I understand the desire to break free from Intel, but who is going to fab this hypothetical ARM chip for Apple?
14-nanometer is the bleeding edge right now and is the reason Broadwell is late, and all the talk is that the Apple's A8 chip will be 20nm. Apple would be going a generation backwards by adopting ARM for their Desktop/Laptop machines...unless they could convince Intel to make the chips for them, and then they're right back in the same situation.
I just can't see Apple adopting ARM for anything but iOS.
Intel has really laid a turd. They should have designed and built these chips at 16nm-18nm in order to get them out 6 months ago.
It sounds like their Atom chips will be out this year (WOW a new Surface), but the Desktop and Laptop chips won't be out until next year.
Spoken like a joven who thinks an iPad is the only computing device anyone would ever need. You have a lot to learn about enterprise computing lad. When you grow up, perhaps you'll discover there is a world beyond jerking off to porn.
Intel needs to keep the PC relavent and cool or they will see their revenue and profits fall. They simply can't sell a chip, in a tablet, on such thin margins and as much as they make fat margins on servers the volume is simply not enough. Apple will continue to use Intel, on Macintosh, because the switching costs do not outweigh the advantages. Most of Intel's efforts lately have focused on core-density and power management. Clock speed is still important, but somewhat secondary...
Even when Apple uses a desktop CPU part, they still use a Laptop GPU. Do you see how much space is just heatsink?
There are literately three and a half tiers of computers that need to exist:
1. Server/Workstation, which defining feature is ECC memory and replaceable PCIe parts and RAM
2. Desktop, defining feature is that it can be replaced every 7 years or upgraded every 2 years with a new video card and/or cpu + RAM.
3. Laptops, which are meant to last 7 years, but not be upgraded beyond RAM.
3.5 Tablet/UltraBook, which are meant to last 3 years and be thrown out when their batteries quit holding a charge. Entire point being battery life at the expense of everything else.
None of these replace each other. Apple doesn't offer the first two, rather all Apple offers are laptop class parts. The iPad included. The Mac Pro is really more of a "MacMini portable Workstation"
The performance gap between the iPad and the MacBook Air is not really that large for the price. http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-air-vs-macbook-air-2014/31940/ , so when people start suggesting Apple is going to put their own ARM parts in MacBooks, I still shake my head and laugh. This would be counterproductive since Intel still has at least one more die shrink up their sleeve. Until there is a point where Apple can produce a A series chip at the same die size, Apple has no reason to even consider it.
The PowerPC vs x86 problem was one of those things where the entire computer industry didn't see where the puck was going. Everyone kept yelling that the x86 ISA was dead, time to find something else. Once everyone hit 3Ghz it was like "oh dude, we can't keep going higher without burning holes in the motherboard." That's when Intel woke up and started building multi-core parts... which is the same time Apple switched over (Jan 2006, same with the Core Solo/Core Duo parts.)
Where everyone is going to get burned in the next 5 years is the SSD's produced this year on TLC processes will burn out. Die shrinks for NAND flash actually result in shorter life spans. So factor this into the MacMini, Mac Pro and Macbook Pro designs. Most of the current MacMini is the space for the hard drive. Remove that with a SSD and the MacMini could be half as tall. Or they could re-style it like the Mac Pro and it would be the size of a coffee mug.
Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables.
If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate. They simply don't have to corporate value systems in place that supports killing their current cash cow to jump onto the next generation. They'd rather ride their cash cow until its dead. Until the cow actually dies everything they're doing seems to make good business sense. There's a reason why DEC, Sun, SGI, etc., didn't become dominant PC players even though they dominated the mini computer market. It wasn't because they didn't know how to build damn fast computers or didn't understand the technology or didn't understand the emerging market. These were not dumb companies led by idiots. They had some of the best and brightest minds and business people - and they crashed and burned. One recurring characteristic of companies that end up going the way of the Dodo and DEC is an attempt to hybridize the old with the new. They just can't bring themselves to let the old cash cow go. Does it work? Rarely if ever, and it only delays the inevitable.
