Ok, so there is a store near me with a MM core 2 duo 2.53Ghz w/4G RAM w/ Snow leopard Server for $647.
I know when 10.7 comes out that I will not need server anymore, but this is $30 cheaper than the model non server model now.
Do you think this is a better deal/MM than what you think the new MM will be??
Thanks in advance.
The server version does not have an optical drive. You can always hook up an external one but you should be aware of this if you're going to use it as a home media center thingy.
The server version does not have an optical drive. You can always hook up an external one but you should be aware of this if you're going to use it as a home media center thingy.
I did notice that, but I can not remember the last time I used optical media. I download/stream about everything I watch. I was assuming that it could use another drive on either my iMac or the other MM, is that correct?
I guess I dont know if its better to wait for the next upgrade, or take advantage of this MM.I am more worried about how the picture looks than anything else.
I did notice that, but I can not remember the last time I used optical media. I download/stream about everything I watch. I was assuming that it could use another drive on either my iMac or the other MM, is that correct?
I guess I dont know if its better to wait for the next upgrade, or take advantage of this MM.I am more worried about how the picture looks than anything else.
What software are you going to use for your mm home media center? Will it work on OSX server?
I would probably just be patient and wait for a current entry level model to show up at the Apple refurb store and jump on it. You can add an additional 2 gbs of RAM and it should work well for your purposes.
What software are you going to use for your mm home media center? Will it work on OSX server?
I would probably just be patient and wait for a current entry level model to show up at the Apple refurb store and jump on it. You can add an additional 2 gbs of RAM and it should work well for your purposes.
I got rid of Directv, and plan to use the MM's to use Hulu, and download movies off the internet. Not using any software really.
My current MM can not stream 1080p movies from my TC. I am fine with this in my bedroom, but I want the one in my living room to be able to do this.
Is the problem video on your HDD or from Hulu, Netflix ect..?
Let me rephrase the question.
Do your 1080 video problems occur when you're streaming video directly from the internet or is this content already on your HDD.
If its on your HDD, which machine? How does it play on that machine?
I have a lot of movies on my TC. If i try and watch them through VLC, while keeping the file on the TC it does not view well. If I move the file to my MM it works better. (1080p)
Anything less than 1080p seems to work fine, no matter where the file is.
Streaming from the hulu etc works well, but I am not sure of those are 1080/720.
I am using a 500G TC, and my MM is a little older. It is a model that is very hard to add RAM too. I think RAM may be my problem on that MM.
Like I mentioned, I got rid of Directv and plan on using only what I can download/stream.
I have a lot of movies on my TC. If i try and watch them through VLC, while keeping the file on the TC it does not view well. If I move the file to my MM it works better. (1080p)
Anything less than 1080p seems to work fine, no matter where the file is.
Streaming from the hulu etc works well, but I am not sure of those are 1080/720.
I am using a 500G TC, and my MM is a little older. It is a model that is very hard to add RAM too. I think RAM may be my problem on that MM.
Like I mentioned, I got rid of Directv and plan on using only what I can download/stream.
Lots of variables so its hard to trouble shoot where the problem is.
Since the MM can play the 1080 files locally, ie on the mini's HDD, without problems, getting a new mini isn't going to help. The problem is with either a) TC not able to stream 1080 video smoothly, b) VLC can't play 1080 video, not likely if you're using it on the mini and it can play them locally through VLC with no problems. I don't use VLC so its hard for me to comment on it.
My guess is that this is a TC issue. It would be helpful if others with a TC could chime in.
Lots of variables so its hard to trouble shoot where the problem is.
Since the MM can play the 1080 files locally, ie on the mini's HDD, without problems, getting a new mini isn't going to help. The problem is with either a) TC not able to stream 1080 video smoothly, b) VLC can't play 1080 video, not likely if you're using it on the mini and it can play them locally through VLC with no problems. I don't use VLC so its hard for me to comment on it.
My guess is that this is a TC issue. It would be helpful if others with a TC could chime in.
Thanks!
This does not solve my problem, but it does tell me I do not need to spend $$$ to do what I want. I was thinking of getting a MM server, but looks like I ca nsave $$. What I have been doing is moving the file to the MM, which is not the end of the world. I have a ps3 in the room I ca nwatch hulu with, for now. Looks like I will wait a month or so and see if the new MM is worht it, or buy the current at a discounted price. Hopefully people here can tell me if the new one will do anything for what I am looking to do.
