Again, what are my alternatives if Apple eventually kills off the Mac mini for an HTPC to plug into either my HDTV or a separate monitor?
I'd say the biggest downside is not the price of the Pro so much but the amount of storage it has at that price. Only 256 GB? It should be at least 512 GB or even 1 TB.
The only thing worse is the paltry 128 GB SSD and 4 GB of memory in the $1,299 base retina MacBook Pro or that they're still selling the other non-retina MBP without a price drop.
I disagree on the mini not being able to inspire, because I think if you give it a few ads it'll work.
I peg the removal of laptops from Apple’s lineup as before 2020. Is that few enough?
I'll have to bookmark this thread, although now that I think about it, that is in line with your prior guesses. Do keep in mind I actually like the iPads. I have fewer complaints with them compared to anything else Apple currently makes including the two machines that I use on a daily basis. I put in time learning some objective-C almost solely due to the iPad. There's that and I have yet to find a comfortable way to implement C++ there. It would be interesting to me to see what macbook pro sales would be like if iOS contained a full productivity suite, and scriptable extensions. Having read quite a few of the articles, I get the impression that a lot of business use cases rely on internal distribution rather than "shopping" for software when it comes to the iPad. Other tablets might be similar due to the inherent resource restrictions when compared to OSX.
You are concerning yourself with the wrong things. E3 Xeons like those used in the Z1 are comparable to what is in the imac, which is why I suggested their page. You can get as far as 6 cores with some oems without getting so far into quadratic price scaling. Beyond 6 cores, they're all expensive. There is absolutely no way you'll see that on an imac when the mac pro still starts at 4. You already have that overlap at the low end of the mac pro line. I suspect the imac will gain it a year after the mac pro goes to 6 cores standard, but that has more to do with Intel than Apple. Intel tends to trickle these things down over 1-2 years, and Appe just goes by cpu price. Note that while I'm a little disappointed on the price, it's not that surprising. They have built in moderate price increases over the last 3 refreshes. There was one in 2009, one in 2010, and sort of one in the 2012 reshuffling.
I'd like the iMac to get more processing power, that's all. Intel's 4 core ceiling with ever increasing integrated graphics that are redundant(?) in the iMac, seems like an odd situation that has ensnared the iMac's evolution as an excellent workstation. They're great machines, the top model is now very popular with users of the software I work on and for me at least it's more about the package than the price. If Apple evolved the upper end of the iMac more as a workstation with the lower two Xeons used in the Mac Pro, assuming they'd fit within the iMac's envelope, I'm sure they'd get gobbled up by the markets that have adopted them as workstations in recent years.
The beauty of the iMac is, it's a very quiet one piece workhorse that's had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, and every two or so years it makes for a great hand-me-down when upgrading. Power Macs and Mac Pros aren't, and never have been, so simple. The new format of the Mac Pro is much better however, but I'd still choose an iMac over a Mac Pro with an equivalent increase in the iMac's price tag, if it got Xeons to match those in the stock new Mac Pros.
I get that it's not going to happen, I was just questioning and hopeful I guess, that there may have been something else on the iMac's horizon.
I'd like the iMac to get more processing power, that's all. Intel's 4 core ceiling with ever increasing integrated graphics that are redundant(?) in the iMac,
I have nothing against more CPU power but the idea that GPU power is redundant in an iMac is asinine. I'd go so far as to say Apples pulling head from ass and putting decent GPUs in the iMac is what has driven sales of the machine over the last few years. GPUs are extremely important as they directly support the OS and in many cases significantly reduce CPU load.
seems like an odd situation that has ensnared the iMac's evolution as an excellent workstation. They're great machines, the top model is now very popular with users of the software I work on and for me at least it's more about the package than the price.
I'd hardly call them great machines but everybody has their own metrics when it comes to what is acceptable. You seem to think cores is an issue but I don't see that as a problem. The reality is four cores today is the sweet spot for most users.
If Apple evolved the upper end of the iMac more as a workstation with the lower two Xeons used in the Mac Pro, assuming they'd fit within the iMac's envelope, I'm sure they'd get gobbled up by the markets that have adopted them as workstations in recent years.
They don't even have to go XEON to get six cores. The problem is supporting multiple motherboards which is never ideal.
