Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.
Apple is selling lots of those things. But I'm completely disinterested until I have the one product I really want and feel I really need. Until I'm able to spend my hard earned money on the computer I want why should I spend any of my hard earned money on other Apple products that only compliment (go with) a desktop computer. I can't see me doing everything I want to do on an iPad. So I need that desktop computer. iPod? Can I rip the CD's and DVDs I have without using a desktop computer and put them on an iPod? iPhone? I really don't need to be connected 24/7 nor do I want to be and I can't do everything on an iPhone that I can do on a desktop computer.
Now if Apple only had the type of desktop computer that I want. One that isn't huge and overly expensive (Mac Pro). One that isn't so tiny there isn't any room in the case for another internal hard drive so I can back things up and still have that optical drive I'll need to rip all those CDs and DVDs (Mini). One that let me use the monitor I already have instead of having it built in (iMac).
If only Apple had a Mac that was between the Mini and the Mac Pro that had a case large enough for some expansion, that had some jacks on the front like the Pro and had the horsepower of the iMac that didn't come with a built in screen. Then I might be able to actually find an interest in all the other products Apple wants to sell me.
Apple is selling lots of those things. But I'm completely disinterested until I have the one product I really want and feel I really need. Until I'm able to spend my hard earned money on the computer I want why should I spend any of my hard earned money on other Apple products that only compliment (go with) a desktop computer. I can't see me doing everything I want to do on an iPad. So I need that desktop computer. iPod? Can I rip the CD's and DVDs I have without using a desktop computer and put them on an iPod? iPhone? I really don't need to be connected 24/7 nor do I want to be and I can't do everything on an iPhone that I can do on a desktop computer.
Now if Apple only had the type of desktop computer that I want. One that isn't huge and overly expensive (Mac Pro). One that isn't so tiny there isn't any room in the case for another internal hard drive so I can back things up and still have that optical drive I'll need to rip all those CDs and DVDs (Mini). One that let me use the monitor I already have instead of having it built in (iMac).
If only Apple had a Mac that was between the Mini and the Mac Pro that had a case large enough for some expansion, that had some jacks on the front like the Pro and had the horsepower of the iMac that didn't come with a built in screen. Then I might be able to actually find an interest in all the other products Apple wants to sell me.
The computer you want won't come from Cupertino.
The computer you want is called a PC. Might not run the OS you want, but Apple sells iPads, iPhones, and iMacs. The Mac Pro exists, because they have to at least throw pros a bone, and the Mini used to that computer for switchers, but it's a poor value, both compared to the iMac and any current PC for that price. I just see the Mini becoming a cheap iOS dev box, a mainstay for a small Mac computer lab, or a Lion Server home NAS.
And Apple probably has the right idea with the iMac. For most people, internal storage is fine, the supplied amount of RAM is fine, people might add an external HD or 2 for TM, use a couple USB ports for an iPhone/iPod, flash drive, and don't play many games, so a powerful GPU isn't a major concern.
And that IPS panel is sexy (so is the design).
If you want anything above and beyond that, it's the Mac Pro or a PC.
Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
Physical space has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.
This seems to be the big obstical. Apple is extremely reluctant to add new models, even as sales are expanding, this keeps them out of a lot of markets where there is an expectation of PCI Express slots in a wasp ably priced machine.
Which dramatically impacts your overall available bandwidth. People seem to think a TB port gas infinite bandwidth, it doesn't. In any event you still need to realize that internal drives operating off SATA chip set ports offer up a different channel for data movement. Sometimes anyways as we are already seeing Apple implementing TB in different ways on different machines.
RIght, and for single drives that max sustained read throughput is what? Around 100MB-200MB? That's for some of the higher end 15K drives. Max disk to buffer rate is typically around 1Gbps.
That's not a "dramatic" hit on a 10TB pipe.
Quote:
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that.
Yes, Apple is so stupid they don't realize that users have different needs. Really? That's your assertion?
Quote:
Frankly I think they are stuck with the same thinking they had when the hardware line up was trimmed to save the company.
Yep, look up "complacent" or "stuck in the past" in the dictionary and you'll see Apple's picture.
Quote:
The problem is they saved the company but have left the desktop line up to decay and become not relavant to today's need.
Or perhaps it is the desktop that is becoming less and less relevant?
Quote:
The big issue today in my mind is reliable storage capacity. A terabyte is no longer an unrealistic requirement for storage, especially if you are into video.
You can get 1TB in a mini...at least the server models...as 2 x 500GB. Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention). They have 750GB models today that you can swap into a mini.
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
I posted about taking the guts from an iMac and putting it into a box (like yours) just for that purpose. The box you show could also be an enclosure for that purpose if Apple won't give us that computer. How about putting the guts of a Mini into that enclosure? I'd love that. Someone please build that enclosure.
I think Apple must try loads of designs out. Final designs don't come on the first go. Judging from their site, it seems they want to push everything into the screen:
This would suggest they won't move away from that but rather move towards the iPad-on-a-stand type of design. I have little doubt in my mind that they will have designed some mid-sized towers, sat them beside the iMac for half a second and decided the iMac design was more striking and used less space so was the way forward.
