Apple references unannounced 'mid-2014' Mac mini in Support Pages document

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 143
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    macboy pro wrote: »
    In the current Mini, I can raid two 1TB SSDs faster than anything Apple has dreamed of.

    What are your sequential and random, and read and write speeds for your setup? What kind of 1TB SSDs are you using in a RAID 0 configuration?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 143
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

     

    no thanks to the flash.  It means they put in their proprietary crap.


     

    I have mixed feelings about that.

     

    I *HATE* Apple's practice of using their own storage modules instead of industry-standard designs because it makes buying replacements and upgrades difficult and expensive. First, very few vendors offer them. In the case of the 2013 MacBook Pro I've only found ONE supplier (OWC). The largest capacity they offer is 480GB so there's no way to get a larger module at any price. Second, what one CAN buy costs more than equivalent SATA products because unique specialty designs don't enjoy the economies of scale realized with "industry standard" designs.

     

    That said, Apple's approach bypasses SATA altogether and ties storage directly to the PCIe bus. I have no idea whether or not SATA actually imposes a bottleneck, but it's at least a theoretical advantage to remove it. I also don't know if the NAND Apple is using is as fast as other manufacturers, but if it is, it has the potential to be a better design. The Apple module is also smaller and lighter than "conventional" SSD drives.

     

    It's a mixed bag. I haven't decided if I like it or not.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 143
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I have no idea whether or not SATA actually imposes a bottleneck

    Absolutely. Besides the 2xPCIe that Apple has been using is faster than the SATA III's therorectical speeds it also removes all the latency involved with using SATA at all.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 143
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    s.metcalf wrote: »
    Ah the iPod Hi-Fi!

    It kinda sucked, but the audio is actually pretty good...for its design, its time and its price. The Zeppelin is what, $599 or something. This thing was a mere $ 350
    Yes I'm thinking of course of amateur photographers that can't really afford to step up to a base Mac Pro

    Ok, yeah, then a MP would be too much. In price, and in horsepower. The number of registered photographers here in NL has exploded these last few years, in a country that is so small many Americans can't show it on a map :smokey:
    I shouldn't have been too quick to bash longevity of the iMac and I'm sure they do ok compared to laptops but not by much cause they kind of are a big oversized laptop on a stand. I was burnt by my iMac G5 experience so I won't go back.

    G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:
    Damn, can't find the article on this site:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
    But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 143
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Why shouldn't they bring out a new MM in your opinion?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 143
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    macboy pro wrote: »
    no thanks to the flash.  It means they put in their proprietary crap.   In the current Mini, I can raid two 1TB SSDs faster than anything Apple has dreamed of.
    However a single SATA drive can not reach the speeds of Apples SSD implementations. Beyond that a Mini with an SSD boot drive could still support your two SATA drives if Apple wanted to design it that way.

    As it is now there really is nothing on the market that matches Apples top of the line PCI Express based SSD's in the price ranges Apple sells.
    My fear is that they solder the memory and put in the proprietary items like flash.  Then I guess I but the best 2012 model and make it last.
    Sooner or later you will have no choice but to deal with soldered in RAM. Even Intel is designing in RAM onto the processor modules because going off module slows everything down to much. Going off the PCB to a DIMM slows things down even more. So don't be surprised to see RAM soldered into a motherboard in all hi performance hardware in the future.
    Apple is definitely reverting to the failed old proprietary Apple with respect to their Mac products.  Its not a good path.

    There are certainly behaviors with respect to Apple that I don't like. Dragging out the new Mini release is a huge one. This especially when there is a very capable processor upgrade to be ad. However in general Apple has been a mixed bag lately, something's they are very open with and frankly lead the industry (WebKit & LLVM/CLang come to mind) other things they have just gone plain stupid with; for example the MiFi program, and the lack of support for USB devices in iOS.