The beauty of the iMac is, it's a very quiet one piece workhorse that's had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end,
So now the GPU is important?
and every two or so years it makes for a great hand-me-down when upgrading. Power Macs and Mac Pros aren't, and never have been, so simple. The new format of the Mac Pro is much better however, but I'd still choose an iMac over a Mac Pro with an equivalent increase in the iMac's price tag, if it got Xeons to match those in the stock new Mac Pros.
You would likely be the only one. The iMac and Mac Pro serve entirely different markets.
I get that it's not going to happen, I was just questioning and hopeful I guess, that there may have been something else on the iMac's horizon.
Sure something else is on the horizon, that is likely to be replacement by a new concept in computing. I've never really liked the iMac mostly due to serviceability which is related directly to its industrial design. If Apple addresses these issues the iMac might have a better future. I still think putting the "computer half" of the iMac into the bases makes more sense than the current approach. Yes that means reverting to an old concept but that doesn't mean appearances have too remain the same. Imagine the Mac Pro with a weighted base and a monitor mounting /height adjusting capability built into that tower. Of course Ive would have to morph that into something visually pleasing but such a design could go a long way to a more acceptable iMac.
I have nothing against more CPU power but the idea that GPU power is redundant in an iMac is asinine.
You might want to read what I wrote again in context with the discussion above. Graphics power is 'very' important to the BIM/CAD market. The software I use requires dedicated graphics, machines relying on integrated graphics are currently not 'officially' supported. If I understand hmm correctly, the iMac will be stuck at 4 cores for years to come, while Intel throws everything at the integrated graphics side of their desktop chips. I "assume" (hence the question mark in brackets) that the Intel integrated graphics inside our current iMacs are somehow turned off / redundant(?).
The desire for more cores I've been expressing, has to do with wanting to see rendering times improve alongside the rest of the machines evolution. I said the iMacs have had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, which is true for our uses. Over recent years they've become a very popular BIM workstation on the Mac. From 98 until a little over six years ago, I used Power Macs. It was a noisy, lumpy, expensive ride. When to buy, poor graphics, software support all caused us headaches through that period, for machines with a lot of bulk / internal space we never used.
Naturally, everything I've been discussing pertains to my usage of Macs for architecture. I wasn't trying to engage in the academic musing over what defines the perfect computer that you frequently obsess on. I'll happily buy iMacs infinitum if Apple manages to progress them as a whole in terms of their current balance of processing and graphics power. It's an excellent form factor that I've worked just as hard as any of my previous Power Macs. None have required the maintenance you seem to think is their Achilles heel, the retired machines (still in the family and one of which is approaching 7 years of age) are still working fine. Honestly though, who'd give a stuff if any work computer kicked the bucket after 3 or so years?
You might want to read what I wrote again in context with the discussion above. Graphics power is 'very' important to the BIM/CAD market. The software I use requires dedicated graphics, machines relying on integrated graphics are currently not 'officially' supported. If I understand hmm correctly, the iMac will be stuck at 4 cores for years to come, while Intel throws everything at the integrated graphics side of their desktop chips. I "assume" (hence the question mark in brackets) that the Intel integrated graphics inside our current iMacs are somehow turned off / redundant(?).
That is a good question, I don't think they are turned off completely as they can still be used for compute. As for being stock at four cores Apple could go Six cores today if they switched sockets and found a way to handle 130 watts of power out of the CPU. I just think they have other priorities for the desktop right now so six core probably isn't in the future. The future being next year. However they may have unannounced plans.
The desire for more cores I've been expressing, has to do with wanting to see rendering times improve alongside the rest of the machines evolution. I said the iMacs have had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, which is true for our uses.
I understand what you are asking for but let's face it this isn't the market that Apple targets for these machines. It is only technologies advancement that let's the iMac even compete in this arena. As for rendering times are you sure that is a CPU issue and not a GPU issue?
Over recent years they've become a very popular BIM workstation on the Mac. From 98 until a little over six years ago, I used Power Macs. It was a noisy, lumpy, expensive ride. When to buy, poor graphics, software support all caused us headaches through that period, for machines with a lot of bulk / internal space we never used.
Sounds like the new Mac Pros might address those issues. In any event I glad you stated the above, people don't believe me when I say most professionals don't need or want all that internal space in the old Mac Pros.
The other thing you have to watch out for is this, if Intel did come out with a six core processor for their desktop sockets it might not give you the performance you expect due to bandwidth limitations.
Naturally, everything I've been discussing pertains to my usage of Macs for architecture. I wasn't trying to engage in the academic musing on what defines the perfect computer that you frequently obsess over.
