I know this is a double post though I don't think the rules are too strict on here about that right?
I want to know if anyone here feels that with Haswell, the integrated graphics will reach the 1024 MB/1 GB limit or if it will stay at 768 MB for 16 GB of RAM (or even for 8 GB of RAM)?
Off the top of my head I really don't know. I would imagine there are hardware limits, but I really don't think that is a problem with Apples hardware. Rather I believe Apple under implements RAM allocations in its drivers. I say this because I seem to recall multiple instance of the same generation hardware on Linux and windows implementing larger buffers.
In the long run if you have a full heterogeneous system, each processor would end up with equal access to RAM with possibly the only "dedicated" RAM being frame buffers that are the last place data goes before the display hardware. So at some point in the evolution of these "APU" we won't be seeing RAM quoted as being allocated to VRAM. What Apple will do is unknown, they have a history of poor GPU configurations so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I know this is a double post though I don't think the rules are too strict on here about that right?
I want to know if anyone here feels that with Haswell, the integrated graphics will reach the 1024 MB/1 GB limit or if it will stay at 768 MB for 16 GB of RAM (or even for 8 GB of RAM)?
That reminds me and it doesn't appear this way thus far, though I sure hope we are at least another year away from the next version of OS X. Let Mountain Lion kind of simmer in for a while.
1. Make the drive bays accessable, and include a SATA connector for the second bay. I shouldn't have to completely diassemble my mini to add a second HDD. It's like Ive never heard of an OS X feature called Time Machine! WTF should I have to use an external drive enclosure to use Time Machine? Make up your mind Ive, do you want a cool looking THIN computer, or do you want your creation to be raped by some big ugly external HDD enclosure next to?
2. Two RAM slots? It's a desktop computer, add couple more slots. Stop insulting us with your cheapness, Apple.
3. Discreet graphics. Ah, fu[k it, Apple wants to gimp the graphics so the mini hits the landfill in a couple years. Keep the integrated graphics, or add a full length PCIe slot that accepts a real video card. Since the latter wouldn't be thin, it's not happening.
4. Stop gimping the CPUs! That's fine for the base mini, but the high end mini should have a 3+ GHz quad core i7. The iMac is at 3.5 GHz, why must the mini be a full GHz less? Oh right, it's got to be in the landfill in 3 years.
Make up your mind Ive, do you want a cool looking THIN computer, or do you want your creation to be raped by some big ugly external HDD enclosure next to?
1. Make the drive bays accessable, and include a SATA connector for the second bay. I shouldn't have to completely diassemble my mini to add a second HDD.
This is an exceptional problem and make you wonder what the hell they where thinking. It isn't that I don't expect a bit of disassembly but the Mini borders on ridiculous. With a little thought though they could have implemented drive draws accessible from on surface of the machine, sort of like Drobos new portable storage array.
It's like Ive never heard of an OS X feature called Time Machine! WTF should I have to use an external drive enclosure to use Time Machine? Make up your mind Ive, do you want a cool looking THIN computer, or do you want your creation to be raped by some big ugly external HDD enclosure next to?
Err actually your Time Machine drive should be external as it is ideally one element in a backup plan.
2. Two RAM slots? It's a desktop computer, add couple more slots. Stop insulting us with your cheapness, Apple.
This may be an artifact of the laptop chips but it is a valid issue and should be addressed in a machine overhaul. To that end I'd like to see base RAM soldered in for reliability and then offer up two slots for expansion.
3. Discreet graphics. Ah, fu[k it, Apple wants to gimp the graphics so the mini hits the landfill in a couple years. Keep the integrated graphics, or add a full length PCIe slot that accepts a real video card. Since the latter wouldn't be thin, it's not happening.
I'm not sure if Apple has just gone plain stupid on us or what. A good GPU does extend hardware. Life which is justification right there for a Mini with a discrete GPU. However that GPU can not be gimped in the way it was with the 2011 model. I think it comes back to the issue of the Minis design and inability to handle the excess wattage required. If so Apple needs to overhaul the whole design.
