What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
I would want 7200 rpm drives but other than that I like your style. Apple just seems clueless that some of us want some internal space without having to drop $2499 for a Mac Pro.
I had an idea for a taller Mini (or xMac or whatever) that had room for two hard drives, optical drive, jacks and slots on the front for ease of use, easy open case, and a couple of iPhone or iPod docks on the top for charging your portable Apple devices when you come home. I would even include built in speakers that could be powered even when the computer is off. You can save energy by listening through your docked iPod instead of running your computer just for music. Believe it or not there are some things people like to do that doesn't involve a computer.
And I think it would be great to have fewer cords laying around and know where you put your phone in the house if you simply docked it on top of your Apple computer for charging.
Putting all that in a case and it wouldn't have to more than 12 inches tall if even that much. Sure beats the size of the Mac Pro.
If Apple built it I would pay $1500 for it with one hard drive and the optical drive. I'll buy the second drive myself. Just give me internal room for it! If Apple computers had charging docks on top I might even get interested in the iPod and iPhone.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size.
I have a quicksilver G4. So tell me...what do you have in your G4 that I don't have with my 2009 mini? What do you actually want to stick in it and how often do/did you actually change the config?
I have 4GB RAM and a 2TB of disk (2 TB 7200 RPM caviar green RAID 1) via Firewire 800. I'm getting 77MB/sec uncached sequential read via xbench and 61MB/sec uncached sequential writes via Firewire.
That's actually not that different from what I'm getting from the 7200 caviar black inside the mini.
Want to bet the crappy 9400M outperforms whatever GPU you have in the G4?
So tell me...what do you have in your G4 that I don't have with my 2009 mini?
Two hard drives and an optical drive.
If the Mini was taller and had room for three devices it would be perfect for my needs.
Sure I could use external drives but no one makes an external case that matches the 2010 Mini. But honestly I prefer internal for things I will use often. Cleaner, neater and doesn't mess up the looks that Apple spent a lot of time perfecting. I guess Apple wants people to hide its nice looking products with non matching third party external devices.
Sure I could use external drives but no one makes an external case that matches the 2010 Mini. But honestly I prefer internal for things I will use often. Cleaner, neater and doesn't mess up the looks that Apple spent a lot of time perfecting. I guess Apple wants people to hide its nice looking products with non matching third party external devices.
Ministacks never worked all that great. I leave the mini out so i can use the ir more easiky but the enclosure is tucked away in the entertainment center. No need to hide the mini itself.
A wireless NAS works too but slower than a FireWire or Thunderbolt connection. An updated raid1 time capsule with thunderbolt and matches the mini looks would be more useful to me.
You do know that you can easily add HDDs via either the USB or FireWire ports on the mini, right??
So? I see this non sense constantly, that is people express a desire for a box that supports internal expansion of storage and then some joker comes around and suggests USB. This might be to difficult for some to digest but such an arraingement is unacceptable for many uses.
Quote:
Not to mention the probability of the Sandy bridge refresh bringing Thunderbolt to the mini?
So you want to tie up your one high speed port for secondary storage? Especially when you consider that most COU chip sets come with plenty of SATA ports.
Quote:
And the RAM is an easy swap with the access door on the bottom of the mini? As for graphics & CPU speed, whatever the Sandy Bridge refresh brings will be light years ahead of your aged PowerMac G4?
While this is very true, the Sandy Bridge GPU leaves a lot to be desired relative to what is possible today. To put it bluntly buying into hardware that doesn't support OpenCL and strong 3D is not wise in my mind. At least not in the context of most users.
Quote:
Plus, you still get to use Mac OS X, as opposed to Windows sludge?!
Windows isn't perfect but neither is Mac OS. The Mac is hurt though due to the limited hardware available from Apple. For example a Mini with only the Sandy Bridge GPU isn't a bad thing for a limited class of users. It is however a significant problem for more mainstream users. The reality is that these days the GPU can be used to accelerate apps like Safari and others that might not heavily advertised. So to put it bluntly aMini without OpenCL support on the GPU is a bad buy for most users. That is in the context of today's tech and reflect Apples interest in heterogeneous computing.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
Actually the laptop parts in the Mini result in a big power usage benefit. In any event we shouldn't discount the Mini simply because it doesn't meet our needs. Other than being a bit outdated the current Mini isn't that bad and could see a considerable bump with the next round of updates.
The need or desire for an XMac really has noyhing to do with the Mini as the Mini has it's niche.
