Interesting. Q3 starts on July 1 and ends on September 30.
Does this mean the new 15" MacBook Pro will be announced at WWDC but not ship till July?
(It's fairly obvious that a new 15" is in the works.)
iMacs don't usually get revved till October, so I guess the current gen is the back-to-school product. It will be great to see the desktops get USB 3.1, and - hopefully - Thunderbolt 3.
The Apple Mac mini released on October 2012 is quad-core with eight threads. The above chips can be used in a Mac mini as well.
Yep I noticed the 35 watt chips which could lead to a very nice and long lasting Mini. That is if the Mini stays around long.
The whole point in wanting a Mini with quad core is that it would be a long term investment, in other words it would be a buy to last for a very long time thus needing the cores and the vastly improved GPUs. One goal is a HTPC but there is this fear that Apple TV might be revved int a better answer for that.
As noted I had to buy a new laptop due to the old one crapping out. That will put a Mini purchase off into the future. However a Man in with DDR4 RAM and SkyLake would be a very very good investment. Such a design should last for a good five years before new machines are noticeably faster.
I say five years because I suspect sub 14 mm processes will take much longer to arrive. Intel is looking at 9 to 10 nm as the next node but it looks to be difficult.
...and here's hoping for a more powerful quad core and improved GPU mini. Pricey for what it is.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Ahh yes the Mini. One has to wonder if Apple will wait two more years to update it again. They (Apple) have really missed the boat when it comes to turning that machine into a line up a wide array of users could buy into. The product line needs a wider array of performance options to match the rigid price points they seem to have. That means one box (maybe two) needs a quad core that doesn't suck.
Interestingly the GPUs are massively improved in the current Mini. For the vast majority of Mini users that is the right place to improve things but they still need a quad core option. More importantly this Mini would need DDR4 RAM to allow for the bandwidth to leverage the improved GPUs and quad CPUs. The evidence is pretty clear that AMD and Intel APUs both suffer from memory bandwidth problems. I'd consider DDR4 RAM as critical in a Mini upgrade.
Apple does not want a wide array of consumer users for the Mini. They never have, and probably never will.
That is possibly so, but from a business management stand point it doesn't make sense.
If companies didn't need it for server/industrial applications use, they would have cancelled it by now.
I find Mini's turning up in all sorts of places that are far removed from consumer uses. The problem is the platform is often running Windows. The commercial world just can't seem to wean itself from the world of Windows even if something like the Mini is an idea fit for their needs.
That is possibly so, but from a business management stand point it doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Apple would much rather sell you an iMac than a Mac mini, and it comes down to dollars, and customer satisfaction. They will always profit greater by selling iMacs, and they have more control over the customer sat experience when they ensure that you are using one of their displays and their peripherals.
You probably don't even consider the importance of customer sat, but it is extremely important. If someone has a crappy display, skyscraper keys on a wired keyboard and some awful Dell mouse...their experience with a Mac is hampered by all of that. Compared to zen-like experience of using an iMac...it doesn't even compare.
I'm using an Apple keyboard, a Vizio HDTV, and a Dynex mouse and my Mac experience has been awesome. I don't want an AIO because if the display dies, I'm screwed.
Sure it does. Apple would much rather sell you an iMac than a Mac mini, and it comes down to dollars, and customer satisfaction. They will always profit greater by selling iMacs, and they have more control over the customer sat experience when they ensure that you are using one of their displays and their peripherals.
the problem with that is that an iMac isn't suitable hardware for many installations. This is one of the reasons Apple has had little success with desktop hardware in industry.
You probably don't even consider the importance of customer sat, but it is extremely important. If someone has a crappy display, skyscraper keys on a wired keyboard and some awful Dell mouse...their experience with a Mac is hampered by all of that. Compared to zen-like experience of using an iMac...it doesn't even compare.
Baloney. People looking for a desktop machine are doing so to allow themselves that ability to configure what they need. It is a critical concept. Even with an iMac there are better alternative keyboards. The idea that you only get a good experience with Apple hardware has no basis in reality.
You probably don't even consider the importance of customer sat, but it is extremely important. If someone has a crappy display, skyscraper keys on a wired keyboard and some awful Dell mouse...their experience with a Mac is hampered by all of that. Compared to zen-like experience of using an iMac...it doesn't even compare.
Too right.