Apple like to control the display - the animated brightness controls, energy saving, viewing angles etc. Having their mainstream desktop without a screen takes away that control. The only option would be to build a box yourself and take the insides out of it. But all you'd really have to do is buy a 21.5" iMac, take the panel out and sell it and then put a metal cover over the front and connect a display or two of your own. Then you have access to your hard drive too and can put in an SSD.
I think the Mac Pro has to get a makeover at some point and I think that design would have to be close to the desired mid-sized tower design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention).
One came very recently - the Samsung Spinpoint M8, 9.5mm 1TB. Others will likely follow suit. There is a larger 1.5TB 14mm one from Seagate that someone squeezed into a MBP but it doesn't quite fit:
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
Exactly. People say they want 3.5" drives to get options to go to 3TB but I don't think that's a good idea at all. Ideally just have a reasonably sized SSD boot drive and keep all the big files on external storage. Apple do this themselves in their server farms.
We will hate it here, but I think Apple has something radical up there sleeves and will be replacing both the Mini and the Pro with a modular xMac not much bigger than the current Mini. It will have room for one card and one drive only, but will have two thunderbolt ports. It will be a compromise for almost every user, but the daisy chaining and Lion support makes it all workable.
We will hate it here, but I think Apple has something radical up there sleeves and will be replacing both the Mini and the Pro with a modular xMac not much bigger than the current Mini. It will have room for one card and one drive only, but will have two thunderbolt ports. It will be a compromise for almost every user, but the daisy chaining and Lion support makes it all workable.
A few weeks ago, I attended an Apple seminar given at Miami-Dade College; After the lectures on iCloud and a little on Lion, I spoke with the two Apple reps separately; I specifically asked them about a one size fits all, but modular xMac. All I got was a stare, a shrug, and, "I wouldn't know that." from each of them. No elaboration or denial. I felt like something was unsaid, but since I was certain they wouldn't tell even if they knew, I didn't press it.
I think Apple must try loads of designs out. Final designs don't come on the first go. Judging from their site, it seems they want to push everything into the screen:
Apple has been pretty straight forward in this respect acknowledging testing many
Prototypes. Not just hardware but software too.
Quote:
This would suggest they won't move away from that but rather move towards the iPad-on-a-stand type of design. I have little doubt in my mind that they will have designed some mid-sized towers, sat them beside the iMac for half a second and decided the iMac design was more striking and used less space so was the way forward.
Not everybody cares about design. The history of the AIR highlights this. AIR in it's original form was an example of design gone amok and as a result sales suffered. The new AIR soundly addressed the functionality part of the equation and as a result is seeing very strong sales.
Now I'm not saying Apple should make ugly hardware, rather that they should have no problem at all making a device that is bigger than the Mini but yet functional and attractive.
Quote:
Apple like to control the display - the animated brightness controls, energy saving, viewing angles etc. Having their mainstream desktop without a screen takes away that control. The only option would be to build a box yourself and take the insides out of it. But all you'd really have to do is buy a 21.5" iMac, take the panel out and sell it and then put a metal cover over the front and connect a display or two of your own. Then you have access to your hard drive too and can put in an SSD.
so! Many many users, from a wide range of interests, like to control the display. In some cases it is mandatory in order for them to use a Mac.
Quote:
I think the Mac Pro has to get a makeover at some point and I think that design would have to be close to the desired mid-sized tower design.
A make over is possible but we have to remember that many users need a Pro as capable or more capable than the current unit.
[quote]
One came very recently - the Samsung Spinpoint M8, 9.5mm 1TB. Others will likely follow suit. There is a larger 1.5TB 14mm one from Seagate that someone squeezed into a MBP but it doesn't quite fit:
[quote]
I'd actually like to see Apple transition to laptop drives in more of it's machines. That might actually allow for an array inside the iMac. At least until there is no reason to include mechanical drives.
Exactly. People say they want 3.5" drives to get options to go to 3TB but I don't think that's a good idea at all.
It is an excellent idea. Secondary storage belongs inside the box containing the processor or the guts of your machine. External ports need to connect to tertiary storage. An external RAID drive is fine if it is for backup, caching or other uses but it is no place for your primary files.
Quote:
Ideally just have a reasonably sized SSD boot drive and keep all the big files on external storage. Apple do this themselves in their server farms.
I keep my iTunes library on an external drive but it is less than optimal for use with a laptop. I'd have no problem with backing that storage up to an external RAID but it is operationally limited for the user.
RIght, and for single drives that max sustained read throughput is what? Around 100MB-200MB? That's for some of the higher end 15K drives. Max disk to buffer rate is typically around 1Gbps.
You miss the point, if you put your secondary storage on the TB port then that bandwidth is always shared with normal system access. Using existing legacy ports prevents that.
Quote:
That's not a "dramatic" hit on a 10TB pipe.
You are looking at this based on yesterday's technology. Imagine a RAIDed array of SSD's or other devices. There are already SSD's that move 750 Mega BYTES of data per second.
Quote:
Yes, Apple is so stupid they don't realize that users have different needs. Really? That's your assertion?
