I see where I made my calculation error now. I won't mention what it was it because it's embarrassing! Let's just say that 4K at one frame per second would work just fine over TB1.
I did the same thing but knowing it needs TB2/DP1.2 I knew I made a mistake. After a couple grueling seconds the frame rate hit me.
That's the problem though, if you go toe to toe with Apple on spec and price, you're going to lose.
They might, but if they do it won't be because their hardware is inferior. I don't imagine Apple realizes much economy of scale in the rarified workstation market of the Mac Pro, so it's probably easier for HP to compete on price there.
If one were curious it should be easy to build sample machines on each company's web site and see how they compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If you have the choice between a PC and a Mac at the same price, most sane people would never buy the PC. Only people with a grudge to bear e.g 'wah, I didn't like the new FCP so I'm buying from HP now'.
Personal preference always plays some part in these decisions, but the bottom line for a business machine is choosing the one that does the job best, best integrates into existing infrastructure, and is the most cost-effective. When you consider that the major applications are all cross-platform (save for 3ds Max which is still Windows-only), as are the major collaboration tools, I don't see Apple having a distinct edge here. I can say from experience that using Pro Tools with Windows was essentially indistinguishable from using it with OS X aside from the close window button being on the opposite side.
The Mini is popular where you need a Mac but it's not your primary machine.
So, there should be something strange with my job (publishing, music composition and sound design), since I've been doing it on a (very quiet) Mac mini for years.
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">The Mini is popular where you need a Mac but it's not your primary machine.</span>
So, there should be something strange with my job (publishing, music composition and sound design), since I've been doing it on a (very quiet) Mac mini for years.
That indeed was a strange stance: how can anyone state for for someone else? Otherwise Apple should state on their Store page that you can only buy a Mac Mini together with another model, or it's only for those who already have a working Mac, non Mac Mini.
Something like:
??
"Warning! This Mac needs a faster Mac for proper operation."
I would love an i5 mini with Iris graphics mainly with a PCIe SSD though perhaps I should jump up to an i7 if it even comes out of course. Also it figures, just as I was losing hope Apple ropes me back in or at least the rumor sites do.
If the Mini isn't beefy enough, why don't you simply buy a Mac Pro?
I really find such questions perplexing. Honestly do you not understand the massive performance differential between the Mini and the Mac Pro? When I look at the Mini I see a machine that is severly constrained by the devices thermal capabilities. This forces the quad core models into really slow clock rates. Build a mini that can accept quad core desktop chips of more than 45 watts and that problem goes away. Supplement that desktop chip with a middle of the road GPU and you have a nice machine that Apple can sell profitably for half the cost of a Mac Pro.
In a nut shell once you move beyond enters level performance the Mini is a terrible value and simply doesn't supply the user with the performance justified in the list price.
Is there a 'copyright lookalike law' out there that can prevent companies like Google to cache your webpages/site?
Probably not enforceable as the Internet wouldn't work without caching taking place everywhere. Obviously what Google does is slightly different but the fact remains it is a form of caching.
I would love an i5 mini with Iris graphics mainly with a PCIe SSD though perhaps I should jump up to an i7 if it even comes out of course. Also it figures, just as I was losing hope Apple ropes me back in or at least the rumor sites do.
The best we can hope for is a release within a few weeks. I don't expect a spectacular update because I have to agree with another poster, Apple wanted to move to Broadwell and got screwed over by Intels delays. So any visions I had of a massive refactoring seem to have been squashed. This I'm expecting minor updates now in the same old box. It would be nice if I was wrong but hey you never know.
As to an i5, Id buy the machine most likely to remain viable for a long time. That is tough in the Mini because in the last the quad cores ran their CPUs rather slow. For longevity you really want a quad core. In a sense this is why I saw Broadwell as an ideal update path for the Mini as it effecitvely solves the power (thermal) problems and would allow for decent performance out of a quad core chip.
As for that Mini redesign I was getting into the idea of a flying saucer like machine the same diameter as the Mac Pro but not more than a couple of inches high. Make the platform stackable and things would be even more interesting. Imagine being able to stack up Minis in an interlocking tower with enoguh TB 2 ports to support TB2 links between Minis.