Another recurring pattern is the disruptor starting out as inferior in performance to the disrupted. Early PCs were hobby toys compared to mainframes and minis. Did that matter? There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.
Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side.
Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables.
If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate.
There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.
Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side.
err... most computer spending is going into the cloud. not to the desktop.
Where I agree with you. CISC mainframes was supplanted by RISC super minis which was supplanted by x86 'frames' ARM will have its day in the sun, and then something else that can do mesh computing.
Where I disagree: endpoint computing is really all about UX. Almost no-one will be running a business on a chrome book, and no one will have _THEIR_ database wholly on the device they carry, or have on their desk. These are VT52s, XTerms, 327x devices, nothing more. Yes, they are computers, but they are not standalone; their value drops to near zero when the cord/wireless is cut. And at a certain point, it's less about raw compute speed than functionality (A faster mac mini is great, but wait, what I really want is support for 4 4K monitors... speed may be needed to support it, but it's not really a 'business requirement')
Intel has a lot of challenges, and to them, like microsoft, they had a hard time trying to specialize into one of 2 competing markets. You can't take technology which started on the desktop and has been marching towards both the data center and the wristwatch and win in either domain.
Apple learned that in OSes, and has to come to a tactical decision point for what chipset to use for desktops and mobile devices. Strategically, it doesn't matter: intel, Aseries, or abacuses: Apple's long term viability is about getting people to pay apple for a better way to do integrate into the digital world. Tactically, they do know that the more effective the chip is in delivering value (price/performance/power/size envelope), the more advantage it brings, but it only is a means of delivering the value... it isn't the value.
But back to agreeing... unless you continually reinvent yourself, (e.g. IBM), you only survive one wave of the technology surf.
No we do not. The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.
But we absolutely do need a new mini. I've got ancient servers that I'm barely keeping alive, waiting on a new, more powerful mini to replace them.
It may be a desktop Mac, but its always gotten a mobile CPU. I can all but guarantee you that it will never have a desktop class CPU inside it. If you want more power, get an iMac.
I think you're better off just getting whats available for Mac mini servers right now. Otherwise, you're going to be disappointed.
I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.
This is probably why we have waited so long for the Mini update. Apple most likely saw a huge opportunity in Broadwell to make the Mini a much more powerful machine while keeping the form factor or even shrinking it a bit. As it is it isn't the mobile chip that breaks the Mini but rather the expansion capability and the lackluster Intel GPU's Broadwell appear to be able to deal with the GPU issue and it may have also been a better solution for the TB interface, so more pain over the long wait for Broadwell. The only other expansion issue is the internal drive storage where much could be done to fix the access issues to make servicing those drives more friendly. It is hard to be serious about a machine marketed as a server that has drives as difficult to get to as the Mini. Lastly they really need to keep the two drive bays and add a slot for a blade SSD solution which would really make for a very versatile Mini.
I spent $5000 for my first Apple II+ setup and have spent a good part of my disposable and vacation money on Apple Computer products since 1982. I have often said to people that a person with a moderate amount of money can get the equivalent of a high class sports car and probably get better value by buying most anything Apple. At first I was dismayed by the paltry Mac Mini offerings we got served a week ago.
I have to assume (in my naive and hopeful beginner's mind) that the new offering was a patch until the Broadwell chips got cheap and plentiful; or that Apple has something more exciting on the horizon in the general format as the Mini.
I have always preferred a complete all-in-one product, except that for the creative computer user; WE like flexibility. We want Apple to give us something we can mess around with.
And we want to continue to be a fan base for Apple, which as a corporation had it's ups and downs, while we saw the genius in Apple and kept touting the essential superiority of the original concept of Apple and saw it eventually prosper beyond our dreams.
We are not looking for mediocrity; we see Apple as an exception to the mediocrity we see all around us.
Somehow I feel that even if Apple offered a quad-core Iris Pro mini, people still would not be content and demand discrete graphics. If discrete graphics were in the mini, people would say the graphics used are not good enough. That aside, I am glad that in my 2011 mini, I got to change the RAM myself (went from 2 GB to 8 GB) however am I the only one who feels $200 is not that high of a price to play for the 16 GB upgrade? The SSD I had a bit more trouble with. I missed out on RAM being cheap about two years ago I guess it was but if I want to upgrade my current Mac mini, the prices are listed below and are the same for 1333 MHz and 1600 MHz.
