Tim Cook email claims Mac mini 'important part' of Apple's product matrix

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 118
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,840member
    MacPro said:
    I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model.  I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing.  It is soooo (f****g)  slow I have to upgrade something.  I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly.  I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example.  What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
    Just noticed this from the previous post.... but I'd say the SSD. 4GB of RAM should be plenty for normal operation. Also, do you have one of those OWC dongles for the video port? If you're running headless, that might be the issue.

    (Not sure if this is the right model... but basically something like this: https://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/ADP4KHEAD/ )
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 102 of 118
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    cgWerks said:
    MacPro said:
    I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model.  I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing.  It is soooo (f****g)  slow I have to upgrade something.  I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly.  I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example.  What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
    Just noticed this from the previous post.... but I'd say the SSD. 4GB of RAM should be plenty for normal operation. Also, do you have one of those OWC dongles for the video port? If you're running headless, that might be the issue.

    (Not sure if this is the right model... but basically something like this: https://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/ADP4KHEAD/ )
    Thanks for checking in.  Agreed, SSD it is.  I too wondered about headless but once booted from an external SSD everything totally acceptable even over ARD  and this is USB2!  I also tried with a monitor and yes a fraction faster but not a lot.  I'm going to rip it open and pull out the HDD and put in the SSD directly, after that it should even faster on the SATA.  BTW I checked the disk with Disk Warrior and it's fine, just very slow.  I thought about more RAM but it's not worth it as it works fine as is, I was surprised how costly even low capacity RAM is for a 2012 Mac mini, I thought only 2013 Mac Pros had such high prices.
  • Reply 103 of 118
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member

    toddzrx said:
    MacPro said:
    I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model.  I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing.  It is soooo (f****g)  slow I have to upgrade something.  I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly.  I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example.  What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
    5 years ago I bought a slightly used 2010 21.5" iMac for home use to replace my 2006 MacBook Pro.  That old MBP had a SATA 2 SSD in it (I did the install) that I transferred over to the 2010 iMac, dramatically increasing its speed and gave it an overall snappier feeling.  Just for grins, I was able to locate a guy on Craigslist who sold used Apple RAM: I bought 4GB off him for a paltry $20.  So about a week after installing the SSD, I put in the additional RAM for a total of 8GB.  The SSD for sure made the biggest difference in speed.  The extra RAM made the machine slightly faster in that it was noticeable, but not like the increase from installing the SSD.  However, I think the RAM addition has kept the machine largely future proof; after all, we're still using it daily and it works great.  The only reason I have right now for wanting to upgrade is to get a Retina screen.  I would imagine we'll be doing that within the next year or two.

    At any rate, if I can get by just fine on a 2010 iMac, I would think a 2012 Mini with a SATA 3 SSD and another 4 GB of RAM would make it feel like it's brand new.
    I am totally in agreement and once visiting grandchild has gone home I'll be unscrewing the wee beast ;)
  • Reply 104 of 118
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,428administrator
    MacPro said:
    cgWerks said:
    MacPro said:
    I'd love my mac Mini a lot more if it was easier to swap out the internal HD and RAM ... jeez what a PITA on my late 2012 i5, 4GB RAM model.  I use it as a headless a server for Plex and Home sharing.  It is soooo (f****g)  slow I have to upgrade something.  I don't mean its serving operations, it works fine, I mean doing anything on it directly.  I can go for coffee while waiting for it to open System Preference for example.  What have folks found to be the best bang for the buck, SSD or RAM or both?
    Just noticed this from the previous post.... but I'd say the SSD. 4GB of RAM should be plenty for normal operation. Also, do you have one of those OWC dongles for the video port? If you're running headless, that might be the issue.

