Apple's Mac mini now inexcusably getting trounced by cheap Intel hardware

14567810»

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 188
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 79member
    Isn't the only problem for Mac mini is the lack of update...
  • Reply 182 of 188
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 475member
    cgWerks said:
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    I'm not certain I'd bother with the TB1 in the 2012 and an eGPU. It's doable, but man, the performance hit is rough.
    Yeah, it's just more of a... what's the alternative (if not going Hackintosh)? I need to buy something in the next month or so here, and it seems my options are 2012 quad-core Mini, Hackintosh, or 2013 Mac Pro. They all have potential downsides. The Mac Pro looks best for me, but I'm concerned about spending that much money if OS support drops off before, say, 4 years or so.

    I'm really hoping we'll see something at WWDC. But, I fear I'm just going to get disappointed.
    I faced this same dilemma last month and finally decided that I didn't want to spend nearly $1000 on a six-year-old quad-core Mac Mini because of the same concern over future support as you have. Since I tend to keep my machines for roughly seven years, I decided that it was worth spending $3000 on an almost fully-loaded iMac (4.2ghz, 1TB SSD, and 24gb RAM) because I wanted the option of adding more than 16gb or RAM down the road.

    My guess is that this is as much of a reason why the Mini isn't being updated. If those looking for a brand new Mac went for a fully-loaded Mac Mini for $2000, spending another $1000 to gain quad core (and a much faster CPU), much better graphics, memory upgradable past 16gb, and it comes with a gorgeous display - for most people that's a new brainer.

    That said, I'd personally still have opted for a $2000 Mini had a modern processor with a quad-core option been available.
  • Reply 183 of 188
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,134member
    djames4242 said:
    I faced this same dilemma last month and finally decided that I didn't want to spend nearly $1000 on a six-year-old quad-core Mac Mini because of the same concern over future support as you have. Since I tend to keep my machines for roughly seven years, I decided that it was worth spending $3000 on an almost fully-loaded iMac (4.2ghz, 1TB SSD, and 24gb RAM) because I wanted the option of adding more than 16gb or RAM down the road.

    My guess is that this is as much of a reason why the Mini isn't being updated. If those looking for a brand new Mac went for a fully-loaded Mac Mini for $2000, spending another $1000 to gain quad core (and a much faster CPU), much better graphics, memory upgradable past 16gb, and it comes with a gorgeous display - for most people that's a new brainer.

    That said, I'd personally still have opted for a $2000 Mini had a modern processor with a quad-core option been available.
    Yeah, my problem with the iMac, is that I want inputs on my display for other PCs/devices, and already have a monitor. I wouldn't mind the nice display on the iMac (which is better than what I have), but I don't want an all-in-one if I can avoid it. Also, at least in my past experience, the Mini was a bit more reliable under extended load and also more quiet (or at least a tolerable type of noise). But, I don't know about current iMacs, I've just heard they can get kind of loud.

    That would be the sticking point for a modern Mini potentially; the noise. So, I'd be better off with a Mac Pro (2013) in that regard. It just costs a lot more. You do certainly get more for your money with an iMac. It just isn't a great fit for me.
  • Reply 184 of 188
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 1,920member
    macxpress said:
    macxpress said:
    Even if Apple updated them today with modern specs...how many are gonna actually go buy one?
    I will. All Apple has to do is offer a recent quad-core i7 and I'm in.
    How about maybe an 8-core Apple designed CPU? Would you be interested in that? Just a general question out of curiosity...
    If a mini with an Apple CPU could mainstream software efficiently and be comparable to Intel-based products in terms of how long it takes to complete various tasks, I would buy it. If it means giving up compatibility with the software I use most, or adding a layer of hassle to make it play nice with the rest of the Apple gear in the house, probably not.

    There's also the issue of an Apple CPU supporting Thunderbolt. I haven't yet decided whether or not that would be a deal-breaker for me. Maybe not.
  • Reply 185 of 188
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,213member
    macxpress said:
    macxpress said:
    Even if Apple updated them today with modern specs...how many are gonna actually go buy one?
    I will. All Apple has to do is offer a recent quad-core i7 and I'm in.
    How about maybe an 8-core Apple designed CPU? Would you be interested in that? Just a general question out of curiosity...
    If a mini with an Apple CPU could mainstream software efficiently and be comparable to Intel-based products in terms of how long it takes to complete various tasks, I would buy it. If it means giving up compatibility with the software I use most, or adding a layer of hassle to make it play nice with the rest of the Apple gear in the house, probably not.

    There's also the issue of an Apple CPU supporting Thunderbolt. I haven't yet decided whether or not that would be a deal-breaker for me. Maybe not.
    Perhaps Apple could figure out a way to implement Thunderbolt. Isn't it supposed to be released without a license? Maybe this has already happened?
  • Reply 186 of 188
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 42,954member
    macxpress said:
    Perhaps Apple could figure out a way to implement Thunderbolt. Isn't it supposed to be released without a license? Maybe this has already happened?
    Given the fact that they co-developed it with Intel, you’d think there would be some leeway.
  • Reply 187 of 188
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,023member
    macxpress said:
    macxpress said:
    macxpress said:
    Even if Apple updated them today with modern specs...how many are gonna actually go buy one?
    I will. All Apple has to do is offer a recent quad-core i7 and I'm in.
    How about maybe an 8-core Apple designed CPU? Would you be interested in that? Just a general question out of curiosity...
    If a mini with an Apple CPU could mainstream software efficiently and be comparable to Intel-based products in terms of how long it takes to complete various tasks, I would buy it. If it means giving up compatibility with the software I use most, or adding a layer of hassle to make it play nice with the rest of the Apple gear in the house, probably not.

    There's also the issue of an Apple CPU supporting Thunderbolt. I haven't yet decided whether or not that would be a deal-breaker for me. Maybe not.
    Perhaps Apple could figure out a way to implement Thunderbolt. Isn't it supposed to be released without a license? Maybe this has already happened?
    If anyone can get Intel to license it to other architectures I'd say it's Apple, but I also don't think it's completely necessary with how far USB has advanced since TB1. Especially if we're taking about a low-end Macs.
  • Reply 188 of 188
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 786member
    macxpress said:
    macxpress said:
    Even if Apple updated them today with modern specs...how many are gonna actually go buy one?
    I will. All Apple has to do is offer a recent quad-core i7 and I'm in.
    How about maybe an 8-core Apple designed CPU? Would you be interested in that? Just a general question out of curiosity...
    If a mini with an Apple CPU could mainstream software efficiently and be comparable to Intel-based products in terms of how long it takes to complete various tasks, I would buy it. If it means giving up compatibility with the software I use most, or adding a layer of hassle to make it play nice with the rest of the Apple gear in the house, probably not.

    There's also the issue of an Apple CPU supporting Thunderbolt. I haven't yet decided whether or not that would be a deal-breaker for me. Maybe not.
    Apple's CPU already have PCIe bus in them for storage and USBc just need to up the bandwidth to attach the Thunderbolt chip instead of a pure USBc chip.
Sign In or Register to comment.