Quote:
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
I see the days of a dedicated GPU going away for midrange devices. Further the XMac needs "slots" for several storage modules. For me that is really the whole point bin the XMac, that is the ability to add several storage devices internal to the box. I really don't care if they are laptop sized drives or slots for solid state modules. The idea is to be able to grow the machine.
Quote:
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
yep CPU performance is a factor here though I might mention that 45 watt laptop chips exist.
Quote:
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
They also waste a lot of space. This is especially ugly when the internal parts are laptop sized.
Quote:
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
Well that last idea I disagree with 100%. Apple needs to promote it's hardware better, especially the desktop line up.
So? I see this non sense constantly, that is people express a desire for a box that supports internal expansion of storage and then some joker comes around and suggests USB. This might be to difficult for some to digest but such an arraingement is unacceptable for many uses.
So you want to tie up your one high speed port for secondary storage? Especially when you consider that most COU chip sets come with plenty of SATA ports.
While this is very true, the Sandy Bridge GPU leaves a lot to be desired relative to what is possible today. To put it bluntly buying into hardware that doesn't support OpenCL and strong 3D is not wise in my mind. At least not in the context of most users.
Windows isn't perfect but neither is Mac OS. The Mac is hurt though due to the limited hardware available from Apple. For example a Mini with only the Sandy Bridge GPU isn't a bad thing for a limited class of users. It is however a significant problem for more mainstream users. The reality is that these days the GPU can be used to accelerate apps like Safari and others that might not heavily advertised. So to put it bluntly aMini without OpenCL support on the GPU is a bad buy for most users. That is in the context of today's tech and reflect Apples interest in heterogeneous computing.
Aside from USB, I also mentioned FireWire?
As for tying up the Thunderbolt port, is it not capable of daisy-chaining together up to six peripherals??!? From Apple's website, regarding Thunderbolt:
Quote:
Thunderbolt I/O technology gives you two channels on the same connector with 10 Gbps of throughput in both directions. That makes Thunderbolt ultrafast and ultraflexible. You can move data to and from peripherals up to 20 times faster than with USB 2.0 and up to 12 times faster than with FireWire 800. You also have more than enough bandwidth to daisy-chain multiple high-speed devices without using a hub or switch. For example, you can connect several high-performance external disks, a video capture device, and even a Mini DisplayPort display to a single Thunderbolt chain while maintaining maximum throughput.
I would agree on the GPU & OpenCL support issue; I did not take that into consideration?
But I would also think that external GPUs connected via Thunderbolt might be a future consideration? I only mention such a solution to keep the post in the context of a non-AIO Mac that is also NOT a Mac Pro?
Who knows though, maybe the forthcoming redesigned (knocking on wood here) Mac Pro will also bring more configuration flexibility and a lower entry point price-wise??!?
It really makes no difference, the problem isn't the interface cable, it is rather that the devices are external to your main box.
Quote:
As for tying up the Thunderbolt port, is it not capable of daisy-chaining together up to six peripherals??!? From Apple's website, regarding Thunderbolt:
Which dramatically impacts your overall available bandwidth. People seem to think a TB port gas infinite bandwidth, it doesn't. In any event you still need to realize that internal drives operating off SATA chip set ports offer up a different channel for data movement. Sometimes anyways as we are already seeing Apple implementing TB in different ways on different machines.
By this I mean some of Apples TB implementations rely upon the chipsets PCI Express ports that go through the chiPsets DMI bus to the processor and others hook up to the processors built in PCI Express ports. This impacts performance especially if certain uses result in a lot of traffic through the chipset. The whole point here is that you can't be sure of what sort of bandwidth you will see and that bandwidth will depend upon the actuall physical implementation.
Quote:
I would agree on the GPU & OpenCL support issue; I did not take that into consideration?
But I would also think that external GPUs connected via Thunderbolt might be a future consideration? I only mention such a solution to keep the post in the context of a non-AIO Mac that is also NOT a Mac Pro?
I'm almost certain somebody will try to market an external GPU. The problem I have is will enough users actually see a positive benefit? I don't think they will though I could see many successful specialty uses.
Quote:
Who knows though, maybe the forthcoming redesigned (knocking on wood here) Mac Pro will also bring more configuration flexibility and a lower entry point price-wise??!?
Well everybody is hoping that Apple will wise up with the Mac Pro but we also have to realize that it fills a niche that Apple shouldn't abandon. This is why I'm a big XMac promoter. XMac of course being a faster machine than the Mini with internal expansion capability.