Regarding HD3000 IGP and 1080P playback. I have a camcorder which produces 27Mb/s 1080/60p files and 17Mb/s 1080/60i files.
I have the current 17" MBP. Playing back either type of file does not invoke the Radeon and plays via the HD3000. 60i files play back fine but 60p files stutter continuously after about 3 seconds. Of course, they play back smooth as butter via GPU.
Last summer I was able to buy the new 2.4 Ghz aluminum Mac Mini off eBay modified with an internal 250GB SSD and 8GB of RAM for about $1,000. It was used some but it's a clean killer machine and I use it for everything.
Even though I've never once needed to use the SuperDrive, I consider this a much better deal than the $999 "Mac Mini with Snow Leopard Server" at 2.66 Ghz and Dual 500GB 7200-rpm HDs, lacking a SuperDrive. So it's the high-end Mini that lacks a SuperDrive that I'm really looking at for improvement.
The "server" edition of Mac OS X is going by the wayside. Everything that was in server will be an optional install with Lion. So there's no separate license and therefore no need for separate marketing for the high-end Mini as "server." How will this change the Mac Mini brand?
What are the odds that in a few months Apple will make something that's a better deal than the setup I mentioned above? They place a premium on RAM and SSD, and their redesign of the Mini to make RAM more accessible shows they know this. So how about a redesign internally of the high-end Mini to make SSD installation easy as well.
This is about the best I can hope for. I seriously doubt we'll get the Core i7. Much more likely is the 2.3 Ghz Core i5, even for the high end Mini. And that's even if they wait 20 months to update or price drop the Mini, which they've been known to do...
Maybe it's time to reconsider the point of having a Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. The reason is that Thunderbolt would allow for externals to be viable for high-performance use.
Instead of offering a Mini at the low end and a Mac Pro at the high end, bring out a form factor to replace both, configurable with the power a particular customer needs.
So you start off with a base model checking in just shy of $1,000 with quad-core power and a modest 7,200 RPM drive. Offer upgrades that take performance up to levels more necessary for power users.
Basically this new model would amount to an iMac minus the monitor. Keep the current Mini form factor for the server version with a minor upgrade.
To meet the needs of customers at the lower end of the spectrum there is the possibility of offering a Macbook at a lower price plus a lot of casual users are being well served by the iPad which will get more powerful, hence more useful, with each new version.
Seems to me that a headless iMac works now because the power available in the iMac line rivals what was available in Mac Pros not so long ago. Using similar components to a base iMac, Apple could deliver a $700 desktop that would meet the needs of many. With the ability to upgrade that basic package and with Thunderbolt making external expansion viable for power users, surely such a device would make a lot of sense.
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
This is very true and may happen faster than a lot of people think. The only thing I don't like about the current Mini is the internal power supply which limits flexibility.
Quote:
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
The Mini really needs to go quad core with the SB rev. I'd accept slow maximum clocks to get the extra cores.
Quote:
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
The Mini is great for what it is, the Pro however is buggard. As you noted components are getting much smaller there is little reason for that massive tower. It is one of the reasons I like the rumor about the Pro being trimmed down to a rack size component. Shrink the physical size and produce a machine that can easily morph into a platform that meets user needs. One of those configurations ought to be a low cost mother board with a middle of the road CPU and GPU.
Quote:
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
They need a chassis that can accept a standardized mother board. One of those mother boards should be configured for low cost with a discrete GPU soldered right on the board.
Quote:
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
I don't believe Apple puts much thought at all into the desktop line up. Their focus is on the portable line up.
Quote:
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
For people that need it such a beast would be worth at any reasonable price point. What Apple needs is platform where all they need to do is swap the power supply and the mother board to go from mid range to super computer.
Quote:
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
Honestly I'm a bit frustrated with Apple right now. I fully expected them to take their Blade SSD solution a little farther than they have. Blade technology could allow for a huge amount of chassis innovation if they would press forward.
As to the Mini update I'd still like to see AMDs Fusion processor in the machine. Llanos OpenCL compatible GPU ought to out perform the Intel solution. The Mini has never been about CPU performance so all they really need to do is out perform the 2GHz Core 2
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
My view on this is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro are overdue for a major overhaul. Personally I think what should happen is that Apple kill off both models and replace them with one device that can be ordered with as much power as the end user requires. The key piece to making this possible is that Thunderbolt now makes external expansion viable.