As I mentioned before in my other topic, I am stoked for the Broadwell U and H chips. I do hope we get a quad-core mini perhaps next year or the year after though.
Somehow I feel that even if Apple offered a quad-core Iris Pro mini, people still would not be content and demand discrete graphics. If discrete graphics were in the mini, people would say the graphics used are not good enough.
Well you have a point there. However with this release it just looks a bit awkward, the high end machine does not significantly improve the CPU/GPU over the midrange model. I believe that is due to Intel just not having the solution Apple wanted.
Let's face it a lot of Mini users could have easily justified a quad core. I mean with sound technical reasoning, not some of the techno lust we see here. On the flip side there are way to many that would chase after a quad that would never be able to leverage the processor. So what I'm saying here is the upset people over the lack of a quad core may rightfully be pissed off at Apple. On the other hand the mid range machine is actually a huge upgrade over past machines, so it is I'll advised for people to slam this years update as totally worthless.
That aside, I am glad that in my 2011 mini, I got to change the RAM myself (went from 2 GB to 8 GB) however am I the only one who feels $200 is not that high of a price to play for the 16 GB upgrade?
It isn't a lot of money to pay for RAM from a mainline vendor. However realize that you are really only paying for 8 GB as the cost of 8 GB of RAM is built into the mid range Mini. The other thing here is that this is LPDDR3 RAM which last I knew was a bit more expensive than mainline desktop RAM.
The SSD I had a bit more trouble with. I missed out on RAM being cheap about two years ago I guess it was but if I want to upgrade my current Mac mini, the prices are listed below and are the same for 1333 MHz and 1600 MHz.
Strange pricing. It does highlight that Apples prices are not anywhere near as bad as they once where. The price of RAM in these machines shouldn't impact any bodies purchasing decisions.
As I mentioned before in my other topic, I am stoked for the Broadwell U and H chips. I do hope we get a quad-core mini perhaps next year or the year after though.
I'm not sure if Intel will be focusing on quad cores yet with Broadwell. They have been hell bent on lowering power and increasing GPU functionality to try to protect the low end from ARM hardware. That being said CPU cores these days are not the power hogs they have been in the past. In my world it is foolish of Apple to not have a quad core option for the Mini, who knows what the scoop is in Apples world.
I'm still left with the impression that the Mini is a minimalist engineering effort that has delivered a really nice midrange machine but has failed to provide a suitable performance option. Contrast this with the new iPad Air which they blew out all stops to totally overhaul the machine and attack the performance issues there. It is obvious where the engineering effort has gone these days.
They might have offered a 37W quad core chip but I guess they didn't want to offer Intel HD 4600 only Iris Pro to not confuse people with Intel's numbering system of Intel HD 5000, Iris 5100, and Iris Pro 5200.
Somehow I feel that even if Apple offered a quad-core Iris Pro mini, people still would not be content and demand discrete graphics. If discrete graphics were in the mini, people would say the graphics used are not good enough.
I think the expectation was to see a revised Mini that with at least the same quad-core option and user-replacible RAM. That it didn't appear left a lot of people disappointed in the Mini - and Apple.
I think the expectation was to see a revised Mini that with at least the same quad-core option and user-replacible RAM. That it didn't appear left a lot of people disappointed in the Mini - and Apple.
The lack of a quad core is a bit of a disappointment as that can have a significant bearing on performance for some users. Anybody whining about replaceable RAM is just out of Touch. Seriously what will these people do when RAM gets integrated right into the processor module?
I can't say I'm extremely disappointed with Apple as Intel is partly to blame here. However Apple did have the option of boosting the power supply wattage to better support Intel decent quad core options. The flip side here is that Apple did focus on GPU performance which is huge for the majority of Mini users. So; I can't use the word disappointed here at all, rather I see those machines as very nice upgrades if you don't need a quad core. I really think too many focused on the regression at the high end and thus failed to realize just how nice the update is for the midrange machine.