If the Mini isn't beefy enough, why don't you simply buy a Mac Pro?
I really find such questions perplexing. Honestly do you not understand the massive performance differential between the Mini and the Mac Pro?
Of course I do. But when someone wants OSX and a Mini isn't 'capable' enough to do the job why moan about the model that they want while there are alternatives available? I wouldn't want to buy an iMac if a Mini wasn't capable because of the screen (matte enthusiast here) so I've always bought a Power Mac / Mac Pro because of that.
Sorry - I'm 'perplexed' and your 'perplexing state'.
When I look at the Mini I see a machine that is severly constrained by the devices thermal capabilities. This forces the quad core models into really slow clock rates. Build a mini that can accept quad core desktop chips of more than 45 watts and that problem goes away. Supplement that desktop chip with a middle of the road GPU and you have a nice machine that Apple can sell profitably for half the cost of a Mac Pro.
That's not how this computer is designed. It's designed for 'switchers'. For 'average' and 'lightweight' users. Don't try to think for Apple in the way that you're doing now, which seems to be based on a preference. One that might be shared by many, but that isn't -to me- how they designed this little guy. It's an entry level model. You want more, they have the iMac, you want full power, with the ability to expand to your hearts' content? Get a Mac Pro. Don't forget the strategy Steve put out when he returned:
Is there a 'copyright lookalike law' out there that can prevent companies like Google to cache your webpages/site?
Probably not enforceable as the Internet wouldn't work without caching taking place everywhere. Obviously what Google does is slightly different but the fact remains it is a form of caching.
When I look at the Mini I see a machine that is severly constrained by the devices thermal capabilities. This forces the quad core models into really slow clock rates. Build a mini that can accept quad core desktop chips of more than 45 watts and that problem goes away.
Yup. Just more Applerexia. Yet if one dares to suggest that Apple puts form over function, they are ridiculed and berated as a heretic.
What the hell difference does it make if it's an inch taller? Given a choice between it leaving slightly more empty space above it or having a more powerful computer, I'll go with the latter, thanks.
The Mini is popular where you need a Mac but it's not your primary machine. It's perfect for iOS development/cross-development (eg with monogame/xamarin) and is reasonably powerful enough and portable enough to be used as a HTPC or taken to convention settings when there is power available.
The Mini is a lot better than you are implying. With a modern Intel chip it would be very competitive given the excellent OpenCL performance of the Iris GPUs.
Quote:
That said, the lack of OS X on more capable desktop/laptop hardware is often a deciding factor in what Mac or PC someone buys. I'm not terribly fond of the Apple Laptop designs, as I feel they are overly compromised (eg the macmini 2012 is more capable than all the 2014 13" Retina Macbook Pro and Macbook Air's), versus the desktops which undoubtly beat the mini. The Iris Pro graphics doesn't make up for the weaker dual-core designs.
The Mini is excellent for what it is, what Apple needs is a Midrange desktop that sits between the Mini and the Mac Pro performance and price wise. In fact I've been saying this for some time. I can see putting the Mini to use in a number of ways that don't involve being a primary machine. The Mini isnt a problem it is rather the missing midrange machine that makes Apple line up look pathetic.
Quote:
I have a desktop Windows machine that I'd drop in a heartbeat if I could get the same specs in a Macmini. It won't happen. The mini gets relegated to be development/backup system while the windows machine gets to be the primary development/steam-games system.
It is very easy to build a no name machine that will run circles around a Mini. That isn't relevant as it is Small Form Factor machine and as such should be judged against other small form factor machines.
Quote:
OS X, is a wonderful OS, but it's only available on weak systems, systems that because of Intel Graphics have not been terribly capable.
The IMac isn't bad performance wise if you an stomach an all in one. However SFF machines have never been noted for GPU performance so I don't know why you even bring the Mini up in that context.
Quote:
This problem extends to the new Mac Pro in that the graphics can never be upgraded.