No the problem as I see it is that they are stuck in the past when they where barely holding on and couldn't afford a full line up of hardware. It is pretty obvious that Apple hasn't paid much attention to the Mac line up since as it is basically the same product lineup. Frankly this should not require explanation to you or anybody else as it is obvious.
Quote:
Yep, look up "complacent" or "stuck in the past" in the dictionary and you'll see Apple's picture.
Yep exactly what you would see when the discussion centers around the desktop Mac line. What else would you call it when the same basic product has been on the market for multiple years now?
Quote:
Or perhaps it is the desktop that is becoming less and less relevant?
Maybe but it will never go away. Further Apple has never had a machine that could pass for that digital hub they promote.
Quote:
You can get 1TB in a mini...at least the server models...as 2 x 500GB. Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention). They have 750GB models today that you can swap into a mini.
I can't take anybody seriously if they offer up the Mini as their ideal of a server.
Quote:
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
An external RAID is a great backup device. However imagine a Mini/XMac with four laptop sized drive bays.
A make over is possible but we have to remember that many users need a Pro as capable or more capable than the current unit.
When Apple first made the Mac Pro, they set a level for the needs that it satisfied and this was not the highest level that could be reached. They picked an affordable set of processors. Intel have processors that cost double what Apple's chosen BTO options cost. There are also machines that can take 4 CPUs.
There's no reason they can't adjust the level. If it cuts out a tiny fraction of the Mac Pro users then it doesn't matter because it might gain a lot more users if it helps adjust the price and size and becomes more suitable for use as a server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is an excellent idea. Secondary storage belongs inside the box containing the processor or the guts of your machine. External ports need to connect to tertiary storage. An external RAID drive is fine if it is for backup, caching or other uses but it is no place for your primary files.
It depends on what you call primary files though. Some film editors use massive external banks of drives to edit HD footage because sometimes even the storage in a Mac Pro won't be enough. You can fit 8TB inside but you can't have 8TB in RAID1 = 16TB so that you have a failure recovery. You need external RAID systems for this. It's also slower keeping the boot drive mixed with large media files.
Personally, I'd rather have a standard Mini with a 256GB SSD internally that can hook up to a 4 drive RAID system than a taller Mini with 4 x 2.5" drives inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I keep my iTunes library on an external drive but it is less than optimal for use with a laptop. I'd have no problem with backing that storage up to an external RAID but it is operationally limited for the user.
That is something Apple needs to address and possibly iCloud will offer an option to let you treat your Mac as a device and make sure the selection you want is local to the computer.
When Apple first made the Mac Pro, they set a level for the needs that it satisfied and this was not the highest level that could be reached. They picked an affordable set of processors. Intel have processors that cost double what Apple's chosen BTO options cost. There are also machines that can take 4 CPUs.
That is one way to look at it, but I look at it as the maximal system that people are willing to put on their desktops. So certainly that is related to affordability, but it is also related to profitability. I don't really believe Apple could market a more powerful Mac Pro, that is large iron
Xeon systems to the desktop market. Two sockets is about it when it comes to affordability, so the Pro is at anyone time the most powerful Mac system you can get.
Quote:
There's no reason they can't adjust the level. If it cuts out a tiny fraction of the Mac Pro users then it doesn't matter because it might gain a lot more users if it helps adjust the price and size and becomes more suitable for use as a server.
Well I do agree that Apple could do more to make the Pro appealing to a wider array of users. A more modular approach would certainly help.
Quote:
It depends on what you call primary files though. Some film editors use massive external banks of drives to edit HD footage because sometimes even the storage in a Mac Pro won't be enough. You can fit 8TB inside but you can't have 8TB in RAID1 = 16TB so that you have a failure recovery. You need external RAID systems for this. It's also slower keeping the boot drive mixed with large media files.
Yes there is always those that need more than a workstation can support. But I'm not in that segment, I'm simply a desktop user that doesn't want to waste money on an external device for primary storage. Especially when an external device is needed for backup.
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather have a standard Mini with a 256GB SSD internally that can hook up to a 4 drive RAID system than a taller Mini with 4 x 2.5" drives inside.
Believe me I have nothing against an SSD in a Mini. That would be great for snappy operation. What I would love to see is that SSD on a blade and then having the Mini support two or more additional drives.
Quote:
That is something Apple needs to address and possibly iCloud will offer an option to let you treat your Mac as a device and make sure the selection you want is local to the computer.
The feeling of grief just came over me again. I think many people have this idea of the cloud in their head that will never be a reality for everybody or even most people. Trying to serve large media files over the net is just stupid.
It is great for the service providers because they can then change everybody's contract to a metered rate and earn a bit on every file you want to view. Mind you I think they will be justified to because it is an incredible waste of bandwidth to be serving files when they can easily be stored locally. My sense is that Apple knows this and is avoiding selling iCloud as a storage bin.
The other problem with iCloud is that sometimes the bandwidth simply isn't there at all. I don't want to have to preload my MBP (or iPad for that matter) with the files I think I might need while outside of a net connection. Cloud services should make your life easier not more difficult.
You miss the point, if you put your secondary storage on the TB port then that bandwidth is always shared with normal system access. Using existing legacy ports prevents that.