As a result, one doesn't need a large tower that can accommodate lots of storage. Right now I have a 3TB drive running via Firewire 800 off my Mini and the performance is fine for what I need. With the speed of Thunderbolt, all manner of high-performance drive solutions could be employed outside the base device with the necessary throughput to do heavy lifting.
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000. Such a device would, I think, meet the needs of most if not all of those already using headless Mac desktops. There would be a cost saving for Apple because development would be reduced down to one form factor. On the pro side, there would be a significant cost saving compared to buying the existing Mac Pro model and on the consumer side, for similar prices to the Mini, much better performance would be offered. I can't see the down side of this for anyone.
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
By the way, if this is about the long term, certainly one has to ask, what's the value of having the Mac Pro if even the lesser models in the range can handle pro-calibre demands. Certainly if one is running a business, saving money has to be regarded as a good thing. If a mid-range model can be configured with enough variations to meet many needs, that's a win/win. Apple didn't have the technology to offer one form factor to meet multiple needs before but it is there now. As such, why not take advantage of it? After all, if the headless desktop has become more of a niche product, why fragment your offerings for that segment. Not the way that Apple usually does business. Seems to me that there has been so much focus on other products that Apple's usually rational approach hasn't been applied to its headless desktop range.
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000
I like the concept of a Cube:
Certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the current Mac Pro and offers more space for flexibility than the Mini as well as providing a suitable volume of airflow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
There are a few reasons. Let's assume that they use a built-in mobile GPU like the iMac, which I think is faster than the Mac Pro ones anyway and also assume that the PCI slots are no more and 4 Thunderbolt ports are used for expansion.
Could you fit two Xeon CPUs and a PSU powerful enough to handle them alongside 4 x 2.5" drives in a Cube chassis? You possibly could but it wouldn't be easy and it would place a lot of restrictions on current Mac Pro buyers.
In practical terms, I think people would quite easily adapt to the restrictions though and if the GPU was in an MXM slot, then it allows an upgrade path.
Thunderbolt isn't as fast as a PCI slot and people will have cards they currently own and need to use but I doubt it will have much of an impact if a suitable solution is in place.
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Plus, thinking a few years into the future, it would probably need to revert back to the Mini form factor.
I think the two form factors work ok separately but they could make better decisions in both. Keep updating the Mini as soon as new parts are available and maintain decent graphics performance. Keep the entry Mac Pro price under $2,000 and completely overhaul the design to be smaller and lighter.
Certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the current Mac Pro and offers more space for flexibility than the Mini as well as providing a suitable volume of airflow.
There are a few reasons. Let's assume that they use a built-in mobile GPU like the iMac, which I think is faster than the Mac Pro ones anyway and also assume that the PCI slots are no more and 4 Thunderbolt ports are used for expansion.
Could you fit two Xeon CPUs and a PSU powerful enough to handle them alongside 4 x 2.5" drives in a Cube chassis? You possibly could but it wouldn't be easy and it would place a lot of restrictions on current Mac Pro buyers.
In practical terms, I think people would quite easily adapt to the restrictions though and if the GPU was in an MXM slot, then it allows an upgrade path.
Thunderbolt isn't as fast as a PCI slot and people will have cards they currently own and need to use but I doubt it will have much of an impact if a suitable solution is in place.
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Plus, thinking a few years into the future, it would probably need to revert back to the Mini form factor.
I think the two form factors work ok separately but they could make better decisions in both. Keep updating the Mini as soon as new parts are available and maintain decent graphics performance. Keep the entry Mac Pro price under $2,000 and completely overhaul the design to be smaller and lighter.
A smaller, lighter Mac Pro checking in below $2,000 would make for an appealing bridge product to the Mini. As it stands, the difference in price between a fully-speced Mini and an entry Mac Pro is so great that I doubt many would seriously consider taking such a leap.
Now that Sandy Bridge desktop processors, like the ones found in the iMac, are so capable, it does mean that if Apple were to develop a tower based around that technology, the price of entry to the Mac Pro line would be substantially reduced. Also reduced would be the form factor. Bring in such a machine at let's say $1499, and quite a few consumers looking for something more than is offered by the Mini would take the plunge. The catch is that modest Mini sales would end up dipping below levels that would justify continuing to sell the machine.
Drop a little further from there, maybe around $1,199 for a base headless tower and you'd likely see most of your current Mini sales retained via that offering.
