New MacBook Pros with 16GB RAM standard & faster CPUs rumored to launch Tuesday

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

     

    Don't tease me. Every single day I lie in wait for a mini update. My 2012 model sorely needs more performance.


    Real CPU performance improvements is likely a delay until Broadwell.  Like stated in other threads, 10% CPU performance improvements isn't a reason for an upgrade (you could get more, but you'd lose the heat/power envelope that the Mini is exploiting now with the lower end chips).

     

    Unless it's a 'everything else' upgrade (Graphics, MB, Memory, TB, Networking), I doubt Apple would spend the engineering bandwidth for just a CPU perf upgrade.

     

    I'm holding out for a totally new design, in a mini tower (Airport Extreme footprint), but 1/2 height, broadwell based, fanless).   I'd be seeing the entire Apple home line moving into this footprint, in black, to align with the Mac Pro at the top and the AppleTV at the bottom.  

     

    That's my baseless  rumor and I'm sticking to it...

  • Reply 22 of 53
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,840member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    They'll know how many people buy not only the Mini Server but also OS X Server. If they determine that number to be too low to be worth supporting, they'll just discontinue it. One option they have to is to make a special product from iOS. They can make very low cost ARM hardware like the Apple TV and it can run iOS Server and perform all the functions of OS X Server. They can even merge it with their Airport product.

     

    What about supporting Macs? Servers for more than just iOS devices. I have 150 Macs to support. 

  • Reply 23 of 53
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member

    Hoping next year Retina MBA will move to at least 6GB Memory. ( 8GB will be great, but given the cost concern may be Apple wont do it. )

  • Reply 24 of 53
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    Real CPU performance improvements is likely a delay until Broadwell.  Like stated in other threads, 10% CPU performance improvements isn't a reason for an upgrade (you could get more, but you'd lose the heat/power envelope that the Mini is exploiting now with the lower end chips).

     

    Unless it's a 'everything else' upgrade (Graphics, MB, Memory, TB, Networking), I doubt Apple would spend the engineering bandwidth for just a CPU perf upgrade.

     

    I'm holding out for a totally new design, in a mini tower (Airport Extreme footprint), but 1/2 height, broadwell based, fanless).   I'd be seeing the entire Apple home line moving into this footprint, in black, to align with the Mac Pro at the top and the AppleTV at the bottom.  

     

    That's my baseless  rumor and I'm sticking to it...




    I wish. Apple clearly doesn't want me to spend $1500 on a fully loaded Mac mini tower, they would much rather me buy a $3000 Mac Pro which exceeds my needs.

     

    My mini is primary workstation....it drives Two 21.5" 1080p displays, has 16 GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD that I put in. I can't do much more for this little guy. It desperately needs a quad core CPU and a better GPU than Intel HD 4000. What I wouldn't give for base model iMac specs in a new mini right now....

  • Reply 25 of 53
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,840member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ksec View Post

     

    Hoping next year Retina MBA will move to at least 6GB Memory. ( 8GB will be great, but given the cost concern may be Apple wont do it. )


     

    8GB should be very easy for Apple to do. RAM prices have go to be dirt cheap because of the quantities they purchase. These days, no reason not to do 8GB standard for at least the very low end. Anything lower is just a joke. 

  • Reply 26 of 53
    pscooter63pscooter63 Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

    Don't tease me. Every single day I lie in wait for a mini update. My 2012 model sorely needs more performance.


     

    My 2010 (8gb) just finished a three-week stint at a local theatre, doing live production duty for a $35-per-seat show.  Modest ticket price by big-city standards, yes, but still mission-critical for the venue.  Its performance was flawless. 

     

    I'll be very interested as to whether it will run Yosemite decently as-is, or if I will have to go with the not-officially-sanctioned 16gb upgrade. 

     

    I think a brand-new new Mac Mini would be more cost-effective in the long run.

  • Reply 27 of 53
    I'm crossing my fingers for an iMac update as well.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     



    I wish. Apple clearly doesn't want me to spend $1500 on a fully loaded Mac mini tower, they would much rather me buy a $3000 Mac Pro which exceeds my needs.

     

    My mini is primary workstation....it drives Two 21.5" 1080p displays, has 16 GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD that I put in. I can't do much more for this little guy. It desperately needs a quad core CPU and a better GPU than Intel HD 4000. What I wouldn't give for base model iMac specs in a new mini right now....


    calling a Mini a Tower is a bit of a stretch, figuratively and pun intended ;-).  

     

    Apple has always tried to make it's buyers 'feel the pain' of buying up.   And, why not buy an iMac and replace your mini?

    a 21" 1080p display is sort of weak sauce comparatively.

  • Reply 29 of 53
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,077member
    calling a Mini a Tower is a bit of a stretch, figuratively and pun intended ;-).  

    Apple has always tried to make it's buyers 'feel the pain' of buying up.  
    This may go the way of XServe. Apple will say buy Mac Pro.
  • Reply 30 of 53
    tzterri wrote: »
    Still no 17" model :(

    If you want a 17" phone that badly, you should probably just get the Samsung Galaxy S9. ;)
  • Reply 31 of 53
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

    My mini is primary workstation....it drives Two 21.5" 1080p displays, has 16 GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD that I put in. I can't do much more for this little guy. It desperately needs a quad core CPU and a better GPU than Intel HD 4000. What I wouldn't give for base model iMac specs in a new mini right now....


     

    The Mini has never been designed to serve as a workstation.  Workstation being defined as a machine where you create products/deliver services which can be be sold for profit or exchanged for wages.

