M1X Mac mini will be thinner, use iMac's magnetic power connector says leaker

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 93
    XedXed Posts: 1,593member
    spheric said:
    cpsro said:
    10GbE or it's no dice.
    Since the current M1 Mac mini comes with an option vor 10Gb Ethernet, why on earth would you think that the upgraded next generation wouldn't?
    Probably because he noted that the previous 21 inch iMac came with , but the “upgraded next gen model” didn’t. It comes with the power supply instead. 

    Not the greatest thing on earth. 

    The sad thing is that it seems all Apple desktops will do this now in a move to the new proprietary power cable. So a nasty 1990s game console power brick is being utilized everywhere. So the computing device looks elegant, but the space it goes in is a mess of multiple wires and a brick littering your floor. 

    That really sucks. Hope they fix that before to long. 

    Almost seems like a built in problem to “solve” in future upgrade cycles. Lol. 
    That seems like an unreasonable expectation. The iMac is a very different type of desktop than a Mac mini or Mac Pro.
    williamlondonpatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 93
    I'm not an electrician, but a magnetic power connector like the one on the new iMac can exist only when the power flowing is DC not 110v AC. I think 110v AC is probably just too dangerous. In theory it might be possible to design an "AC MagSafe" but I doubt anyone wants to deal with the liability especially when it comes to selling it to the unwashed masses. Perhaps in an industrial setting you could get away with it.
    Magnetically attached AC power cords have been used for quite a while on consumer deep fryers. Very clunky, but they exist:


    edited May 2021 patchythepiratedarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 93
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,219member
    I'm not an electrician, but a magnetic power connector like the one on the new iMac can exist only when the power flowing is DC not 110v AC. I think 110v AC is probably just too dangerous. In theory it might be possible to design an "AC MagSafe" but I doubt anyone wants to deal with the liability especially when it comes to selling it to the unwashed masses. Perhaps in an industrial setting you could get away with it.
    Magnetically attached AC power cords have been used for quite while on deep fryers. Very clunky, but they exist:
    Excellent point, thanks. As I predicted, this is an industrial setting, where it makes sense.

    That photo is pretty scary, with the exposed 110v connectors. There could be a hidden relay to disable the 110v power if it's not snapped in place, but it doesn't look big enough to be hiding that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 93
    I'm not an electrician, but a magnetic power connector like the one on the new iMac can exist only when the power flowing is DC not 110v AC. I think 110v AC is probably just too dangerous. In theory it might be possible to design an "AC MagSafe" but I doubt anyone wants to deal with the liability especially when it comes to selling it to the unwashed masses. Perhaps in an industrial setting you could get away with it.
    Magnetically attached AC power cords have been used for quite while on deep fryers. Very clunky, but they exist:
    Excellent point, thanks. As I predicted, this is an industrial setting, where it makes sense.

    That photo is pretty scary, with the exposed 110v connectors. There could be a hidden relay to disable the 110v power if it's not snapped in place, but it doesn't look big enough to be hiding that.
    Actually, it is used on a consumer device. I updated my post accordingly. I used to own a Fry Baby, and it had one. The 110V contacts are recessed and separated, so I never worried about them. The standard Edison type cord mounted receptacle has exposed contacts too--a little less scary because they are recessed a bit deeper, but still...
    edited May 2021 darkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 93
    longfanglongfang Posts: 318member
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    williamlondoncitylightsapplepatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 93
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 67 of 93
    tobiantobian Posts: 136member
    I was wondering, how data transmission would be resolved in rounded connector? There must be several pins for the data, it’s not just an overgrown jack. Would these be circles? Or is this connector rounded - yet certain orientation required? (remember ADB..)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 93
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    I would prefer that they use USB-C PD for power even if it uses up a port.

    Then you can use any sufficiently sized USB-C power supply to power the mini including a dock or a monitor.  Just include the same brick that charges the MBA (or MBP if it needs it).