So the question is, can Apple build a $1,199 desktop tower with the flexibility to be given enough power to meet the needs of pro users for a price north of that mark. In other words, is the time right for a one-size-fits-all headless Mac. I think it is in that the performance offered by Intel chips that would not require a Mac Pro grade enclosure, is now such that pro users can get the job done. This situation can only improve since we all know that performance continues to be tweaked higher for a comparable amount of wattage. Ivy Bridge will raise the bar that much more and beyond that there will be further gains. If you're a Pro customer and you can get enough computing muscle for significantly less money, that's a positive.
I can't speak for other Mini customers (I'm on my third MIni) but myself I'd gladly drop a few extra dollars to acquire a much more powerful machine. My Mini didn't cost that much less than $1,000. Keep in mind that Apple has another product aimed at meeting the computing needs of less demanding customers that wasn't there when the Mini first came to market. It's the iPad. Right now the iPad is not a true computer replacement but it will not be long before it is.
The only reason Mini sales haven't fallen off to unsustainable levels is that the jump up to the Mac Pro is an excessive one. But I would hate to think that Apple refuses to bring to market a decent $1,200 headless desktop because it would cut into Mini sales. Yet I don't think there is any doubt that the majority of current Mini owners are like me in that they would opt for a $1,200 entry-level Mac Tower if such a device existed, in place of owning the Mini. Instead it's either settle for the Mini or pay $2,400 for a Mac Pro.
So much has changed since the time when Apple plotted the headless desktop strategy that has played out these past few years. A re-think is in order.
Comments
A new mini should do 1080p without any trouble at all. The current mini should do 1080p pretty easily. What MM do you currently have?
PS Your user name is awesome. Well done.
Ferris.
I am at work and can not remember which MM I have, will post when I get home.
And thanks!
I know when 10.7 comes out that I will not need server anymore, but this is $30 cheaper than the model non server model now.
Do you think this is a better deal/MM than what you think the new MM will be??
Thanks in advance.
Ok, so there is a store near me with a MM core 2 duo 2.53Ghz w/4G RAM w/ Snow leopard Server for $647.
I know when 10.7 comes out that I will not need server anymore, but this is $30 cheaper than the model non server model now.
Do you think this is a better deal/MM than what you think the new MM will be??
Thanks in advance.
The server version does not have an optical drive. You can always hook up an external one but you should be aware of this if you're going to use it as a home media center thingy.
The server version does not have an optical drive. You can always hook up an external one but you should be aware of this if you're going to use it as a home media center thingy.
I did notice that, but I can not remember the last time I used optical media. I download/stream about everything I watch. I was assuming that it could use another drive on either my iMac or the other MM, is that correct?
I guess I dont know if its better to wait for the next upgrade, or take advantage of this MM.I am more worried about how the picture looks than anything else.
I did notice that, but I can not remember the last time I used optical media. I download/stream about everything I watch. I was assuming that it could use another drive on either my iMac or the other MM, is that correct?
I guess I dont know if its better to wait for the next upgrade, or take advantage of this MM.I am more worried about how the picture looks than anything else.
What software are you going to use for your mm home media center? Will it work on OSX server?
I would probably just be patient and wait for a current entry level model to show up at the Apple refurb store and jump on it. You can add an additional 2 gbs of RAM and it should work well for your purposes.
What software are you going to use for your mm home media center? Will it work on OSX server?
I would probably just be patient and wait for a current entry level model to show up at the Apple refurb store and jump on it. You can add an additional 2 gbs of RAM and it should work well for your purposes.
I got rid of Directv, and plan to use the MM's to use Hulu, and download movies off the internet. Not using any software really.
My current MM can not stream 1080p movies from my TC. I am fine with this in my bedroom, but I want the one in my living room to be able to do this.
Thanks for the advice.
I got rid of Directv, and plan to use the MM's to use Hulu, and download movies off the internet. Not using any software really.
Have you looked into Boxee? Might be worthwhile if you're going to hook your MM to your TV.
My current MM can not stream 1080p movies from my TC. I am fine with this in my bedroom, but I want the one in my living room to be able to do this.
.
This might be a TC issue and not related to the MM. What king of braodband connection do you have?
When viewing somethign less than 1080p, I have no issues. If the movie is on the MM it is fine, but streaming from the TC makes it all jumpy.
I download a lot of movies from different places that I could not do with a box.