Contrary to what many think XMac should be I'm not thinking a huge box here. Some have described a taller Mini in this thread which could really be just the nuts with the right configuration. The goal is fairly straight forward: a faster box that can grow internal storage where internal storage can be RAM or secondary storage.
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that. Frankly I think they are stuck with the same thinking they had when the hardware line up was trimmed to save the company. The problem is they saved the company but have left the desktop line up to decay and become not relavant to today's need. The big issue today in my mind is reliable storage capacity. A terabyte is no longer an unrealistic requirement for storage, especially if you are into video.
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
This may sound stupid and it may be; I don't know enough about the technology. Could a small box be designed so that it could utilize the guts from an iMac with room for additional hardware? I'm not suggesting that a newer iMac be cannibalized, but if the monitor went bad on an older model or even just use the iMac monitor with it.
This may sound stupid and it may be; I don't know enough about the technology. Could a small box be designed so that it could utilize the guts from an iMac with room for additional hardware? I'm not suggesting that a newer iMac be cannibalized, but if the monitor went bad on an older model or even just use the iMac monitor with it.
I'm sure it's possible but it would likely stoke Apple's lawyers. I would love to have such a box.
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that.
Right. The iMac is a crossover or minivan. Meets the needs of quite a few. A small hatchback is the Mini. The Mac Pro is a 4 wheel drive SUV. Tow, haul gets it all done. That leaves a lot of mid sized sedans that the XMac would be.
I've compared the Mac line up to clothes.
The iMac being an all in one would be a jumpsuit or those coverall things you see older guys wearing, shirt and pants all in one.
The Mac Pro would be a three piece suit.
The Mini would be shorts and a tank top.
Leaves a lot of room for all the shirts and slacks or tops and skirts. That would be the XMac.
Right. The iMac is a crossover or minivan. Meets the needs of quite a few. A small hatchback is the Mini. The Mac Pro is a 4 wheel drive SUV. Tow, haul gets it all done. That leaves a lot of mid sized sedans that the XMac would be.
I've compared the Mac line up to clothes.
The iMac being an all in one would be a jumpsuit or those coverall things you see older guys wearing, shirt and pants all in one.
The Mac Pro would be a three piece suit.
The Mini would be shorts and a tank top.
Leaves a lot of room for all the shirts and slacks or tops and skirts. That would be the XMac.
Has anyone seen or heard a word from an Apple executive stating the company will not
produce an Xmac? If not maybe there is still hope.
I'm still pulling for AMDs new Fusion chip. Mainly because of the excellent GPU. Plus it runs cooler.
Quote:
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
Yes. Though the number of slots is dictated by the CPU hardware.
Quote:
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
As long as their is an option to upgrade the SSD. 128GB is just a little thin for my needs. As to standards industry is working on that.
Quote:
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
I would prefer more!
Quote:
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
I'm mixed on the need for this. These cards require a massive power supply. Further I'm really thinking midrange here.
Quote:
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
Has anyone seen or heard a word from an Apple executive stating the company will not produce an Xmac? If not maybe there is still hope.
How can they build an 'xMac' when, as the name even suggests, it isn't well-defined?
If you asked them to build a Cube, they'd know what you meant; if you said a mini-tower, they'd know. A mini tower would be something like Dell's Vostro:
They could of course build whatever is in the 21.5" iMac without the display panel and it would be the size of a 21.5" screen but quite thin. If they split it in two and folded it over, it would end up being fairly compact and the 2.8GHz i7 in the 21.5", which is very fast can go in it.
But they still couldn't put any PCI slots in it, nor could they put 4 or more 3.5" drives in it. If they make it bigger then it just becomes another big ugly box like the Mac Pro.
As much as I love the design of a Cube, computer parts are flat and long so a 21.5" iMac folded in half would probably work better. To fit the parts from the 21.5" iMac, you'd be looking at something around about this size:
Spec would be:
2.8GHz i7 quad
4GB RAM
1TB HDD
512MB Radeon 6770M
$1299
But, I'd say there's not much that sets it apart. It can possibly have 4x 2.5" drives and allow you access to them and have more easily upgradable MXM graphics cards but that's about it and you still have to source your own display.
Personally, I still think the Mini is the best way forward as it retains an instant selling point. It just needs some TLC.
