But you still need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY! There's no logic to this design, given they sell a mini-DP to DVI adapter. If they wanted legacy compatibility they'd have included a full-size DVI port, otherwise there's no logical reason to include anything other than mini-DP.
Even if they wanted two ports, it'd be more logical to have 2 x mini DP, for consistency.
DP can be daisy chained for multi-display support and quite frankly none of the Mini-DP adapters work very well according to the Apple store reviews.
The last fake mac pic I saw was a fake mac mini, a few months ago. I'd be very surprised to see white plastic. And why does someone who's taking a spy shot that is a big deal, make sure the photo is all blurry? My best is that the pic on this story is something someone photoshopped to look like just what appleinsider had rumored specs on. I expect to see a mini with those same specs, but an updated case. fw800 makes me happy. I'll order one on day 1. Unless there is a 9600 option on a high end mini, then i'll have to think about which i want.
Not only is that picture probably not a fake...I would bet that we'll see it announced this coming Tuesday or next Tuesday (March 3rd). In concert with the discontinuation of the 20-inch Cinema Display, I wouldn't be surprised to see the 24-inch Cinema Display design aesthetic applied to a new 20-inch Cinema Display announced at the same time as the new mini too.
DP can be daisy chained for multi-display support and quite frankly none of the Mini-DP adapters work very well according to the Apple store reviews.
That still doesn't explain the presence of the mini-DVI port.
And it doesn't seem Apple is supporting daisy-chaining on its DP display, so maybe two ports would be a safer hedge. Also allows someone to run one DVI and one DP monitor.
Point taken about the adaptors being crap, but I can't imagine Jobs/Cook getting up on stage and saying "yeah, our DP-DVI adapters are pretty crap, so we shoved a mini-DVI port on there for DVI users... those adapters work better."
But you still need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY! There's no logic to this design, given they sell a mini-DP to DVI adapter. If they wanted legacy compatibility they'd have included a full-size DVI port, otherwise there's no logical reason to include anything other than mini-DP.
Remember when Apple made G5s that had both a DVI and an ADC port? (I do; I have one.)
Full-sized DVI ports are HUGE. The mini-DVI and miniDisplayPort take up LESS room than one full-sized DVI port.
This isn't unprecedented. And I'm not convinced that it's illogical, either. This way, there's legacy support, and you also have support for what they HOPE will be a new display standard? but which could just as easily go the way of... the ADC port.
Remember when Apple made G5s that had both a DVI and an ADC port? (I do; I have one.)
Full-sized DVI ports are HUGE. The mini-DVI and miniDisplayPort take up LESS room than one full-sized DVI port.
This isn't unprecedented. And I'm not convinced that it's illogical, either. This way, there's legacy support, and you also have support for what they HOPE will be a new display standard? but which could just as easily go the way of... the ADC port.
But it's not legacy support; it's an Apple-only port that requires an Apple-supplied adapter to be any use with legacy DVI. Same for Mini-DP. So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
-the Mini is positioned a low-end consumer grade machine
-that Apple removed FW400 from the low-end consumer MacBook
-that Apple is still selling the previous model MacBook with FW400
I would say it is quite unlikely that Apple would upgrade the Mini from FW400 to FW800.
I think it would be more likely that Apple might lead the way to USB 3.0 (presuming there is a chipset available), and include a USB 3 port (and either have all USB 3 ports, which are backwards compatible with USB 2 or have several other USB 2 ports, depending on cost & chipset capabilities).
USB3.0 will be backwards compatible in signal and connector with 2.0 and 1.0, but it is not ready yet and we will surely see it in their mainstream machines first.
Apple removed FW400 from all their notebooks. Space constraints seem to be the reason as they didn't include an additional FW800 or USB2.0 in it's place. I see no reason for the Mini and iMac with their ample space to forego FW altogether, just because they are not prosumer machines.
The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?
I have the feeling that a large proportion of Mac users have the Stockholm syndrome: being held hostage by Apple at 2/3 USB ports for way too long.