I wouldn't say it is an obsession. The problem is Apples lineup puts people like you into a tight situation where the iMac is the only reasonable choice but less than the optimal one. As you note the jump to the Mac Pro is expensive. The problem with the iMac is that it is so damn thin that there is literally no possibility of a performance machine. We should consider ourselves lucky that Intel has gotten performance way up while controlling power otherwise the iMac wouldn't be able to do half of what it can do now. My problem is this, if one dismisses the iMac due to it being an all in one, something many companies do, then you are basically screwed as a professional user of Apples products. The Mini is way to limited and the Mac Pro is grossly over priced.
I'll happily buy iMacs infinitum if Apple manages to progress them as a whole in terms of their current balance of processing and graphics power. It's an excellent form factor that I've worked just as hard as any of my previous Power Macs.
Unfortunately it isn't up to Apple to increase the iMacs performance, they only have AMDs and Intels catalogs to pick from and then have very real thermal limits on top of that. Here is the big problem, it is pretty well known that Apple pushed Intel real hard on better integrated GPUs. As such the lack of a six core low power solution is probably directly related to Apples demands. By the way I believe Apple was completely justified here because some of the latest Macs with these integrated solutions are pretty impressive.
The other bit of ugliness here is that it appears that Intel is emphasizing the desktop processor market to keep a handle on mobile. Like it or not you will not be seeing the rapid evolution of desktop processors like you have in the past. I'm not going to completely dismiss the idea of a six core processor in 2014 suitable for the iMac but it is unlikely considering what Intel has said so far.
None have required the maintenance you seem to think is their Achilles heel, the retired machines (still in the family and one of which is approaching 7 years of age) are still working fine. Honestly though, who'd give a stuff if any work computer kicked the bucket after 3 or so years?
I would. At work you would not believe how long they stretch out computer upgrades, it doesn't matter how skilled you are as an engineer, designer or whatever. I believe the majority of the machines in the facility are far more than 3 years old. At home I've tried to get a few years out of a machine and then try to use it for other things in the house.
That is a good question, I don't think they are turned off completely as they can still be used for compute. As for being stock at four cores Apple could go Six cores today if they switched sockets and found a way to handle 130 watts of power out of the CPU.
My interest in what'slikely to happen with the iMac next year stems partly from the new Mac Pro being an attractive option again. Do we know if the upcoming quad and hex core E5 Xeons are still 130 watt chips?
I'm not complaining about the current iMac, but the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As for rendering times are you sure that is a CPU issue and not a GPU issue?
Are you referring to Open CL? Open GL is used for working, but neither of the software I use utilise the GPU for final rendering as yet. All the GPU power in the new Mac Pro will hopefully push the use of Open CL along. I assume it will make a big difference once software uses the GPU this way?
My interest in what'slikely to happen with the iMac next yearstems partly from the new Mac Pro being an attractive option again. Do we know if the upcoming quad and hex core E5 Xeons are still 130 watt chips?
I really haven't looked into what would come next year in depth. Intel can do two things to lower power. They can shrink the process or they can improve the architecture. With Intel deemphasis of the desktop CPUs we might not get much of anything next year other than minor tweaks.
You might want to search around a bit on the net to see if you can find news articles about this. It didn't seem to get wide reporting. In any event Intel has gone all in with respect to mobile. The other thing is the chips come in multiple versions, lower performance chips are often using far less power. I doubt you would be interested in those chips if you want to go six core for better rendering performance.
I'm not complaining about the current iMac, but the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.
Yes it will but desktops simply aren't moving like before. There is always the possibility that Intel pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but I think mobile has them running scared.
Are you referring to Open CL? Open GL is used for working, but neither of the software I use utilise the GPU for final rendering as yet. All the GPU power in the new Mac Pro will hopefully push the use of Open CL along. I assume it will make a big difference once software uses the GPU this way?
You can't assume anything when it comes to GPU compute. Sometimes the speed up is extreme other times it isn't worth the developers tIme. I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro assuming that the software will get OpenCL support in the future. I wouldn't even do so if the developers said it was coming. Instead wait until they actually deliver OpenCL support if you want to leverage GPU compute. The idea of buying a Mac Pro based on vapor ware just doesn't appeal to my senses. However if you buy due to the extra CPU cores in the machine that is a different story, at least here you don't have to worry about vapor ware.
the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.
That's why it's smart having a display attached because even if the performance improvements are lacking, they can make a Retina iMac. Locking in the storage also means that people looking for storage upgrades to larger SSDs will buy new machines.
