I remember I guess they made the decision to put in 2 slots instead of one big one for some reason....
You go with two slots in modern chipset implementations to get a little better performance with the RAM. I will avoid the details but properly paired DIMMs can add around 5% to the performance of the RAM system.
Quote:
Check out this mini-ITX mobo:
Cool!
Just realize Apple would have it's own collection of ports.
Quote:
It's got a mini sized footprint, but would require a lot more headroom Well this one has 2 slots and even a PCIe 1x slot.
Headroom isn't a problem, Apple could simply use different heat sinks, cooling or chipsets. Ditch the CD drive altogether and they would have plenty of room. For some uses it really makes sense to dump the CD drive, those that really need one ought to buy one.
Interestingly I wonder if the Minis height really means anything. If it has the same foot print but varies in hieght by an inch would anyone care?
Quote:
With a larger area motherboard you could potentially use those full sized DIMM slots that lay flat or angled, or have enough room for a flattened cooling system.
If Apple was wise they would just raise the roof on the case and be done with it. Ideally the case would support 1/3rd hieght expansion cards. That and work a bit on the cases thermals.
The other thing to comment on is the PCI Express slot. It needs to be at least 4X to have any hope of supporting future needs. The biggest issue with such cards though is power management, put a slot in and you have to build a bigger power supply.
Guys, this thread is veering dangerously off course.
We're starting to talk about much larger form factors with desktop RAM, SSDs and 3.5" drives and expansion cards. That's simply not going to happen.
A 'more versatile Mac Mini' doesn't mean Apple is going to make the dreaded midrange Mac.
The Mini will still sit at the low end of the desktop range and Apple will restrict it to encourage sales of the higher-margin iMac and Mac Pro. That is guaranteed, since we know that both of those machines will be overhauled as well in early 2009.
The Mini will end up with capabilities for more RAM and much faster internal electronics. If we're blessed, we'll get the options for a second SATA drive and Firewire 800.
If we're really blessed, we'll get a new form factor, Firewire 3200 and/or USB3.
There will be no Blu-Ray and definitely no expansion cards.
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
That's probably what you were thinking of....
I wish that were true, but I did blow it majorly.
However, the fastest HD's are currently Seagate's SAS Savvio's which are 2.5" and the newest WD 300GB 10K Raptor, which while still fitting a 3.5" form factor actually has 2.5" platters.
I think one factor is that 2.5" platters are like a CPU die shrink, in that you get more 2.5" platters than 3.5" (or actually ~3.75 (I believe)) platters. I'm also fairly certain that the 2.5" platters are thinner than the 3.5" platters.
(3.75/2.5)^2 = 2.25
But then again I don't really know how the platters are manufactured. I remember seeing a DEC MiniVAX platter once, about 20 years ago, it was huge, something like 15" diameter, and thick, perhaps an eight of an inch or so, quite heavy too.
Anyway, I think the 2.5" HD use a combination of factors to achieve their "world class" speed, the one you mentioned (less motion in the drive head reduces seek time), higher platter count (at least for the newest WD Raptor relative to it's immediate predecessor), and higher areal data density (possibly due to the smaller platter size and manufacturing tolerances).
2.5" drives also use less power than an equal (GB) sized 3.5" drives, if I'm not mistaken.
However, the fastest HD's are currently Seagate's SAS Savvio's which are 2.5" and the newest WD 300GB 10K Raptor, which while still fitting a 3.5" form factor actually has 2.5" platters.
I think one factor is that 2.5" platters are like a CPU die shrink, in that you get more 2.5" platters than 3.5" (or actually ~3.75 (I believe)) platters. I'm also fairly certain that the 2.5" platters are thinner than the 3.5" platters.
2.5" drives also use less power than an equal (GB) sized 3.5" drives, if I'm not mistaken.
Apologies for snippage - I think the Sun ones I referred to above are Seagate SAS drives, they use 10k 2.5" internal drives on all their servers.
That Raptor (I believe it's marketed as "Velociraptor" is probably about as fast a SATA drive as you can get - at work we use a load of 15k FC drives in disk arrays, all of which are 2.5" platters in 3.5" casings - just rising from 300 GB to 400 GB at the moment.
High end SSDs are a laugh - about 100x the random read performance, and only about £25,000 for 73 GB.... prices are dropping drastically though, give it a few years and we'll be SSD throughout, I'm sure.