    (Not sure if this is the right model... but basically something like this: https://eshop.macsales.com/item/NewerTech/ADP4KHEAD/ )
    Thanks for checking in.  Agreed, SSD it is.  I too wondered about headless but once booted from an external SSD everything totally acceptable even over ARD  and this is USB2!  I also tried with a monitor and yes a fraction faster but not a lot.  I'm going to rip it open and pull out the HDD and put in the SSD directly, after that it should even faster on the SATA.  BTW I checked the disk with Disk Warrior and it's fine, just very slow.  I thought about more RAM but it's not worth it as it works fine as is, I was surprised how costly even low capacity RAM is for a 2012 Mac mini, I thought only 2013 Mac Pros had such high prices.
    RAM prices got stupidly high over the last two years.
  • Reply 105 of 118
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    cgWerks said:
    MacPro said:
    Exactly, I feel port challenged for sure That said I parallel two TB2 Thunderbolt ports to a RAID 0 and get around 100 Gbps read using RAID 0 with 720 rpm HHD Barracudas and about 850 Gbps write .  However, I will sell mine get the next Mac Pro as soon as they are released.  You are right to wait for USB3/ TB3.   That aside I love mine to bits. I had 4 cheese graters (and every Mac Pro / tower ever made) and loved them too but the new concept of all external storage was a tremendous weight off my back!  lol.  I'm updating Boot Camp to Windows Creator Fall edition as I type I have to add,  the Apple late 2013 Mac Pro with its dual GPUs and Catalyst  runs Windows 10 better than most PCs out there, I cannot quantify that but I bet it is in the top 5% of PCs on the planet.
    Yea, storage is fine, it's the GPU I'm worried about. I guess given Mike's tests, even with TB2 I could add an eGPU, but I'd rather have TB3 on either a Mini or Pro if I get next. I had planned to move to a MBP, but given the new ones are %$#(, I'm probably going back to a desktop/lower-end laptop combo.

    I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss  just isn't worth the gain.  I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer.  Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes.   If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take.  Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe.  Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now!  It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
    The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.

    This may change with Intel's loosening of TB3 licensing in 2018 -- but I don't have a feel for how much. On the other hand, I think that a new Mac Pro price is going to be... a bit more than most of us may want to spend.

    I forget what machine you're on, MacPro, but you shouldn't see a slowdown from your RAID- assuming you took the eGPU route.

    Hi Mike, mine is the middle of the road 6 Core released Christmas 2013.  16 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD, I going to remove the 4 x 4 GB and pop in 2 x 32 GB OWC SDRAMS when they arrive. I can't justify the price of larger SSDs for this Mac but have no problem with the small one as I have most everything on externals, I even have Boot Camp on there with 60 GB space left over.  I use it for Windows a lot and the two GPUs work great with AMD Catalyst so I wonder if a single external GPU is going to out perform the dual, albeit lesser GPUs?  My guess for a mid rage next gen Mac Pro is going to be $3.5K what's your best guess?
    I'm hoping for a 1,1 Mac Pro surprise at $2500, but I'm expecting $4000.

    But, I'm not sure you need to get one.

    As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.

    As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
    Thanks Mike, all good info but my main reason for upgrading my Mac Pro will be hardware supported HVEC 4K compression for FCPro etc.  Not sure there is anyway around that with 3rd party updates is there?  My macMini on the other hand loves its new SSD :)
    Well, there's your problem. You'd be relying on the GPU/CPU for that. HEVC 4K hardware decompression is in newer gear. Compression is another matter entirely.
    To be honest I'd assumed it would be both decompression and compression (or at least accelerated, I am not assuming real time) in new Apple hardware.  That's a bummer.  So are you thinking there will be external compression boxes?  Reminds me of the early 90's and dealing with 640 x 480 NTSC with Radius cards!  :(
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 106 of 118
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,428administrator
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    cgWerks said:
    MacPro said:
    Exactly, I feel port challenged for sure That said I parallel two TB2 Thunderbolt ports to a RAID 0 and get around 100 Gbps read using RAID 0 with 720 rpm HHD Barracudas and about 850 Gbps write .  However, I will sell mine get the next Mac Pro as soon as they are released.  You are right to wait for USB3/ TB3.   That aside I love mine to bits. I had 4 cheese graters (and every Mac Pro / tower ever made) and loved them too but the new concept of all external storage was a tremendous weight off my back!  lol.  I'm updating Boot Camp to Windows Creator Fall edition as I type I have to add,  the Apple late 2013 Mac Pro with its dual GPUs and Catalyst  runs Windows 10 better than most PCs out there, I cannot quantify that but I bet it is in the top 5% of PCs on the planet.
    Yea, storage is fine, it's the GPU I'm worried about. I guess given Mike's tests, even with TB2 I could add an eGPU, but I'd rather have TB3 on either a Mini or Pro if I get next. I had planned to move to a MBP, but given the new ones are %$#(, I'm probably going back to a desktop/lower-end laptop combo.