Probably has little interest in computers though.
That's why it's smart having a display attached because even if the performance improvements are lacking, they can make a Retina iMac.
That is an interesting thought. I was sitting in the Apple the other day waiting to get my iPad exchanged and they had us (lots of people in line) waiting at one of the desks. There was set up a retina MBP - nice, makes my old MBP look sick in comparison. I could see such an advance driving iMac sales.
Locking in the storage also means that people looking for storage upgrades to larger SSDs will buy new machines.
See this I have a problem with and is why I'd probably not buy an iMac. The problem is going to a retina screen is a technology advancement that is positive. Making the SSDs near impossible to get too is just mean. I mean really these SSDs slide into a socket, if Apple can't manage to design an acceptable pocket / door to access the SSD then they have some pretty poor designers. Of course we all know that Apple excels at design so I have to think something evil raises its head in the corporate structure and says screw the user.
I hope at least next year the iMac comes standard with PCIe SSDs, the fact that they came with 5,400rpm HDDs is atrocious.
Yes it is and likely is due to thermal issues. This is especially frustrating because price wise the iMac is of debatable value in its current form. Then again I'm really hoping for a Mini that implements an SSD. However my reasoning for the Mini is more about opening up a bit more thermal capacity for better GPU performance.
Like many others, I'd like a 'Mini Pro' (with the same goodies that an iMac has) connected to a separate 27" IPS monitor. I like my 27" iMac; however, I don't think an AIO is practical in the long term.
One simple mini is all I want. They can continue to treat it as last in line in my view but continue to update it. Let me use my own damn monitor if I choose. Let people fully customize it. I said this before.
Either dual core i5 (default) or quad-core i7 (BTO), 8 GB of memory, 256 GB SSD.
I'm totally ignorant about these things, so I'm just asking: An SSD would generate more heat than a 5400rpm drive?
The response was with respect to the slow magnetic drives in the iMac and the possibility that the iMac can't handle the thermal loads of faster drives. It really had nothing to do with SSDs.
That being said most SSDs are fairly power efficient. Older SSDs especially though could pull some significant power during writes. In any event SSDs have evolved real fast and if you consider the performance offered there is no contest when comparing to magnetic drives.
One simple mini is all I want. They can continue to treat it as last in line in my view but continue to update it. Let me use my own damn monitor if I choose. Let people fully customize it. I said this before.
Either dual core i5 (default) or quad-core i7 (BTO), 8 GB of memory, 256 GB SSD.
I just wish Apple would come clean and just announce what the hell is up with the Mini, its update or replacement. I'm really thinking something new is coming but the desktop market is so dead they could just kill it outright. I was also thinking a debut along with the Mac Pro was possible, sort of a refresh of the entire desktop line but I'm not even sure about that.
Sadly I haven't heard, seen or otherwise noted any rumors at all about the machine. That is strange in and of itself.
Comments
This seems like an attempt to paint esoteric descriptions of a "someday" future rather than what might actually happen over the next few years.
I peg the removal of laptops from Apple’s lineup as before 2020. Is that few enough?
I'd say the biggest downside is not the price of the Pro so much but the amount of storage it has at that price. Only 256 GB? It should be at least 512 GB or even 1 TB.
The only thing worse is the paltry 128 GB SSD and 4 GB of memory in the $1,299 base retina MacBook Pro or that they're still selling the other non-retina MBP without a price drop.
I disagree on the mini not being able to inspire, because I think if you give it a few ads it'll work.
I peg the removal of laptops from Apple’s lineup as before 2020. Is that few enough?
I'll have to bookmark this thread, although now that I think about it, that is in line with your prior guesses. Do keep in mind I actually like the iPads. I have fewer complaints with them compared to anything else Apple currently makes including the two machines that I use on a daily basis. I put in time learning some objective-C almost solely due to the iPad. There's that and I have yet to find a comfortable way to implement C++ there. It would be interesting to me to see what macbook pro sales would be like if iOS contained a full productivity suite, and scriptable extensions. Having read quite a few of the articles, I get the impression that a lot of business use cases rely on internal distribution rather than "shopping" for software when it comes to the iPad. Other tablets might be similar due to the inherent resource restrictions when compared to OSX.
