(speculation) New mini to be AppleTV size

dcqdcq
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
So I just was reading up on the the AppleTV in detail and noticed that it is 7.7 inches square. I only just noticed this because I had assumed that the ATV was the same size as the mini (same styling and shape, so why not the same size, right?). However, the mini is only 6.5 inches square.



So I'm thinking the second generation mini will be the same size as the ATV--7.7 inches square. What goes in this extra space?



Two things:



power brick, and

3.5" HDD



If so, I'm sold. (I'm actually sold even if they only put in the 3.5" HDD; the power brick thing is just a guess since Jobs made that a big plus of the ATV).



Even better--and a full blown media center--would be if the new mini has all the video output options of the ATV. Not really necessary, since one can just buy a DVI-->HDMI or DVI--> component adapter.



What else might Ive's minions be able to squeeze into those voluminous 2.88 extra cubic inches?



(Hmmm. Actually, I just checked the new Aiport Extreme, and it's the same size as the current mini--6.5 inches square. A hole in the theory? A fly in the ointment? What say you?...)
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    could be ive mentioned this a few times and im "hopeful"



    but if it DOESNT happen, perhaps it also adds fuel to the xMac rumours that were rife just before macworld or a new cube?
  • Reply 2 of 25
    Don't forget Blu-Ray disc drives...
  • Reply 3 of 25
    A Mac Mini with a 3.5" hard drive would be a much more competitive machine.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    A Mac Mini with a 3.5" hard drive would be a much more competitive machine.



    It would also be larger, louder and drain more power, all three of which things the Mac mini was designed to avoid.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    The new AirPort Exteme has the same footprint as the existing Mac mini.



    If Apple were planning to change the footprint of the Mac mini, it would make sense to change the footprint of the AirPort extreme as well.



    Remember that if Apple wanted to fit a 3.5" hard drive to the mini, it wouls probably make more sense to increase the height of the unit...
  • Reply 6 of 25
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Methinks the footprint is related to the 802.11n antennae.
  • Reply 7 of 25
    xflarexflare Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Xool View Post


    Methinks the footprint is related to the 802.11n antennae.



    Id just be happy to see a new mini.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    It would also be larger, louder and drain more power, all three of which things the Mac mini was designed to avoid.



    It would still be by far the smallest entry level desktop out there. The only it avoids in its present form is sales.
  • Reply 9 of 25
    rnprnp Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xflare View Post


    Id just be happy to see a new mini.



    i agree
  • Reply 10 of 25
    fishafisha Posts: 126member
    what i've noticed with the new airport is that whilst the outer shell is the normal mini-form factor, the shell is slightly raised off the ground. The inner chassis has some extra depth to it which lifts the walls of the unit off the surface its sitting on. This makes it appear slimmer height wise than it actually is.



    The same also seems to be true of the apple TV - sides raised compared to the actual bottom of the unit.



    I'm wondering if the new mini ( should there be one ) would sport the same feature. If so, then if you kept the same side wall heights, but sneaked in 5 to 8mm at the bottom, it could be enough to let you squeeze some large components inside.



    a mini with a 3.5" hard drive would just be the business. I'm not fussed about integrated graphics or not. Just the hdd space.
  • Reply 11 of 25
    it would be sweet if they had one like 1.5 inches thick, and just wide enough for a superduper drive for dvd, cd, blu-ray, and hd dvd, with usb 3.0
  • Reply 12 of 25
    dcqdcq Posts: 349member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fisha View Post


    a mini with a 3.5" hard drive would just be the business. I'm not fussed about integrated graphics or not. Just the hdd space.



    In general, I agree*. Although I am wondering what the hold-up with the GMA 965 IG chipset is. Didn't Intel release that in the summer? Why is Apple still using the gma 950?





    * My wife and I went to an Apple store this weekend and window shopped. I did a quick iMovie apply effects test (Sepia Tone) on one of their tutorial clips on both a 2.0GHz Macbook and a 2.16GHz MBP. The MBP completed the task in about a third of the time. We were both shocked, especially since the MacBook didn't seem all that much faster at those things than our current 5+ year-old G4 Tower.
  • Reply 13 of 25
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCQ View Post


    In general, I agree*. Although I am wondering what the hold-up with the GMA 965 IG chipset is. Didn't Intel release that in the summer? Why is Apple still using the gma 950?



    To clear up some confusion:



    GMA, or Graphics Media Accelerator, is a series of graphics chips as part of Intel's line of CPU/mainboard chipsets. They are not available on their own.