I think people need to be reminded that the mini was never designed to be wire-free, like the iMac, so the aesthetic argument does not apply here. In addition, the mini is mainly marketed towards switchers, many of whom are used to 7+ USB ports, which are the norm on PCs. Also, this is a mere ONE port increase over the current Mac mini, so I fail to see how this could be classified as such a dramatic change. Finally, since when did USB port become associated with pro-level computing?
That still doesn't explain the presence of the mini-DVI port.
The chipset probably has a single DisplayPort interface alongside the DVI interface. One of each is the best Apple can do. How much as mini-DVI -> DVI adaptors? Are there mini-DVI -> VGA adaptors? I would expect a mini-DVI -> DVI adaptor in the box, so that it can work with existing monitors.
Mini-displayport -> VGA adaptors are active, and more expensive.
Quote:
And it doesn't seem Apple is supporting daisy-chaining on its DP display, so maybe two ports would be a safer hedge. Also allows someone to run one DVI and one DP monitor.
Point taken about the adaptors being crap, but I can't imagine Jobs/Cook getting up on stage and saying "yeah, our DP-DVI adapters are pretty crap, so we shoved a mini-DVI port on there for DVI users... those adapters work better."
They'll just say it expands the options available to the user.
But it's not legacy support; it's an Apple-only port that requires an Apple-supplied adapter to be any use with legacy DVI. Same for Mini-DP. So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
Because people that are using a Mini with their 3rd-party monitor may want to update their Mini without paying an additional 5% just for a new adapter?
PS: I really hope the Mini power input is MagSafe compliant so you can run the new Apple display more seamlessly. With a bracket to keep it gitmly in place, of course.
If the picture is real, there doesn't seem to be a physical redesign in size, shape or color. Which kind of makes you wonder what is taking them so long to release it.
I'm guessing the configuration will be based on the White MacBook. Namely 2GHz Core 2 Duo on a 1066MHz FSB, with the 9400M but using 2GB DDR2 667 memory instead of DDR3. Although the 2GHz P7350 has actually been replaced with the 2.13GHz P7450 so maybe Apple will be nice enough to use that instead, but I doubt it seeing they stuck with the 2GHz P7350 for the White MacBook.
What's the point of redesigning a machine whose design philosophy is to be almost invisible? Besides, I fail to see how the unibody style could be applied to the mini without making it look ugly. The mini is beautiful as it is.
PS: I really hope the Mini power input is MagSafe compliant so you can run the new Apple display more seamlessly. With a bracket to keep it gitmly in place, of course.
Most people who purchase a mini are not in the market for a new ACD. Besides, there is very little risk of wire tripping with a desktop machine, so the main advantage of MagSafe does not apply here. Finally, I don't think the 23in ACD can supply enough power to run a mini.
The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?
Some items don't work very well hooked up via a hub. For instance, I have found with my mini that an external DVD burner works more reliably connected directly to the computer and I was also having issues with my iPod Touch. Right now I'm sharing a port for those two because I haven't got enough of them to give them each one.
Not everyone who buys a mini does so with the notion of not hooking much up to it and just using the thing for low-level computing. I'm using mine for Photoshop, have assorted hard drives attached to it, etc.
A fifth USB port would be welcome by me and I'm sure others are well.
5 USB ports lined up on the back.... it just looks wrong. Steve Jobs isn't about loading up on ports.
Not necessary and and easy cost saving measure. I call fake as well.
Well considering that the new 24-inch Cinema Display has USB to power the display's USB hub and iSight camera, I think Apple was thinking that many of their customers would reject losing a USB port if they kept the same number of USB ports as before.
So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
2) They have to continue making them anyway! The current white MacBook doesn't have mini-DP. (Considering they're still making ADC adapters, I think they're going to be making Mini-DVI adapters for a LOOOOONG time, regardless of whether their current machines still use it.)
1) I don't know! It's a valid question. Maybe for the customers who already HAVE mini-DVI adapters, or so that they can support DVI-D adapters, because the only Mini-DisplayPort to DVI adapter they make is DVI-I only.