    I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss  just isn't worth the gain.  I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer.  Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes.   If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take.  Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe.  Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now!  It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
    The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.

    This may change with Intel's loosening of TB3 licensing in 2018 -- but I don't have a feel for how much. On the other hand, I think that a new Mac Pro price is going to be... a bit more than most of us may want to spend.

    I forget what machine you're on, MacPro, but you shouldn't see a slowdown from your RAID- assuming you took the eGPU route.

    Hi Mike, mine is the middle of the road 6 Core released Christmas 2013.  16 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD, I going to remove the 4 x 4 GB and pop in 2 x 32 GB OWC SDRAMS when they arrive. I can't justify the price of larger SSDs for this Mac but have no problem with the small one as I have most everything on externals, I even have Boot Camp on there with 60 GB space left over.  I use it for Windows a lot and the two GPUs work great with AMD Catalyst so I wonder if a single external GPU is going to out perform the dual, albeit lesser GPUs?  My guess for a mid rage next gen Mac Pro is going to be $3.5K what's your best guess?
    I'm hoping for a 1,1 Mac Pro surprise at $2500, but I'm expecting $4000.

    But, I'm not sure you need to get one.

    As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.

    As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
    Thanks Mike, all good info but my main reason for upgrading my Mac Pro will be hardware supported HVEC 4K compression for FCPro etc.  Not sure there is anyway around that with 3rd party updates is there?  My macMini on the other hand loves its new SSD :)
    Well, there's your problem. You'd be relying on the GPU/CPU for that. HEVC 4K hardware decompression is in newer gear. Compression is another matter entirely.
    To be honest I'd assumed it would be both decompression and compression (or at least accelerated, I am not assuming real time) in new Apple hardware.  That's a bummer.  So are you thinking there will be external compression boxes?  Reminds me of the early 90's and dealing with 640 x 480 NTSC with Radius cards!  :(
    Yup. They'll be called eGPUs. :D
  • Reply 107 of 118
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    MacPro said:
    cgWerks said:
    MacPro said:
    Exactly, I feel port challenged for sure That said I parallel two TB2 Thunderbolt ports to a RAID 0 and get around 100 Gbps read using RAID 0 with 720 rpm HHD Barracudas and about 850 Gbps write .  However, I will sell mine get the next Mac Pro as soon as they are released.  You are right to wait for USB3/ TB3.   That aside I love mine to bits. I had 4 cheese graters (and every Mac Pro / tower ever made) and loved them too but the new concept of all external storage was a tremendous weight off my back!  lol.  I'm updating Boot Camp to Windows Creator Fall edition as I type I have to add,  the Apple late 2013 Mac Pro with its dual GPUs and Catalyst  runs Windows 10 better than most PCs out there, I cannot quantify that but I bet it is in the top 5% of PCs on the planet.
    Yea, storage is fine, it's the GPU I'm worried about. I guess given Mike's tests, even with TB2 I could add an eGPU, but I'd rather have TB3 on either a Mini or Pro if I get next. I had planned to move to a MBP, but given the new ones are %$#(, I'm probably going back to a desktop/lower-end laptop combo.

    I debated that in my head and decided an external GPU and using up more TB2 ports with a 20% loss  just isn't worth the gain.  I also suspect my RAID throughput could suffer.  Plus I doubt there will be any possibility of two GPUs for Windows Catalyst use any time soon in any of these external boxes.   If we only have to wait a year for the new, new Mac Pro it could be the better cost/ performance path to take.  Apple could revert to a single GPU, I hope not as it how Apple runs FCPro's filters and rendering I believe.  Judging by the iMac Pro costs I suspect we better start saving up now!  It is going to be something to behold I bet as will be the cost.
    The only way the math really works on an eGPU right now financially is if you were going to buy a dock for USB and Ethernet anyway. And, for TB2 owners, I'm recommending a TB3 enclosure with Apple's TB2 to TB3 adapter for future-proofing, so that's an additional $50.

    This may change with Intel's loosening of TB3 licensing in 2018 -- but I don't have a feel for how much. On the other hand, I think that a new Mac Pro price is going to be... a bit more than most of us may want to spend.