    One cable from monitor to mini for power, video/audio and additional USB ports.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 93
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    Minis can be mounted behind monitors.  Thinner is better when you do that.
    williamlondonfastasleeproundaboutnowpatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 93
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,218member
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    "featureless" lolololol yeah these Macs don't even do anything, they just sit there looking pretty!
    roundaboutnowmacxpresswatto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 93
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,980member
    Seems to me making the mini smaller in only one directions is a lost opportunity.
    Clearly room in every direction, more so if the power supply is removed. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 72 of 93
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,457member
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    What feature is missing from a low-end Mac? As I asked someone earlier and didn't have an answer I guess. What would be the point of making this product thicker? What would you gain in the end? Its not gonna give you RAM slots or SSD's, etc. Its not gonna give you more ports. These are part of the M1 chip and its architecture and making Apple's products thicker isn't going to change that. 
    williamlondonroundaboutnowpatchythepirate
  • Reply 73 of 93
    YonaYona Posts: 1member
    From what I surmise, Apple’s product goals are absolute interoperability and modularity. It seems they’re making relatively obvious steps toward a more radically modular computer platform that’s more efficient to manufacture, more user friendly, and more eco friendly.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the feature is revealed as “just one more thing”
     maybe it will be marketed with the slogan “better together”

    Do you own and love your M1 iMac, but want more compute power and more ports? Buy a Mac mini and connect them. You’ve just doubled the processing bandwidth and storage of your iMac. 

    Or maybe you own and love using your m1 iPad Pro, but want more computational power and ports?  buy a Mac mini and connect.
    williamlondonpatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 93
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,980member
    Yona said:
    From what I surmise, Apple’s product goals are absolute interoperability and modularity. It seems they’re making relatively obvious steps toward a more radically modular computer platform that’s more efficient to manufacture, more user friendly, and more eco friendly.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the feature is revealed as “just one more thing”
     maybe it will be marketed with the slogan “better together”

    Do you own and love your M1 iMac, but want more compute power and more ports? Buy a Mac mini and connect them. You’ve just doubled the processing bandwidth and storage of your iMac. 

    Or maybe you own and love using your m1 iPad Pro, but want more computational power and ports?  buy a Mac mini and connect.
    I thought so as well but then they put the magnetic connector for iMac 24 in the middle of the main board. If it was above then that same board would seem to lend itself to new Mac mini even 16inch MacBook. 
    Still new Mini and MacBook pros could share a board choosing boards on how well the whole system preforms under load. boards on the wings handle IO for each machine. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 93
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    macxpress said:
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    What feature is missing from a low-end Mac? As I asked someone earlier and didn't have an answer I guess. What would be the point of making this product thicker? What would you gain in the end? Its not gonna give you RAM slots or SSD's, etc. Its not gonna give you more ports. These are part of the M1 chip and its architecture and making Apple's products thicker isn't going to change that. 
    Chicken vs egg.  Apple design the M1 as well as the Mac chassis, so every missing feature is an Apple design decision.  And Apple's long term direction is for thinner and thinner devices, so they're probably designing the M1 with that in mind.

    Low-end, increasingly thin and small Macs do have fewer ports, and less diverse ports, and less upgradeability than predecessors.  And that's at least partially (though probably not exclusively) due to the drive for thinness.
  • Reply 76 of 93
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    "featureless" lolololol yeah these Macs don't even do anything, they just sit there looking pretty!
    I'm glad you understood the reduction to absurdity.
  • Reply 77 of 93
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,289member
    I'm not an electrician, but a magnetic power connector like the one on the new iMac can exist only when the power flowing is DC not 110v AC. I think 110v AC is probably just too dangerous. In theory it might be possible to design an "AC MagSafe" but I doubt anyone wants to deal with the liability especially when it comes to selling it to the unwashed masses. Perhaps in an industrial setting you could get away with it.
    Magnetically attached AC power cords have been used for quite a while on consumer deep fryers. Very clunky, but they exist:


    Wow. That is SO illegal in most places. 
  • Reply 78 of 93
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,457member
    crowley said:
    macxpress said:
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    What feature is missing from a low-end Mac? As I asked someone earlier and didn't have an answer I guess. What would be the point of making this product thicker? What would you gain in the end? Its not gonna give you RAM slots or SSD's, etc. Its not gonna give you more ports. These are part of the M1 chip and its architecture and making Apple's products thicker isn't going to change that. 
    Chicken vs egg.  Apple design the M1 as well as the Mac chassis, so every missing feature is an Apple design decision.  And Apple's long term direction is for thinner and thinner devices, so they're probably designing the M1 with that in mind.