Give it up, Wizard. The retina iMac is the best desktop ever. 5k display. R290 GPU. SSD. 4 gig i7 CPU. I've only 'played' with the baseline' retina iMac and it is a wonder to behold. As we move to Skylake and a possible R300 series GPU (?) and faster connections and memory(?) the iMac will only become a more impressive machine than it is already.
The iMac is becoming quite the beast. It's already rough housing the entry level Mac Pro which costs £500 more with no monitor, K/B or Mouse.
Desktops are dwarfed by laptop sales. By iPad sales. But 1 million desktop sales for the iMac with the Mini and Mac Pro likely trailing in its wake is some going for a single supplier of computers with a premium price.
We're in a golden age of Mac sales. Apple keep it simple. We can quibble about losing quad core Mac Minis but I'm sure that will be addressed with Skylake? We'll see. So if someone wants 'headless' they'll have to plump for the next gen Mini or Pro. Which are imminent if you consider the next half a year or year (Apple's schedule...) as a timeline. With Skylake, the Mini becomes a potentially impressive headless low to middle end machine with decent and much improved Int' graphics.
It's ironic that you beat up on the iMac while buying a 'Macbook Pro' which is essentially a portable iMac... Time to bite into your own 'baloney' sandwich.
The iMac is a fine machine. If you want a Mac Mini so much...buy one when Skylake comes out. (And buy a nice 4k IPS Ben Q monitor to go with it. But it sounds like you're on a budget.) The latter will only make both the iMac and Mini more impressive along with potentially leaps forward in GPU power from AMD.
Get over it. Apple isn't letting you 'configure' - at least, not in conventional PC terms. It isn't going to happen and it hasn't in the years you've been bemoaning it. It's what you 'want' and maybe what you 'think' you 'need' but it aint happening. Decent priced 'towers' or 'headless' machines with the power you want haven't been done by Apple since the G3 blue and white.
Give it up, Wizard. The retina iMac is the best desktop ever. 5k display. R290 GPU. SSD. 4 gig i7 CPU. I've only 'played' with the baseline' retina iMac and it is a wonder to behold. As we move to Skylake and a possible R300 series GPU (?) and faster connections and memory(?) the iMac will only become a more impressive machine than it is already.
I think you misunderstand me, it doesn't matter if the iMac is a good machine; the problem is that it isn't a machine suitable for many users. The fact of the matter is that desktops aren't used like iPads or even laptops. Sometimes the intended usage dictates the physical design of the desktop.
The iMac is becoming quite the beast. It's already rough housing the entry level Mac Pro which costs £500 more with no monitor, K/B or Mouse.
It only does well against the Mac Pro in single threaded or lightly multi threaded work loads. It really makes no sense to eve compare the two platforms because as already mentioned the use cases are so different that there is little overlap. The people that really need a Mac Pro won't be considering an iMac nor a Mini anytime soon.
Desktops are dwarfed by laptop sales. By iPad sales. But 1 million desktop sales for the iMac with the Mini and Mac Pro likely trailing in its wake is some going for a single supplier of computers with a premium price.
The industry has changed rapidly! I can remember back to when a laptop was a joke so compromised performance and storage wise that it was a special purpose purchase.
We're in a golden age of Mac sales. Apple keep it simple. We can quibble about losing quad core Mac Minis but I'm sure that will be addressed with Skylake? We'll see. So if someone wants 'headless' they'll have to plump for the next gen Mini or Pro. Which are imminent if you consider the next half a year or year (Apple's schedule...) as a timeline. With Skylake, the Mini becomes a potentially impressive headless low to middle end machine with decent and much improved Int' graphics.
SkyLake certainly has the potential to deliver a significant Mini upgrade. The trouble with Apple is that they are often very slow to deliver such upgrades.
It's ironic that you beat up on the iMac while buying a 'Macbook Pro' which is essentially a portable iMac... Time to bite into your own 'baloney' sandwich.
There is a big difference between saying a platform doesn't meet your needs and beating up on said platform. The only reason I look at the Mini is that I have uses for it where the iMac simply won't work.
The iMac is a fine machine. If you want a Mac Mini so much...buy one when Skylake comes out. (And buy a nice 4k IPS Ben Q monitor to go with it. But it sounds like you're on a budget.) The latter will only make both the iMac and Mini more impressive along with potentially leaps forward in GPU power from AMD.