Does the speed of my internet have something to do with streaming from the TC hard drive? I have 16MPS from comcast.
When viewing somethign less than 1080p, I have no issues. If the movie is on the MM it is fine, but streaming from the TC makes it all jumpy.
I download a lot of movies from different places that I could not do with a box.
Is the problem video on your HDD or from Hulu, Netflix ect..?
Let me rephrase the question.
Do your 1080 video problems occur when you're streaming video directly from the internet or is this content already on your HDD.
If its on your HDD, which machine? How does it play on that machine?
Is the problem video on your HDD or from Hulu, Netflix ect..?
Let me rephrase the question.
Do your 1080 video problems occur when you're streaming video directly from the internet or is this content already on your HDD.
If its on your HDD, which machine? How does it play on that machine?
I have a lot of movies on my TC. If i try and watch them through VLC, while keeping the file on the TC it does not view well. If I move the file to my MM it works better. (1080p)
Anything less than 1080p seems to work fine, no matter where the file is.
Streaming from the hulu etc works well, but I am not sure of those are 1080/720.
I am using a 500G TC, and my MM is a little older. It is a model that is very hard to add RAM too. I think RAM may be my problem on that MM.
Like I mentioned, I got rid of Directv and plan on using only what I can download/stream.
I have a lot of movies on my TC. If i try and watch them through VLC, while keeping the file on the TC it does not view well. If I move the file to my MM it works better. (1080p)
Anything less than 1080p seems to work fine, no matter where the file is.
Streaming from the hulu etc works well, but I am not sure of those are 1080/720.
I am using a 500G TC, and my MM is a little older. It is a model that is very hard to add RAM too. I think RAM may be my problem on that MM.
Like I mentioned, I got rid of Directv and plan on using only what I can download/stream.
Lots of variables so its hard to trouble shoot where the problem is.
Since the MM can play the 1080 files locally, ie on the mini's HDD, without problems, getting a new mini isn't going to help. The problem is with either a) TC not able to stream 1080 video smoothly, b) VLC can't play 1080 video, not likely if you're using it on the mini and it can play them locally through VLC with no problems. I don't use VLC so its hard for me to comment on it.
My guess is that this is a TC issue. It would be helpful if others with a TC could chime in.
Lots of variables so its hard to trouble shoot where the problem is.
Since the MM can play the 1080 files locally, ie on the mini's HDD, without problems, getting a new mini isn't going to help. The problem is with either a) TC not able to stream 1080 video smoothly, b) VLC can't play 1080 video, not likely if you're using it on the mini and it can play them locally through VLC with no problems. I don't use VLC so its hard for me to comment on it.
My guess is that this is a TC issue. It would be helpful if others with a TC could chime in.
Thanks!
This does not solve my problem, but it does tell me I do not need to spend $$$ to do what I want. I was thinking of getting a MM server, but looks like I ca nsave $$. What I have been doing is moving the file to the MM, which is not the end of the world. I have a ps3 in the room I ca nwatch hulu with, for now. Looks like I will wait a month or so and see if the new MM is worht it, or buy the current at a discounted price. Hopefully people here can tell me if the new one will do anything for what I am looking to do.
Again, Thanks!
I have the current 17" MBP. Playing back either type of file does not invoke the Radeon and plays via the HD3000. 60i files play back fine but 60p files stutter continuously after about 3 seconds. Of course, they play back smooth as butter via GPU.
Even though I've never once needed to use the SuperDrive, I consider this a much better deal than the $999 "Mac Mini with Snow Leopard Server" at 2.66 Ghz and Dual 500GB 7200-rpm HDs, lacking a SuperDrive. So it's the high-end Mini that lacks a SuperDrive that I'm really looking at for improvement.
The "server" edition of Mac OS X is going by the wayside. Everything that was in server will be an optional install with Lion. So there's no separate license and therefore no need for separate marketing for the high-end Mini as "server." How will this change the Mac Mini brand?
What are the odds that in a few months Apple will make something that's a better deal than the setup I mentioned above? They place a premium on RAM and SSD, and their redesign of the Mini to make RAM more accessible shows they know this. So how about a redesign internally of the high-end Mini to make SSD installation easy as well.
This is about the best I can hope for. I seriously doubt we'll get the Core i7. Much more likely is the 2.3 Ghz Core i5, even for the high end Mini. And that's even if they wait 20 months to update or price drop the Mini, which they've been known to do...