4. Stop gimping the CPUs! That's fine for the base mini, but the high end mini should have a 3+ GHz quad core i7. The iMac is at 3.5 GHz, why must the mini be a full GHz less? Oh right, it's got to be in the landfill in 3 years.
Again the issue here is the wattage required to run those faster CPUs. The CPU issue isn't as bad as the GPU issue though. I'd rather though that they at least achieve MBP level performance. I'm not sure what the answer here is, maybe a move back to external power supplies would do the trick if they are focused still on keeping the Mini small. My feeling right now is that they could accomplish some significant improvements to the Mini by making it maybe a 1/4" or 1/2" taller and get rid of the cute access panel at the bottom.
This is an exceptional problem and make you wonder what the hell they where thinking. It isn't that I don't expect a bit of disassembly but the Mini borders on ridiculous. With a little thought though they could have implemented drive draws accessible from on surface of the machine, sort of like Drobos new portable storage array.
Don't be silly. That would require lines on the computer. And lines are evil.
It also means that the Mini couldn't be hewn from a solid block of aluminium, and would need to be screwed together. And screws are evil.
The unibody ensures that the machine is sturdy for increased portability, even though it's not meant to be a portable machine.
Lines are nowhere near as evil as a stagnate design that seldom gets improved.
As to the Mini, last I knew it was a die casting not a CNC machine product.
As to Unibody I have nothing against it if it serves a legitimate purpose. The Mac Books are a perfect example of a good use of the Unibody concept and CNC machining. This does not mean that the Mini can't have it both ways though. That is accessible "disk drive slots" and a pleasing design.
As far as messing with the program, somebody needs too!!! The whole desktop lineup is suffering badly from neglect, sort of like a horse that hasn't been feed in months, and as such they need to do something to drive sales upward. If you really like he Mini concept you should be supporting messing with the machine to spur sales on otherwise you beloved Mini will go the way of XServe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Don't be silly. That would require lines on the computer. And lines are evil.
It also means that the Mini couldn't be hewn from a solid block of aluminium, and would need to be screwed together. And screws are evil.
The unibody ensures that the machine is sturdy for increased portability, even though it's not meant to be a portable machine.
This may be an artifact of the laptop chips but it is a valid issue and should be addressed in a machine overhaul. To that end I'd like to see base RAM soldered in for reliability and then offer up two slots for expansion.
I'm not sure if Apple has just gone plain stupid on us or what. A good GPU does extend hardware. Life which is justification right there for a Mini with a discrete GPU. However that GPU can not be gimped in the way it was with the 2011 model. I think it comes back to the issue of the Minis design and inability to handle the excess wattage required. If so Apple needs to overhaul the whole design.
Again the issue here is the wattage required to run those faster CPUs. The CPU issue isn't as bad as the GPU issue though. I'd rather though that they at least achieve MBP level performance. I'm not sure what the answer here is, maybe a move back to external power supplies would do the trick if they are focused still on keeping the Mini small. My feeling right now is that they could accomplish some significant improvements to the Mini by making it maybe a 1/4" or 1/2" taller and get rid of the cute access panel at the bottom.
This really gets to the crux of the problem: the Mini is a headless MacBook, which is just stupid. If it were built with desktop components then our wish list would take care of itself. Since desktop components are cheaper, Apple could enjoy phatter margins. The only explanation for the current Mini design is that Ive stuck in a "thin" rut and is afraid to come up with any new design motifs. The days of the candy colored iMacs are long gone, now Ive's studio is a captive of its own success, so fearful of loss that nothing new is seriously considered. And since at Apple the design department has veto power over the engineering department, bad ideas tend to flourish as long as they look neato. 5 years ago it was easy to look the other way because OS X was growing by leaps and bounds, but now that OS X is sinking in some areas, the hardware shortcomings are brought into focus.
Personally I think a cube of aluminum would look cooler than the current design, and I highly doubt the Mini's "thinness" is what drives it's sales. But admittedly I'm biased towards function over form, in my view a big hulking Mac Pro is a work of art!