    I know many see the new Mac Pro as an example of Apple going proprietary but I don't see it that way. I see the Mac Pro as innovation and frankly leaving the old and tired PC industry behind. Just as Apple left the 6502 world behind when the first Mac came out. That Mac of course had its own hardware issues, especially with the lack of expandability which the new Mac Pro does NOT share.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 143
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    philboogie wrote: »
    It kinda sucked, but the audio is actually pretty good...for its design, its time and its price. The Zeppelin is what, $599 or something. This thing was a mere $ 350
    The perception was and probably was fairly accurate, that the device was grossly overpriced. The thing had zero appeal to me the minute I saw the specs and realized what I was getting for the price.
    Ok, yeah, then a MP would be too much. In price, and in horsepower. The number of registered photographers here in NL has exploded these last few years, in a country that is so small many Americans can't show it on a map :smokey:
    You have to register to take pictures in the NL? That is a scary thought right there. People wonder why we resist gun registration in this country, it is pretty much a slippery slope.

    G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:
    In some situations that would be expected. However it really means nothing. The people that buy the Mac Pros know how to leverage them to their advantage. The fact remains that for professional work the MAC Pro can be a huge advantage for people that can employ software that takes advantage of the machine.
    Damn, can't find the article on this site:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
    But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:
    http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html

    Again sites like this mean nothing, given the right situation I could show Mini being faster than a Mac Pro. All I need is a Mac Pro maxed out with cores that can be kept throttled at the base clock rate and a Mini with a fast chip. Run a process that is bound to a single thread and you can make the Pro look bad. It means nothing. I repeat it means nothing, as a user you need to select hardware suitable for the task at hand. Often that means something other than the MacPro.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 143
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

     




    G5. Hmm, a lot has happened since then. The latest iMacs are sometimes faster than the latest MP:

    Damn, can't find the article on this site:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html

    But browse around there. There's a ton of info there, like the iMac / MP comparison on CS6 in 2012:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/iMac-late2012-speed-diglloydSpeed1.html

     

    I can vouch for that:  I have a 2012 iMac and a new Mac Pro 6 core.  Some apps run faster or the same on the iMac.  Some do better on the MP.  Haven't actually tested it so I don't have hard data but I can "feel" it. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 143
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    The new Mac pros are much faster than the older models and have better graphic cards and quality is much more reliable.I own one now.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 143
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

     

    and quality is much more reliable.


     

    I don't understand what that phrase means.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 111 of 143
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    I know something you do not. Let us leave it at that .

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 112 of 143
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member

    Quality of the product better materials used inside  and out.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 113 of 143
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    You have to register to take pictures in the NL? That is a scary thought right there. People wonder why we resist gun registration in this country, it is pretty much a slippery slope.

    No, I meant registered at the Chamber of Commerce, as their (new) occupation. And the number has increased considerably, taking the quality down as a result. Anyone can afford a DSLR nowadays.


    I can vouch for that:  I have a 2012 iMac and a new Mac Pro 6 core.  Some apps run faster or the same on the iMac.  Some do better on the MP.  Haven't actually tested it so I don't have hard data but I can "feel" it. 

    That's what I remember when you got the nMP.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 114 of 143
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    In no way I’ve ever seen.


     

    I have a Dell 2405FPW that is still great.  No 2005 iMac G5 is as useful in 2014 even if the display still worked well.  Marrying the monitor to the computer certainly does limit the useful lifetime of the monitor.  The monitor in the 2007 24" iMac is probably as nice as the Dell since both are IPS (I don't think the 2006 was) but running a Core2Duo it's not as useful anymore.  The 2006 24" iMac certainly not as useful stuck on Lion.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 115 of 143
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    philboogie wrote: »
    No, I meant registered at the Chamber of Commerce, as their (new) occupation. And the number has increased considerably, taking the quality down as a result. Anyone can afford a DSLR nowadays.
    I see you are talking professional photography and setting up a business. Obviously I had other ideas in my head.

    As to the quality, professional photography is a tough business to be in! The perception is that all the photographer has to do is to press the button and as such there isn't a lot of value added. In some cases that is true but you and I both know there is more to it than that. Composition is an art and like all artist some have more talent than others. If not artistry people skills are important, good wedding photographers are notably good people persons.

