2014 Mac mini Wishlist

1717273747577»

Comments

  • Reply 1521 of 1528
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    On another forum somebody also alluded to the mobile Haswell quads as using a different socket. I haven't researched that yet but it wouldn't surprise me that Apple was too lazy to do another PCB.

    Maybe it wasn't that they were lazy but that they were focusing all of their efforts on the timing controller for the retina iMac?
  • Reply 1522 of 1528
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Who cares!

  • Reply 1523 of 1528
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    If your idea of basic use are the same as mine then yeah the low end Haswell is good enough. The problem is I see many of these computers being used beyond what could be called basic service. "Basic" might be better rephrased as business apps.

    The reverse is also true, people will blame sluggish Apps on the "processor" when in reality it is the GPU that is holding things up.

     

    That does happen, but it doesn't always happen where people expect it. For example people are always concerned with graphics apps. Most of those require very little from the gpu. They encounter problems if the machine is really low on memory in a shared memory configuration, which can cause odd behavior. It's not really the same as being reliant on strong graphics. It's also a somewhat common problem when it comes to running external displays. As for me I'm all for better integrated graphics. Apple has made all of their machines less serviceable, and problems in the gpu implementations are a frequent cause of logic board failures.

     

    Quote:


    The processor cores are actually faster that is a good thing for most users. The lost of the quad core is a problem for some, I for one was looking forward to a quad core, however I see these as a big step forward for the "average????" user. In some cases the GPU performance doubles. Now I know you discount GPU performance which is fine but I see it as a big deal.


    I view it as a balancing act. As I pointed out they could have made something comparable to the 15" rmbp if they stayed with the 2012 strategy. 2011 it received discrete graphics, but they weren't very good. 2012 gave up discrete graphics in favor of a quad core option. Had 2014 followed that to tack the mid and upper minis or just the upper range one to 15" rmbp components you would have quad cores and iris pro. That would have been a very nice mini.

     

    The reason I chime in sometimes about gpu stuff is that some people have no idea what actually uses OpenGL libraries. People worry about their gpus when running Lightroom. Lightroom isn't gpu accelerated. Even Adobe will tell you that, yet people feel they need to upgrade graphics just to run it. I don't know of any recent gpu that has trouble with basic screen refreshes, which is why I claim that it's ridiculous. People just seem to think graphics work of any kind requires an almost bleeding edge gpu rather than reading the appropriate specifications.

    Quote:


    integrated graphics today is pretty close to midrange graphics of the near past. If integrate graphics is good enough for basic use then it actually makes sense for Apple to ship a low cost IMac with it.

    I know there is a lot of hand wringing over the new Minis on the net but I don't see any reason for it other than the lost of the quad at the high end. I see the machines as all around better values except for that one issue


    Well I thought it was a weak overall tradeoff. If someone asked me today, I would first ask them if they need to transport the machine or use it in different rooms. My notebook sees quite a bit of travel, so I wouldn't be completely without one. My own uses have shifted quite a bit in the last year, so if they remain light I will probably increasingly use my notebook + external display. I don't see another upgrade on that happening before at least Broadwell. Notebook graphics are significantly slower than what you can obtain from desktop and workstation variants, so I think integrated probably has a ways to go. For me it just has to make it to the point of being tolerable, as I'm not working on anything that explicitly requires a given framerate.

  • Reply 1524 of 1528
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member

    While I'm sure the new $500. Mini completely beats this in performance, it is a bit disconcerting that HP's new Mini PC is so much smaller, cheaper and lighter than Apple's.

     

    After all, if you're going to lock down upgrades and remove the server features, you might as well go small or go home, right?

  • Reply 1525 of 1528
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

    it is a bit disconcerting that HP's new Mini PC is so much smaller, cheaper and lighter than Apple's.

     

    It looks like tupperware.

     

    You get what you pay for.

  • Reply 1526 of 1528
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    frank777 wrote: »
    While I'm sure the new $500. Mini completely beats this in performance, it is a bit disconcerting that HP's new Mini PC is so much smaller, cheaper and lighter than Apple's.
    A RaspberryPI is even smaller - so what?
    .
    After all, if you're going to lock down upgrades and remove the server features, you might as well go small or go home, right?

    Well no! The new Mini is upgradable just not in the way you would like. As far as servers go it certainly can handle server duty within the capabilities of the dual core processor.

    What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that the new Mini is a good machine in its own right. Now it didn't get the CPU upgrades we all wanted but it was completely overhauled and is impressive in its own right. Performance wise it is in an entirely different class as opposed to the machines you reference.
  • Reply 1527 of 1528
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member

    Okay, I was being a bit mischievous with the post. I do know the Mac Mini's in a different weight class.

     

    But the HP unit does exude a certain energy that the original Mac Mini had.

     

    It's basically saying "find a use for me" which is how Mac guys originally viewed the Mini.

    Then people ran out and built Media units, Home and Office servers, Car Audio installs and the like.

     

    It's been awhile since that kind of thing surrounded the Mini. I think a lot of people were disappointed in the last upgrade, which took insanely long for what was delivered.

     

    The original Mac had a 9" screen, and the iPad has a 9.7" Retina screen. If the iPad is now the default computer for millions of homes, why can't its screen be used for the Mini when it's docked?

     

    That alone would get millions of PC users in the door to the Mac universe and be true to the promise of the original Mini: Use the screen you already have.

  • Reply 1528 of 1528
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    frank777 wrote: »
    Okay, I was being a bit mischievous with the post. I do know the Mac Mini's in a different weight class.

    But the HP unit does exude a certain energy that the original Mac Mini had.
    It does little for me.
    It's basically saying "find a use for me" which is how Mac guys originally viewed the Mini.
    Then people ran out and built Media units, Home and Office servers, Car Audio installs and the like.
    Actually the Mini is still used that way. I find the machine embedded into all sorts of devices as a small compute unit. The thing that has drawn many people away from the Mini and i86 devices in general, has in fact been the ARM based devices. There is in fact a rather large number of Arm based boards that now regularly get built into all sorts of things. The advanatge here is that Arm based boards run LINUX, BSD or some other less compromised operating system and don't suffer from attempts to lock down the BIOS.

    Frankly much of the DIY mindset has left the i86 world behind. Which brings up another point, an Arm based "Mac OS" device would certainly have its appeal to this crowd if it was open enough and alternative OS installs where easy. The DIY crowd would absolutely love a tiny Arm based platform with the performance of the A8X.
    It's been awhile since that kind of thing surrounded the Mini. I think a lot of people were disappointed in the last upgrade, which took insanely long for what was delivered.
    Well this I have to agree with. The excessively long wait for a Mini upgrade resulted in a justified hostility towards Apple and shrinking sales. From a management standpoint I don't know how the Mini upgrade delay was justified.

    The long time for what was delivered is a problem but I do believe that what was delivered was as good of an upgrade as the selected chips would allow. We can argue that they selected the wrong chips but that is another discussion. In the end waiting a year or more for a Mini upgrade just to get the natural performance upgrade is unnatural.
    The original Mac had a 9" screen, and the iPad has a 9.7" Retina screen. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">If the iPad is now the default computer for millions of homes, why can't its screen be used for the Mini when it's docked?</span>
    Don't ask me ask Tim Cook!

    That being said the USB port simply doesn't have the performance.
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">That alone would get millions of PC users in the door to the Mac universe and be true to the promise of the original Mini: Use the screen you already have.</span>
    The idea that the Mini was an entry level machine for PC users is totally bogus. Laptops are what have drawn PC users to the Mac universe. The move to a laptop world and Apples hardware leadership has been a big attraction for PC users.
Sign In or Register to comment.