Guys, this thread is veering dangerously off course.
How can that be when the new machine doesn't even exist right now?
Quote:
We're starting to talk about much larger form factors with desktop RAM, SSDs and 3.5" drives and expansion cards. That's simply not going to happen.
First it would only be slightly bigger so that the RAM could fit arround the optical drive. Besides a SSD would actually make for a smaller and cooler Mini.
In any event you seem to be set on Apple never changing the form factor. They may or may not this go around but each major rev is an opportunity to do so. Nothing lasts forever, not even Minis foot print. It is just a question of when and in which direction.
Quote:
A 'more versatile Mac Mini' doesn't mean Apple is going to make the dreaded midrange Mac.
No it doesn't but there is a large selection of small form factor PCs on the market each with a unique set of features. Apple likewise has a feature set goal also, I don't see them letting the case decide what will actually go into the case. The point is there is more to the Mini than it's case.
Quote:
The Mini will still sit at the low end of the desktop range and Apple will restrict it to encourage sales of the higher-margin iMac and Mac Pro.
I don't see the Mini as a restricted machine at all. Considered against the field of small form factor machines it is reasonably appointed. My interest is how do we move that machine past 4GB of memory cheaply and address the modern users bulk storage needs. One way to do that is to use desktop parts. Another way is to place part of the storage allotment on a PCI card that does take up much space.
Quote:
That is guaranteed, since we know that both of those machines will be overhauled as well in early 2009.
I really wish these sorts of arguements would go away. The Mac Pro is an entirely different computing platform directed at an entirely different class of user. There has never been any overlap and there won't likely ever be. The Mini and the Mac Pro DO NOT compete!
Even the up sell arguement with the iMac is a bit of a joke.
Quote:
The Mini will end up with capabilities for more RAM and much faster internal electronics. If we're blessed, we'll get the options for a second SATA drive and Firewire 800.
What you get has nothing to do with being blessed.
Quote:
I we're really blessed, we'll get a new form factor, Firewire 3200 and/or USB3.
There will be no Blu-Ray and definitely no expansion cards.
You start out demanding no new form factor but then end saying we might get one. Cute!
As to USB3 show me the chip set? Until Apple gets going with it's own chipset we will get watt is already known on the Intel platform.
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
No.
If for no other reason, then that the internals would have to be arranged differently. There would be space around the first 2.5" HD occupied by other internals. These would have to be moved to accommodate the the larger footprint of the 3.5" HD.
Apple will only sell one Mac mini configuration of internals, geometrically speaking.
They can easily replace a 5.25" half height optical drive with a 2nd 2.5" HD, because then there are no geometry conflicts.
Why exactly are you so desperate for a 3.5" HD in the mini anyway?
Even if Apple did so, I don't think you'll see a 1.5 TB HD as an option, and second you would get 1 TB with two 500 GB 2.5" HD's anyway, and Apple's software RAID 0/1 to boot.
Also the original spec for the height of 2.5" drives are 9 mm (currently used in most laptops), 12.5 mm, and 15 mm, so that this additional headroom "could" be used for additional platters, and thus higher capacity 2.5" HD's.
First it would only be slightly bigger so that the RAM could fit arround the optical drive. Besides a SSD would actually make for a smaller and cooler Mini.
Absolutely true, but SSDs are not priced for adoption by the Mini's target market right now.
It hasn't even gotten to the point where the iMac or Mac Pro can use them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event you seem to be set on Apple never changing the form factor. They may or may not this go around but each major rev is an opportunity to do so. Nothing lasts forever, not even Minis foot print. It is just a question of when and in which direction.
Hey, I was one of the first to say I wished the Mini used desktop parts when the machine debuted.
But Apple uses the Mini as a leverage point to drive down MacBook and iMac part costs.
I doubt that will change substantially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
No it doesn't but there is a large selection of small form factor PCs on the market each with a unique set of features. Apple likewise has a feature set goal also, I don't see them letting the case decide what will actually go into the case. The point is there is more to the Mini than it's case.
If Apple cared what PC manufacturers did that midrange box would be here by now. It isn't and they don't.
The point to the Mini is to have a low cost machine that switchers consider, and also use that machine to access economies of scale for part costs. The machine has also seen surprise adoption for business, particularly in the security, manufacturing and kiosk markets. This is likely what is driving the "second hard drive" feature, since Apple's never bothered to put a second hard drive space in the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I don't see the Mini as a restricted machine at all. Considered against the field of small form factor machines it is reasonably appointed.