Instead of offering a Mini at the low end and a Mac Pro at the high end, bring out a form factor to replace both, configurable with the power a particular customer needs.
So you start off with a base model checking in just shy of $1,000 with quad-core power and a modest 7,200 RPM drive. Offer upgrades that take performance up to levels more necessary for power users.
Basically this new model would amount to an iMac minus the monitor. Keep the current Mini form factor for the server version with a minor upgrade.
To meet the needs of customers at the lower end of the spectrum there is the possibility of offering a Macbook at a lower price plus a lot of casual users are being well served by the iPad which will get more powerful, hence more useful, with each new version.
Seems to me that a headless iMac works now because the power available in the iMac line rivals what was available in Mac Pros not so long ago. Using similar components to a base iMac, Apple could deliver a $700 desktop that would meet the needs of many. With the ability to upgrade that basic package and with Thunderbolt making external expansion viable for power users, surely such a device would make a lot of sense.
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
Current Macbook Pro entry level - 6440:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/408439
2008 quad 3GHz Mac Pro - 7268:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/348740
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
This is very true and may happen faster than a lot of people think. The only thing I don't like about the current Mini is the internal power supply which limits flexibility.
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
The Mini really needs to go quad core with the SB rev. I'd accept slow maximum clocks to get the extra cores.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
The Mini is great for what it is, the Pro however is buggard. As you noted components are getting much smaller there is little reason for that massive tower. It is one of the reasons I like the rumor about the Pro being trimmed down to a rack size component. Shrink the physical size and produce a machine that can easily morph into a platform that meets user needs. One of those configurations ought to be a low cost mother board with a middle of the road CPU and GPU.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
They need a chassis that can accept a standardized mother board. One of those mother boards should be configured for low cost with a discrete GPU soldered right on the board.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
I don't believe Apple puts much thought at all into the desktop line up. Their focus is on the portable line up.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
For people that need it such a beast would be worth at any reasonable price point. What Apple needs is platform where all they need to do is swap the power supply and the mother board to go from mid range to super computer.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
Honestly I'm a bit frustrated with Apple right now. I fully expected them to take their Blade SSD solution a little farther than they have. Blade technology could allow for a huge amount of chassis innovation if they would press forward.
As to the Mini update I'd still like to see AMDs Fusion processor in the machine. Llanos OpenCL compatible GPU ought to out perform the Intel solution. The Mini has never been about CPU performance so all they really need to do is out perform the 2GHz Core 2
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
Current Macbook Pro entry level - 6440:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/408439
2008 quad 3GHz Mac Pro - 7268:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/348740
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
My view on this is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro are overdue for a major overhaul. Personally I think what should happen is that Apple kill off both models and replace them with one device that can be ordered with as much power as the end user requires. The key piece to making this possible is that Thunderbolt now makes external expansion viable.
As a result, one doesn't need a large tower that can accommodate lots of storage. Right now I have a 3TB drive running via Firewire 800 off my Mini and the performance is fine for what I need. With the speed of Thunderbolt, all manner of high-performance drive solutions could be employed outside the base device with the necessary throughput to do heavy lifting.
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000. Such a device would, I think, meet the needs of most if not all of those already using headless Mac desktops. There would be a cost saving for Apple because development would be reduced down to one form factor. On the pro side, there would be a significant cost saving compared to buying the existing Mac Pro model and on the consumer side, for similar prices to the Mini, much better performance would be offered. I can't see the down side of this for anyone.
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
By the way, if this is about the long term, certainly one has to ask, what's the value of having the Mac Pro if even the lesser models in the range can handle pro-calibre demands. Certainly if one is running a business, saving money has to be regarded as a good thing. If a mid-range model can be configured with enough variations to meet many needs, that's a win/win. Apple didn't have the technology to offer one form factor to meet multiple needs before but it is there now. As such, why not take advantage of it? After all, if the headless desktop has become more of a niche product, why fragment your offerings for that segment. Not the way that Apple usually does business. Seems to me that there has been so much focus on other products that Apple's usually rational approach hasn't been applied to its headless desktop range.
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000
I like the concept of a Cube:
Certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the current Mac Pro and offers more space for flexibility than the Mini as well as providing a suitable volume of airflow.
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
There are a few reasons. Let's assume that they use a built-in mobile GPU like the iMac, which I think is faster than the Mac Pro ones anyway and also assume that the PCI slots are no more and 4 Thunderbolt ports are used for expansion.