No, I don't miss the point. Why do folks assume that folks that disagree are "missing the point" as opposed to "i don't f-ing agree with your point"?
Bandwidth is always shared. What do you think the SATA 3.0 controller is connected to? For example P55 motherboards used up PCIe lanes. Even when fully integrated into to the core logic (AMD? I forget) bandwidth from all sources are still "shared".
It is true that the TB bandwidth will be shared between storage and video but yah, so?
Quote:
You are looking at this based on yesterday's technology. Imagine a RAIDed array of SSD's or other devices. There are already SSD's that move 750 Mega BYTES of data per second.
You wanted 1TB worth of space. If you can afford 1TB worth of SSD in 2011 you can afford a mac pro. That drive is $3-$4K at the moment.
And the 750MBps data rate is achieved not via SATA but as a x8 PCIe slot and is already 4 smaller SSDs in RAID 0 mode.
I can imagine tomorrow's technology just fine and when I can afford multiple 1TB SSDs in a RAID 0 array I can afford a new mini with multiple optical TB ports and more bandwidth out the yin yang.
I won't care that my 3+ year old mini can't handle the transfer rate on it's old TB connection.
Quote:
No the problem as I see it is that they are stuck in the past when they where barely holding on and couldn't afford a full line up of hardware. It is pretty obvious that Apple hasn't paid much attention to the Mac line up since as it is basically the same product lineup. Frankly this should not require explanation to you or anybody else as it is obvious.
Really? Apple hasn't been paying attention? While the article doesn't address the Mac desktop line specifically try comparing the original G4 mini with the current 2010 mini. Or the G5 iMac with that of today.
How much has Dell's desktop lineup changed? I mean other than adding a SFF and AIO? Talk about looking to yesterday's technology.
Quote:
Yep exactly what you would see when the discussion centers around the desktop Mac line. What else would you call it when the same basic product has been on the market for multiple years now?
Mature?
Do you really think that adding a freaking tower is innovative? Or would cause some massive resurgence in desktop Mac sales?
Quote:
Maybe but it will never go away. Further Apple has never had a machine that could pass for that digital hub they promote.
The xMac isn't the only or even optimal answer. The optimal answer for MOST consumers is a Time Capsule like box that they plug in, do very basic configuration and never mess around with again.
Quote:
I can't take anybody seriously if they offer up the Mini as their ideal of a server.
The mini is not a bad little SOHO server.
However, the mini configured with 1TB of disk space today is called the "Mini with Snow Leopard Server" which I shortened to Mini Server. The mini you stipulated exists today, regardless of what folks call it.
Quote:
An external RAID is a great backup device. However imagine a Mini/XMac with four laptop sized drive bays.
An external RAID 10 is a great primary data drive...especially over TB and okay via FW 800. Via benchmarks I'm not getting hit with much of a performance penalty by using FW800 vs the internal SATA in my current 2009 mini.
I agree with Marvin. A highly viable 2011 mini design is one with a reasonable amount of SSD space for Lion and instant on capability like the MBA paired a matching 4 bay 3.5" RAID 0/1/5/10 Time Capsule NAS with TB and automatic iCloud backup.
I can even live without an internal optical drive if there's a nicely matching BR external enclosure.
the Pro is at anyone time the most powerful Mac system you can get.
For CPU performance they are comparable with competitors but there are other compromises. You can't for example put 4 high-end GPUs in a Mac Pro as the PCI slots only supply 300W so you can't build something like the 3DBOXX XTreme:
Each Tesla GPU can use up to 240W and that box has a 1.5kW PSU.
The machine BoXX make that I find very interesting is the RenderPro. This can have up to 2 x 6-core Xeons and is still this small (on top vs their standard workstation):
There needs to be storage and a GPU accounted for but an MXM card + 2.5" drives + slim optical shouldn't add too much to that. Since they already compromise on performance in certain aspects, why not have a new design that works to those compromises like the RenderPro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The feeling of grief just came over me again. I think many people have this idea of the cloud in their head that will never be a reality for everybody or even most people. Trying to serve large media files over the net is just stupid.
It wouldn't have to do that though. The cloud acts as the sync controller. It doesn't need to transfer the files from the cloud but local external storage. There's no reason why your iTunes library for example can't be hosted in the cloud with playlists and you have a network attached storage and you can sit with your iPad and have the cloud transfer the files from the local storage server directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The other problem with iCloud is that sometimes the bandwidth simply isn't there at all. I don't want to have to preload my MBP (or iPad for that matter) with the files I think I might need while outside of a net connection. Cloud services should make your life easier not more difficult.
This is mainly about the Mini though, which is static. The other mobile products are susceptible to the temporary inconveniences of current network speeds and availability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And the 750MBps data rate is achieved not via SATA but as a x8 PCIe slot and is already 4 smaller SSDs in RAID 0 mode.
There's also the matter of needs. Thunderbolt gives you separate channels for video and data so you get a full 1.25GByte/s for data. At full rate, this means you can duplicate a Blu-Ray film in under 40 seconds and clone one 12TB RAID to another in under 3 hours. Obviously the faster the better but it's as fast as people really need and obviously exceeds the speed of internal SATA drives anyway.
