SSD drives.

 

It's a mixed bag. I haven't decided if I like it or not.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #104 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

I have no idea whether or not SATA actually imposes a bottleneck

Absolutely. Besides the 2xPCIe that Apple has been using is faster than the SATA III's therorectical speeds it also removes all the latency involved with using SATA at all.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #105 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Ah the iPod Hi-Fi!

It kinda sucked, but the audio is actually pretty good...for its design, its time and its price. The Zeppelin is what, $599 or something. This thing was a mere $ 350
Quote:
Yes I'm thinking of course of amateur photographers that can't really afford to step up to a base Mac Pro

Ok, yeah, then a MP would be too much. In price, and in horsepower. The number of registered photographers here in NL has exploded these last few years, in a country that is so small many Americans can't show it on a map 1smoking.gif
Quote:
I shouldn't have been too quick to bash longevity of the iMac and I'm sure they do ok compared to laptops but not by much cause they kind of are a big oversized laptop on a stand. I was burnt by my iMac G5 experience so I won't go back.

G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:
Damn, can't find the article on this site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:
http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #106 of 142

Why shouldn't they bring out a new MM in your opinion?

post #107 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

no thanks to the flash.  It means they put in their proprietary crap.   In the current Mini, I can raid two 1TB SSDs faster than anything Apple has dreamed of.
However a single SATA drive can not reach the speeds of Apples SSD implementations. Beyond that a Mini with an SSD boot drive could still support your two SATA drives if Apple wanted to design it that way.

As it is now there really is nothing on the market that matches Apples top of the line PCI Express based SSD's in the price ranges Apple sells.
Quote:
My fear is that they solder the memory and put in the proprietary items like flash.  Then I guess I but the best 2012 model and make it last.
Sooner or later you will have no choice but to deal with soldered in RAM. Even Intel is designing in RAM onto the processor modules because going off module slows everything down to much. Going off the PCB to a DIMM slows things down even more. So don't be surprised to see RAM soldered into a motherboard in all hi performance hardware in the future.
Quote:
Apple is definitely reverting to the failed old proprietary Apple with respect to their Mac products.  Its not a good path.

There are certainly behaviors with respect to Apple that I don't like. Dragging out the new Mini release is a huge one. This especially when there is a very capable processor upgrade to be ad. However in general Apple has been a mixed bag lately, something's they are very open with and frankly lead the industry (WebKit & LLVM/CLang come to mind) other things they have just gone plain stupid with; for example the MiFi program, and the lack of support for USB devices in iOS.

I know many see the new Mac Pro as an example of Apple going proprietary but I don't see it that way. I see the Mac Pro as innovation and frankly leaving the old and tired PC industry behind. Just as Apple left the 6502 world behind when the first Mac came out. That Mac of course had its own hardware issues, especially with the lack of expandability which the new Mac Pro does NOT share.
post #108 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

It kinda sucked, but the audio is actually pretty good...for its design, its time and its price. The Zeppelin is what, $599 or something. This thing was a mere $ 350
The perception was and probably was fairly accurate, that the device was grossly overpriced. The thing had zero appeal to me the minute I saw the specs and realized what I was getting for the price.
Quote:
Ok, yeah, then a MP would be too much. In price, and in horsepower. The number of registered photographers here in NL has exploded these last few years, in a country that is so small many Americans can't show it on a map 1smoking.gif
You have to register to take pictures in the NL? That is a scary thought right there. People wonder why we resist gun registration in this country, it is pretty much a slippery slope.
Quote:

G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:
In some situations that would be expected. However it really means nothing. The people that buy the Mac Pros know how to leverage them to their advantage. The fact remains that for professional work the MAC Pro can be a huge advantage for people that can employ software that takes advantage of the machine.
Quote:
Damn, can't find the article on this site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:
http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html

Again sites like this mean nothing, given the right situation I could show Mini being faster than a Mac Pro. All I need is a Mac Pro maxed out with cores that can be kept throttled at the base clock rate and a Mini with a fast chip. Run a process that is bound to a single thread and you can make the Pro look bad. It means nothing. I repeat it means nothing, as a user you need to select hardware suitable for the task at hand. Often that means something other than the MacPro.
post #109 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
 

G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:
Damn, can't find the article on this site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:
http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html

 

I can vouch for that:  I have a 2012 iMac and a new Mac Pro 6 core.  Some apps run faster or the same on the iMac.  Some do better on the MP.  Haven't actually tested it so I don't have hard data but I can "feel" it. 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #110 of 142

The new Mac pros are much faster than the older models and have better graphic cards and quality is much more reliable.I own one now.

post #111 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
 

and quality is much more reliable.

 

I don't understand what that phrase means.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #112 of 142

I know something you do not. Let us leave it at that .

post #113 of 142

Quality of the product better materials used inside  and out.

post #114 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You have to register to take pictures in the NL? That is a scary thought right there. People wonder why we resist gun registration in this country, it is pretty much a slippery slope.

No, I meant registered at the Chamber of Commerce, as their (new) occupation. And the number has increased considerably, taking the quality down as a result. Anyone can afford a DSLR nowadays.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I can vouch for that:  I have a 2012 iMac and a new Mac Pro 6 core.  Some apps run faster or the same on the iMac.  Some do better on the MP.  Haven't actually tested it so I don't have hard data but I can "feel" it. 