Personally I think a cube of aluminum would look cooler than the current design, and I highly doubt the Mini's "thinness" is what drives it's sales. But admittedly I'm biased towards function over form, in my view a big hulking Mac Pro is a work of art!
I think it is a work of art too although I admittedly like the mini as is, it just needed a halfway decent discrete graphics chip with decent memory on the $799 model.
This really gets to the crux of the problem: the Mini is a headless MacBook, which is just stupid. If it were built with desktop components then our wish list would take care of itself. Since desktop components are cheaper, Apple could enjoy phatter margins.
The problem with the Mini is that it doesn't even use top of the line Laptop parts. The quad core high end model only comes in at 2.3GHz which isn't even close to what can be had in MBPs. Yes mobile processors are expensive and compromised but damn it this is a desktop machine and shouldn't be under performing laptops by design. Until Apple gets over this un mature reason that says the Mini must be slower than every other machine in the lineup it will get no respect from customers.
As to desktop parts yes Apple needs to look into this, especially with the advent of Haswell where parts with the right power profile will exists. They also shouldn't be shy about adjusting the case a bit here and there to handle the desktop parts. These days there I no reason to have to use a fat box to handle desktop parts.
The only explanation for the current Mini design is that Ive stuck in a "thin" rut and is afraid to come up with any new design motifs. The days of the candy colored iMacs are long gone, now Ive's studio is a captive of its own success, so fearful of loss that nothing new is seriously considered.
I don't think it is entirely Ives fault. He is charged with the external realities, you still have a decision making pricess that comes up with the internal realities that Ive must wrap. I really believe it comes down to the man or woman in charge of the desktop line up as it has been so neglected that it borders on irresponsible.
And since at Apple the design department has veto power over the engineering department, bad ideas tend to flourish as long as they look neato. 5 years ago it was easy to look the other way because OS X was growing by leaps and bounds, but now that OS X is sinking in some areas, the hardware shortcomings are brought into focus.
The hardware issues have been here a long time and complained about for a very long time. Currently Apple has very little in the way of hardware suitable for the corporate world beyond the secretaries desk. Frankly its offerings for the home suck if your interests are more complex that dead simple.
Personally I think a cube of aluminum would look cooler than the current design, and I highly doubt the Mini's "thinness" is what drives it's sales.
Actually I can see where the Minis thinnest does drive some sales. It is a great little product to embed in different places. The problem is you can't use it where high performance is expected. It comes back to Apple biggest problem, no mid range computer.
But admittedly I'm biased towards function over form, in my view a big hulking Mac Pro is a work of art!
Art it may be but as function over form it is slowly showing its age. Basically it is just to Damn big for modern computing concepts. The idea of a cube does have its draw, though maybe we aren't thinking the same thing here. I'm thinking a cube about a foot square and 5-1/4" high. That would be three rack units high. 12" is only part of a rack width the rest could be allocated to an attachable disk array. This way we end up with a Mac Pro that could be implemented as easily on the desktop as in a racked system. One box to serve them all so to speak.
The idea here is that the new Mac Pro would be condensed down to its basic elements. Those elements then get stuffed in a box no bigger than needed. People with special needs simply buy the additional capability that they need, which can be a disk array, an expansion chassis or whatever. I see a key element in any Mac Pro rebirth being controlling costs by minimalist design of the base unit.
I think it is a work of art too although I admittedly like the mini as is, it just needed a halfway decent discrete graphics chip with decent memory on the $799 model.
I'm still wondering if the 2012 model was a punt to get by until a redesigned Mini comes in 2013. I really can't figure out what Apples issue is with the Mini and its performance and GPU support. It really seems like they only care about specific price points and don't even consider a line up that offers well defined performance differences between models. For me it is pretty obvious that the Mini should come in models with and without a decent GPU. That is the proverbial entry level model and a performance machine. For whatever reason somebody at Apple can't wrap their head around this idea.