You are concerning yourself with the wrong things. E3 Xeons like those used in the Z1 are comparable to what is in the imac, which is why I suggested their page. You can get as far as 6 cores with some oems without getting so far into quadratic price scaling. Beyond 6 cores, they're all expensive. There is absolutely no way you'll see that on an imac when the mac pro still starts at 4. You already have that overlap at the low end of the mac pro line. I suspect the imac will gain it a year after the mac pro goes to 6 cores standard, but that has more to do with Intel than Apple. Intel tends to trickle these things down over 1-2 years, and Appe just goes by cpu price. Note that while I'm a little disappointed on the price, it's not that surprising. They have built in moderate price increases over the last 3 refreshes. There was one in 2009, one in 2010, and sort of one in the 2012 reshuffling.
I'd like the iMac to get more processing power, that's all. Intel's 4 core ceiling with ever increasing integrated graphics that are redundant(?) in the iMac, seems like an odd situation that has ensnared the iMac's evolution as an excellent workstation. They're great machines, the top model is now very popular with users of the software I work on and for me at least it's more about the package than the price. If Apple evolved the upper end of the iMac more as a workstation with the lower two Xeons used in the Mac Pro, assuming they'd fit within the iMac's envelope, I'm sure they'd get gobbled up by the markets that have adopted them as workstations in recent years.
The beauty of the iMac is, it's a very quiet one piece workhorse that's had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, and every two or so years it makes for a great hand-me-down when upgrading. Power Macs and Mac Pros aren't, and never have been, so simple. The new format of the Mac Pro is much better however, but I'd still choose an iMac over a Mac Pro with an equivalent increase in the iMac's price tag, if it got Xeons to match those in the stock new Mac Pros.
I get that it's not going to happen, I was just questioning and hopeful I guess, that there may have been something else on the iMac's horizon.
The new i mac has very few service problems than the older models which had many .Much better machine all around now.
I have nothing against more CPU power but the idea that GPU power is redundant in an iMac is asinine.
You might want to read what I wrote again in context with the discussion above. Graphics power is 'very' important to the BIM/CAD market. The software I use requires dedicated graphics, machines relying on integrated graphics are currently not 'officially' supported. If I understand hmm correctly, the iMac will be stuck at 4 cores for years to come, while Intel throws everything at the integrated graphics side of their desktop chips. I "assume" (hence the question mark in brackets) that the Intel integrated graphics inside our current iMacs are somehow turned off / redundant(?).
The desire for more cores I've been expressing, has to do with wanting to see rendering times improve alongside the rest of the machines evolution. I said the iMacs have had a nice balance of processing and graphics power at the top end, which is true for our uses. Over recent years they've become a very popular BIM workstation on the Mac. From 98 until a little over six years ago, I used Power Macs. It was a noisy, lumpy, expensive ride. When to buy, poor graphics, software support all caused us headaches through that period, for machines with a lot of bulk / internal space we never used.
Naturally, everything I've been discussing pertains to my usage of Macs for architecture. I wasn't trying to engage in the academic musing over what defines the perfect computer that you frequently obsess on. I'll happily buy iMacs infinitum if Apple manages to progress them as a whole in terms of their current balance of processing and graphics power. It's an excellent form factor that I've worked just as hard as any of my previous Power Macs. None have required the maintenance you seem to think is their Achilles heel, the retired machines (still in the family and one of which is approaching 7 years of age) are still working fine. Honestly though, who'd give a stuff if any work computer kicked the bucket after 3 or so years?
The other thing you have to watch out for is this, if Intel did come out with a six core processor for their desktop sockets it might not give you the performance you expect due to bandwidth limitations. I wouldn't say it is an obsession. The problem is Apples lineup puts people like you into a tight situation where the iMac is the only reasonable choice but less than the optimal one. As you note the jump to the Mac Pro is expensive. The problem with the iMac is that it is so damn thin that there is literally no possibility of a performance machine. We should consider ourselves lucky that Intel has gotten performance way up while controlling power otherwise the iMac wouldn't be able to do half of what it can do now. My problem is this, if one dismisses the iMac due to it being an all in one, something many companies do, then you are basically screwed as a professional user of Apples products. The Mini is way to limited and the Mac Pro is grossly over priced. Unfortunately it isn't up to Apple to increase the iMacs performance, they only have AMDs and Intels catalogs to pick from and then have very real thermal limits on top of that. Here is the big problem, it is pretty well known that Apple pushed Intel real hard on better integrated GPUs. As such the lack of a six core low power solution is probably directly related to Apples demands. By the way I believe Apple was completely justified here because some of the latest Macs with these integrated solutions are pretty impressive.