That's what I remember when you got the nMP.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #115 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

In no way I’ve ever seen.

 

I have a Dell 2405FPW that is still great.  No 2005 iMac G5 is as useful in 2014 even if the display still worked well.  Marrying the monitor to the computer certainly does limit the useful lifetime of the monitor.  The monitor in the 2007 24" iMac is probably as nice as the Dell since both are IPS (I don't think the 2006 was) but running a Core2Duo it's not as useful anymore.  The 2006 24" iMac certainly not as useful stuck on Lion.

post #116 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

No, I meant registered at the Chamber of Commerce, as their (new) occupation. And the number has increased considerably, taking the quality down as a result. Anyone can afford a DSLR nowadays.
I see you are talking professional photography and setting up a business. Obviously I had other ideas in my head.

As to the quality, professional photography is a tough business to be in! The perception is that all the photographer has to do is to press the button and as such there isn't a lot of value added. In some cases that is true but you and I both know there is more to it than that. Composition is an art and like all artist some have more talent than others. If not artistry people skills are important, good wedding photographers are notably good people persons.

However we live in a society of cheap is better and that frankly means any idiot with a camera can snap pictures for a living.
Quote:
That's what I remember when you got the nMP.
post #117 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I have a Dell 2405FPW that is still great.  No 2005 iMac G5 is as useful in 2014 even if the display still worked well.  Marrying the monitor to the computer certainly does limit the useful lifetime of the monitor.  
It also mean you are stick with the specific monitor that comes with the all in one. I think one point people miss when it comes to the desire to see the Mini contimue is that size does matter and you don't always want an iMac sized screen. There are plenty of use cases where a small monitor makes sense. Conversely a giant screen can also make lots of sense for specific uses. The IMac is simply a poor choice for many uses.
Quote:
The monitor in the 2007 24" iMac is probably as nice as the Dell since both are IPS (I don't think the 2006 was) but running a Core2Duo it's not as useful anymore.  The 2006 24" iMac certainly not as useful stuck on Lion.

There is also a flip side here. A Core2Duo Mini can be retasked for other uses and remain viable as a piece of hardware for years past its suitability for general desktop uses. People will try to tell you that the IMac can do that two, but the problem is you can stick the Mini in a corner and not waste a huge amount of space. I've seen Minis stuck in all sorts of places that a IMac would simply not fit.

The Mini isn't a bad concept, it is Apples execution that sucks. To put it bluntly waiting a year and a half for a processor upgrade on the Mini is just terribly frustrating and frankly results in much disatisfaction with Apple. This especially the case when Intels new prodcut line stresses the area the Mini needs the most improving, that is the GPU. It is a magnifciently massive blunder on Apples part to ignore an almost ideal processor upgrade for the Mini for over a year. Frankly I don't care if Broadwell is the best thing since sliced bread, it is really no excuse to neglect a product line for so long.

Yes I'm venting!
post #118 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Absolutely. Besides the 2xPCIe that Apple has been using is faster than the SATA III's therorectical speeds it also removes all the latency involved with using SATA at all.

 

Except it's not faster than m.2 and SATA Express.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

However a single SATA drive can not reach the speeds of Apples SSD implementations. Beyond that a Mini with an SSD boot drive could still support your two SATA drives if Apple wanted to design it that way.

As it is now there really is nothing on the market that matches Apples top of the line PCI Express based SSD's in the price ranges Apple sells.

 

The M.2 SATA Express SSDs are no slower...especially given that the Samsung XP941 seen in the 2013 MBP can be purchased as a 512GB M.2 PCIe SSD.

 

It is a shame that the MBP isn't using the M.2 standard.  It would be a little bigger but probably not much.

 

Quote:
Sooner or later you will have no choice but to deal with soldered in RAM. Even Intel is designing in RAM onto the processor modules because going off module slows everything down to much. Going off the PCB to a DIMM slows things down even more. So don't be surprised to see RAM soldered into a motherboard in all hi performance hardware in the future.

 

There's no significant advantage for the desktop market for soldered RAM and several downsides.  The stacked in-package RAM is different and separate from DRAM.

post #119 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
To put it bluntly waiting a year and a half for a processor upgrade on the Mini is just terribly frustrating and frankly results in much disatisfaction with Apple. This especially the case when Intels new prodcut line stresses the area the Mini needs the most improving, that is the GPU. It is a magnifciently massive blunder on Apples part to ignore an almost ideal processor upgrade for the Mini for over a year. Frankly I don't care if Broadwell is the best thing since sliced bread, it is really no excuse to neglect a product line for so long.

Yes I'm venting!

 

It's frustrating but expected from Apple.  The only way they will let the mini outperform the base iMac is by making it the same price.  Even then it's iffy.

post #120 of 142

I think by now, as we skate toward September, that it's clear the Mini was slated for a 'mid-2014' redesign with the Broadwell chip and possibly a shrunken, fanless design. That is now out the window.

 

The chip delay has meant that the redesign will probably clock in around October instead.

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple references unannounced 'mid-2014' Mac mini in Support Pages document