    The first version, GMA 900, never made it to any Mac, and is thus mostly irrelevant to us. The GMA 950 is in all Intel Macs that have no dedicated graphics: all Intel-based Mac minis, all MacBooks (but not MacBook Pros) and some Intel-based iMacs, namely the previous "iMac for Education", and the current lowest-end iMac configuration.



    In all Macs with the GMA 950, it is implemented as part of the 945G chipset (or variants thereof, such as 945GM and 945GZ), where the 'G' stands for 'Graphics', i.e. it indicates the existence of the GMA feature.



    The successors of the 945GM that have GMA are the Q963 Express, the Q965 Express and the G965 Express. Of those, the Q963 and Q965 come with the GMA 3000, and the G965 with the GMA X3000.



    While the 3000, despite its name, is more of an evolutionary improvement, the X3000 has drastic changes, adding hardware T&L, hardware vertex shaders and OpenGL 2.0 (rather than 1.4). Moreover, pixel shaders are bumped from model 2.0 to 3.0, and the maximum shared memory from 256 to 384 MBs.



    The memory number is deceiving, though; the bigger problem with the GMAs isn't lack of memory amount, but lack of memory bandwidth (and high latency), which to my knowledge won't be rectified at all with this.



    Now, to actually answer your question: you likely mean the GMA 3000 or GMA X3000, which will be introduced as part of the Santa Rosa platform in the second quarter of this year. When that happens, Apple will probably upgrade the MacBooks fairly soon after.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Now, to actually answer your question: you likely mean the GMA 3000 or GMA X3000, which will be introduced as part of the Santa Rosa platform in the second quarter of this year. When that happens, Apple will probably upgrade the MacBooks fairly soon after.



    brilliant info



    you mention a probably macbook upgrade.... so would we be fairly right to hope for a mini upgrade at that time also?
  • Reply 15 of 25
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Trendannoyer View Post


    brilliant info



    you mention a probably macbook upgrade.... so would we be fairly right to hope for a mini upgrade at that time also?



    Well, the thing with that is, the Mac mini barely got upgraded at all the last time, so many are probably hoping that it will see a sooner upgrade to the Core 2 Duo (Merom) first, before Santa Rosa actually gets out. Which, in turn, would push a GMA X3000-enhanced Mac mini even further away.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Xool View Post


    Methinks the footprint is related to the 802.11n antennae.



    Possibly, but 2.4GHz antennas aren't very big. Even with three of them, it's not a lot of space.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Well, the thing with that is, the Mac mini barely got upgraded at all the last time, so many are probably hoping that it will see a sooner upgrade to the Core 2 Duo (Merom) first, before Santa Rosa actually gets out. Which, in turn, would push a GMA X3000-enhanced Mac mini even further away.



    ... bugger....



    but then C2D is all i really want anyway, its "enough" of an upgrade.



    im wondering though, looking at how Apples desktop sales figures seem to be falling, would it be more likely that Apple MAY opt for an xMac/headless mac ?

    I know that so many things point AWAY from that, and i was firmly in that camp last year, but recently it IS what ive been looking for, an iMac without being forced to buy a screen as well... basically i want 2 screens without having to buy a Mac Pro, i know you can plug an extra on into an iMac, but thats not elegant IMHO.



    damned Apple, cant live with (their hush hush upgrade path).. cant live without them
  • Reply 18 of 25
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Possibly, but 2.4GHz antennas aren't very big. Even with three of them, it's not a lot of space.



    i think he was talking about a possible minimum required spaceing between the antennas, to achive maximum range ????



    although i have no idea what im talking about
  • Reply 19 of 25
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCQ View Post


    In general, I agree*. Although I am wondering what the hold-up with the GMA 965 IG chipset is. Didn't Intel release that in the summer? Why is Apple still using the gma 950?



    Because Apple uses the mobile platform. The M965 series isn't being released until April.
  • Reply 20 of 25
    mrtotesmrtotes Posts: 760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    Possibly, but 2.4GHz antennas aren't very big. Even with three of them, it's not a lot of space.



    By spacing the aerials correctly you can beam-form or use spatial-diversity to overcome interference. This means that you can get a higher data rate out to a further range.



    A rule of thumb would to place each Ae (of length ?/2), ?/2 apart from the next Ae.



    c = f? where c = 3 x 10^8



    ? 300 000 000 / 2 400 000 000 = ? = 0.125. or 12.5cm



    So the Ae might be 6.25cm long and spaced similarly. Or they could be doing something beyond my knowledge.
Sign In or Register to comment.