You assume it can't be upgraded but the video cards in a Mac Pro are socketed. Beyond that it really doesn't make sense to upgrade a machine like the Mac Pro any more. Especially considering that the video cards can often be the largest part of a Mac Pro investment.
Apple introduced a midrange desktop in 1998; it's called the iMac, not to be confused with the IMac, which has never existed. I'm delighted to say that your search for a midrange desktop is over.
Apple introduced a midrange desktop in 1998; it's called the iMac, not to be confused with the IMac, which has never existed. I'm delighted to say that your search for a midrange desktop is over.
Cute. Lemme respond in kind: Got anything for me?
One of mine sits next to the books on a shelf in the living room, connected to the TV via HDMI. There's just nowhere to PUT an iMac, or even a Mac Pro for that matter, even if we wanted to.
The other is in a little rack under a mixing console feeding one of the inputs of a dual-panel display wall. Also an application that doesn't lend itself well to the iMac form. Even if we could find space to shoehorn one under the console, it's not particularly cost effective to pay for a fancy display we won't use.
In the second application we *could* use a Mac Pro. I *could* also replace my 3-series with a Ferrari. Neither makes much sense when the alternative is three times the price and overkill for the application, though.
I think it's wonderful that Apple sells lots of All-In-Ones and laptops (which are also a form of "all-in-one"). I also think it's disappointing that they provide so little for those who are not well served by combo devices. Our choices are outdated entry level or expensive cutting edge.
This is in jest: But, but, but, you fail to realise that Apple always has everything perfectly thought out and that the iMac is perfect for you. The problem is the stuff in your room, or maybe the room, or maybe the entire house. Why don't you rebuild your house around the iMac that so suits your needs? End of jest.
Seriously, different customers have different needs and desires and I think it would be very difficult for Apple to fulfil all of them (I can only imagine how fast they would go out of business if they designed the precise stuff I want). That said, I see value in a slightly more capable mini that fits well in to various systems, including home entertainment ones. Also sometimes I wish they would put function over form and move some of the darned USB ports to the front; it is a pain reaching around a 27" iMac on a crowded desk just to insert a cable or SD card. Ditto for minis in a cabinet.
I like the idea above of stackable minis that can be linked together as long as they have great heat dissipation. Then it would be easy to expand a small render farm as money came available. Apple would have to come out with cables of the right (as in not too long) length to accomplish this, but it took them a year to push out a 0.5m Thunderbolt cable AFTER everyone had already bought the 2m one and put up with it.
If they had a Best option for the min that pushed it just shy of $2000 that would still be well under the Mac Pro and still not as capable as far as graphics.
Originally Posted by Bergermeister Also sometimes I wish they would put function over form and move some of the darned USB ports to the front; it is a pain reaching around a 27" iMac on a crowded desk just to insert a cable or SD card. Ditto for minis in a cabinet.
I'd like to take the same design philosophy that Apple use for its computers and use it for their new spaceship campus building.
Every appliance in the break rooms would have the handles on the back. Let's see how they like using a fridge or microwave that way. All doors would have the handles on the side. Desk phones would have all the buttons on the back of the phone, let's see the secretary transfer calls quickly and easily that way.
The mac mini is imho the best mac Apple has ever created: Small, affordable, quiet, elegant, you can use the monitor you want, and yet powerful enough for most hobby-applications or small-office-stuff.
The mac mini is imho the best mac Apple has ever created: Small, affordable, quiet, elegant, you can use the monitor you want, and yet powerful enough for most hobby-applications or small-office-stuff.
I'm very glad that it will get a refreshment.
I'm sure it will need one after all the hard work you put it through!
Comments
I did the same thing but knowing it needs TB2/DP1.2 I knew I made a mistake. After a couple grueling seconds the frame rate hit me.
That's the problem though, if you go toe to toe with Apple on spec and price, you're going to lose.
They might, but if they do it won't be because their hardware is inferior. I don't imagine Apple realizes much economy of scale in the rarified workstation market of the Mac Pro, so it's probably easier for HP to compete on price there.