    I forget what machine you're on, MacPro, but you shouldn't see a slowdown from your RAID- assuming you took the eGPU route.

    Hi Mike, mine is the middle of the road 6 Core released Christmas 2013.  16 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD, I going to remove the 4 x 4 GB and pop in 2 x 32 GB OWC SDRAMS when they arrive. I can't justify the price of larger SSDs for this Mac but have no problem with the small one as I have most everything on externals, I even have Boot Camp on there with 60 GB space left over.  I use it for Windows a lot and the two GPUs work great with AMD Catalyst so I wonder if a single external GPU is going to out perform the dual, albeit lesser GPUs?  My guess for a mid rage next gen Mac Pro is going to be $3.5K what's your best guess?
    I'm hoping for a 1,1 Mac Pro surprise at $2500, but I'm expecting $4000.

    But, I'm not sure you need to get one.

    As far as your 2013 goes, I'd consider re-coring it at some point with the E5-2690 v2 processor, or possibly the E5-2667 v2 -- the street price is about $340 on either. There are a few YouTube videos should you choose to go that route.

    As far as drives go, TB3 RAID arrays are cheaper than TB2 -- and backwards compatible.
    Thanks Mike, all good info but my main reason for upgrading my Mac Pro will be hardware supported HVEC 4K compression for FCPro etc.  Not sure there is anyway around that with 3rd party updates is there?  My macMini on the other hand loves its new SSD :)
    Well, there's your problem. You'd be relying on the GPU/CPU for that. HEVC 4K hardware decompression is in newer gear. Compression is another matter entirely.
    To be honest I'd assumed it would be both decompression and compression (or at least accelerated, I am not assuming real time) in new Apple hardware.  That's a bummer.  So are you thinking there will be external compression boxes?  Reminds me of the early 90's and dealing with 640 x 480 NTSC with Radius cards!  :(
    Yup. They'll be called eGPUs. :D
    LOL, right!  Up till now I was looking those for gaming not serious work  ...  That said just maybe a new 2018 Mac Pro may have specialized hardware for compression, after all the last 2013 model was geared to HD real time FCPro with real time effects and very fast rendering, so with 4K being here now Apple need at least one machine pros can use for 4K full production ... and it isn't an iMac Pro if it can't compress.  Relying on a third party doesn't seem Apple like for a flag ship which is only a 1/2 trick pony.  Full transcoding (if only accelerated) is a must IMHO for a new Mac Pro.  
  • Reply 108 of 118
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,840member
    Just so it doesn't get missed, if anyone would like to comment, since it got buried in a flurry of posts catching up from the previous night...

    How many years do you think a 6-core D500 has in it for the typical prosumer, lighter-pro type use?

    Since I'm very unhappy with the MBP, that's where I'm leaning right now. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Mini... as it *might* be an option (night and day differences, I know) or the next Mac Pro, but bet it will be out of price-range unless my financial picture changes more quickly than I expect.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 109 of 118
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,428administrator
    cgWerks said:
    Just so it doesn't get missed, if anyone would like to comment, since it got buried in a flurry of posts catching up from the previous night...

    How many years do you think a 6-core D500 has in it for the typical prosumer, lighter-pro type use?

    Since I'm very unhappy with the MBP, that's where I'm leaning right now. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Mini... as it *might* be an option (night and day differences, I know) or the next Mac Pro, but bet it will be out of price-range unless my financial picture changes more quickly than I expect.
     A couple - but this is a complex conversation. 3dMark is about 10,000 on your machine, about twice as fast as the 555 in the 2017 15-inch MacBook Pro on the low end.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 110 of 118
    Tim Cook’s response was as weak as water and I am unanimous in that!
  • Reply 111 of 118
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Tim Cook’s response was as weak as water and I am unanimous in that!
    LOL, good one ...  'I am unanimous' ...  too funny.
  • Reply 112 of 118
    Based on service statistics, Apple's reliability is twice as good as it was in 2000, and better than it was in 2010. The difference between both of those time periods and now is a larger visible number of failures because of an expanded user base rather than a higher percentage of failures.
    Back when I sold consumer electronics there would always be some popular model that seemed to generate a lot of warranty claims. Our knee-jerk conclusion would be that the product was not reliable. Eventually someone sat down and compared the number of failures to the number of units sold. What we found was that most of those products actually had LOWER failure rates than other products, and the only reason we saw so many coming in for repair was because we had sold a ton of them.

