I actually mis the brick. It made the Mini easy to configure for odd locations where normal AC wasn't happening.
The reason I wanted Apple to maintain the poser brick design is so they could make the ATD MagSafe adapter work with the Mac mini which would obviously eliminate another cable. It might mean the power supply in the ATD would have to be beefed up but I recall correctly I think it can handle the load. It would require some special lock for the connector so that the battery-less Mac mini wouldn't accidentally lose power.
nht's logic is sound. If in 2010 you needed certain features/performance that are only possible on the F250 and not the F150 then the F250 was the only viable option. But if in 2013 you still only need those same features/performance but now they are available on the F150 and the F250 is overkill for those same needs then why go for the extra cost, size, weight, power consumption of the F250 when the F150 will suit those same needs just as well, if not better for certain tasks? As much I don't care for the car analogy this one seems quite congruent to the whole MBA v. MBP argument, especially if we're talking about the 13" models.
Blah I hate car analogies unless they involve ram upgrades. Do you pay the Porsche dealer for those Pirelli tires or go to the garage down the street? Anyway there is almost always some amount of growth in software demands. Even OSX has certain minimum requirements. Removing cpus that must be validated, you're still left with minimum OpenGL version and minimum memory requirements. Those have escalated even outside of the 64 bit transition period. It's usually more whether hardware has outpaced software. Part of what kept towers as the sole viable option so long in certain fields was the combination of slow 2.5" drives, limited ram, and 32 bit applications. When ram and hard drives as either scratch disks or virtual memory address space could be such a huge bottleneck, it killed any kind of leverage on lighter hardware. I would still say that desktops in many cases could continue to produce better value if Apple didn't like to make them less attractive using their matrix of pricing and features. As for Haswell, intel's early numbers are not always in line with reality, which is why I'm skeptical on statements like "up to triple performance".
That depends. Do you have to remove the windshield in order to get access to the tires?
Not the windshield. Perhaps the flux capacitor. This video suggests it's fairly easy, but he just talks about it. Right now I'm tempted to create a picture of a Mini with Pirelli tires.
Not the windshield. Perhaps the flux capacitor. This video suggests it's fairly easy, but he just talks about it. Right now I'm tempted to create a picture of a Mini with Pirelli tires.
I hope my comparison to upgrading RAM on the 21.5" iMac wasn't lost.
Comments
The reason I wanted Apple to maintain the poser brick design is so they could make the ATD MagSafe adapter work with the Mac mini which would obviously eliminate another cable. It might mean the power supply in the ATD would have to be beefed up but I recall correctly I think it can handle the load. It would require some special lock for the connector so that the battery-less Mac mini wouldn't accidentally lose power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
nht's logic is sound. If in 2010 you needed certain features/performance that are only possible on the F250 and not the F150 then the F250 was the only viable option. But if in 2013 you still only need those same features/performance but now they are available on the F150 and the F250 is overkill for those same needs then why go for the extra cost, size, weight, power consumption of the F250 when the F150 will suit those same needs just as well, if not better for certain tasks? As much I don't care for the car analogy this one seems quite congruent to the whole MBA v. MBP argument, especially if we're talking about the 13" models.
Blah I hate car analogies unless they involve ram upgrades. Do you pay the Porsche dealer for those Pirelli tires or go to the garage down the street? Anyway there is almost always some amount of growth in software demands. Even OSX has certain minimum requirements. Removing cpus that must be validated, you're still left with minimum OpenGL version and minimum memory requirements. Those have escalated even outside of the 64 bit transition period. It's usually more whether hardware has outpaced software. Part of what kept towers as the sole viable option so long in certain fields was the combination of slow 2.5" drives, limited ram, and 32 bit applications. When ram and hard drives as either scratch disks or virtual memory address space could be such a huge bottleneck, it killed any kind of leverage on lighter hardware. I would still say that desktops in many cases could continue to produce better value if Apple didn't like to make them less attractive using their matrix of pricing and features. As for Haswell, intel's early numbers are not always in line with reality, which is why I'm skeptical on statements like "up to triple performance".
That depends. Do you have to remove the windshield in order to get access to the tires?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That depends. Do you have to remove the windshield in order to get access to the tires?
Not the windshield. Perhaps the flux capacitor. This video suggests it's fairly easy, but he just talks about it. Right now I'm tempted to create a picture of a Mini with Pirelli tires.
I hope my comparison to upgrading RAM on the 21.5" iMac wasn't lost.
Core i7 chips is very strong but is stronger than 3 anymore