Give it an SSD blade, allow it to use external GPUs (it's a temporary solution), give it some 4-thread or 4-core CPUs and that's all that's needed. If it gets redesigned to keep all storage internal, it makes it bigger than needed for some people and still not enough for others. Some people won't be happy until they get 12TB internally. With Thunderbolt, you can get this storage and more no problem and it makes it far easier to upgrade your machine while leaving your data in tact.
Imagine one day having an iPhone that's as powerful as today's Mac Pro and you sit it on your desk and it drives your 27" display and connects to your 12TB RAID storage with one cable and churns through data with its 8-cores like butter while using passive cooling and you don't even have to think about it. Roll on 2020.
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
IR eye on front
That is it, no more really needed?!
Discuss, flame, whatever?! ;^p
Sounds just like my PC, just a Mac...
Gaming on Mac still blows through, just compare the number of games available on the Mac side vs PC through Steam, you'll still be using Boot Camp.
It also would probably be at the best, the size of a micro ATX tower, which would still be small, but cooling becomes problematic (cards in SLI/Crossfire get really hot, my one GPU can easily hit 80 C, the other mid 60's, and they're just lowly 5770's, and that's with an intake fan blowing right on them from the side of the case).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Spec would be:
2.8GHz i7 quad
4GB RAM
1TB HDD
512MB Radeon 6770M
$1299
But, I'd say there's not much that sets it apart. It can possibly have 4x 2.5" drives and allow you access to them and have more easily upgradable MXM graphics cards but that's about it and you still have to source your own display.
Personally, I still think the Mini is the best way forward as it retains an instant selling point. It just needs some TLC.
I can't see Apple building a slightly bigger mini now, they have that small as possible fetish. I'm still expecting Apple do to the simple road, offer a low-end Sandy Bridge CPU and Intel GMA, they don't even care about OpenCL that much.
Faster than what they have currently, but a cheap iOS dev box or 1st Mac. Past that, they offer power in the iMac for the consumers, a long in the tooth Pro for pros.
I can't see Apple building a slightly bigger mini now, they have that small as possible fetish. I'm still expecting Apple do to the simple road, offer a low-end Sandy Bridge CPU and Intel GMA, they don't even care about OpenCL that much.
I agree completely but wish things were different.
To fit the parts from the 21.5" iMac, you'd be looking at something around about this size:
Imagine one day having an iPhone that's as powerful as today's Mac Pro and you sit it on your desk and it drives your 27" display and connects to your 12TB RAID storage with one cable and churns through data with its 8-cores like butter while using passive cooling and you don't even have to think about it. Roll on 2020.
I'd like a few hits on whatever it is you're smoking. However, I think you're absolutely right - and hopefully sooner than 2020.
I posted about taking the guts from an iMac and putting it into a box (like yours) just for that purpose. The box you show could also be an enclosure for that purpose if Apple won't give us that computer. How about putting the guts of a Mini into that enclosure? I'd love that. Someone please build that enclosure.
Well that last idea I disagree with 100%. Apple needs to promote it's hardware better, especially the desktop line up.
Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.
Comments
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
I would want 7200 rpm drives but other than that I like your style. Apple just seems clueless that some of us want some internal space without having to drop $2499 for a Mac Pro.
I had an idea for a taller Mini (or xMac or whatever) that had room for two hard drives, optical drive, jacks and slots on the front for ease of use, easy open case, and a couple of iPhone or iPod docks on the top for charging your portable Apple devices when you come home. I would even include built in speakers that could be powered even when the computer is off. You can save energy by listening through your docked iPod instead of running your computer just for music. Believe it or not there are some things people like to do that doesn't involve a computer.
And I think it would be great to have fewer cords laying around and know where you put your phone in the house if you simply docked it on top of your Apple computer for charging.
Putting all that in a case and it wouldn't have to more than 12 inches tall if even that much. Sure beats the size of the Mac Pro.
If Apple built it I would pay $1500 for it with one hard drive and the optical drive. I'll buy the second drive myself. Just give me internal room for it! If Apple computers had charging docks on top I might even get interested in the iPod and iPhone.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size.
I have a quicksilver G4. So tell me...what do you have in your G4 that I don't have with my 2009 mini? What do you actually want to stick in it and how often do/did you actually change the config?
I have 4GB RAM and a 2TB of disk (2 TB 7200 RPM caviar green RAID 1) via Firewire 800. I'm getting 77MB/sec uncached sequential read via xbench and 61MB/sec uncached sequential writes via Firewire.
That's actually not that different from what I'm getting from the 7200 caviar black inside the mini.