Trying hooking it up to Apple's own 30" display and then tell me its functionality wasn't deliberately restricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
My interest is how do we move that machine past 4GB of memory cheaply and address the modern users bulk storage needs. One way to do that is to use desktop parts. Another way is to place part of the storage allotment on a PCI card that does take up much space.
Apple has a way to move past the 4GB limitation. Buy another machine.
They can use desktop parts, but then you can whine about why the MacBook prices are so high.
And Jobs hates expansion cards, so kiss that idea goodbye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I really wish these sorts of arguements would go away. The Mac Pro is an entirely different computing platform directed at an entirely different class of user. There has never been any overlap and there won't likely ever be. The Mini and the Mac Pro DO NOT compete!
In Apple's mind there is a danger of too many enterprise clients going low end. Mac Pro sales are dominated by the design and publishing industry, and low end machines are now capable of running Creative Suite just fine. Until the new Final Cut Suite is announced, Apple's not going to want to jeopardize Mac Pro margins by decimating Mac Pro sales to Publishing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You start out demanding no new form factor but then end saying we might get one. Cute!
A new form factor does not necessarily mean the Mini transforms into a midrange machine.
That's what I was trying to convey. They might raise the height a bit, to allow the second drive.
Or they might add an iPod/iPhone holder. Or they might put in front facing port access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to USB3 show me the chip set? Until Apple gets going with it's own chipset we will get watt (sic) is already known on the Intel platform.
The current Mini is a custom Apple board, I see no reason they would change that. This is Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
Maybe, but given the information from other posters above that six 2.5" drives can fit in a 3.5" space, I'm guessing they'll go with space for two 2.5" drives. If 7200rpm drives are an option, that's all we need. The biggest need is that they be user-replaceable.
Even if Apple did so, I don't think you'll see a 1.5 TB HD as an option, and second you would get 1 TB with two 500 GB 2.5" HD's anyway, and Apple's software RAID 0/1 to boot..
Why do you say this? If they went to 3.5" why wouldn't they offer 1.5tb? It makes no sense not to. And even if they didn't one could always put their own in.
Either way, I seriously doubt apple will move to 3.5 to keep it as close to an entertainment form factor as possible. This is the first time I've been interested in a mini. Mainly because of the graphics. I refuse to buy computers with integrated graphics like intel's. At least this is a real integrated gpu. When I think of graphics I think of ATI / Nvidia. Not Intel. Lets face it, Nvidia/ATI has beat intel to death on the low end GPU front for years and years.
With that being said, I think the displayPort / DVI option is a great idea. If this is to be an option for home entertainment, I think having as many tv connections as possible is good.
I'm hoping they don't drop FW. Or if they do, add e-sata. We need a fast video transfer connection and USB 2.0 just wont' cut it. We'll see what happens tues.
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
That's probably what you were thinking of....
Actually the 15k 3.5" rpm drives do not really have 3.5" platters, as they would shatter due to the rotational forces. The platter is more like a 2.5" drive platter...
Only the package is of '3.5" drive' size, to have more space for strong head positioning magnets to give lower access times (and of course to allow easy mounting in 3.5" racks...)
If two internal HDD bays are on offer then one could be a 64MB SSD and the other a normal HDD for data storage. I suppose the cost of a decent SSD would probably make this option out of the mini price range.
Or Monday. Apple has done a silent update in the past (e.g. last year's Mac Pro) to avoid mixing up the keynote message with too many product announcements.
If the new Mac Pro is ready to be debuted (though not shipped) it's possible either the iMac or Mini may get the silent treatment on Monday.
Why do you say this? If they went to 3.5" why wouldn't they offer 1.5tb? It makes no sense not to. And even if they didn't one could always put their own in.
No reason really. Just that they won't go with the 3.5" form factor as you stated later on in your reply to begin with. The internal geometry of the internals would need to be changed to accomidate the 3.5" form factor, as the current 2.5" is wedged into it's appropriate footprint already. Why would Apple ever have two seperate Mac mini significantly different internal designs?
And I say this with the low budget server market in mind, two 2.5" drives in a RAID 0 would definitely be faster than a one drive configuration, be it 2.5" or 3.5".