I really don't know what the constraints are that resulted in the borked 2011 model with the GPU but whatever it was it can be addressed via engineering or repositioning products. For example why not make the server the midrange and the GPU supported device the high end model. If such a Mini needs a bigger power supply or fan give it one. It is just really sad that Apples only headless desktop is treated so badly when it comes to configuration.
[B]I'm still wondering if the 2012 model was a punt to get by until a redesigned Mini comes in 2013.[/B]
If that's the case, then I'm okay with that.
I really can't figure out what Apples issue is with the Mini and its performance and GPU support. It really seems like they only care about specific price points and don't even consider a line up that offers well defined performance differences between models. For me it is pretty obvious that the Mini should come in models with and without a decent GPU. That is the proverbial entry level model and a performance machine. For whatever reason somebody at Apple can't wrap their head around this idea.
I really don't know what the constraints are that resulted in the borked 2011 model with the GPU but whatever it was it can be addressed via engineering or repositioning products. [B]For example why not make the server the midrange and the GPU supported device the high end model. If such a Mini needs a bigger power supply or fan give it one. It is just really sad that Apples only headless desktop is treated so badly when it comes to configuration.[/B]
I love it! Of course then you have to put in a good enough card to warrant the $999 price tag and I think Apple would gimp us on that.
Art it may be but as function over form it is slowly showing its age. Basically it is just to Damn big for modern computing concepts. The idea of a cube does have its draw, though maybe we aren't thinking the same thing here. I'm thinking a cube about a foot square and 5-1/4" high. That would be three rack units high. 12" is only part of a rack width the rest could be allocated to an attachable disk array. This way we end up with a Mac Pro that could be implemented as easily on the desktop as in a racked system. One box to serve them all so to speak.
I like the way you think. Such a Mac Pro design is entirely plausible and as long as it was designed to be accessable, it could work well.
One caveat is cooling. If two 12 core Xeons are to be cooled quietly, space is required. If Apple starts getting cute with the cooling design (example: Powermac G4 Cube), then it's game over for the Mac Pro.
Comments
I want to know if anyone here feels that with Haswell, the integrated graphics will reach the 1024 MB/1 GB limit or if it will stay at 768 MB for 16 GB of RAM (or even for 8 GB of RAM)?
In the long run if you have a full heterogeneous system, each processor would end up with equal access to RAM with possibly the only "dedicated" RAM being frame buffers that are the last place data goes before the display hardware. So at some point in the evolution of these "APU" we won't be seeing RAM quoted as being allocated to VRAM. What Apple will do is unknown, they have a history of poor GPU configurations so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I wonder if the limit changes for the HD 4600.
1. Make the drive bays accessable, and include a SATA connector for the second bay. I shouldn't have to completely diassemble my mini to add a second HDD. It's like Ive never heard of an OS X feature called Time Machine! WTF should I have to use an external drive enclosure to use Time Machine? Make up your mind Ive, do you want a cool looking THIN computer, or do you want your creation to be raped by some big ugly external HDD enclosure next to?
2. Two RAM slots? It's a desktop computer, add couple more slots. Stop insulting us with your cheapness, Apple.
3. Discreet graphics. Ah, fu[k it, Apple wants to gimp the graphics so the mini hits the landfill in a couple years. Keep the integrated graphics, or add a full length PCIe slot that accepts a real video card. Since the latter wouldn't be thin, it's not happening.
4. Stop gimping the CPUs! That's fine for the base mini, but the high end mini should have a 3+ GHz quad core i7. The iMac is at 3.5 GHz, why must the mini be a full GHz less? Oh right, it's got to be in the landfill in 3 years.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Make up your mind Ive, do you want a cool looking THIN computer, or do you want your creation to be raped by some big ugly external HDD enclosure next to?
Ugly, huh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is an exceptional problem and make you wonder what the hell they where thinking. It isn't that I don't expect a bit of disassembly but the Mini borders on ridiculous. With a little thought though they could have implemented drive draws accessible from on surface of the machine, sort of like Drobos new portable storage array.
Don't be silly. That would require lines on the computer. And lines are evil.
