Apple introduces new Apple Silicon Mac mini with $699 price tag

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    docno42 said:
    Only providing two ports seems idiotic for a desktop Mac.  
    Two "USB A ports" plus two "Thunderbolt/USB ports @ 40 Gb/sec" which seems to imply Thunderbolt 3. That makes four ports. Still, two less than the Intel version which has 4 TB ports. Fair criticism, although the word "idiotic" seems to be overstated.

    Actually, I'm surprised any Apple Silicon Mac supports Thunderbolt at all because up until now only Intel made Thunderbolt chips.
    edited November 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 56
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,807member
    Am I wrong in thinking that this will be a great candidate for server farms (either now or soon when appropriate software is available)? It seems to me that the ratio of performance to power and heat combined with the compact form factor and low price would make it much better than anything currently available for this application. 
    Sure, why not. But it's probably not the most cost effective or serviceable way to go versus a blade server that is specifically designed for a rack based server farm. The Mac mini packaging, peripheral port access, types of ports, power and emissions ratings, and capabilities of the graphics subsystem are more geared towards consumer and desktop use rather than rack based use. For a server farm I'd want to see little things like front panel diagnostic and activity indicators, a power switch on the front, a built-in mechanical securing mechanism, considerations for rack based system airflow, etc., sorts of things. I'm sure if Apple wanted to build a server that is purpose-built for server farm applications they would probably change a few things about the design. But as-is, it's definitely usable for some server farm scenarios. 

    As far as the current lack of VMWare Fusion or Parallels hosting support, if I had a real need for a Windows machine for my workflows I'd probably just buy an existing Intel Mac mini or an Intel NUC and stack it on top of the M1 Mac mini and install Windows on it. You could run multiple HDMI cables to the same monitor or use a KVM to switch between either machine. In fact, if you need to test apps on Intel Mac, Windows, and M1 Mac you could install macOS and VMWare Fusion on the Intel Mac mini and have access to all of the target machine types you'd ever need.

    The Mac mini is a great option for business users and software developers because you can stack as many of them as you need to build out your dev & test environment, i.e., create your own little desktop client/server farm. For home users who need to run Windows in a VM on their Mac but cannot afford a second machine, not even a stick PC, I think you'll have to hold on until Apple figures out what it's going to do for supporting Intel VMs. Just keep in mind that we're only at M1 today, so who knows what M2, M3, ... and so on will deliver. What Apple has done so far is impressive, but it's not the end game.
    retrogustowatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 56
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,894member
    Am I wrong in thinking that this will be a great candidate for server farms (either now or soon when appropriate software is available)? It seems to me that the ratio of performance to power and heat combined with the compact form factor and low price would make it much better than anything currently available for this application. 
    Cryotocurrency farming for sure. 
    retrogusto
  • Reply 44 of 56

    Actually, I'm surprised any Apple Silicon Mac supports Thunderbolt at all because up until now only Intel made Thunderbolt chips.
    Intel opened up the possibility for other vendors to make their own controllers last year. There are AMD motherboards on the market that support Thunderbolt without any Intel support chips on board.
    CloudTalkinwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 56
    dewme said:
    Am I wrong in thinking that this will be a great candidate for server farms (either now or soon when appropriate software is available)? It seems to me that the ratio of performance to power and heat combined with the compact form factor and low price would make it much better than anything currently available for this application. 
    Sure, why not. But it's probably not the most cost effective or serviceable way to go versus a blade server that is specifically designed for a rack based server farm. The Mac mini packaging, peripheral port access, types of ports, power and emissions ratings, and capabilities of the graphics subsystem are more geared towards consumer and desktop use rather than rack based use. For a server farm I'd want to see little things like front panel diagnostic and activity indicators, a power switch on the front, a built-in mechanical securing mechanism, considerations for rack based system airflow, etc., sorts of things. I'm sure if Apple wanted to build a server that is purpose-built for server farm applications they would probably change a few things about the design. But as-is, it's definitely usable for some server farm scenarios. 

    As far as the current lack of VMWare Fusion or Parallels hosting support, if I had a real need for a Windows machine for my workflows I'd probably just buy an existing Intel Mac mini or an Intel NUC and stack it on top of the M1 Mac mini and install Windows on it. You could run multiple HDMI cables to the same monitor or use a KVM to switch between either machine. In fact, if you need to test apps on Intel Mac, Windows, and M1 Mac you could install macOS and VMWare Fusion on the Intel Mac mini and have access to all of the target machine types you'd ever need.

    The Mac mini is a great option for business users and software developers because you can stack as many of them as you need to build out your dev & test environment, i.e., create your own little desktop client/server farm. For home users who need to run Windows in a VM on their Mac but cannot afford a second machine, not even a stick PC, I think you'll have to hold on until Apple figures out what it's going to do for supporting Intel VMs. Just keep in mind that we're only at M1 today, so who knows what M2, M3, ... and so on will deliver. What Apple has done so far is impressive, but it's not the end game.