If one were curious it should be easy to build sample machines on each company's web site and see how they compare.
If you have the choice between a PC and a Mac at the same price, most sane people would never buy the PC. Only people with a grudge to bear e.g 'wah, I didn't like the new FCP so I'm buying from HP now'.
Personal preference always plays some part in these decisions, but the bottom line for a business machine is choosing the one that does the job best, best integrates into existing infrastructure, and is the most cost-effective. When you consider that the major applications are all cross-platform (save for 3ds Max which is still Windows-only), as are the major collaboration tools, I don't see Apple having a distinct edge here. I can say from experience that using Pro Tools with Windows was essentially indistinguishable from using it with OS X aside from the close window button being on the opposite side.
I like this one from NEC even more, and it's only $949
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/displayNEC-EA244UHD.html
The Mini is popular where you need a Mac but it's not your primary machine.
So, there should be something strange with my job (publishing, music composition and sound design), since I've been doing it on a (very quiet) Mac mini for years.
That indeed was a strange stance: how can anyone state for for someone else? Otherwise Apple should state on their Store page that you can only buy a Mac Mini together with another model, or it's only for those who already have a working Mac, non Mac Mini.
Something like:
??
"Warning! This Mac needs a faster Mac for proper operation."
In a nut shell once you move beyond enters level performance the Mini is a terrible value and simply doesn't supply the user with the performance justified in the list price.
Probably not enforceable as the Internet wouldn't work without caching taking place everywhere. Obviously what Google does is slightly different but the fact remains it is a form of caching.
The best we can hope for is a release within a few weeks. I don't expect a spectacular update because I have to agree with another poster, Apple wanted to move to Broadwell and got screwed over by Intels delays. So any visions I had of a massive refactoring seem to have been squashed. This I'm expecting minor updates now in the same old box. It would be nice if I was wrong but hey you never know.
As to an i5, Id buy the machine most likely to remain viable for a long time. That is tough in the Mini because in the last the quad cores ran their CPUs rather slow. For longevity you really want a quad core. In a sense this is why I saw Broadwell as an ideal update path for the Mini as it effecitvely solves the power (thermal) problems and would allow for decent performance out of a quad core chip.
As for that Mini redesign I was getting into the idea of a flying saucer like machine the same diameter as the Mac Pro but not more than a couple of inches high. Make the platform stackable and things would be even more interesting. Imagine being able to stack up Minis in an interlocking tower with enoguh TB 2 ports to support TB2 links between Minis.
Of course I do. But when someone wants OSX and a Mini isn't 'capable' enough to do the job why moan about the model that they want while there are alternatives available? I wouldn't want to buy an iMac if a Mini wasn't capable because of the screen (matte enthusiast here) so I've always bought a Power Mac / Mac Pro because of that.
Sorry - I'm 'perplexed' and your 'perplexing state'.
That's not how this computer is designed. It's designed for 'switchers'. For 'average' and 'lightweight' users. Don't try to think for Apple in the way that you're doing now, which seems to be based on a preference. One that might be shared by many, but that isn't -to me- how they designed this little guy. It's an entry level model. You want more, they have the iMac, you want full power, with the ability to expand to your hearts' content? Get a Mac Pro. Don't forget the strategy Steve put out when he returned:
Good point!
When I look at the Mini I see a machine that is severly constrained by the devices thermal capabilities. This forces the quad core models into really slow clock rates. Build a mini that can accept quad core desktop chips of more than 45 watts and that problem goes away.
Yup. Just more Applerexia. Yet if one dares to suggest that Apple puts form over function, they are ridiculed and berated as a heretic.
What the hell difference does it make if it's an inch taller? Given a choice between it leaving slightly more empty space above it or having a more powerful computer, I'll go with the latter, thanks.
The Mini is popular where you need a Mac but it's not your primary machine. It's perfect for iOS development/cross-development (eg with monogame/xamarin) and is reasonably powerful enough and portable enough to be used as a HTPC or taken to convention settings when there is power available.
The Mini is a lot better than you are implying. With a modern Intel chip it would be very competitive given the excellent OpenCL performance of the Iris GPUs.