Comments
I understand the desire to break free from Intel, but who is going to fab this hypothetical ARM chip for Apple?
14-nanometer is the bleeding edge right now and is the reason Broadwell is late, and all the talk is that the Apple's A8 chip will be 20nm. Apple would be going a generation backwards by adopting ARM for their Desktop/Laptop machines...unless they could convince Intel to make the chips for them, and then they're right back in the same situation.
I just can't see Apple adopting ARM for anything but iOS.
Intel has really laid a turd. They should have designed and built these chips at 16nm-18nm in order to get them out 6 months ago.
It sounds like their Atom chips will be out this year (WOW a new Surface), but the Desktop and Laptop chips won't be out until next year.
Spoken like a joven who thinks an iPad is the only computing device anyone would ever need. You have a lot to learn about enterprise computing lad. When you grow up, perhaps you'll discover there is a world beyond jerking off to porn.
Did you miss the part about "Upgradeable GPU" PCIe slot?
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2639+Teardown/17828
Even when Apple uses a desktop CPU part, they still use a Laptop GPU. Do you see how much space is just heatsink?
There are literately three and a half tiers of computers that need to exist:
1. Server/Workstation, which defining feature is ECC memory and replaceable PCIe parts and RAM
2. Desktop, defining feature is that it can be replaced every 7 years or upgraded every 2 years with a new video card and/or cpu + RAM.
3. Laptops, which are meant to last 7 years, but not be upgraded beyond RAM.
3.5 Tablet/UltraBook, which are meant to last 3 years and be thrown out when their batteries quit holding a charge. Entire point being battery life at the expense of everything else.
None of these replace each other. Apple doesn't offer the first two, rather all Apple offers are laptop class parts. The iPad included. The Mac Pro is really more of a "MacMini portable Workstation"
The performance gap between the iPad and the MacBook Air is not really that large for the price. http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-air-vs-macbook-air-2014/31940/ , so when people start suggesting Apple is going to put their own ARM parts in MacBooks, I still shake my head and laugh. This would be counterproductive since Intel still has at least one more die shrink up their sleeve. Until there is a point where Apple can produce a A series chip at the same die size, Apple has no reason to even consider it.
The PowerPC vs x86 problem was one of those things where the entire computer industry didn't see where the puck was going. Everyone kept yelling that the x86 ISA was dead, time to find something else. Once everyone hit 3Ghz it was like "oh dude, we can't keep going higher without burning holes in the motherboard." That's when Intel woke up and started building multi-core parts... which is the same time Apple switched over (Jan 2006, same with the Core Solo/Core Duo parts.)
Where everyone is going to get burned in the next 5 years is the SSD's produced this year on TLC processes will burn out. Die shrinks for NAND flash actually result in shorter life spans. So factor this into the MacMini, Mac Pro and Macbook Pro designs. Most of the current MacMini is the space for the hard drive. Remove that with a SSD and the MacMini could be half as tall. Or they could re-style it like the Mac Pro and it would be the size of a coffee mug.
Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables.
If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate. They simply don't have to corporate value systems in place that supports killing their current cash cow to jump onto the next generation. They'd rather ride their cash cow until its dead. Until the cow actually dies everything they're doing seems to make good business sense. There's a reason why DEC, Sun, SGI, etc., didn't become dominant PC players even though they dominated the mini computer market. It wasn't because they didn't know how to build damn fast computers or didn't understand the technology or didn't understand the emerging market. These were not dumb companies led by idiots. They had some of the best and brightest minds and business people - and they crashed and burned. One recurring characteristic of companies that end up going the way of the Dodo and DEC is an attempt to hybridize the old with the new. They just can't bring themselves to let the old cash cow go. Does it work? Rarely if ever, and it only delays the inevitable.
Another recurring pattern is the disruptor starting out as inferior in performance to the disrupted. Early PCs were hobby toys compared to mainframes and minis. Did that matter? There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.
Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side.
Intel is going to be history, the writing is on the wall.
We are all history... some just take longer to decompose.