    MacStadium, along with others, have solved the issue of racking Mac Minis in Datacenters ... they've been doing this for years - https://www.macstadium.com/datacenters ...


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 56
    You know, it’s interesting that they introduced the new chips in a room filled with Pro Display XDR’s and at least one Mac Pro.

    With the Pro Display XDR and its infamous stand, sometimes I think Apple products have been designed for people with the net worths of Apple executives, all of who could quite trivially afford a Pro Display XDR and stand.  Maybe even two or three.

    But really everything I saw was priced in line with its predecessors so I guess not so bad.

    Would love to be able to afford two Pro Display XDR’s for my Mac Mini, though.  Except I think I read it can drive only one.  Oops.

    watto_cobraspidersoft_uk
  • Reply 47 of 56
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,807member
    dkddkd said:
    dewme said:
    Am I wrong in thinking that this will be a great candidate for server farms (either now or soon when appropriate software is available)? It seems to me that the ratio of performance to power and heat combined with the compact form factor and low price would make it much better than anything currently available for this application. 
    Sure, why not. But it's probably not the most cost effective or serviceable way to go versus a blade server that is specifically designed for a rack based server farm. The Mac mini packaging, peripheral port access, types of ports, power and emissions ratings, and capabilities of the graphics subsystem are more geared towards consumer and desktop use rather than rack based use. For a server farm I'd want to see little things like front panel diagnostic and activity indicators, a power switch on the front, a built-in mechanical securing mechanism, considerations for rack based system airflow, etc., sorts of things. I'm sure if Apple wanted to build a server that is purpose-built for server farm applications they would probably change a few things about the design. But as-is, it's definitely usable for some server farm scenarios. 

    As far as the current lack of VMWare Fusion or Parallels hosting support, if I had a real need for a Windows machine for my workflows I'd probably just buy an existing Intel Mac mini or an Intel NUC and stack it on top of the M1 Mac mini and install Windows on it. You could run multiple HDMI cables to the same monitor or use a KVM to switch between either machine. In fact, if you need to test apps on Intel Mac, Windows, and M1 Mac you could install macOS and VMWare Fusion on the Intel Mac mini and have access to all of the target machine types you'd ever need.

    The Mac mini is a great option for business users and software developers because you can stack as many of them as you need to build out your dev & test environment, i.e., create your own little desktop client/server farm. For home users who need to run Windows in a VM on their Mac but cannot afford a second machine, not even a stick PC, I think you'll have to hold on until Apple figures out what it's going to do for supporting Intel VMs. Just keep in mind that we're only at M1 today, so who knows what M2, M3, ... and so on will deliver. What Apple has done so far is impressive, but it's not the end game.

    MacStadium, along with others, have solved the issue of racking Mac Minis in Datacenters ... they've been doing this for years - https://www.macstadium.com/datacenters ...


    No doubt. There are plenty of racking systems for Mac mini but none of them are indicative of what Apple would produce if it were to purpose-build a "blade server" style Mac for server farm applications. The current Mac mini racking systems still result in each server having a lot of extraneous "stuff" that doesn't contribute to its functionality as a server and all this unnecessary stuff limits the server density that you can achieve in the system footprint. It's only a big deal if it's a big deal for you, and obviously Mac mini based server farms using standard consumer grade units are sufficient for plenty of folks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 56
    scartart said:

    Actually, I'm surprised any Apple Silicon Mac supports Thunderbolt at all because up until now only Intel made Thunderbolt chips.
    Intel opened up the possibility for other vendors to make their own controllers last year. There are AMD motherboards on the market that support Thunderbolt without any Intel support chips on board.
    Thanks for correcting me; I was wrong. I usually google any facts that I claim, but somehow I missed this. Apparently the selection of motherboards that support Thunderbolt without Intel chips right now is very small. AMD was not keen on paying Intel the licensing fees. But a couple of years ago Intel said it was dropping the fees for TB3 but I'm guessing AMD still wasn't keen on it because they were worried about license fees for TB4. However Intel recently said they won't charge fees for TB4 either. I'm not sure if that will be enough to win over motherboard makers, since they are probably worried about getting locked into a technology only to find Intel less gracious in the future with license fees for future versions like TB5.

    I'm not sure if Apple has to pay fees for TB since Apple helped Intel develop Thunderbolt in the first place, and as one of TB's inventors, Apple could possibly have received a license to use it because of their R&D investment during its creation. This is just an educated guess. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 56
    Beats said:
    Mac Mini users complain the most(understandably).

    Glad you got an update. I'm underwhelmed by lack of new designs and new features. "Speed" isn't a new feature.