Comments
Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.
Apple is selling lots of those things. But I'm completely disinterested until I have the one product I really want and feel I really need. Until I'm able to spend my hard earned money on the computer I want why should I spend any of my hard earned money on other Apple products that only compliment (go with) a desktop computer. I can't see me doing everything I want to do on an iPad. So I need that desktop computer. iPod? Can I rip the CD's and DVDs I have without using a desktop computer and put them on an iPod? iPhone? I really don't need to be connected 24/7 nor do I want to be and I can't do everything on an iPhone that I can do on a desktop computer.
Now if Apple only had the type of desktop computer that I want. One that isn't huge and overly expensive (Mac Pro). One that isn't so tiny there isn't any room in the case for another internal hard drive so I can back things up and still have that optical drive I'll need to rip all those CDs and DVDs (Mini). One that let me use the monitor I already have instead of having it built in (iMac).
If only Apple had a Mac that was between the Mini and the Mac Pro that had a case large enough for some expansion, that had some jacks on the front like the Pro and had the horsepower of the iMac that didn't come with a built in screen. Then I might be able to actually find an interest in all the other products Apple wants to sell me.
Apple is selling lots of those things. But I'm completely disinterested until I have the one product I really want and feel I really need. Until I'm able to spend my hard earned money on the computer I want why should I spend any of my hard earned money on other Apple products that only compliment (go with) a desktop computer. I can't see me doing everything I want to do on an iPad. So I need that desktop computer. iPod? Can I rip the CD's and DVDs I have without using a desktop computer and put them on an iPod? iPhone? I really don't need to be connected 24/7 nor do I want to be and I can't do everything on an iPhone that I can do on a desktop computer.
Now if Apple only had the type of desktop computer that I want. One that isn't huge and overly expensive (Mac Pro). One that isn't so tiny there isn't any room in the case for another internal hard drive so I can back things up and still have that optical drive I'll need to rip all those CDs and DVDs (Mini). One that let me use the monitor I already have instead of having it built in (iMac).
If only Apple had a Mac that was between the Mini and the Mac Pro that had a case large enough for some expansion, that had some jacks on the front like the Pro and had the horsepower of the iMac that didn't come with a built in screen. Then I might be able to actually find an interest in all the other products Apple wants to sell me.
The computer you want won't come from Cupertino.
The computer you want is called a PC. Might not run the OS you want, but Apple sells iPads, iPhones, and iMacs. The Mac Pro exists, because they have to at least throw pros a bone, and the Mini used to that computer for switchers, but it's a poor value, both compared to the iMac and any current PC for that price. I just see the Mini becoming a cheap iOS dev box, a mainstay for a small Mac computer lab, or a Lion Server home NAS.
And Apple probably has the right idea with the iMac. For most people, internal storage is fine, the supplied amount of RAM is fine, people might add an external HD or 2 for TM, use a couple USB ports for an iPhone/iPod, flash drive, and don't play many games, so a powerful GPU isn't a major concern.
And that IPS panel is sexy (so is the design).
If you want anything above and beyond that, it's the Mac Pro or a PC.
Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
Physical space has nothing to do with it.
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.
This seems to be the big obstical. Apple is extremely reluctant to add new models, even as sales are expanding, this keeps them out of a lot of markets where there is an expectation of PCI Express slots in a wasp ably priced machine.
Which dramatically impacts your overall available bandwidth. People seem to think a TB port gas infinite bandwidth, it doesn't. In any event you still need to realize that internal drives operating off SATA chip set ports offer up a different channel for data movement. Sometimes anyways as we are already seeing Apple implementing TB in different ways on different machines.
RIght, and for single drives that max sustained read throughput is what? Around 100MB-200MB? That's for some of the higher end 15K drives. Max disk to buffer rate is typically around 1Gbps.
That's not a "dramatic" hit on a 10TB pipe.
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that.
Yes, Apple is so stupid they don't realize that users have different needs. Really? That's your assertion?
Frankly I think they are stuck with the same thinking they had when the hardware line up was trimmed to save the company.
Yep, look up "complacent" or "stuck in the past" in the dictionary and you'll see Apple's picture.
The problem is they saved the company but have left the desktop line up to decay and become not relavant to today's need.
Or perhaps it is the desktop that is becoming less and less relevant?
The big issue today in my mind is reliable storage capacity. A terabyte is no longer an unrealistic requirement for storage, especially if you are into video.
You can get 1TB in a mini...at least the server models...as 2 x 500GB. Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention). They have 750GB models today that you can swap into a mini.
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
I posted about taking the guts from an iMac and putting it into a box (like yours) just for that purpose. The box you show could also be an enclosure for that purpose if Apple won't give us that computer. How about putting the guts of a Mini into that enclosure? I'd love that. Someone please build that enclosure.
I think Apple must try loads of designs out. Final designs don't come on the first go. Judging from their site, it seems they want to push everything into the screen:
This would suggest they won't move away from that but rather move towards the iPad-on-a-stand type of design. I have little doubt in my mind that they will have designed some mid-sized towers, sat them beside the iMac for half a second and decided the iMac design was more striking and used less space so was the way forward.