Intel is obviously trying to stem the post-PC tide long enough to find a new platform to target with their new chips. They obviously see Apple and its A-series chips and iOS as a serious threat. Same goes with Google and its Chrome OS. This is very much following the same disruption pattern that transitioned us from mainframe computers to mini computers and then to microcomputers (PCs). Now we're well on our way to post-PC and transitioning to handheld computers in the form of tablets, smartphones, and wearables.
If history repeats itself, and it's not even an "IF" as some of you would like it to be, the dominant players in the generation that is left behind almost never successfully transition to the next generation or even survive. Near zero survival rate.
There are still some mainframes around and PCs have largely displaced minis. Once PCs were "good enough" the mini was dead and the mainframes further squeezed into niche applications. The same thing will happen with what we now consider high-end PCs. They will survive as niche products, but the bulk of the market will move down to tablets and low cost laptops like the ChromeBook. Those are the main choices and challenges Intel has in front of it today.
Intel knows this pattern very well, at least under Andy Grove it did. Will they follow DEC and Sun into the sunset? History is not on their side.
err... most computer spending is going into the cloud. not to the desktop.
Where I agree with you. CISC mainframes was supplanted by RISC super minis which was supplanted by x86 'frames' ARM will have its day in the sun, and then something else that can do mesh computing.
Where I disagree: endpoint computing is really all about UX. Almost no-one will be running a business on a chrome book, and no one will have _THEIR_ database wholly on the device they carry, or have on their desk. These are VT52s, XTerms, 327x devices, nothing more. Yes, they are computers, but they are not standalone; their value drops to near zero when the cord/wireless is cut. And at a certain point, it's less about raw compute speed than functionality (A faster mac mini is great, but wait, what I really want is support for 4 4K monitors... speed may be needed to support it, but it's not really a 'business requirement')
Intel has a lot of challenges, and to them, like microsoft, they had a hard time trying to specialize into one of 2 competing markets. You can't take technology which started on the desktop and has been marching towards both the data center and the wristwatch and win in either domain.
Apple learned that in OSes, and has to come to a tactical decision point for what chipset to use for desktops and mobile devices. Strategically, it doesn't matter: intel, Aseries, or abacuses: Apple's long term viability is about getting people to pay apple for a better way to do integrate into the digital world. Tactically, they do know that the more effective the chip is in delivering value (price/performance/power/size envelope), the more advantage it brings, but it only is a means of delivering the value... it isn't the value.
But back to agreeing... unless you continually reinvent yourself, (e.g. IBM), you only survive one wave of the technology surf.
What we need...is a Mac mini based off of this. Yes...were still bitching about this in case anyone is wondering.
No we do not. The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.
But we absolutely do need a new mini. I've got ancient servers that I'm barely keeping alive, waiting on a new, more powerful mini to replace them.
I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.
No we do not. The Mac mini is a desktop machine, it needs a more powerful chip, not a less powerful one.
But we absolutely do need a new mini. I've got ancient servers that I'm barely keeping alive, waiting on a new, more powerful mini to replace them.
It may be a desktop Mac, but its always gotten a mobile CPU. I can all but guarantee you that it will never have a desktop class CPU inside it. If you want more power, get an iMac.
I think you're better off just getting whats available for Mac mini servers right now. Otherwise, you're going to be disappointed.
This is probably why we have waited so long for the Mini update. Apple most likely saw a huge opportunity in Broadwell to make the Mini a much more powerful machine while keeping the form factor or even shrinking it a bit. As it is it isn't the mobile chip that breaks the Mini but rather the expansion capability and the lackluster Intel GPU's Broadwell appear to be able to deal with the GPU issue and it may have also been a better solution for the TB interface, so more pain over the long wait for Broadwell. The only other expansion issue is the internal drive storage where much could be done to fix the access issues to make servicing those drives more friendly. It is hard to be serious about a machine marketed as a server that has drives as difficult to get to as the Mini. Lastly they really need to keep the two drive bays and add a slot for a blade SSD solution which would really make for a very versatile Mini.
In a nut shel Intel has really f,ed up this year.