No reason really. Just that they won't go with the 3.5" form factor as you stated later on in your reply to begin with. The internal geometry of the internals would need to be changed to accomidate the 3.5" form factor, as the current 2.5" is wedged into it's appropriate footprint already. Why would Apple ever have two seperate Mac mini significantly different internal designs?
And I say this with the low budget server market in mind, two 2.5" drives in a RAID 0 would definitely be faster than a one drive configuration, be it 2.5" or 3.5".
I don't see apple offering two different chassis options. I think all that was said is they may offer (and most likely) a different one than what exists now. Since they are changing the colors to black, i think it's safe to say that the odds of there being a new design are good.
I also don't see apple shipping two 2.5" drives in RAID. 2.5" are much more prone to failures than 3.5", even more so in a RAID 0.
I don't see apple offering two different chassis options. I think all that was said is they may offer (and most likely) a different one than what exists now. Since they are changing the colors to black, i think it's safe to say that the odds of there being a new design are good.
I also don't see apple shipping two 2.5" drives in RAID. 2.5" are much more prone to failures than 3.5", even more so in a RAID 0.
The 3.5" drive would need to be enterprise class, meaning 247 operation, except for the WD Raptors, I don't know of another 3.5"enterprise class SATA drive.
As to RAID 0/1 if two 2.5" drives are offered, it would be up to the end user, if they just want two HD's or use Apple's software RAID 0/1 option.
I'm quite sure Apple would just have two drives with no RAID from the factory. Personally, I had a RAID 0 using two WD Raptors (150 GB, enterprise class, last generation), the system (OS X 10.4 then 10.5) loaded in about 1/3 the time, and all applications just "jumped" open, almost instantaneously.
I'm in the habit of backing up all critical data 247.
I foresee the Mini height differential and general widthxlength will change.
I'd like to see them increase the size- to the 7.7"x7.7" base of the AppleTV and Time Capsule, and increase the height by an inch or so. That would allow the mini to use desktop processors, real hard drives, and a lot of other stuff.
Comments
I remember
You go with two slots in modern chipset implementations to get a little better performance with the RAM. I will avoid the details but properly paired DIMMs can add around 5% to the performance of the RAM system.
Check out this mini-ITX mobo:
Cool!
Just realize Apple would have it's own collection of ports.
It's got a mini sized footprint, but would require a lot more headroom
Headroom isn't a problem, Apple could simply use different heat sinks, cooling or chipsets. Ditch the CD drive altogether and they would have plenty of room. For some uses it really makes sense to dump the CD drive, those that really need one ought to buy one.
Interestingly I wonder if the Minis height really means anything. If it has the same foot print but varies in hieght by an inch would anyone care?
With a larger area motherboard you could potentially use those full sized DIMM slots that lay flat or angled, or have enough room for a flattened cooling system.
If Apple was wise they would just raise the roof on the case and be done with it. Ideally the case would support 1/3rd hieght expansion cards. That and work a bit on the cases thermals.
The other thing to comment on is the PCI Express slot. It needs to be at least 4X to have any hope of supporting future needs. The biggest issue with such cards though is power management, put a slot in and you have to build a bigger power supply.
Dave
We're starting to talk about much larger form factors with desktop RAM, SSDs and 3.5" drives and expansion cards. That's simply not going to happen.
A 'more versatile Mac Mini' doesn't mean Apple is going to make the dreaded midrange Mac.
The Mini will still sit at the low end of the desktop range and Apple will restrict it to encourage sales of the higher-margin iMac and Mac Pro. That is guaranteed, since we know that both of those machines will be overhauled as well in early 2009.
The Mini will end up with capabilities for more RAM and much faster internal electronics. If we're blessed, we'll get the options for a second SATA drive and Firewire 800.
If we're really blessed, we'll get a new form factor, Firewire 3200 and/or USB3.
There will be no Blu-Ray and definitely no expansion cards.
Oops, my bad.
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
That's probably what you were thinking of....
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
That's probably what you were thinking of....
I wish that were true, but I did blow it majorly.
However, the fastest HD's are currently Seagate's SAS Savvio's which are 2.5" and the newest WD 300GB 10K Raptor, which while still fitting a 3.5" form factor actually has 2.5" platters.
I think one factor is that 2.5" platters are like a CPU die shrink, in that you get more 2.5" platters than 3.5" (or actually ~3.75 (I believe)) platters. I'm also fairly certain that the 2.5" platters are thinner than the 3.5" platters.