It also means that the Mini couldn't be hewn from a solid block of aluminium, and would need to be screwed together. And screws are evil.
The unibody ensures that the machine is sturdy for increased portability, even though it's not meant to be a portable machine.
Don't mess with the program.
Lines are nowhere near as evil as a stagnate design that seldom gets improved.
As to the Mini, last I knew it was a die casting not a CNC machine product.
As to Unibody I have nothing against it if it serves a legitimate purpose. The Mac Books are a perfect example of a good use of the Unibody concept and CNC machining. This does not mean that the Mini can't have it both ways though. That is accessible "disk drive slots" and a pleasing design.
As far as messing with the program, somebody needs too!!! The whole desktop lineup is suffering badly from neglect, sort of like a horse that hasn't been feed in months, and as such they need to do something to drive sales upward. If you really like he Mini concept you should be supporting messing with the machine to spur sales on otherwise you beloved Mini will go the way of XServe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Don't be silly. That would require lines on the computer. And lines are evil.
It also means that the Mini couldn't be hewn from a solid block of aluminium, and would need to be screwed together. And screws are evil.
The unibody ensures that the machine is sturdy for increased portability, even though it's not meant to be a portable machine.
Don't mess with the program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This may be an artifact of the laptop chips but it is a valid issue and should be addressed in a machine overhaul. To that end I'd like to see base RAM soldered in for reliability and then offer up two slots for expansion.
I'm not sure if Apple has just gone plain stupid on us or what. A good GPU does extend hardware. Life which is justification right there for a Mini with a discrete GPU. However that GPU can not be gimped in the way it was with the 2011 model. I think it comes back to the issue of the Minis design and inability to handle the excess wattage required. If so Apple needs to overhaul the whole design.
Again the issue here is the wattage required to run those faster CPUs. The CPU issue isn't as bad as the GPU issue though. I'd rather though that they at least achieve MBP level performance. I'm not sure what the answer here is, maybe a move back to external power supplies would do the trick if they are focused still on keeping the Mini small. My feeling right now is that they could accomplish some significant improvements to the Mini by making it maybe a 1/4" or 1/2" taller and get rid of the cute access panel at the bottom.
This really gets to the crux of the problem: the Mini is a headless MacBook, which is just stupid. If it were built with desktop components then our wish list would take care of itself. Since desktop components are cheaper, Apple could enjoy phatter margins. The only explanation for the current Mini design is that Ive stuck in a "thin" rut and is afraid to come up with any new design motifs. The days of the candy colored iMacs are long gone, now Ive's studio is a captive of its own success, so fearful of loss that nothing new is seriously considered. And since at Apple the design department has veto power over the engineering department, bad ideas tend to flourish as long as they look neato. 5 years ago it was easy to look the other way because OS X was growing by leaps and bounds, but now that OS X is sinking in some areas, the hardware shortcomings are brought into focus.
Personally I think a cube of aluminum would look cooler than the current design, and I highly doubt the Mini's "thinness" is what drives it's sales. But admittedly I'm biased towards function over form, in my view a big hulking Mac Pro is a work of art!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Don't be silly. That would require lines on the computer. And lines are evil.
It also means that the Mini couldn't be hewn from a solid block of aluminium, and would need to be screwed together. And screws are evil.
The unibody ensures that the machine is sturdy for increased portability, even though it's not meant to be a portable machine.
Don't mess with the program.
Obviously you've never done a few lines before screwing. It's pretty much the opposite of evil :P
I think it is a work of art too although I admittedly like the mini as is, it just needed a halfway decent discrete graphics chip with decent memory on the $799 model.
