I would like to see an external graphics card similar to what Sony introduced last year that connects via Thunderbird. That way I could use it on my Mini and MacBook Air. I know you can now buy an external PCIe box with four slots but it costs a small fortune.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You don't seem to be alone in this kind of thinking, but it still makes no sense to me. At the point you start investing quite a lot in the mini, the imac starts to make seemingly more sense for most things.
But the iMac has TB also... so it would be come expandable.... and when the MP get TB... expansion becomes exponential!!!!
Perhaps something is in fact happening with the Mac Pros. Just logged into the Apple Store for Education Institutions where I buy computers for my school & it shows a 1-2 week wait time on the top end Mac Pro. But oddly enough, when you click on it to configure it says "2-4 days." In the past when I've seen it jump from 1-2 weeks or longer, it's a sign that updates are coming. But all of the models need to say this (1-2 weeks).
Although, maybe b/c AAPL destroyed the last quarter, they figured they could wait off on 'new' announcements for the lull after the storm? And, if they stretch iPhone 5 to October as per rumours, then they need jolts of sales and PR in the summer back to school season: new kind of PM and slimmer sexy screen MBP/Air. Also if this IGZO thing is true, maybe that's delayed mad thin designs and batteries etc for the latter; think that would be harder redesign than the 'plan b' iPad 3.
I'd like to ask does Apple have a strategy for the Mini which precludes Winter from getting what he wants?
I could go for that myself.
So could many of us! The fundamental problem with the Mini is that performance lagged fairly badly given its price. The qualification there being that the Mini uses low power parts.
Can Winter get what he wants? With Ivy Bridge I don't think it is totally impossible. We would be talking a 35 to 45 watts processor along with a GPU and GPU memory in the box. That is a lot to deal with, though Apple might be able to limit power disapation dynamically as Ivy Bridge has support for that. In any event I consider quad core very important for any desktop purchase so they would have to do something there.
The interesting thing is the so called server model that Apple currently ships which is quad core. I believe it is a 45 watt chip, so let's think a bit about that translated to Ivy Bridge. At 45 watts you would get a respectable CPU speed increase in combo with a new generation of GPU. That would be one hot little box! Such a platform, hooked up to a decent monitor, would make a great development platform but sadly not a more general workstation. This however doesn't represent the performance you could expect out of a descrete GPU or even AMDs Fusion processors.
But the iMac has TB also... so it would be come expandable.... and when the MP get TB... expansion becomes exponential!!!!
Not really. The thunderbolt controller feeds off existing lanes. You'd gain the ability to use the thunderbolt display and share accessories in breakout box form with your laptop. That could be quite valuable for some people.
So could many of us! The fundamental problem with the Mini is that performance lagged fairly badly given its price. The qualification there being that the Mini uses low power parts.
Can Winter get what he wants? With Ivy Bridge I don't think it is totally impossible. We would be talking a 35 to 45 watts processor along with a GPU and GPU memory in the box. That is a lot to deal with, though Apple might be able to limit power disapation dynamically as Ivy Bridge has support for that. In any event I consider quad core very important for any desktop purchase so they would have to do something there.
The interesting thing is the so called server model that Apple currently ships which is quad core. I believe it is a 45 watt chip, so let's think a bit about that translated to Ivy Bridge. At 45 watts you would get a respectable CPU speed increase in combo with a new generation of GPU. That would be one hot little box! Such a platform, hooked up to a decent monitor, would make a great development platform but sadly not a more general workstation. This however doesn't represent the performance you could expect out of a descrete GPU or even AMDs Fusion processors.
Agreed. The Mac community wanted a headless iMac so Apple gave them a headless MacBook and told them to like it.
It would cost less to build a Mini using larger desktop components. Add a larger case and a little more expandability, and the build cost is probably about the same. Then there's no need to fuss over a few watts, Apple could drop in whatever CPU they pleased.
The Mini is an example of Apple intentionally not building the best computer they could. It's so obviously designed to sucker people into buying a high margin Apple product without any innovations to justify the high margins. Totally opposite of the Mac Pro, where one look at the case, inside and out, is enough to convince anyone that it's brilliantly laid out design AND a work of art. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit just gazing at my Mac Pro with the case open, the attention to detail and usability is simply breathtaking. The Mac Pro shows respect for Mac users, while the Mini shows contempt.
Agreed. The Mac community wanted a headless iMac so Apple gave them a headless MacBook and told them to like it.