(3.75/2.5)^2 = 2.25
But then again I don't really know how the platters are manufactured. I remember seeing a DEC MiniVAX platter once, about 20 years ago, it was huge, something like 15" diameter, and thick, perhaps an eight of an inch or so, quite heavy too.
Anyway, I think the 2.5" HD use a combination of factors to achieve their "world class" speed, the one you mentioned (less motion in the drive head reduces seek time), higher platter count (at least for the newest WD Raptor relative to it's immediate predecessor), and higher areal data density (possibly due to the smaller platter size and manufacturing tolerances).
2.5" drives also use less power than an equal (GB) sized 3.5" drives, if I'm not mistaken.
I wish that were true, but I did blow it majorly.
However, the fastest HD's are currently Seagate's SAS Savvio's which are 2.5" and the newest WD 300GB 10K Raptor, which while still fitting a 3.5" form factor actually has 2.5" platters.
I think one factor is that 2.5" platters are like a CPU die shrink, in that you get more 2.5" platters than 3.5" (or actually ~3.75 (I believe)) platters. I'm also fairly certain that the 2.5" platters are thinner than the 3.5" platters.
2.5" drives also use less power than an equal (GB) sized 3.5" drives, if I'm not mistaken.
Apologies for snippage - I think the Sun ones I referred to above are Seagate SAS drives, they use 10k 2.5" internal drives on all their servers.
That Raptor (I believe it's marketed as "Velociraptor" is probably about as fast a SATA drive as you can get - at work we use a load of 15k FC drives in disk arrays, all of which are 2.5" platters in 3.5" casings - just rising from 300 GB to 400 GB at the moment.
High end SSDs are a laugh - about 100x the random read performance, and only about £25,000 for 73 GB.... prices are dropping drastically though, give it a few years and we'll be SSD throughout, I'm sure.
Cheers,
Martin
Guys, this thread is veering dangerously off course.
How can that be when the new machine doesn't even exist right now?
We're starting to talk about much larger form factors with desktop RAM, SSDs and 3.5" drives and expansion cards. That's simply not going to happen.
First it would only be slightly bigger so that the RAM could fit arround the optical drive. Besides a SSD would actually make for a smaller and cooler Mini.
In any event you seem to be set on Apple never changing the form factor. They may or may not this go around but each major rev is an opportunity to do so. Nothing lasts forever, not even Minis foot print. It is just a question of when and in which direction.
A 'more versatile Mac Mini' doesn't mean Apple is going to make the dreaded midrange Mac.
No it doesn't but there is a large selection of small form factor PCs on the market each with a unique set of features. Apple likewise has a feature set goal also, I don't see them letting the case decide what will actually go into the case. The point is there is more to the Mini than it's case.
The Mini will still sit at the low end of the desktop range and Apple will restrict it to encourage sales of the higher-margin iMac and Mac Pro.
I don't see the Mini as a restricted machine at all. Considered against the field of small form factor machines it is reasonably appointed. My interest is how do we move that machine past 4GB of memory cheaply and address the modern users bulk storage needs. One way to do that is to use desktop parts. Another way is to place part of the storage allotment on a PCI card that does take up much space.
That is guaranteed, since we know that both of those machines will be overhauled as well in early 2009.
I really wish these sorts of arguements would go away. The Mac Pro is an entirely different computing platform directed at an entirely different class of user. There has never been any overlap and there won't likely ever be. The Mini and the Mac Pro DO NOT compete!
Even the up sell arguement with the iMac is a bit of a joke.
The Mini will end up with capabilities for more RAM and much faster internal electronics. If we're blessed, we'll get the options for a second SATA drive and Firewire 800.
What you get has nothing to do with being blessed.
I we're really blessed, we'll get a new form factor, Firewire 3200 and/or USB3.
There will be no Blu-Ray and definitely no expansion cards.
You start out demanding no new form factor but then end saying we might get one. Cute!
As to USB3 show me the chip set? Until Apple gets going with it's own chipset we will get watt is already known on the Intel platform.
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
Dave
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
No.
If for no other reason, then that the internals would have to be arranged differently. There would be space around the first 2.5" HD occupied by other internals. These would have to be moved to accommodate the the larger footprint of the 3.5" HD.
Apple will only sell one Mac mini configuration of internals, geometrically speaking.