Apple like to control the display - the animated brightness controls, energy saving, viewing angles etc. Having their mainstream desktop without a screen takes away that control. The only option would be to build a box yourself and take the insides out of it. But all you'd really have to do is buy a 21.5" iMac, take the panel out and sell it and then put a metal cover over the front and connect a display or two of your own. Then you have access to your hard drive too and can put in an SSD.
I think the Mac Pro has to get a makeover at some point and I think that design would have to be close to the desired mid-sized tower design.
Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention).
One came very recently - the Samsung Spinpoint M8, 9.5mm 1TB. Others will likely follow suit. There is a larger 1.5TB 14mm one from Seagate that someone squeezed into a MBP but it doesn't quite fit:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1018365
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
Exactly. People say they want 3.5" drives to get options to go to 3TB but I don't think that's a good idea at all. Ideally just have a reasonably sized SSD boot drive and keep all the big files on external storage. Apple do this themselves in their server farms.
We will hate it here, but I think Apple has something radical up there sleeves and will be replacing both the Mini and the Pro with a modular xMac not much bigger than the current Mini. It will have room for one card and one drive only, but will have two thunderbolt ports. It will be a compromise for almost every user, but the daisy chaining and Lion support makes it all workable.
A few weeks ago, I attended an Apple seminar given at Miami-Dade College; After the lectures on iCloud and a little on Lion, I spoke with the two Apple reps separately; I specifically asked them about a one size fits all, but modular xMac. All I got was a stare, a shrug, and, "I wouldn't know that." from each of them. No elaboration or denial. I felt like something was unsaid, but since I was certain they wouldn't tell even if they knew, I didn't press it.
I think Apple must try loads of designs out. Final designs don't come on the first go. Judging from their site, it seems they want to push everything into the screen:
Apple has been pretty straight forward in this respect acknowledging testing many
Prototypes. Not just hardware but software too.
This would suggest they won't move away from that but rather move towards the iPad-on-a-stand type of design. I have little doubt in my mind that they will have designed some mid-sized towers, sat them beside the iMac for half a second and decided the iMac design was more striking and used less space so was the way forward.
Not everybody cares about design. The history of the AIR highlights this. AIR in it's original form was an example of design gone amok and as a result sales suffered. The new AIR soundly addressed the functionality part of the equation and as a result is seeing very strong sales.
Now I'm not saying Apple should make ugly hardware, rather that they should have no problem at all making a device that is bigger than the Mini but yet functional and attractive.
Apple like to control the display - the animated brightness controls, energy saving, viewing angles etc. Having their mainstream desktop without a screen takes away that control. The only option would be to build a box yourself and take the insides out of it. But all you'd really have to do is buy a 21.5" iMac, take the panel out and sell it and then put a metal cover over the front and connect a display or two of your own. Then you have access to your hard drive too and can put in an SSD.
so! Many many users, from a wide range of interests, like to control the display. In some cases it is mandatory in order for them to use a Mac.
I think the Mac Pro has to get a makeover at some point and I think that design would have to be close to the desired mid-sized tower design.
A make over is possible but we have to remember that many users need a Pro as capable or more capable than the current unit.
[quote]
One came very recently - the Samsung Spinpoint M8, 9.5mm 1TB. Others will likely follow suit. There is a larger 1.5TB 14mm one from Seagate that someone squeezed into a MBP but it doesn't quite fit:
[quote]
I'd actually like to see Apple transition to laptop drives in more of it's machines. That might actually allow for an array inside the iMac. At least until there is no reason to include mechanical drives.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1018365
Exactly. People say they want 3.5" drives to get options to go to 3TB but I don't think that's a good idea at all.
It is an excellent idea. Secondary storage belongs inside the box containing the processor or the guts of your machine. External ports need to connect to tertiary storage. An external RAID drive is fine if it is for backup, caching or other uses but it is no place for your primary files.
Ideally just have a reasonably sized SSD boot drive and keep all the big files on external storage. Apple do this themselves in their server farms.
I keep my iTunes library on an external drive but it is less than optimal for use with a laptop. I'd have no problem with backing that storage up to an external RAID but it is operationally limited for the user.
RIght, and for single drives that max sustained read throughput is what? Around 100MB-200MB? That's for some of the higher end 15K drives. Max disk to buffer rate is typically around 1Gbps.
You miss the point, if you put your secondary storage on the TB port then that bandwidth is always shared with normal system access. Using existing legacy ports prevents that.
That's not a "dramatic" hit on a 10TB pipe.
You are looking at this based on yesterday's technology. Imagine a RAIDed array of SSD's or other devices. There are already SSD's that move 750 Mega BYTES of data per second.
Yes, Apple is so stupid they don't realize that users have different needs. Really? That's your assertion?
No the problem as I see it is that they are stuck in the past when they where barely holding on and couldn't afford a full line up of hardware. It is pretty obvious that Apple hasn't paid much attention to the Mac line up since as it is basically the same product lineup. Frankly this should not require explanation to you or anybody else as it is obvious.