I'm sure it will get one if it's updated, but it is still a low-power machine so I wouldn't expect anything but a mobile-grade chip to be included.
In a nut shel Intel has really f,ed up this year.
hav eyo ube enr ead ing too muc hee cum min gsl ate ly?
I spent $5000 for my first Apple II+ setup and have spent a good part of my disposable and vacation money on Apple Computer products since 1982. I have often said to people that a person with a moderate amount of money can get the equivalent of a high class sports car and probably get better value by buying most anything Apple. At first I was dismayed by the paltry Mac Mini offerings we got served a week ago.
I have to assume (in my naive and hopeful beginner's mind) that the new offering was a patch until the Broadwell chips got cheap and plentiful; or that Apple has something more exciting on the horizon in the general format as the Mini.
I have always preferred a complete all-in-one product, except that for the creative computer user; WE like flexibility. We want Apple to give us something we can mess around with.
And we want to continue to be a fan base for Apple, which as a corporation had it's ups and downs, while we saw the genius in Apple and kept touting the essential superiority of the original concept of Apple and saw it eventually prosper beyond our dreams.
We are not looking for mediocrity; we see Apple as an exception to the mediocrity we see all around us.
Give us a Mac Mini to be proud of!
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-ddr3/ct2k8g3s1339m
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory/ct2k8g3s160bm
As I mentioned before in my other topic, I am stoked for the Broadwell U and H chips. I do hope we get a quad-core mini perhaps next year or the year after though.
Let's face it a lot of Mini users could have easily justified a quad core. I mean with sound technical reasoning, not some of the techno lust we see here. On the flip side there are way to many that would chase after a quad that would never be able to leverage the processor. So what I'm saying here is the upset people over the lack of a quad core may rightfully be pissed off at Apple. On the other hand the mid range machine is actually a huge upgrade over past machines, so it is I'll advised for people to slam this years update as totally worthless. It isn't a lot of money to pay for RAM from a mainline vendor. However realize that you are really only paying for 8 GB as the cost of 8 GB of RAM is built into the mid range Mini. The other thing here is that this is LPDDR3 RAM which last I knew was a bit more expensive than mainline desktop RAM. Strange pricing. It does highlight that Apples prices are not anywhere near as bad as they once where. The price of RAM in these machines shouldn't impact any bodies purchasing decisions.
I'm not sure if Intel will be focusing on quad cores yet with Broadwell. They have been hell bent on lowering power and increasing GPU functionality to try to protect the low end from ARM hardware. That being said CPU cores these days are not the power hogs they have been in the past. In my world it is foolish of Apple to not have a quad core option for the Mini, who knows what the scoop is in Apples world.
I'm still left with the impression that the Mini is a minimalist engineering effort that has delivered a really nice midrange machine but has failed to provide a suitable performance option. Contrast this with the new iPad Air which they blew out all stops to totally overhaul the machine and attack the performance issues there. It is obvious where the engineering effort has gone these days.
Somehow I feel that even if Apple offered a quad-core Iris Pro mini, people still would not be content and demand discrete graphics. If discrete graphics were in the mini, people would say the graphics used are not good enough.
I think the expectation was to see a revised Mini that with at least the same quad-core option and user-replacible RAM. That it didn't appear left a lot of people disappointed in the Mini - and Apple.
The lack of a quad core is a bit of a disappointment as that can have a significant bearing on performance for some users. Anybody whining about replaceable RAM is just out of Touch. Seriously what will these people do when RAM gets integrated right into the processor module?
I can't say I'm extremely disappointed with Apple as Intel is partly to blame here. However Apple did have the option of boosting the power supply wattage to better support Intel decent quad core options. The flip side here is that Apple did focus on GPU performance which is huge for the majority of Mini users. So; I can't use the word disappointed here at all, rather I see those machines as very nice upgrades if you don't need a quad core. I really think too many focused on the regression at the high end and thus failed to realize just how nice the update is for the midrange machine.
When is this?
Skylake, I believe.
If you think people are whining about change now, wait until post-Cannonlake chips drop silicon in favor of indium antimonide.