Want to bet the crappy 9400M outperforms whatever GPU you have in the G4?
So tell me...what do you have in your G4 that I don't have with my 2009 mini?
Two hard drives and an optical drive.
If the Mini was taller and had room for three devices it would be perfect for my needs.
Sure I could use external drives but no one makes an external case that matches the 2010 Mini. But honestly I prefer internal for things I will use often. Cleaner, neater and doesn't mess up the looks that Apple spent a lot of time perfecting. I guess Apple wants people to hide its nice looking products with non matching third party external devices.
Two hard drives and an optical drive.
I have that. The enclosure is nice but black.
Sure I could use external drives but no one makes an external case that matches the 2010 Mini. But honestly I prefer internal for things I will use often. Cleaner, neater and doesn't mess up the looks that Apple spent a lot of time perfecting. I guess Apple wants people to hide its nice looking products with non matching third party external devices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIl3Dg1VmTk_NWe-tAb
new ministack shown a couple mins in
Ministacks never worked all that great. I leave the mini out so i can use the ir more easiky but the enclosure is tucked away in the entertainment center. No need to hide the mini itself.
A wireless NAS works too but slower than a FireWire or Thunderbolt connection. An updated raid1 time capsule with thunderbolt and matches the mini looks would be more useful to me.
You do know that you can easily add HDDs via either the USB or FireWire ports on the mini, right??
So? I see this non sense constantly, that is people express a desire for a box that supports internal expansion of storage and then some joker comes around and suggests USB. This might be to difficult for some to digest but such an arraingement is unacceptable for many uses.
Not to mention the probability of the Sandy bridge refresh bringing Thunderbolt to the mini?
So you want to tie up your one high speed port for secondary storage? Especially when you consider that most COU chip sets come with plenty of SATA ports.
And the RAM is an easy swap with the access door on the bottom of the mini? As for graphics & CPU speed, whatever the Sandy Bridge refresh brings will be light years ahead of your aged PowerMac G4?
While this is very true, the Sandy Bridge GPU leaves a lot to be desired relative to what is possible today. To put it bluntly buying into hardware that doesn't support OpenCL and strong 3D is not wise in my mind. At least not in the context of most users.
Plus, you still get to use Mac OS X, as opposed to Windows sludge?!
Windows isn't perfect but neither is Mac OS. The Mac is hurt though due to the limited hardware available from Apple. For example a Mini with only the Sandy Bridge GPU isn't a bad thing for a limited class of users. It is however a significant problem for more mainstream users. The reality is that these days the GPU can be used to accelerate apps like Safari and others that might not heavily advertised. So to put it bluntly aMini without OpenCL support on the GPU is a bad buy for most users. That is in the context of today's tech and reflect Apples interest in heterogeneous computing.
I wanted to come back to this point. After you get past the beauty of the form factor, you're left with its limitations. That means you get the costs of a laptop (premium component costs, limited expandability and heat issues) without the benefit of portability.
Actually the laptop parts in the Mini result in a big power usage benefit. In any event we shouldn't discount the Mini simply because it doesn't meet our needs. Other than being a bit outdated the current Mini isn't that bad and could see a considerable bump with the next round of updates.
The need or desire for an XMac really has noyhing to do with the Mini as the Mini has it's niche.
What to do? Simply reuse the iMac engineering and shove it into an 7.7" x 7.7" x 5.6" box (the size of four stacked minis) that's large enough to accommodate 1) a 3.5" hard-drive and 2) a PCIe x8 slot for a dedicated GPU.
I see the days of a dedicated GPU going away for midrange devices. Further the XMac needs "slots" for several storage modules. For me that is really the whole point bin the XMac, that is the ability to add several storage devices internal to the box. I really don't care if they are laptop sized drives or slots for solid state modules. The idea is to be able to grow the machine.
- The increase size allows greater thermal mass and airflow for superior cooling. As a result Apple can use desktop rather than mobile CPUs. Move from 35W CPUs to 45 or 65W CPUs, and you save money AND gain performance.
yep CPU performance is a factor here though I might mention that 45 watt laptop chips exist.
- Likewise, 3.5 inch drives save money while allowing dramatically increased performance.
They also waste a lot of space. This is especially ugly when the internal parts are laptop sized.
With a 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i3, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, dual Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot... You'd have a machine that could significantly outperform the current Mini while slicing a $100 from the base price by avoiding mobile components.
That same machine could be configured with 2.8GHz quad core Sandy-Bridge i7, an SSD and nice, dedicated GPU in the PCIe x8. One design, scalable from $499 to $2999.