Yep, look up "complacent" or "stuck in the past" in the dictionary and you'll see Apple's picture.
Yep exactly what you would see when the discussion centers around the desktop Mac line. What else would you call it when the same basic product has been on the market for multiple years now?
Or perhaps it is the desktop that is becoming less and less relevant?
Maybe but it will never go away. Further Apple has never had a machine that could pass for that digital hub they promote.
You can get 1TB in a mini...at least the server models...as 2 x 500GB. Probably we'll see a 9.5 mm 1TB drive soon if they don't exist already (haven't been paying attention). They have 750GB models today that you can swap into a mini.
I can't take anybody seriously if they offer up the Mini as their ideal of a server.
In any case, 1 drive isn't all that "reliable". I'd much rather have a 4-bay RAID 10 array via thunderbolt than a fatter mini with 2x3.5" bays.
An external RAID is a great backup device. However imagine a Mini/XMac with four laptop sized drive bays.
A make over is possible but we have to remember that many users need a Pro as capable or more capable than the current unit.
When Apple first made the Mac Pro, they set a level for the needs that it satisfied and this was not the highest level that could be reached. They picked an affordable set of processors. Intel have processors that cost double what Apple's chosen BTO options cost. There are also machines that can take 4 CPUs.
There's no reason they can't adjust the level. If it cuts out a tiny fraction of the Mac Pro users then it doesn't matter because it might gain a lot more users if it helps adjust the price and size and becomes more suitable for use as a server.
It is an excellent idea. Secondary storage belongs inside the box containing the processor or the guts of your machine. External ports need to connect to tertiary storage. An external RAID drive is fine if it is for backup, caching or other uses but it is no place for your primary files.
It depends on what you call primary files though. Some film editors use massive external banks of drives to edit HD footage because sometimes even the storage in a Mac Pro won't be enough. You can fit 8TB inside but you can't have 8TB in RAID1 = 16TB so that you have a failure recovery. You need external RAID systems for this. It's also slower keeping the boot drive mixed with large media files.
Personally, I'd rather have a standard Mini with a 256GB SSD internally that can hook up to a 4 drive RAID system than a taller Mini with 4 x 2.5" drives inside.
I keep my iTunes library on an external drive but it is less than optimal for use with a laptop. I'd have no problem with backing that storage up to an external RAID but it is operationally limited for the user.
That is something Apple needs to address and possibly iCloud will offer an option to let you treat your Mac as a device and make sure the selection you want is local to the computer.
When Apple first made the Mac Pro, they set a level for the needs that it satisfied and this was not the highest level that could be reached. They picked an affordable set of processors. Intel have processors that cost double what Apple's chosen BTO options cost. There are also machines that can take 4 CPUs.
That is one way to look at it, but I look at it as the maximal system that people are willing to put on their desktops. So certainly that is related to affordability, but it is also related to profitability. I don't really believe Apple could market a more powerful Mac Pro, that is large iron
Xeon systems to the desktop market. Two sockets is about it when it comes to affordability, so the Pro is at anyone time the most powerful Mac system you can get.
There's no reason they can't adjust the level. If it cuts out a tiny fraction of the Mac Pro users then it doesn't matter because it might gain a lot more users if it helps adjust the price and size and becomes more suitable for use as a server.
Well I do agree that Apple could do more to make the Pro appealing to a wider array of users. A more modular approach would certainly help.
It depends on what you call primary files though. Some film editors use massive external banks of drives to edit HD footage because sometimes even the storage in a Mac Pro won't be enough. You can fit 8TB inside but you can't have 8TB in RAID1 = 16TB so that you have a failure recovery. You need external RAID systems for this. It's also slower keeping the boot drive mixed with large media files.
Yes there is always those that need more than a workstation can support. But I'm not in that segment, I'm simply a desktop user that doesn't want to waste money on an external device for primary storage. Especially when an external device is needed for backup.
Personally, I'd rather have a standard Mini with a 256GB SSD internally that can hook up to a 4 drive RAID system than a taller Mini with 4 x 2.5" drives inside.
Believe me I have nothing against an SSD in a Mini. That would be great for snappy operation. What I would love to see is that SSD on a blade and then having the Mini support two or more additional drives.
That is something Apple needs to address and possibly iCloud will offer an option to let you treat your Mac as a device and make sure the selection you want is local to the computer.
The feeling of grief just came over me again. I think many people have this idea of the cloud in their head that will never be a reality for everybody or even most people. Trying to serve large media files over the net is just stupid.
It is great for the service providers because they can then change everybody's contract to a metered rate and earn a bit on every file you want to view. Mind you I think they will be justified to because it is an incredible waste of bandwidth to be serving files when they can easily be stored locally. My sense is that Apple knows this and is avoiding selling iCloud as a storage bin.
The other problem with iCloud is that sometimes the bandwidth simply isn't there at all. I don't want to have to preload my MBP (or iPad for that matter) with the files I think I might need while outside of a net connection. Cloud services should make your life easier not more difficult.
You miss the point, if you put your secondary storage on the TB port then that bandwidth is always shared with normal system access. Using existing legacy ports prevents that.