    It's simple arithmetic: If we sell 100 pieces of something with a 5% failure rate, the staff will only see 5 units returned for repair. If we sell 1000 pieces of something with a 2% failure rate, the staff will have to write up 20 repair slips, leading them to erroneously conclude that the latter item fails more often.
    Soli
  • Reply 113 of 118
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,840member
    lorin schultz said:
    It's simple arithmetic: If we sell 100 pieces of something with a 5% failure rate, the staff will only see 5 units returned for repair. If we sell 1000 pieces of something with a 2% failure rate, the staff will have to write up 20 repair slips, leading them to erroneously conclude that the latter item fails more often.
    But, did Apple really sell that many more 2016/17 MacBook Pros than in previous years? I've personally owned/used at least 6 MacBook Pros since the early 2000s (I know there was a name switch in there somewhere), and several Apple laptops before that. With very heavy use, I think I've had a problem once with one key (and I semi-fixed it myself).

    Yet, I know several people having problems with the 2016/17 keyboard, and of all the tech podcasts I listen to, I'd say about half have had problems and hate the keyboard. IMO, that's just too many, even though anecdotal, to think there is no real problem here and it's just a matter of Apple selling more. And, there's no way in heck I'm going to buy a $2k-3k computer that should last several years if it has such a major flaw (despite the fact that I can barely type on the darn thing to begin with), among other aspects that I don't really like (like TouchBar).

    Apple made a mistake here, and I'm hoping they own up to it, and fix it in the next generation.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 114 of 118
    cgWerks said:
    Apple made a mistake here, and I'm hoping they own up to it, and fix it in the next generation.
    I disagree. Apple made a change to the keyboard that allowed for a smaller enclosure. That's not a mistake, that's putting one priority ahead of another. Whether that choice is a "win" or "lose" for the user is in the eyes of the beholder. In my case it's a win, which surprised me. Until I got this thing I would have been happy to have something even bigger and heavier than my last machine if it meant better performance. It wasn't until I lived with the smaller, lighter frame that I came to appreciate it. For me, the benefits of that outweigh any perceived shortcomings in the keyboard.

    To be fair, I'm probably not the best person to make that assessment though, as I'm not dissatisfied with the new keyboard. I haven't found it to be either better or worse than what I had before, just different. Compared to the long-throw keys on the desktop PCs at work, this one is much, much better.

    Of course, if reliability is a problem then none of that matters. But is it? The only way I've heard of it being an issue is your posts. That doesn't mean you're wrong -- the only knowledge I have of what goes on at/with Apple is through whatever little bit I read on Apple Insider so it would be easy for me to miss all kinds of things -- but it leads me to ask you to ask yourself if a problem actually exists or if your perception has been influenced by a small, vocal, and possibly even disingenuous, group of malcontents?

    The fact that I like the choices Apple made doesn't mean Apple was "right" and you're "wrong," just that you can't please everybody all the time, and you can't always get what you want. (But if you try, sometimes... sorry -- once you start me up I exhibit sympathy for the devil.)

    Now if Apple would just finally release a quad-core mini with TB3 we could argue about that instead!
  • Reply 115 of 118
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,428administrator
    cgWerks said:
    lorin schultz said:
    It's simple arithmetic: If we sell 100 pieces of something with a 5% failure rate, the staff will only see 5 units returned for repair. If we sell 1000 pieces of something with a 2% failure rate, the staff will have to write up 20 repair slips, leading them to erroneously conclude that the latter item fails more often.
    But, did Apple really sell that many more 2016/17 MacBook Pros than in previous years? I've personally owned/used at least 6 MacBook Pros since the early 2000s (I know there was a name switch in there somewhere), and several Apple laptops before that. With very heavy use, I think I've had a problem once with one key (and I semi-fixed it myself).

    Yet, I know several people having problems with the 2016/17 keyboard, and of all the tech podcasts I listen to, I'd say about half have had problems and hate the keyboard. IMO, that's just too many, even though anecdotal, to think there is no real problem here and it's just a matter of Apple selling more. And, there's no way in heck I'm going to buy a $2k-3k computer that should last several years if it has such a major flaw (despite the fact that I can barely type on the darn thing to begin with), among other aspects that I don't really like (like TouchBar).