(EDIT: MarceloR makes a really good point below, though.)
[QUOTE=Turin;1378922]5 Surely dual display ports if anything.
Display port can be daisy-chained so no need to have more than one. However, one Mini DVI and one display port means one or two of your display can be DVI.
Comments
But you still need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY! There's no logic to this design, given they sell a mini-DP to DVI adapter. If they wanted legacy compatibility they'd have included a full-size DVI port, otherwise there's no logical reason to include anything other than mini-DP.
Even if they wanted two ports, it'd be more logical to have 2 x mini DP, for consistency.
DP can be daisy chained for multi-display support and quite frankly none of the Mini-DP adapters work very well according to the Apple store reviews.
DP can be daisy chained for multi-display support and quite frankly none of the Mini-DP adapters work very well according to the Apple store reviews.
That still doesn't explain the presence of the mini-DVI port.
And it doesn't seem Apple is supporting daisy-chaining on its DP display, so maybe two ports would be a safer hedge. Also allows someone to run one DVI and one DP monitor.
Point taken about the adaptors being crap, but I can't imagine Jobs/Cook getting up on stage and saying "yeah, our DP-DVI adapters are pretty crap, so we shoved a mini-DVI port on there for DVI users... those adapters work better."
But you still need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY! There's no logic to this design, given they sell a mini-DP to DVI adapter. If they wanted legacy compatibility they'd have included a full-size DVI port, otherwise there's no logical reason to include anything other than mini-DP.
Remember when Apple made G5s that had both a DVI and an ADC port? (I do; I have one.)
Full-sized DVI ports are HUGE. The mini-DVI and miniDisplayPort take up LESS room than one full-sized DVI port.
This isn't unprecedented. And I'm not convinced that it's illogical, either. This way, there's legacy support, and you also have support for what they HOPE will be a new display standard? but which could just as easily go the way of... the ADC port.
Remember when Apple made G5s that had both a DVI and an ADC port? (I do; I have one.)
Full-sized DVI ports are HUGE. The mini-DVI and miniDisplayPort take up LESS room than one full-sized DVI port.
This isn't unprecedented. And I'm not convinced that it's illogical, either. This way, there's legacy support, and you also have support for what they HOPE will be a new display standard? but which could just as easily go the way of... the ADC port.
But it's not legacy support; it's an Apple-only port that requires an Apple-supplied adapter to be any use with legacy DVI. Same for Mini-DP. So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
Given that:
-the Mini is positioned a low-end consumer grade machine
-that Apple removed FW400 from the low-end consumer MacBook
-that Apple is still selling the previous model MacBook with FW400
I would say it is quite unlikely that Apple would upgrade the Mini from FW400 to FW800.
I think it would be more likely that Apple might lead the way to USB 3.0 (presuming there is a chipset available), and include a USB 3 port (and either have all USB 3 ports, which are backwards compatible with USB 2 or have several other USB 2 ports, depending on cost & chipset capabilities).
USB3.0 will be backwards compatible in signal and connector with 2.0 and 1.0, but it is not ready yet and we will surely see it in their mainstream machines first.
Apple removed FW400 from all their notebooks. Space constraints seem to be the reason as they didn't include an additional FW800 or USB2.0 in it's place. I see no reason for the Mini and iMac with their ample space to forego FW altogether, just because they are not prosumer machines.
PS: I call fake on the image.
The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?
I have the feeling that a large proportion of Mac users have the Stockholm syndrome: being held hostage by Apple at 2/3 USB ports for way too long.
I think people need to be reminded that the mini was never designed to be wire-free, like the iMac, so the aesthetic argument does not apply here. In addition, the mini is mainly marketed towards switchers, many of whom are used to 7+ USB ports, which are the norm on PCs. Also, this is a mere ONE port increase over the current Mac mini, so I fail to see how this could be classified as such a dramatic change. Finally, since when did USB port become associated with pro-level computing?