Could you fit two Xeon CPUs and a PSU powerful enough to handle them alongside 4 x 2.5" drives in a Cube chassis? You possibly could but it wouldn't be easy and it would place a lot of restrictions on current Mac Pro buyers.
In practical terms, I think people would quite easily adapt to the restrictions though and if the GPU was in an MXM slot, then it allows an upgrade path.
Thunderbolt isn't as fast as a PCI slot and people will have cards they currently own and need to use but I doubt it will have much of an impact if a suitable solution is in place.
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Plus, thinking a few years into the future, it would probably need to revert back to the Mini form factor.
I think the two form factors work ok separately but they could make better decisions in both. Keep updating the Mini as soon as new parts are available and maintain decent graphics performance. Keep the entry Mac Pro price under $2,000 and completely overhaul the design to be smaller and lighter.
I like the concept of a Cube:
Certainly more aesthetically pleasing than the current Mac Pro and offers more space for flexibility than the Mini as well as providing a suitable volume of airflow.
There are a few reasons. Let's assume that they use a built-in mobile GPU like the iMac, which I think is faster than the Mac Pro ones anyway and also assume that the PCI slots are no more and 4 Thunderbolt ports are used for expansion.
Could you fit two Xeon CPUs and a PSU powerful enough to handle them alongside 4 x 2.5" drives in a Cube chassis? You possibly could but it wouldn't be easy and it would place a lot of restrictions on current Mac Pro buyers.
In practical terms, I think people would quite easily adapt to the restrictions though and if the GPU was in an MXM slot, then it allows an upgrade path.
Thunderbolt isn't as fast as a PCI slot and people will have cards they currently own and need to use but I doubt it will have much of an impact if a suitable solution is in place.
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Plus, thinking a few years into the future, it would probably need to revert back to the Mini form factor.
I think the two form factors work ok separately but they could make better decisions in both. Keep updating the Mini as soon as new parts are available and maintain decent graphics performance. Keep the entry Mac Pro price under $2,000 and completely overhaul the design to be smaller and lighter.
A smaller, lighter Mac Pro checking in below $2,000 would make for an appealing bridge product to the Mini. As it stands, the difference in price between a fully-speced Mini and an entry Mac Pro is so great that I doubt many would seriously consider taking such a leap.
Now that Sandy Bridge desktop processors, like the ones found in the iMac, are so capable, it does mean that if Apple were to develop a tower based around that technology, the price of entry to the Mac Pro line would be substantially reduced. Also reduced would be the form factor. Bring in such a machine at let's say $1499, and quite a few consumers looking for something more than is offered by the Mini would take the plunge. The catch is that modest Mini sales would end up dipping below levels that would justify continuing to sell the machine.
Drop a little further from there, maybe around $1,199 for a base headless tower and you'd likely see most of your current Mini sales retained via that offering.
So the question is, can Apple build a $1,199 desktop tower with the flexibility to be given enough power to meet the needs of pro users for a price north of that mark. In other words, is the time right for a one-size-fits-all headless Mac. I think it is in that the performance offered by Intel chips that would not require a Mac Pro grade enclosure, is now such that pro users can get the job done. This situation can only improve since we all know that performance continues to be tweaked higher for a comparable amount of wattage. Ivy Bridge will raise the bar that much more and beyond that there will be further gains. If you're a Pro customer and you can get enough computing muscle for significantly less money, that's a positive.
I can't speak for other Mini customers (I'm on my third MIni) but myself I'd gladly drop a few extra dollars to acquire a much more powerful machine. My Mini didn't cost that much less than $1,000. Keep in mind that Apple has another product aimed at meeting the computing needs of less demanding customers that wasn't there when the Mini first came to market. It's the iPad. Right now the iPad is not a true computer replacement but it will not be long before it is.
The only reason Mini sales haven't fallen off to unsustainable levels is that the jump up to the Mac Pro is an excessive one. But I would hate to think that Apple refuses to bring to market a decent $1,200 headless desktop because it would cut into Mini sales. Yet I don't think there is any doubt that the majority of current Mini owners are like me in that they would opt for a $1,200 entry-level Mac Tower if such a device existed, in place of owning the Mini. Instead it's either settle for the Mini or pay $2,400 for a Mac Pro.
So much has changed since the time when Apple plotted the headless desktop strategy that has played out these past few years. A re-think is in order.