As to desktop parts yes Apple needs to look into this, especially with the advent of Haswell where parts with the right power profile will exists. They also shouldn't be shy about adjusting the case a bit here and there to handle the desktop parts. These days there I no reason to have to use a fat box to handle desktop parts. I don't think it is entirely Ives fault. He is charged with the external realities, you still have a decision making pricess that comes up with the internal realities that Ive must wrap. I really believe it comes down to the man or woman in charge of the desktop line up as it has been so neglected that it borders on irresponsible. The hardware issues have been here a long time and complained about for a very long time. Currently Apple has very little in the way of hardware suitable for the corporate world beyond the secretaries desk. Frankly its offerings for the home suck if your interests are more complex that dead simple. Actually I can see where the Minis thinnest does drive some sales. It is a great little product to embed in different places. The problem is you can't use it where high performance is expected. It comes back to Apple biggest problem, no mid range computer. Art it may be but as function over form it is slowly showing its age. Basically it is just to Damn big for modern computing concepts. The idea of a cube does have its draw, though maybe we aren't thinking the same thing here. I'm thinking a cube about a foot square and 5-1/4" high. That would be three rack units high. 12" is only part of a rack width the rest could be allocated to an attachable disk array. This way we end up with a Mac Pro that could be implemented as easily on the desktop as in a racked system. One box to serve them all so to speak.
The idea here is that the new Mac Pro would be condensed down to its basic elements. Those elements then get stuffed in a box no bigger than needed. People with special needs simply buy the additional capability that they need, which can be a disk array, an expansion chassis or whatever. I see a key element in any Mac Pro rebirth being controlling costs by minimalist design of the base unit.
I'm still wondering if the 2012 model was a punt to get by until a redesigned Mini comes in 2013. I really can't figure out what Apples issue is with the Mini and its performance and GPU support. It really seems like they only care about specific price points and don't even consider a line up that offers well defined performance differences between models. For me it is pretty obvious that the Mini should come in models with and without a decent GPU. That is the proverbial entry level model and a performance machine. For whatever reason somebody at Apple can't wrap their head around this idea.
I really don't know what the constraints are that resulted in the borked 2011 model with the GPU but whatever it was it can be addressed via engineering or repositioning products. For example why not make the server the midrange and the GPU supported device the high end model. If such a Mini needs a bigger power supply or fan give it one. It is just really sad that Apples only headless desktop is treated so badly when it comes to configuration.
If that's the case, then I'm okay with that.
I really can't figure out what Apples issue is with the Mini and its performance and GPU support. It really seems like they only care about specific price points and don't even consider a line up that offers well defined performance differences between models. For me it is pretty obvious that the Mini should come in models with and without a decent GPU. That is the proverbial entry level model and a performance machine. For whatever reason somebody at Apple can't wrap their head around this idea.
I really don't know what the constraints are that resulted in the borked 2011 model with the GPU but whatever it was it can be addressed via engineering or repositioning products. [B]For example why not make the server the midrange and the GPU supported device the high end model. If such a Mini needs a bigger power supply or fan give it one. It is just really sad that Apples only headless desktop is treated so badly when it comes to configuration.[/B]
I love it! Of course then you have to put in a good enough card to warrant the $999 price tag and I think Apple would gimp us on that.
Originally Posted by Winter
I'm still wondering if the 2012 model was a punt to get by until a redesigned Mini comes in 2013.
They JUST redesigned it. If history is any indicator, it'll be 2015 before there's another redesign. Just in time for desktop multitouch.
I was quoting wizard's post : P
Originally Posted by Winter
I was quoting wizard's post : P
Bah.
Wizard69 saideth:
Art it may be but as function over form it is slowly showing its age. Basically it is just to Damn big for modern computing concepts. The idea of a cube does have its draw, though maybe we aren't thinking the same thing here. I'm thinking a cube about a foot square and 5-1/4" high. That would be three rack units high. 12" is only part of a rack width the rest could be allocated to an attachable disk array. This way we end up with a Mac Pro that could be implemented as easily on the desktop as in a racked system. One box to serve them all so to speak.
I like the way you think. Such a Mac Pro design is entirely plausible and as long as it was designed to be accessable, it could work well.
One caveat is cooling. If two 12 core Xeons are to be cooled quietly, space is required. If Apple starts getting cute with the cooling design (example: Powermac G4 Cube), then it's game over for the Mac Pro.