Exactly! Even that wouldn't be all that bad except that they never bothered to fill in the midrange with something else. The Mini wouldn't be bad as a low end machine, if it was priced a bit lower. The problem is they have yet to bother with a model that addresses performance we.
Quote:
It would cost less to build a Mini using larger desktop components. Add a larger case and a little more expandability, and the build cost is probably about the same. Then there's no need to fuss over a few watts, Apple could drop in whatever CPU they pleased.
Much of that cost is not due to the chipset which at best adds a hundred or so tot he price. The problem with the Mini is that they could have targeted higher performance simply by using the mobile processor used in the MBPs. Really is it that much of a problem to have a entry level Mini and a beefed up model?
By the way I don't really believe this is a power supply issue, even if I think moving the power supply internally was a mistake.
Quote:
The Mini is an example of Apple intentionally not building the best computer they could. It's so obviously designed to sucker people into buying a high margin Apple product without any innovations to justify the high margins. Totally opposite of the Mac Pro, where one look at the case, inside and out, is enough to convince anyone that it's brilliantly laid out design AND a work of art. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit just gazing at my Mac Pro with the case open, the attention to detail and usability is simply breathtaking. The Mac Pro shows respect for Mac users, while the Mini shows contempt.
I'm not sure I buy that it is a machine to sucker people into buying other hardware. It is a low end low power machine which many people find to be very desirable.
The Mini existence isn't a problem per say. Rather it is the lack of rational mid range machines that is the problem.
I'm not sure I buy that it is a machine to sucker people into buying other hardware. It is a low end low power machine which many people find to be very desirable.
I wasn't very clear, what I meant was the Mini is designed to sucker people into buying the Mini, which I suspect has far higher margins than warranted for gimped, entry level product.
Quote:
The Mini existence isn't a problem per say. Rather it is the lack of rational mid range machines that is the problem.
Totally agree. The Mini is sufficient for the needs of many users, like my parents. And it is nice to be able to upgrade a display or the Mini without having to replace both the display and the Mini. That should be a given, but Apple's obstinacy regarding all in one desktops actually makes it a feature.
I'm starting to grow weary, forgive me. It seems like things are taking a really long time.
I am growing weary too dude, *takes a seat next to you on bench* I've been waiting since FEB thinking the new MBP is 'right around the corner now!!! *each day goes by where I eagerly check A.I. for news that the new MBP is ready to order, then get sad when I don't see it and instead see a new 'launch' date set a month away*
Perhaps something is in fact happening with the Mac Pros. Just logged into the Apple Store for Education Institutions where I buy computers for my school & it shows a 1-2 week wait time on the top end Mac Pro. But oddly enough, when you click on it to configure it says "2-4 days." In the past when I've seen it jump from 1-2 weeks or longer, it's a sign that updates are coming. But all of the models need to say this (1-2 weeks).
Well today it's all "in stock" as usual, and 12 core 2-4 days. It's like there is an endless supply of this old stuff. Maybe that's why. Stale technology and overpriced.
Repeat WWDC, I'm not sure what the issue is here, just look at Apples past behavior. At best Apple will release the minor updates one to two weeks before WWDC if there are any.
Apples only real problem is Intels lack of Ivy Brdige chips suitable for some of Apples machines. That does put a kink in the program but Apple could do us all a favor and put Trintiy into things like the Mini.
Mind over matter only works for your own body, not Apple release schedules. Believe me, I've tried.
And developed the ability to eat just once every other day, walk without making any noise, and answer unspoken questions from the people around me! So there's that.
I'd like to ask does Apple have a strategy for the Mini which precludes Winter from getting what he wants?
I could go for that myself.
I actually bought the base mini and put an SSD in it. I am happy with it. I am just saying that if Apple wanted me to spend a bit more, I would spend more based on that option.
@wizard69 - I don't think I will be upgrading until Haswell anyway. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that Intel cheapened out on the thermal paste for Ivy Bridge.
In addition, the quad/discrete option under a grand I thought would be perfect for me to play Diablo III on (as well as possibly other games in the future). Right now, I really have no interest in playing Diablo III.
Mind over matter only works for your own body, not Apple release schedules. Believe me, I've tried.
And developed the ability to eat just once every other day, walk without making any noise, and answer unspoken questions from the people around me! So there's that.
Doesn't really do much in the Apple realm.
I dont know about that... I'm working on SteveJobs 'reality distortion field'....