They can easily replace a 5.25" half height optical drive with a 2nd 2.5" HD, because then there are no geometry conflicts.
Why exactly are you so desperate for a 3.5" HD in the mini anyway?
Even if Apple did so, I don't think you'll see a 1.5 TB HD as an option, and second you would get 1 TB with two 500 GB 2.5" HD's anyway, and Apple's software RAID 0/1 to boot.
Also the original spec for the height of 2.5" drives are 9 mm (currently used in most laptops), 12.5 mm, and 15 mm, so that this additional headroom "could" be used for additional platters, and thus higher capacity 2.5" HD's.
First it would only be slightly bigger so that the RAM could fit arround the optical drive. Besides a SSD would actually make for a smaller and cooler Mini.
Absolutely true, but SSDs are not priced for adoption by the Mini's target market right now.
It hasn't even gotten to the point where the iMac or Mac Pro can use them.
In any event you seem to be set on Apple never changing the form factor. They may or may not this go around but each major rev is an opportunity to do so. Nothing lasts forever, not even Minis foot print. It is just a question of when and in which direction.
Hey, I was one of the first to say I wished the Mini used desktop parts when the machine debuted.
But Apple uses the Mini as a leverage point to drive down MacBook and iMac part costs.
I doubt that will change substantially.
No it doesn't but there is a large selection of small form factor PCs on the market each with a unique set of features. Apple likewise has a feature set goal also, I don't see them letting the case decide what will actually go into the case. The point is there is more to the Mini than it's case.
If Apple cared what PC manufacturers did that midrange box would be here by now. It isn't and they don't.
The point to the Mini is to have a low cost machine that switchers consider, and also use that machine to access economies of scale for part costs. The machine has also seen surprise adoption for business, particularly in the security, manufacturing and kiosk markets. This is likely what is driving the "second hard drive" feature, since Apple's never bothered to put a second hard drive space in the iMac.
I don't see the Mini as a restricted machine at all. Considered against the field of small form factor machines it is reasonably appointed.
Trying hooking it up to Apple's own 30" display and then tell me its functionality wasn't deliberately restricted.
My interest is how do we move that machine past 4GB of memory cheaply and address the modern users bulk storage needs. One way to do that is to use desktop parts. Another way is to place part of the storage allotment on a PCI card that does take up much space.
Apple has a way to move past the 4GB limitation. Buy another machine.
They can use desktop parts, but then you can whine about why the MacBook prices are so high.
And Jobs hates expansion cards, so kiss that idea goodbye.
I really wish these sorts of arguements would go away. The Mac Pro is an entirely different computing platform directed at an entirely different class of user. There has never been any overlap and there won't likely ever be. The Mini and the Mac Pro DO NOT compete!
In Apple's mind there is a danger of too many enterprise clients going low end. Mac Pro sales are dominated by the design and publishing industry, and low end machines are now capable of running Creative Suite just fine. Until the new Final Cut Suite is announced, Apple's not going to want to jeopardize Mac Pro margins by decimating Mac Pro sales to Publishing.
You start out demanding no new form factor but then end saying we might get one. Cute!
A new form factor does not necessarily mean the Mini transforms into a midrange machine.
That's what I was trying to convey. They might raise the height a bit, to allow the second drive.
Or they might add an iPod/iPhone holder. Or they might put in front facing port access.
As to USB3 show me the chip set? Until Apple gets going with it's own chipset we will get watt (sic) is already known on the Intel platform.
The current Mini is a custom Apple board, I see no reason they would change that. This is Apple.
In any event will that new form factor include 3.5" disks?
Maybe, but given the information from other posters above that six 2.5" drives can fit in a 3.5" space, I'm guessing they'll go with space for two 2.5" drives. If 7200rpm drives are an option, that's all we need. The biggest need is that they be user-replaceable.
Even if Apple did so, I don't think you'll see a 1.5 TB HD as an option, and second you would get 1 TB with two 500 GB 2.5" HD's anyway, and Apple's software RAID 0/1 to boot..
Why do you say this? If they went to 3.5" why wouldn't they offer 1.5tb? It makes no sense not to. And even if they didn't one could always put their own in.
Either way, I seriously doubt apple will move to 3.5 to keep it as close to an entertainment form factor as possible. This is the first time I've been interested in a mini. Mainly because of the graphics. I refuse to buy computers with integrated graphics like intel's. At least this is a real integrated gpu. When I think of graphics I think of ATI / Nvidia. Not Intel. Lets face it, Nvidia/ATI has beat intel to death on the low end GPU front for years and years.