For the "Pro" increase the chassis size (7.7" x 7.7" x 7.7"?) sufficient to accommodate and cool the 135W Core i7 extreme, two 3.5" Hard-Drives and (for example) the ATI Radeon HD 5870. Start the "Pro" at $899 with 2.5 GHz Sandy-Bridge i5, a 3.5" 500 GB (5400 RPM) HD, Thunderbolt and an empty GPU slot. Again... one design scalable from modest to ridiculous as needed.
One last point... Sell the xMac and the xMac Pro only through Apple's online store. That keeps costs down while avoiding confusion and clutter in the retail stores.
Well that last idea I disagree with 100%. Apple needs to promote it's hardware better, especially the desktop line up.
So? I see this non sense constantly, that is people express a desire for a box that supports internal expansion of storage and then some joker comes around and suggests USB. This might be to difficult for some to digest but such an arraingement is unacceptable for many uses.
So you want to tie up your one high speed port for secondary storage? Especially when you consider that most COU chip sets come with plenty of SATA ports.
While this is very true, the Sandy Bridge GPU leaves a lot to be desired relative to what is possible today. To put it bluntly buying into hardware that doesn't support OpenCL and strong 3D is not wise in my mind. At least not in the context of most users.
Windows isn't perfect but neither is Mac OS. The Mac is hurt though due to the limited hardware available from Apple. For example a Mini with only the Sandy Bridge GPU isn't a bad thing for a limited class of users. It is however a significant problem for more mainstream users. The reality is that these days the GPU can be used to accelerate apps like Safari and others that might not heavily advertised. So to put it bluntly aMini without OpenCL support on the GPU is a bad buy for most users. That is in the context of today's tech and reflect Apples interest in heterogeneous computing.
Aside from USB, I also mentioned FireWire?
As for tying up the Thunderbolt port, is it not capable of daisy-chaining together up to six peripherals??!? From Apple's website, regarding Thunderbolt:
Thunderbolt I/O technology gives you two channels on the same connector with 10 Gbps of throughput in both directions. That makes Thunderbolt ultrafast and ultraflexible. You can move data to and from peripherals up to 20 times faster than with USB 2.0 and up to 12 times faster than with FireWire 800. You also have more than enough bandwidth to daisy-chain multiple high-speed devices without using a hub or switch. For example, you can connect several high-performance external disks, a video capture device, and even a Mini DisplayPort display to a single Thunderbolt chain while maintaining maximum throughput.
I would agree on the GPU & OpenCL support issue; I did not take that into consideration?
But I would also think that external GPUs connected via Thunderbolt might be a future consideration? I only mention such a solution to keep the post in the context of a non-AIO Mac that is also NOT a Mac Pro?
Who knows though, maybe the forthcoming redesigned (knocking on wood here) Mac Pro will also bring more configuration flexibility and a lower entry point price-wise??!?
Aside from USB, I also mentioned FireWire?
It really makes no difference, the problem isn't the interface cable, it is rather that the devices are external to your main box.
As for tying up the Thunderbolt port, is it not capable of daisy-chaining together up to six peripherals??!? From Apple's website, regarding Thunderbolt:
Which dramatically impacts your overall available bandwidth. People seem to think a TB port gas infinite bandwidth, it doesn't. In any event you still need to realize that internal drives operating off SATA chip set ports offer up a different channel for data movement. Sometimes anyways as we are already seeing Apple implementing TB in different ways on different machines.
By this I mean some of Apples TB implementations rely upon the chipsets PCI Express ports that go through the chiPsets DMI bus to the processor and others hook up to the processors built in PCI Express ports. This impacts performance especially if certain uses result in a lot of traffic through the chipset. The whole point here is that you can't be sure of what sort of bandwidth you will see and that bandwidth will depend upon the actuall physical implementation.
I would agree on the GPU & OpenCL support issue; I did not take that into consideration?
But I would also think that external GPUs connected via Thunderbolt might be a future consideration? I only mention such a solution to keep the post in the context of a non-AIO Mac that is also NOT a Mac Pro?
I'm almost certain somebody will try to market an external GPU. The problem I have is will enough users actually see a positive benefit? I don't think they will though I could see many successful specialty uses.
Who knows though, maybe the forthcoming redesigned (knocking on wood here) Mac Pro will also bring more configuration flexibility and a lower entry point price-wise??!?