    However we live in a society of cheap is better and that frankly means any idiot with a camera can snap pictures for a living.
    That's what I remember when you got the nMP.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 116 of 143
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    nht wrote: »
    I have a Dell 2405FPW that is still great.  No 2005 iMac G5 is as useful in 2014 even if the display still worked well.  Marrying the monitor to the computer certainly does limit the useful lifetime of the monitor.  
    It also mean you are stick with the specific monitor that comes with the all in one. I think one point people miss when it comes to the desire to see the Mini contimue is that size does matter and you don't always want an iMac sized screen. There are plenty of use cases where a small monitor makes sense. Conversely a giant screen can also make lots of sense for specific uses. The IMac is simply a poor choice for many uses.
    The monitor in the 2007 24" iMac is probably as nice as the Dell since both are IPS (I don't think the 2006 was) but running a Core2Duo it's not as useful anymore.  The 2006 24" iMac certainly not as useful stuck on Lion.

    There is also a flip side here. A Core2Duo Mini can be retasked for other uses and remain viable as a piece of hardware for years past its suitability for general desktop uses. People will try to tell you that the IMac can do that two, but the problem is you can stick the Mini in a corner and not waste a huge amount of space. I've seen Minis stuck in all sorts of places that a IMac would simply not fit.

    The Mini isn't a bad concept, it is Apples execution that sucks. To put it bluntly waiting a year and a half for a processor upgrade on the Mini is just terribly frustrating and frankly results in much disatisfaction with Apple. This especially the case when Intels new prodcut line stresses the area the Mini needs the most improving, that is the GPU. It is a magnifciently massive blunder on Apples part to ignore an almost ideal processor upgrade for the Mini for over a year. Frankly I don't care if Broadwell is the best thing since sliced bread, it is really no excuse to neglect a product line for so long.

    Yes I'm venting!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 117 of 143
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Absolutely. Besides the 2xPCIe that Apple has been using is faster than the SATA III's therorectical speeds it also removes all the latency involved with using SATA at all.

     

    Except it's not faster than m.2 and SATA Express.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    However a single SATA drive can not reach the speeds of Apples SSD implementations. Beyond that a Mini with an SSD boot drive could still support your two SATA drives if Apple wanted to design it that way.



    As it is now there really is nothing on the market that matches Apples top of the line PCI Express based SSD's in the price ranges Apple sells.

     

    The M.2 SATA Express SSDs are no slower...especially given that the Samsung XP941 seen in the 2013 MBP can be purchased as a 512GB M.2 PCIe SSD.

     

    It is a shame that the MBP isn't using the M.2 standard.  It would be a little bigger but probably not much.

     

    Quote:

    Sooner or later you will have no choice but to deal with soldered in RAM. Even Intel is designing in RAM onto the processor modules because going off module slows everything down to much. Going off the PCB to a DIMM slows things down even more. So don't be surprised to see RAM soldered into a motherboard in all hi performance hardware in the future.

     

    There's no significant advantage for the desktop market for soldered RAM and several downsides.  The stacked in-package RAM is different and separate from DRAM.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 118 of 143
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

    To put it bluntly waiting a year and a half for a processor upgrade on the Mini is just terribly frustrating and frankly results in much disatisfaction with Apple. This especially the case when Intels new prodcut line stresses the area the Mini needs the most improving, that is the GPU. It is a magnifciently massive blunder on Apples part to ignore an almost ideal processor upgrade for the Mini for over a year. Frankly I don't care if Broadwell is the best thing since sliced bread, it is really no excuse to neglect a product line for so long.



    Yes I'm venting!

     

    It's frustrating but expected from Apple.  The only way they will let the mini outperform the base iMac is by making it the same price.  Even then it's iffy.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 119 of 143
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member

    I think by now, as we skate toward September, that it's clear the Mini was slated for a 'mid-2014' redesign with the Broadwell chip and possibly a shrunken, fanless design. That is now out the window.

     

    The chip delay has meant that the redesign will probably clock in around October instead.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 120 of 143
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

    its clear the Mini was slated for a ‘mid-2014 redesign



    Why?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.