No, I don't miss the point. Why do folks assume that folks that disagree are "missing the point" as opposed to "i don't f-ing agree with your point"?
Bandwidth is always shared. What do you think the SATA 3.0 controller is connected to? For example P55 motherboards used up PCIe lanes. Even when fully integrated into to the core logic (AMD? I forget) bandwidth from all sources are still "shared".
It is true that the TB bandwidth will be shared between storage and video but yah, so?
You are looking at this based on yesterday's technology. Imagine a RAIDed array of SSD's or other devices. There are already SSD's that move 750 Mega BYTES of data per second.
You wanted 1TB worth of space. If you can afford 1TB worth of SSD in 2011 you can afford a mac pro. That drive is $3-$4K at the moment.
And the 750MBps data rate is achieved not via SATA but as a x8 PCIe slot and is already 4 smaller SSDs in RAID 0 mode.
I can imagine tomorrow's technology just fine and when I can afford multiple 1TB SSDs in a RAID 0 array I can afford a new mini with multiple optical TB ports and more bandwidth out the yin yang.
I won't care that my 3+ year old mini can't handle the transfer rate on it's old TB connection.
No the problem as I see it is that they are stuck in the past when they where barely holding on and couldn't afford a full line up of hardware. It is pretty obvious that Apple hasn't paid much attention to the Mac line up since as it is basically the same product lineup. Frankly this should not require explanation to you or anybody else as it is obvious.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1512...ple_rolls.html
Really? Apple hasn't been paying attention? While the article doesn't address the Mac desktop line specifically try comparing the original G4 mini with the current 2010 mini. Or the G5 iMac with that of today.
How much has Dell's desktop lineup changed? I mean other than adding a SFF and AIO? Talk about looking to yesterday's technology.
Yep exactly what you would see when the discussion centers around the desktop Mac line. What else would you call it when the same basic product has been on the market for multiple years now?
Mature?
Do you really think that adding a freaking tower is innovative? Or would cause some massive resurgence in desktop Mac sales?
Maybe but it will never go away. Further Apple has never had a machine that could pass for that digital hub they promote.
The xMac isn't the only or even optimal answer. The optimal answer for MOST consumers is a Time Capsule like box that they plug in, do very basic configuration and never mess around with again.
I can't take anybody seriously if they offer up the Mini as their ideal of a server.
The mini is not a bad little SOHO server.
However, the mini configured with 1TB of disk space today is called the "Mini with Snow Leopard Server" which I shortened to Mini Server. The mini you stipulated exists today, regardless of what folks call it.
An external RAID is a great backup device. However imagine a Mini/XMac with four laptop sized drive bays.
An external RAID 10 is a great primary data drive...especially over TB and okay via FW 800. Via benchmarks I'm not getting hit with much of a performance penalty by using FW800 vs the internal SATA in my current 2009 mini.
I agree with Marvin. A highly viable 2011 mini design is one with a reasonable amount of SSD space for Lion and instant on capability like the MBA paired a matching 4 bay 3.5" RAID 0/1/5/10 Time Capsule NAS with TB and automatic iCloud backup.
I can even live without an internal optical drive if there's a nicely matching BR external enclosure.
the Pro is at anyone time the most powerful Mac system you can get.
For CPU performance they are comparable with competitors but there are other compromises. You can't for example put 4 high-end GPUs in a Mac Pro as the PCI slots only supply 300W so you can't build something like the 3DBOXX XTreme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWzHFpIma4c
Each Tesla GPU can use up to 240W and that box has a 1.5kW PSU.
The machine BoXX make that I find very interesting is the RenderPro. This can have up to 2 x 6-core Xeons and is still this small (on top vs their standard workstation):
There needs to be storage and a GPU accounted for but an MXM card + 2.5" drives + slim optical shouldn't add too much to that. Since they already compromise on performance in certain aspects, why not have a new design that works to those compromises like the RenderPro?
The feeling of grief just came over me again. I think many people have this idea of the cloud in their head that will never be a reality for everybody or even most people. Trying to serve large media files over the net is just stupid.
It wouldn't have to do that though. The cloud acts as the sync controller. It doesn't need to transfer the files from the cloud but local external storage. There's no reason why your iTunes library for example can't be hosted in the cloud with playlists and you have a network attached storage and you can sit with your iPad and have the cloud transfer the files from the local storage server directly.
The other problem with iCloud is that sometimes the bandwidth simply isn't there at all. I don't want to have to preload my MBP (or iPad for that matter) with the files I think I might need while outside of a net connection. Cloud services should make your life easier not more difficult.
This is mainly about the Mini though, which is static. The other mobile products are susceptible to the temporary inconveniences of current network speeds and availability.
And the 750MBps data rate is achieved not via SATA but as a x8 PCIe slot and is already 4 smaller SSDs in RAID 0 mode.
There's also the matter of needs. Thunderbolt gives you separate channels for video and data so you get a full 1.25GByte/s for data. At full rate, this means you can duplicate a Blu-Ray film in under 40 seconds and clone one 12TB RAID to another in under 3 hours. Obviously the faster the better but it's as fast as people really need and obviously exceeds the speed of internal SATA drives anyway.