     

    Generally, the higher cost to get a workstation-class machine is greatly offset by the fact that you can create products/deliver services faster and/or more cheaply.  Thus generating more far more profit/income over the lifetime of the machine.  If that's the case for you, then it should be a no-brainer to go for an iMac or Mac Pro (depending on your needs).  The Mini is designed primarily for the consumer market (or to be a small scale server in the case of the server model).

  • Reply 32 of 53
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,374moderator
    macxpress wrote: »
    What about supporting Macs? Servers for more than just iOS devices. I have 150 Macs to support.

    An iOS Server could perform Mac device management.

    OS X Server is 180MB in size and is just an add-on to Mavericks now. Maybe they can even allow an iPad to manage OS X devices. If you need to manage a specific Mac, you can walk over to it with the iPad and it can detect the one you want by proximity and do whatever batch actions you need. Although you could do actions like that on the machine if you are next to it, it would be easier from the iPad. If you had a cache of apps to install, it could store them on an iPad with enough storage and put them over wifi direct.

    Apple uses the Mini as an example device for the server software at present so they clearly see that as one of the Mini's main roles:

    https://www.apple.com/osx/server/servers-made-easy/

    but like I say, only they know the volume of users actually using this and how many use it on a Mac Mini.
    pmz wrote:
    Apple clearly doesn't want me to spend $1500 on a fully loaded Mac mini tower, they would much rather me buy a $3000 Mac Pro which exceeds my needs.

    They want you to buy a Macbook Pro or iMac, which are in that price range and offer quad i7s with good GPUs and support dual displays.
  • Reply 33 of 53
    1983 wrote: »
    The only thing I regretted when purchasing my 13" rMBP last year was that it didn't come with 16GBytes of RAM at the price point I could afford. With a few apps open the 8GBytes it did come with gets almost completely used up! I didn't know Mac's were such memory hogs! Being a former Windows user that is (who's glad he switched anyway).

    I've got a 16GB MacBook Pro and I'm only using about half of that. I guess it depends on the kind of apps you run?
  • Reply 34 of 53
    ipilyaipilya Posts: 195member

    I am biting at the bit.... in hopes of the 12"... the rumours all point to what I really need... just hope reality meets some of those expectations. 

  • Reply 35 of 53
    A question: I bought a new 15" retina from an Apple store on Saturday when I first arrived in the US for a three-week trip. Will Apple allow me to exchange it for an updated model if they end up updating them this week or next? I've unpacked the computer and used it briefly.
  • Reply 36 of 53
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by auxio View Post

     

    The Mini has never been designed to serve as a workstation.  Workstation being defined as a machine where you create products/deliver services which can be be sold for profit or exchanged for wages.


     

    Oh oh, I better tell the radio people upstairs to dump those new Pro Tools suites they just installed. They're all running on minis! I wonder if they know they're no good?

     

    ;)

  • Reply 37 of 53
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Apple is also expected to achieve an exceptionally thin design with a new click-less trackpad and fewer inputs and outputs.

     

     

    "Fewer inputs and outputs?!" Fewer than what an Air has NOW? What're they gonna do, remove some of the keys?

  • Reply 38 of 53
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichardDB View Post



    A question: I bought a new 15" retina from an Apple store on Saturday when I first arrived in the US for a three-week trip. Will Apple allow me to exchange it for an updated model if they end up updating them this week or next? I've unpacked the computer and used it briefly.

     

    Probably. Don't they have a seven day return policy?

     

    Why ask us though? Just ask Apple.

  • Reply 39 of 53
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    I like the Mac Mini and it was at one point my favorite machine in the lineup but portables are the way forward. The Retina MBP is IMO the best machine Apple currently makes. When the Air chips reach the CPU/GPU level of performance found in the current MBP in a fanless design and they manage full day battery life in a 14" or 15" form factor, I will consider that to be their best computer, even though the MBP would have a faster CPU/GPU option.

     

    I totally get Apple's portables driving their computer business.  But they've been making the OS X laptops thinner and lighter so regularly that it really seems as if the thinness and light weight of the MBPs have, or soon will, reach the point where they just can't make the best machine with that ever shrinking profile as a priority.   The Mini, OTOH, can be a box of 2 inches more or 4 oz heavier and it won't matter, but you've gotten an important piece of board in there.  Obviously, most of the parts keep getting more efficient and smaller, but that's not a predictable timeline.  

     

    The Mini has always seemed like a perfect opportunity to not be tied to the sleekness/space/power/heat tail chasing.  I wish Apple would let the Airs be the lightest imaginable and stop being concerned about the thickness of the MBP, and let the Mini be part of all of these upgrades that everything else gets.  Maybe it's not sexy enough to be on their schedule, and it would lower their sexy image overall.  

  • Reply 40 of 53
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     

    Oh oh, I better tell the radio people upstairs to dump those new Pro Tools suites they just installed. They're all running on minis! I wonder if they know they're no good?

     

    ;)


     

    Think of it this way: say it takes those Minis an hour to run a 60 minute chunk of hi-res audio (24bit, 192kHz) through a given effects processing chain in Pro Tools.  Then processing that same audio on an iMac might take roughly 30 minutes.  And I'm thinking around 10 minutes on a Mac Pro (maybe closer to 5 if Pro Tools is optimized to take full advantage of the hardware).

     

    Assuming you could get enough audio engineering contracts to fill the time of all 3 of those machines, how much more money do you think you'd make over the lifetime of a Mac Pro vs a Mac Mini?  I'm guessing a lot more than the $2500 extra you paid for it up front.

Sign In or Register to comment.