    Low-end, increasingly thin and small Macs do have fewer ports, and less diverse ports, and less upgradeability than predecessors.  And that's at least partially (though probably not exclusively) due to the drive for thinness.
    So you think Apple purposely designed the M1 so that it didn't support multiple ports just so they could make their products thinner? LOL Missing ports...ahhh yes, typical old school thinking. If it doesn't have 20 ports for any possible connection its crap right? You do realize everything today is wireless, wireless keyboard/mouse, wireless printing/scanning, wireless internet, etc. 

    Do you have any numbers as to how many of Apple's consumers actually WANT to expand their Mac? More and more computers will end up going this way. They already are in certain areas, even very expensive computers. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 93
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 187member
    The original white Mac Minis I had for servers all had a clunky power brick. The design made for a rat’s nest of wires and bricks below all six servers. Then the there was the keyboard, mouse and monitor interface cables to the monitor switch plus the Ethernet cables. The silver colored minis had the internal power supply and that helped reduce the mess of wires. Since the advent of the USB plugs/interface it might be possible to have the power brick/Ethernet connection and one USB connection to a monitor switch that handles mouse/monitor and keyboard issues. Also the Apple Remote Desktop program allows for complete remote control.

    The issue as I see it is the lack of the USB A plugs for the keyboards and mice that are still in use….
    cgWerksdarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 80 of 93
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    macxpress said:
    crowley said:
    macxpress said:
    crowley said:
    longfang said:
    CiaranF said:
    What is ‘s aesthetic obsession with making everything smaller? I mean there is no reason to make an Mac Mini or iMac smaller. It’s not a handheld device like an iPhone or iPad or something you bring around with you regularly. Why not keep them the same size or make then even bigger and fit more to them? Give me function and modularity over making something that doesn’t need to be made more portable anyday. Groan. 
    You prefer fat ugly computers? I hear PC’s from other vendors are available for that.
    You prefer thin, featureless, decorative pieces?  Art galleries are available for that.
    What feature is missing from a low-end Mac? As I asked someone earlier and didn't have an answer I guess. What would be the point of making this product thicker? What would you gain in the end? Its not gonna give you RAM slots or SSD's, etc. Its not gonna give you more ports. These are part of the M1 chip and its architecture and making Apple's products thicker isn't going to change that. 
    Chicken vs egg.  Apple design the M1 as well as the Mac chassis, so every missing feature is an Apple design decision.  And Apple's long term direction is for thinner and thinner devices, so they're probably designing the M1 with that in mind.

    Low-end, increasingly thin and small Macs do have fewer ports, and less diverse ports, and less upgradeability than predecessors.  And that's at least partially (though probably not exclusively) due to the drive for thinness.
    So you think Apple purposely designed the M1 so that it didn't support multiple ports just so they could make their products thinner? LOL Missing ports...ahhh yes, typical old school thinking. If it doesn't have 20 ports for any possible connection its crap right? You do realize everything today is wireless, wireless keyboard/mouse, wireless printing/scanning, wireless internet, etc. 

    Do you have any numbers as to how many of Apple's consumers actually WANT to expand their Mac? More and more computers will end up going this way. They already are in certain areas, even very expensive computers. 
    I don't deny any of this.  Not sure why you think I would; it backs up my point that Apple are designing their chips and their systems to be thinner, and a side effect and/or additional consideration of that is to have more streamlined I/O with reduced connectivity diversity.  As you say, it doesn't have 20 ports for any possible con section - that's plainly a reduced featureset.  Many/most won't care, but for many others that amounts to less useful features.
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.