With that being said, I think the displayPort / DVI option is a great idea. If this is to be an option for home entertainment, I think having as many tv connections as possible is good.
I'm hoping they don't drop FW. Or if they do, add e-sata. We need a fast video transfer connection and USB 2.0 just wont' cut it. We'll see what happens tues.
Actually they can be quicker, for random IO loads, because the maximum seeks distance is smaller. Sun 2.5" Fibre Channel server drives do about as many random IOPS at 10,000 RPM as the 15,000 RPM 3.5" drives.
That's probably what you were thinking of....
Actually the 15k 3.5" rpm drives do not really have 3.5" platters, as they would shatter due to the rotational forces. The platter is more like a 2.5" drive platter...
Only the package is of '3.5" drive' size, to have more space for strong head positioning magnets to give lower access times (and of course to allow easy mounting in 3.5" racks...)
I'm going to wager that Apple won't announce anything at this expo. Perhaps some simple upgrades to existing lines if anything.
As Phil will be giving the keynote, instead of Steve, I think there will actually be some very interesting announcements.
This will be done to show the world that Apple is not only Steve Jobs.
(The rumors about Steve being too ill to do the keynote, resulting in a dropped share price, is not what Apple wants for the future...)
Dobby
We'll see what happens tues.
Or Monday. Apple has done a silent update in the past (e.g. last year's Mac Pro) to avoid mixing up the keynote message with too many product announcements.
If the new Mac Pro is ready to be debuted (though not shipped) it's possible either the iMac or Mini may get the silent treatment on Monday.
Why do you say this? If they went to 3.5" why wouldn't they offer 1.5tb? It makes no sense not to. And even if they didn't one could always put their own in.
No reason really. Just that they won't go with the 3.5" form factor as you stated later on in your reply to begin with. The internal geometry of the internals would need to be changed to accomidate the 3.5" form factor, as the current 2.5" is wedged into it's appropriate footprint already. Why would Apple ever have two seperate Mac mini significantly different internal designs?
And I say this with the low budget server market in mind, two 2.5" drives in a RAID 0 would definitely be faster than a one drive configuration, be it 2.5" or 3.5".
No reason really. Just that they won't go with the 3.5" form factor as you stated later on in your reply to begin with. The internal geometry of the internals would need to be changed to accomidate the 3.5" form factor, as the current 2.5" is wedged into it's appropriate footprint already. Why would Apple ever have two seperate Mac mini significantly different internal designs?
And I say this with the low budget server market in mind, two 2.5" drives in a RAID 0 would definitely be faster than a one drive configuration, be it 2.5" or 3.5".
I don't see apple offering two different chassis options. I think all that was said is they may offer (and most likely) a different one than what exists now. Since they are changing the colors to black, i think it's safe to say that the odds of there being a new design are good.
I also don't see apple shipping two 2.5" drives in RAID. 2.5" are much more prone to failures than 3.5", even more so in a RAID 0.
I don't see apple offering two different chassis options. I think all that was said is they may offer (and most likely) a different one than what exists now. Since they are changing the colors to black, i think it's safe to say that the odds of there being a new design are good.
I also don't see apple shipping two 2.5" drives in RAID. 2.5" are much more prone to failures than 3.5", even more so in a RAID 0.
The 3.5" drive would need to be enterprise class, meaning 247 operation, except for the WD Raptors, I don't know of another 3.5"enterprise class SATA drive.
As to RAID 0/1 if two 2.5" drives are offered, it would be up to the end user, if they just want two HD's or use Apple's software RAID 0/1 option.
I'm quite sure Apple would just have two drives with no RAID from the factory. Personally, I had a RAID 0 using two WD Raptors (150 GB, enterprise class, last generation), the system (OS X 10.4 then 10.5) loaded in about 1/3 the time, and all applications just "jumped" open, almost instantaneously.
I'm in the habit of backing up all critical data 247.
I foresee the Mini height differential and general widthxlength will change.
I'd like to see them increase the size- to the 7.7"x7.7" base of the AppleTV and Time Capsule, and increase the height by an inch or so. That would allow the mini to use desktop processors, real hard drives, and a lot of other stuff.
Don't see it happening, though.