That still doesn't explain the presence of the mini-DVI port.
The chipset probably has a single DisplayPort interface alongside the DVI interface. One of each is the best Apple can do. How much as mini-DVI -> DVI adaptors? Are there mini-DVI -> VGA adaptors? I would expect a mini-DVI -> DVI adaptor in the box, so that it can work with existing monitors.
Mini-displayport -> VGA adaptors are active, and more expensive.
And it doesn't seem Apple is supporting daisy-chaining on its DP display, so maybe two ports would be a safer hedge. Also allows someone to run one DVI and one DP monitor.
Point taken about the adaptors being crap, but I can't imagine Jobs/Cook getting up on stage and saying "yeah, our DP-DVI adapters are pretty crap, so we shoved a mini-DVI port on there for DVI users... those adapters work better."
They'll just say it expands the options available to the user.
But it's not legacy support; it's an Apple-only port that requires an Apple-supplied adapter to be any use with legacy DVI. Same for Mini-DP. So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
Because people that are using a Mini with their 3rd-party monitor may want to update their Mini without paying an additional 5% just for a new adapter?
PS: I really hope the Mini power input is MagSafe compliant so you can run the new Apple display more seamlessly. With a bracket to keep it gitmly in place, of course.
If the picture is real, there doesn't seem to be a physical redesign in size, shape or color. Which kind of makes you wonder what is taking them so long to release it.
I'm guessing the configuration will be based on the White MacBook. Namely 2GHz Core 2 Duo on a 1066MHz FSB, with the 9400M but using 2GB DDR2 667 memory instead of DDR3. Although the 2GHz P7350 has actually been replaced with the 2.13GHz P7450 so maybe Apple will be nice enough to use that instead, but I doubt it seeing they stuck with the 2GHz P7350 for the White MacBook.
What's the point of redesigning a machine whose design philosophy is to be almost invisible? Besides, I fail to see how the unibody style could be applied to the mini without making it look ugly. The mini is beautiful as it is.
Not necessary and and easy cost saving measure. I call fake as well.
PS: I really hope the Mini power input is MagSafe compliant so you can run the new Apple display more seamlessly. With a bracket to keep it gitmly in place, of course.
Most people who purchase a mini are not in the market for a new ACD. Besides, there is very little risk of wire tripping with a desktop machine, so the main advantage of MagSafe does not apply here. Finally, I don't think the 23in ACD can supply enough power to run a mini.
The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?
Some items don't work very well hooked up via a hub. For instance, I have found with my mini that an external DVD burner works more reliably connected directly to the computer and I was also having issues with my iPod Touch. Right now I'm sharing a port for those two because I haven't got enough of them to give them each one.
Not everyone who buys a mini does so with the notion of not hooking much up to it and just using the thing for low-level computing. I'm using mine for Photoshop, have assorted hard drives attached to it, etc.
A fifth USB port would be welcome by me and I'm sure others are well.
5 USB ports lined up on the back.... it just looks wrong. Steve Jobs isn't about loading up on ports.
Not necessary and and easy cost saving measure. I call fake as well.
Well considering that the new 24-inch Cinema Display has USB to power the display's USB hub and iSight camera, I think Apple was thinking that many of their customers would reject losing a USB port if they kept the same number of USB ports as before.
So why not just simplify things and have two Mini-DP adapters?
Why would Apple want to continue to have to manufacture Mini-DVI to DVI adapters?
2) They have to continue making them anyway! The current white MacBook doesn't have mini-DP. (Considering they're still making ADC adapters, I think they're going to be making Mini-DVI adapters for a LOOOOONG time, regardless of whether their current machines still use it.)
1) I don't know! It's a valid question. Maybe for the customers who already HAVE mini-DVI adapters, or so that they can support DVI-D adapters, because the only Mini-DisplayPort to DVI adapter they make is DVI-I only.
(EDIT: MarceloR makes a really good point below, though.)
Display port can be daisy-chained so no need to have more than one. However, one Mini DVI and one display port means one or two of your display can be DVI.