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
It would be nice to see a quad-core/discrete graphics mini for $999.
I'd like to ask does Apple have a strategy for the Mini which precludes Winter from getting what he wants?
I could go for that myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I would like to see an external graphics card similar to what Sony introduced last year that connects via Thunderbird. That way I could use it on my Mini and MacBook Air. I know you can now buy an external PCIe box with four slots but it costs a small fortune.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You don't seem to be alone in this kind of thinking, but it still makes no sense to me. At the point you start investing quite a lot in the mini, the imac starts to make seemingly more sense for most things.
But the iMac has TB also... so it would be come expandable.... and when the MP get TB... expansion becomes exponential!!!!
Perhaps something is in fact happening with the Mac Pros. Just logged into the Apple Store for Education Institutions where I buy computers for my school & it shows a 1-2 week wait time on the top end Mac Pro. But oddly enough, when you click on it to configure it says "2-4 days." In the past when I've seen it jump from 1-2 weeks or longer, it's a sign that updates are coming. But all of the models need to say this (1-2 weeks).
absolutely agreed.
Although, maybe b/c AAPL destroyed the last quarter, they figured they could wait off on 'new' announcements for the lull after the storm? And, if they stretch iPhone 5 to October as per rumours, then they need jolts of sales and PR in the summer back to school season: new kind of PM and slimmer sexy screen MBP/Air. Also if this IGZO thing is true, maybe that's delayed mad thin designs and batteries etc for the latter; think that would be harder redesign than the 'plan b' iPad 3.
hopefully something soon....
So could many of us! The fundamental problem with the Mini is that performance lagged fairly badly given its price. The qualification there being that the Mini uses low power parts.
Can Winter get what he wants? With Ivy Bridge I don't think it is totally impossible. We would be talking a 35 to 45 watts processor along with a GPU and GPU memory in the box. That is a lot to deal with, though Apple might be able to limit power disapation dynamically as Ivy Bridge has support for that. In any event I consider quad core very important for any desktop purchase so they would have to do something there.
The interesting thing is the so called server model that Apple currently ships which is quad core. I believe it is a 45 watt chip, so let's think a bit about that translated to Ivy Bridge. At 45 watts you would get a respectable CPU speed increase in combo with a new generation of GPU. That would be one hot little box! Such a platform, hooked up to a decent monitor, would make a great development platform but sadly not a more general workstation. This however doesn't represent the performance you could expect out of a descrete GPU or even AMDs Fusion processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanm9
But the iMac has TB also... so it would be come expandable.... and when the MP get TB... expansion becomes exponential!!!!
Not really. The thunderbolt controller feeds off existing lanes. You'd gain the ability to use the thunderbolt display and share accessories in breakout box form with your laptop. That could be quite valuable for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So could many of us! The fundamental problem with the Mini is that performance lagged fairly badly given its price. The qualification there being that the Mini uses low power parts.
Can Winter get what he wants? With Ivy Bridge I don't think it is totally impossible. We would be talking a 35 to 45 watts processor along with a GPU and GPU memory in the box. That is a lot to deal with, though Apple might be able to limit power disapation dynamically as Ivy Bridge has support for that. In any event I consider quad core very important for any desktop purchase so they would have to do something there.
The interesting thing is the so called server model that Apple currently ships which is quad core. I believe it is a 45 watt chip, so let's think a bit about that translated to Ivy Bridge. At 45 watts you would get a respectable CPU speed increase in combo with a new generation of GPU. That would be one hot little box! Such a platform, hooked up to a decent monitor, would make a great development platform but sadly not a more general workstation. This however doesn't represent the performance you could expect out of a descrete GPU or even AMDs Fusion processors.
Agreed. The Mac community wanted a headless iMac so Apple gave them a headless MacBook and told them to like it.
It would cost less to build a Mini using larger desktop components. Add a larger case and a little more expandability, and the build cost is probably about the same. Then there's no need to fuss over a few watts, Apple could drop in whatever CPU they pleased.
The Mini is an example of Apple intentionally not building the best computer they could. It's so obviously designed to sucker people into buying a high margin Apple product without any innovations to justify the high margins. Totally opposite of the Mac Pro, where one look at the case, inside and out, is enough to convince anyone that it's brilliantly laid out design AND a work of art. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit just gazing at my Mac Pro with the case open, the attention to detail and usability is simply breathtaking. The Mac Pro shows respect for Mac users, while the Mini shows contempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Agreed. The Mac community wanted a headless iMac so Apple gave them a headless MacBook and told them to like it.