Well everybody is hoping that Apple will wise up with the Mac Pro but we also have to realize that it fills a niche that Apple shouldn't abandon. This is why I'm a big XMac promoter. XMac of course being a faster machine than the Mini with internal expansion capability.
Contrary to what many think XMac should be I'm not thinking a huge box here. Some have described a taller Mini in this thread which could really be just the nuts with the right configuration. The goal is fairly straight forward: a faster box that can grow internal storage where internal storage can be RAM or secondary storage.
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that. Frankly I think they are stuck with the same thinking they had when the hardware line up was trimmed to save the company. The problem is they saved the company but have left the desktop line up to decay and become not relavant to today's need. The big issue today in my mind is reliable storage capacity. A terabyte is no longer an unrealistic requirement for storage, especially if you are into video.
I say, then, that Apple consider the following?
XMac
iSeries CPU, quad core i5 may be sweet spot?
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
IR eye on front
That is it, no more really needed?!
Discuss, flame, whatever?! ;^p
This may sound stupid and it may be; I don't know enough about the technology. Could a small box be designed so that it could utilize the guts from an iMac with room for additional hardware? I'm not suggesting that a newer iMac be cannibalized, but if the monitor went bad on an older model or even just use the iMac monitor with it.
I'm sure it's possible but it would likely stoke Apple's lawyers. I would love to have such a box.
It is sort of like car dealers / manufactures offering up compacts, sedans and station wagons. They do this because different buyers have different needs. This is no different than buyers when it comes to Personal Computers, different users have different needs. Apple has yet to recognize that.
Right. The iMac is a crossover or minivan. Meets the needs of quite a few. A small hatchback is the Mini. The Mac Pro is a 4 wheel drive SUV. Tow, haul gets it all done. That leaves a lot of mid sized sedans that the XMac would be.
I've compared the Mac line up to clothes.
The iMac being an all in one would be a jumpsuit or those coverall things you see older guys wearing, shirt and pants all in one.
The Mac Pro would be a three piece suit.
The Mini would be shorts and a tank top.
Leaves a lot of room for all the shirts and slacks or tops and skirts. That would be the XMac.
Right. The iMac is a crossover or minivan. Meets the needs of quite a few. A small hatchback is the Mini. The Mac Pro is a 4 wheel drive SUV. Tow, haul gets it all done. That leaves a lot of mid sized sedans that the XMac would be.
I've compared the Mac line up to clothes.
The iMac being an all in one would be a jumpsuit or those coverall things you see older guys wearing, shirt and pants all in one.
The Mac Pro would be a three piece suit.
The Mini would be shorts and a tank top.
Leaves a lot of room for all the shirts and slacks or tops and skirts. That would be the XMac.
Has anyone seen or heard a word from an Apple executive stating the company will not
produce an Xmac? If not maybe there is still hope.
Okay, all points well put and heard?
I say, then, that Apple consider the following?
XMac
iSeries CPU, quad core i5 may be sweet spot?
I'm still pulling for AMDs new Fusion chip. Mainly because of the excellent GPU. Plus it runs cooler.
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
Yes. Though the number of slots is dictated by the CPU hardware.
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
As long as their is an option to upgrade the SSD. 128GB is just a little thin for my needs. As to standards industry is working on that.
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
I would prefer more!
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
I'm mixed on the need for this. These cards require a massive power supply. Further I'm really thinking midrange here.
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
IR eye on front
That is it, no more really needed?!
Discuss, flame, whatever?! ;^p
I'd probably drop the optical myself.
Has anyone seen or heard a word from an Apple executive stating the company will not produce an Xmac? If not maybe there is still hope.
How can they build an 'xMac' when, as the name even suggests, it isn't well-defined?
If you asked them to build a Cube, they'd know what you meant; if you said a mini-tower, they'd know. A mini tower would be something like Dell's Vostro:
They could of course build whatever is in the 21.5" iMac without the display panel and it would be the size of a 21.5" screen but quite thin. If they split it in two and folded it over, it would end up being fairly compact and the 2.8GHz i7 in the 21.5", which is very fast can go in it.
But they still couldn't put any PCI slots in it, nor could they put 4 or more 3.5" drives in it. If they make it bigger then it just becomes another big ugly box like the Mac Pro.