    Apple made a mistake here, and I'm hoping they own up to it, and fix it in the next generation.
    Again, like I said, I don't have a large sample, but the incidents of genuine keyboard service-related issues, rather than just "I don't like it" don't appear at this time to be more than any other model.

    I understand that the new keyboard is polarizing.

    It's a better question to ask in a year, regarding an actual hardware problem.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 116 of 118
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,840member
    lorin schultz said:
    I disagree. Apple made a change to the keyboard that allowed for a smaller enclosure. That's not a mistake, that's putting one priority ahead of another.
    ...
    Of course, if reliability is a problem then none of that matters. But is it?
    But, here's the thing... while we might all like our laptops to be thin and light... for a pro product, certain performance characteristics and especially reliability should outweigh that. Pros have gotten along with 2015 MBPs just fine, so clearly thin and light wasn't a primary need. It's more a want. Reliable, though, isn't optional.

    Yes, I think there *is* a problem... and I'm not sure how Apple is going to fix it. Apparently they made the 2017 better than the 2016 (re: keyboard), so they must have at least recognized the 2016 problem. I'm also not sure how many of the problems I'm seeing reported are 2016 vs 2017. And, when I say it's people reporting problems, it's not just some haters on forums, but well known Mac figures like Marco Arment or videos I'm running across for major Adobe product training videos (who are huge Mac fans), or people I know in the podcast / YouTube creator communities (who are all big Mac fans), etc.

    Apple is putting out instructions on how to use compressed air to blow dust out, too. (I've used MBPs for years without compressed air, and this has never been an issue.) This clearly isn't just some pissed off user who spilled a Coke in their laptop.
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Again, like I said, I don't have a large sample, but the incidents of genuine keyboard service-related issues, rather than just "I don't like it" don't appear at this time to be more than any other model.

    I understand that the new keyboard is polarizing.

    It's a better question to ask in a year, regarding an actual hardware problem.
    I sort of agree, but given the range of people I'm seeing talk about the problem, it *appears* more widespread (like WAY more widespread). The problem is that given the cost, it's not something I'm willing to take a risk on (especially when I'm not crazy about all the changes to the product in the first place). I'm more likely to buy a 2015, but I'm just not sure I can skip TB3 given my wish for eGPU expandability.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 117 of 118
    Some good points in this thread -- including Mike's about how the Mac mini may now be a "gateway" into macOS for iPhone/iPad users when they look to replace their PCs, so it's now aimed at a different market than in the past. The price is currently $499 at the lowest end to $1999 at the highest end. That low-end price point, $499 is lower than in the past (formerly $699, then $599).

    It might also be a lure -- some happy iPhone user looking to use their old PC display walks into an Apple Store thinking $499 Mac mini, but walks out with an iMac. I think it's absurd to suggest Apple doesn't understand its customers -- we can complain that they are no longer serving us, but the idea that it's because they don't understand our needs or the market is just wrong.

    That said, I also echo the several people expressing consternation and/or bewilderment at the recent failure to refresh the Mac mini every year or two like they used to.

    In my personal case, the Mac minis (unibody, but I'm not sure which generation, maybe 2011) that my sister, a NYC architect, uses for her business are ready to be updated (and yes, they still run VectorWorks well for her) -- mostly it's her ancient 24" Dell displays (1920 x 1200) that feel like they need an update.

    It seems like Apple really wants her to go Retina iMac, but we've talked about it, and she likes the mini. But I'm not really sure if the current mini can drive a 4K display properly. I gather they can, sort of, via HDMI at 30Hz. In my judgment, that's not good enough. So she's going to wait.

    Anyhow, my sister's data point reflects a simple fact -- there are a lot of current displays that the current minis cannot drive properly. So again, that seems to reinforce Mike's point -- if you're switcher with an iPhone and an older but still functional display you want to use, then the current mini is perfect. Spend about $699 to get macOS and leave Windows behind. BUT -- if you don't have old equipment you want to use, then the current mini is not for you. You either buy an iMac or you wait. Thus, consternation and bewilderment among some long-time customers.
    edited October 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.