Exactly! Even that wouldn't be all that bad except that they never bothered to fill in the midrange with something else. The Mini wouldn't be bad as a low end machine, if it was priced a bit lower. The problem is they have yet to bother with a model that addresses performance we.
Quote:
It would cost less to build a Mini using larger desktop components. Add a larger case and a little more expandability, and the build cost is probably about the same. Then there's no need to fuss over a few watts, Apple could drop in whatever CPU they pleased.
Much of that cost is not due to the chipset which at best adds a hundred or so tot he price. The problem with the Mini is that they could have targeted higher performance simply by using the mobile processor used in the MBPs. Really is it that much of a problem to have a entry level Mini and a beefed up model?
By the way I don't really believe this is a power supply issue, even if I think moving the power supply internally was a mistake.
Quote:
The Mini is an example of Apple intentionally not building the best computer they could. It's so obviously designed to sucker people into buying a high margin Apple product without any innovations to justify the high margins. Totally opposite of the Mac Pro, where one look at the case, inside and out, is enough to convince anyone that it's brilliantly laid out design AND a work of art. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit just gazing at my Mac Pro with the case open, the attention to detail and usability is simply breathtaking. The Mac Pro shows respect for Mac users, while the Mini shows contempt.
I'm not sure I buy that it is a machine to sucker people into buying other hardware. It is a low end low power machine which many people find to be very desirable.The Mini existence isn't a problem per say. Rather it is the lack of rational mid range machines that is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure I buy that it is a machine to sucker people into buying other hardware. It is a low end low power machine which many people find to be very desirable.I wasn't very clear, what I meant was the Mini is designed to sucker people into buying the Mini, which I suspect has far higher margins than warranted for gimped, entry level product.
Quote:
The Mini existence isn't a problem per say. Rather it is the lack of rational mid range machines that is the problem.
Totally agree. The Mini is sufficient for the needs of many users, like my parents. And it is nice to be able to upgrade a display or the Mini without having to replace both the display and the Mini. That should be a given, but Apple's obstinacy regarding all in one desktops actually makes it a feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755
I'm starting to grow weary, forgive me. It seems like things are taking a really long time.
I am growing weary too dude, *takes a seat next to you on bench* I've been waiting since FEB thinking the new MBP is 'right around the corner now!!! *each day goes by where I eagerly check A.I. for news that the new MBP is ready to order, then get sad when I don't see it and instead see a new 'launch' date set a month away*
I'm with you. All across the board.
Well today it's all "in stock" as usual, and 12 core 2-4 days. It's like there is an endless supply of this old stuff. Maybe that's why. Stale technology and overpriced.
WWDC, WWDC!
Repeat WWDC, I'm not sure what the issue is here, just look at Apples past behavior. At best Apple will release the minor updates one to two weeks before WWDC if there are any.
Apples only real problem is Intels lack of Ivy Brdige chips suitable for some of Apples machines. That does put a kink in the program but Apple could do us all a favor and put Trintiy into things like the Mini.
The Apple store will be down tonight....
Quote:
Originally Posted by not1lost
The Apple store will be down tonight....
For what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
For what?
I just think it will
Quote:
Originally Posted by not1lost
I just think it will
Mind over matter only works for your own body, not Apple release schedules. Believe me, I've tried.
And developed the ability to eat just once every other day, walk without making any noise, and answer unspoken questions from the people around me! So there's that.
Doesn't really do much in the Apple realm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneking7320
I'd like to ask does Apple have a strategy for the Mini which precludes Winter from getting what he wants?
I could go for that myself.
I actually bought the base mini and put an SSD in it. I am happy with it. I am just saying that if Apple wanted me to spend a bit more, I would spend more based on that option.
@wizard69 - I don't think I will be upgrading until Haswell anyway. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that Intel cheapened out on the thermal paste for Ivy Bridge.
In addition, the quad/discrete option under a grand I thought would be perfect for me to play Diablo III on (as well as possibly other games in the future). Right now, I really have no interest in playing Diablo III.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Mind over matter only works for your own body, not Apple release schedules. Believe me, I've tried.
And developed the ability to eat just once every other day, walk without making any noise, and answer unspoken questions from the people around me! So there's that.
Doesn't really do much in the Apple realm.
I dont know about that... I'm working on Steve Jobs 'reality distortion field'....
I can still be right...