As much as I love the design of a Cube, computer parts are flat and long so a 21.5" iMac folded in half would probably work better. To fit the parts from the 21.5" iMac, you'd be looking at something around about this size:
Spec would be:
2.8GHz i7 quad
4GB RAM
1TB HDD
512MB Radeon 6770M
$1299
But, I'd say there's not much that sets it apart. It can possibly have 4x 2.5" drives and allow you access to them and have more easily upgradable MXM graphics cards but that's about it and you still have to source your own display.
Personally, I still think the Mini is the best way forward as it retains an instant selling point. It just needs some TLC.
Give it an SSD blade, allow it to use external GPUs (it's a temporary solution), give it some 4-thread or 4-core CPUs and that's all that's needed. If it gets redesigned to keep all storage internal, it makes it bigger than needed for some people and still not enough for others. Some people won't be happy until they get 12TB internally. With Thunderbolt, you can get this storage and more no problem and it makes it far easier to upgrade your machine while leaving your data in tact.
Imagine one day having an iPhone that's as powerful as today's Mac Pro and you sit it on your desk and it drives your 27" display and connects to your 12TB RAID storage with one cable and churns through data with its 8-cores like butter while using passive cooling and you don't even have to think about it. Roll on 2020.
Okay, all points well put and heard?
I say, then, that Apple consider the following?
XMac
iSeries CPU, quad core i5 may be sweet spot?
4GB RAM standard, room/slots for up to 16GB RAM (I think 4 slots, since single CPU)
128GB SSD-on-a-stick for boot drive/apps (if Apple can start standardizing SSD sticks across their entire product line, just maybe the economics of scale will allow them to keep overall pricing down??)
Room for two (2) internal HDDs (media/etc.)
SuperDrive
Room, power & bandwidth for massive SLI/CrossFire gaming GPUs (just to shut up any & all gamers who will whine about this; plus, might make my Steam games look/run better??)
Plethora of front & rear USB/FireWire/Thunderbolt/audio ports
IR eye on front
That is it, no more really needed?!
Discuss, flame, whatever?! ;^p
Sounds just like my PC, just a Mac...
Gaming on Mac still blows through, just compare the number of games available on the Mac side vs PC through Steam, you'll still be using Boot Camp.
It also would probably be at the best, the size of a micro ATX tower, which would still be small, but cooling becomes problematic (cards in SLI/Crossfire get really hot, my one GPU can easily hit 80 C, the other mid 60's, and they're just lowly 5770's, and that's with an intake fan blowing right on them from the side of the case).
Spec would be:
2.8GHz i7 quad
4GB RAM
1TB HDD
512MB Radeon 6770M
$1299
But, I'd say there's not much that sets it apart. It can possibly have 4x 2.5" drives and allow you access to them and have more easily upgradable MXM graphics cards but that's about it and you still have to source your own display.
Personally, I still think the Mini is the best way forward as it retains an instant selling point. It just needs some TLC.
I can't see Apple building a slightly bigger mini now, they have that small as possible fetish. I'm still expecting Apple do to the simple road, offer a low-end Sandy Bridge CPU and Intel GMA, they don't even care about OpenCL that much.
Faster than what they have currently, but a cheap iOS dev box or 1st Mac. Past that, they offer power in the iMac for the consumers, a long in the tooth Pro for pros.
I can't see Apple building a slightly bigger mini now, they have that small as possible fetish. I'm still expecting Apple do to the simple road, offer a low-end Sandy Bridge CPU and Intel GMA, they don't even care about OpenCL that much.
I agree completely but wish things were different.
To fit the parts from the 21.5" iMac, you'd be looking at something around about this size:
Imagine one day having an iPhone that's as powerful as today's Mac Pro and you sit it on your desk and it drives your 27" display and connects to your 12TB RAID storage with one cable and churns through data with its 8-cores like butter while using passive cooling and you don't even have to think about it. Roll on 2020.
I'd like a few hits on whatever it is you're smoking.
I posted about taking the guts from an iMac and putting it into a box (like yours) just for that purpose. The box you show could also be an enclosure for that purpose if Apple won't give us that computer. How about putting the guts of a Mini into that enclosure? I'd love that. Someone please build that enclosure.
Well that last idea I disagree with 100%. Apple needs to promote it's hardware better, especially the desktop line up.
Unfortunately, it seems Apple has done the exact opposite. It's hard to blame them when they're selling iPhones, iPads and notebooks by the crate. There's only so much room in an Apple store, so desktops languish.
I'd love to see Apple pushing more desktops, but Apple's desire to keep the line-up 'clean' (in both the physical and psychological sense) seems to be a primary obstacle to an xTop slotting in between the Mac Mini and the Pro.