The Mini is excellent for what it is, what Apple needs is a Midrange desktop that sits between the Mini and the Mac Pro performance and price wise. In fact I've been saying this for some time. I can see putting the Mini to use in a number of ways that don't involve being a primary machine. The Mini isnt a problem it is rather the missing midrange machine that makes Apple line up look pathetic.
It is very easy to build a no name machine that will run circles around a Mini. That isn't relevant as it is Small Form Factor machine and as such should be judged against other small form factor machines.
The IMac isn't bad performance wise if you an stomach an all in one. However SFF machines have never been noted for GPU performance so I don't know why you even bring the Mini up in that context.
You assume it can't be upgraded but the video cards in a Mac Pro are socketed. Beyond that it really doesn't make sense to upgrade a machine like the Mac Pro any more. Especially considering that the video cards can often be the largest part of a Mac Pro investment.
Apple introduced a midrange desktop in 1998; it's called the iMac, not to be confused with the IMac, which has never existed. I'm delighted to say that your search for a midrange desktop is over.
Apple introduced a midrange desktop in 1998; it's called the iMac, not to be confused with the IMac, which has never existed. I'm delighted to say that your search for a midrange desktop is over.
Cute. Lemme respond in kind: Got anything for me?
One of mine sits next to the books on a shelf in the living room, connected to the TV via HDMI. There's just nowhere to PUT an iMac, or even a Mac Pro for that matter, even if we wanted to.
The other is in a little rack under a mixing console feeding one of the inputs of a dual-panel display wall. Also an application that doesn't lend itself well to the iMac form. Even if we could find space to shoehorn one under the console, it's not particularly cost effective to pay for a fancy display we won't use.
In the second application we *could* use a Mac Pro. I *could* also replace my 3-series with a Ferrari. Neither makes much sense when the alternative is three times the price and overkill for the application, though.
I think it's wonderful that Apple sells lots of All-In-Ones and laptops (which are also a form of "all-in-one"). I also think it's disappointing that they provide so little for those who are not well served by combo devices. Our choices are outdated entry level or expensive cutting edge.
This is in jest: But, but, but, you fail to realise that Apple always has everything perfectly thought out and that the iMac is perfect for you. The problem is the stuff in your room, or maybe the room, or maybe the entire house. Why don't you rebuild your house around the iMac that so suits your needs? End of jest.
Seriously, different customers have different needs and desires and I think it would be very difficult for Apple to fulfil all of them (I can only imagine how fast they would go out of business if they designed the precise stuff I want). That said, I see value in a slightly more capable mini that fits well in to various systems, including home entertainment ones. Also sometimes I wish they would put function over form and move some of the darned USB ports to the front; it is a pain reaching around a 27" iMac on a crowded desk just to insert a cable or SD card. Ditto for minis in a cabinet.
I like the idea above of stackable minis that can be linked together as long as they have great heat dissipation. Then it would be easy to expand a small render farm as money came available. Apple would have to come out with cables of the right (as in not too long) length to accomplish this, but it took them a year to push out a 0.5m Thunderbolt cable AFTER everyone had already bought the 2m one and put up with it.
If they had a Best option for the min that pushed it just shy of $2000 that would still be well under the Mac Pro and still not as capable as far as graphics.
Dream on buddy.
I'd like to take the same design philosophy that Apple use for its computers and use it for their new spaceship campus building.
Every appliance in the break rooms would have the handles on the back. Let's see how they like using a fridge or microwave that way. All doors would have the handles on the side. Desk phones would have all the buttons on the back of the phone, let's see the secretary transfer calls quickly and easily that way.
Dream on buddy.
They day I stop dreaming is the day I die.
That is your opinion. I respect that.
The mac mini is imho the best mac Apple has ever created: Small, affordable, quiet, elegant, you can use the monitor you want, and yet powerful enough for most hobby-applications or small-office-stuff.
I'm very glad that it will get a refreshment.
I'm sure it will need one after all the hard work you put it through!
I hope you are right. Great value for the money.