    The ending was epic though!
    It’s a small box that is a computer. What more do you want as far as design? You need to separate your boredom from the tools provided by a computer company. They aren’t designed to alleviate boredom. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 56
    Xed said:
    Xed said:
    I think my Mac mini with socketed RAM just went up in value.
    Yeah, when something better and cheaper comes out, legacy equipment tends to soar in value.
    Your comment sounds sarcastic, but that is what happened the last time Apple switched the Mac mini to soldered RAM. I hope it happens again because I'll glad sell someone the latest Intel Mac mini with soldered RAM for a new one with an M1 chip that is is considerably faster.
    Um...  Latest Intel Mac mini has socketed RAM (2018 model)
    edited November 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 56
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,465member
    lezmaka said:
    Are you sure about it being Thunderbolt 4?  I never heard them actually say Thunderbolt 4, just Thunderbolt in general and then USB 4.
    The Apple.com website just says Thunderbolt for the port under tech specs but with support for Thunderbolt 3 with 40gbit/s. No mention of TB4.  Same for all the new machines.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 56
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,446member
    KidGloves said:
    KidGloves said:
    So, so close... Looks incredible. I could put up with 16GB of RAM but I see this only supports 2 monitors. I need 3 with my setup. Doh!

    I thought it was in the bag and had the credit card out to order... Ah well. It does look tremendous though. All three products look really special. One of the great days for the Mac. And almost one for me... 
    Three monitors to me sounds like you’d better wait for a more professional oriented offering, perhaps the MacBook Pro 16?
    This is actually good news in a way. With only 2 TB ports instead of 4 in the Intel Mini, and a quarter of the max ram, Apple is intentionally hobbling the new Mini. This more or less confirms that the fabled xMac is coming. If it's halfway between this and the Mac Pro I'll be a happy man. They still mentioned that the transition will take 2 years but hopefully that's just a ploy to keep folk buying up current Intel stock and by the end on 2021 the iMac, xMac and Pro will all be getting the Apple Silicon speedy goodness.

    They’re not hobbling the new mini... More than likely these are limitations of the M1 SoC, which is the base line of performance for this new series. I’m guessing this is why they kept the higher-end Intel models of the both the mini and 13” Pro... There will be more performant SoCs down the road. Once those are released, those Intel models will be replaced and removed.

    I bet we’ll see an M1X in the near future, which will be available as an upgrade option for the mini and the 13” MacBook Pro. And possibly even be used as a low-end SoC for the 16” MacBook Pro.
    edited November 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 56
    mjtomlin said:
    KidGloves said:
    KidGloves said:
    So, so close... Looks incredible. I could put up with 16GB of RAM but I see this only supports 2 monitors. I need 3 with my setup. Doh!

    I thought it was in the bag and had the credit card out to order... Ah well. It does look tremendous though. All three products look really special. One of the great days for the Mac. And almost one for me... 
    Three monitors to me sounds like you’d better wait for a more professional oriented offering, perhaps the MacBook Pro 16?
    This is actually good news in a way. With only 2 TB ports instead of 4 in the Intel Mini, and a quarter of the max ram, Apple is intentionally hobbling the new Mini. This more or less confirms that the fabled xMac is coming. If it's halfway between this and the Mac Pro I'll be a happy man. They still mentioned that the transition will take 2 years but hopefully that's just a ploy to keep folk buying up current Intel stock and by the end on 2021 the iMac, xMac and Pro will all be getting the Apple Silicon speedy goodness.

    They’re not hobbling the new mini... More than likely these are limitations of the M1 SoC, which is the base line of performance for this new series. I’m guessing this is why they kept the higher-end Intel models of the both the mini and 13” Pro... There will be more performant SoCs down the road. Once those are released, those Intel models will be replaced and removed.

    I bet we’ll see an M1X in the near future, which will be available as an upgrade option for the mini and the 13” MacBook Pro. And possibly even be used as a low-end SoC for the 16” MacBook Pro.
    Whether we call it a "hobble" or not, it was an intentional decision, and Apple is surely in a good position to know what ports its customers want and used in previous Macs. If you are one of the people who need over two TB ports, and a dock won't suffice, then don't get any of the new Macs.

    I read this website every day and I've never heard of a "fabled xMac," and I tried googling it and still couldn't figure out what he meant by that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 56
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,712member

    I read this website every day and I've never heard of a "fabled xMac," and I tried googling it and still couldn't figure out what he meant by that.
    A recurring "wouldn't it be great if Apple would make..."

    e.g.  https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/a-mac-pro-for-the-rest-of-us.2215519/
  • Reply 55 of 56
    crowley said:

    I read this website every day and I've never heard of a "fabled xMac," and I tried googling it and still couldn't figure out what he meant by that.
    A recurring "wouldn't it be great if Apple would make..."

    e.g.  https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/a-mac-pro-for-the-rest-of-us.2215519/
    Thanks for giving me that info. That was helpful. I failed to find it with googling.
  • Reply 56 of 56
    Wonder if they'll let us trade in our Developer Transition Kit minis for the production Mini (or give us a credit)... though I guess Apple knows we're going to buy the production unit, regardless of credit or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.