The other bit of ugliness here is that it appears that Intel is emphasizing the desktop processor market to keep a handle on mobile. Like it or not you will not be seeing the rapid evolution of desktop processors like you have in the past. I'm not going to completely dismiss the idea of a six core processor in 2014 suitable for the iMac but it is unlikely considering what Intel has said so far. I would. At work you would not believe how long they stretch out computer upgrades, it doesn't matter how skilled you are as an engineer, designer or whatever. I believe the majority of the machines in the facility are far more than 3 years old. At home I've tried to get a few years out of a machine and then try to use it for other things in the house.
That is a good question, I don't think they are turned off completely as they can still be used for compute. As for being stock at four cores Apple could go Six cores today if they switched sockets and found a way to handle 130 watts of power out of the CPU.
My interest in what's likely to happen with the iMac next year stems partly from the new Mac Pro being an attractive option again. Do we know if the upcoming quad and hex core E5 Xeons are still 130 watt chips?
I'm not complaining about the current iMac, but the stretch ahead out of Intel is going to cause the iMac to kind of go stale.
As for rendering times are you sure that is a CPU issue and not a GPU issue?
Are you referring to Open CL? Open GL is used for working, but neither of the software I use utilise the GPU for final rendering as yet. All the GPU power in the new Mac Pro will hopefully push the use of Open CL along. I assume it will make a big difference once software uses the GPU this way?
You might want to search around a bit on the net to see if you can find news articles about this. It didn't seem to get wide reporting. In any event Intel has gone all in with respect to mobile. The other thing is the chips come in multiple versions, lower performance chips are often using far less power. I doubt you would be interested in those chips if you want to go six core for better rendering performance. Yes it will but desktops simply aren't moving like before. There is always the possibility that Intel pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but I think mobile has them running scared.
You can't assume anything when it comes to GPU compute. Sometimes the speed up is extreme other times it isn't worth the developers tIme. I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro assuming that the software will get OpenCL support in the future. I wouldn't even do so if the developers said it was coming. Instead wait until they actually deliver OpenCL support if you want to leverage GPU compute. The idea of buying a Mac Pro based on vapor ware just doesn't appeal to my senses. However if you buy due to the extra CPU cores in the machine that is a different story, at least here you don't have to worry about vapor ware.
Who really gives a dam !
This guy does:
Probably has little interest in computers though.
That's why it's smart having a display attached because even if the performance improvements are lacking, they can make a Retina iMac. Locking in the storage also means that people looking for storage upgrades to larger SSDs will buy new machines.
See this I have a problem with and is why I'd probably not buy an iMac. The problem is going to a retina screen is a technology advancement that is positive. Making the SSDs near impossible to get too is just mean. I mean really these SSDs slide into a socket, if Apple can't manage to design an acceptable pocket / door to access the SSD then they have some pretty poor designers. Of course we all know that Apple excels at design so I have to think something evil raises its head in the corporate structure and says screw the user.
Yes it is and likely is due to thermal issues. This is especially frustrating because price wise the iMac is of debatable value in its current form. Then again I'm really hoping for a Mini that implements an SSD. However my reasoning for the Mini is more about opening up a bit more thermal capacity for better GPU performance.
Like many others, I'd like a 'Mini Pro' (with the same goodies that an iMac has) connected to a separate 27" IPS monitor. I like my 27" iMac; however, I don't think an AIO is practical in the long term.
Either dual core i5 (default) or quad-core i7 (BTO), 8 GB of memory, 256 GB SSD.
Yes it is and likely is due to thermal issues.
I'm totally ignorant about these things, so I'm just asking: An SSD would generate more heat than a 5400rpm drive?
The response was with respect to the slow magnetic drives in the iMac and the possibility that the iMac can't handle the thermal loads of faster drives. It really had nothing to do with SSDs.
That being said most SSDs are fairly power efficient. Older SSDs especially though could pull some significant power during writes. In any event SSDs have evolved real fast and if you consider the performance offered there is no contest when comparing to magnetic drives.
I just wish Apple would come clean and just announce what the hell is up with the Mini, its update or replacement. I'm really thinking something new is coming but the desktop market is so dead they could just kill it outright. I was also thinking a debut along with the Mac Pro was possible, sort of a refresh of the entire desktop line but I'm not even sure about that.
Sadly I haven't heard, seen or otherwise noted any rumors at all about the machine. That is strange in and of itself.