Get over it. Apple isn't letting you 'configure' - at least, not in conventional PC terms. It isn't going to happen and it hasn't in the years you've been bemoaning it. It's what you 'want' and maybe what you 'think' you 'need' but it aint happening. Decent priced 'towers' or 'headless' machines with the power you want haven't been done by Apple since the G3 blue and white.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The fact that Apple abandoned a market doesn't mean that they shouldn't revisit the market. Mac sales are impressive of late and all I saying is that they have the potential to be even better if the high end Mini was worth the sticker price. SkyLake might enable a Mini revision that makes the high end machine stand out but I'm not holding out hope here.
The latest roadmap also show 10nm Canonlake will be out in Q3 2016.
That will be perfect for Macbook.
I have this opinion that if Apple doesn't get its act together and fix some of the performance issues in Mac OS, Intel will never have a chip fast enough. I base this on my current experience with a brand new Briadwell based MBP 13". For the life of me I can't figure out why Preview and sone other apps beach ball so bad. If I had the machine heavily loaded at the time a beach ball might be acceptable. This isn't the case though.
In a nut shell it really looks like Apple needs to do something about the performance of the operating system and supplied apps. New processors won't solve the problem is Apples code continues to get slower.
The Intel NUC is starting to look mighty attractive right now. Hate to say it.
I wouldn't buy anything until after WWDC, mainly due to the hope that Mini gets re engineered. It is about time it got a major update.
The rumors about new iMacs and MBPs Wednesday, offer me the hope that they have something different planned for release at WWDC. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, but usually there is something hardware related at WWDC.
As for the NUC's, not a bad choice if you want to run Linux. I wouldn't buy the hardware to run Mac OS though.
I have this opinion that if Apple doesn't get its act together and fix some of the performance issues in Mac OS, Intel will never have a chip fast enough. I base this on my current experience with a brand new Briadwell based MBP 13". For the life of me I can't figure out why Preview and sone other apps beach ball so bad. If I had the machine heavily loaded at the time a beach ball might be acceptable. This isn't the case though.
In a nut shell it really looks like Apple needs to do something about the performance of the operating system and supplied apps. New processors won't solve the problem is Apples code continues to get slower.
That is why I hope the next OSX in this WWDC will fix that. I actually think Windows 7, 8.1 and now 10 has had tremendous improvement in performance, security etc. It has leapfrog OSX in many ways apart from some compatibility quirks and UX.
Speaking of WWDC i hope they will do something for Small enterprise as well, It seems many business are finally ready to upgrade their Computer System with Windows 10. This upgrade cycle is going to be huge. And as far as I can tell Apple will be missing out on it.
Comments
Interesting. Q3 starts on July 1 and ends on September 30.
Does this mean the new 15" MacBook Pro will be announced at WWDC but not ship till July?
(It's fairly obvious that a new 15" is in the works.)
iMacs don't usually get revved till October, so I guess the current gen is the back-to-school product. It will be great to see the desktops get USB 3.1, and - hopefully - Thunderbolt 3.
Sadly after needing to update to a new MBP 13" earlier this year my interests in these chips is dying. Maybe a Mini is in my future though.
The Apple Mac mini released on October 2012 is quad-core with eight threads. The above chips can be used in a Mac mini as well.
Yep I noticed the 35 watt chips which could lead to a very nice and long lasting Mini. That is if the Mini stays around long.
The whole point in wanting a Mini with quad core is that it would be a long term investment, in other words it would be a buy to last for a very long time thus needing the cores and the vastly improved GPUs. One goal is a HTPC but there is this fear that Apple TV might be revved int a better answer for that.
As noted I had to buy a new laptop due to the old one crapping out. That will put a Mini purchase off into the future. However a Man in with DDR4 RAM and SkyLake would be a very very good investment. Such a design should last for a good five years before new machines are noticeably faster.
I say five years because I suspect sub 14 mm processes will take much longer to arrive. Intel is looking at 9 to 10 nm as the next node but it looks to be difficult.
Skylake!
*sniff, sniff. I smell iMac revision...
5k retina trickles down the line somewhat. Beefier gpu. Faster cpu. More or faster ram. 512 SSD as standard!?
I could go for that.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...and here's hoping for a more powerful quad core and improved GPU mini. Pricey for what it is.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Ahh yes the Mini. One has to wonder if Apple will wait two more years to update it again. They (Apple) have really missed the boat when it comes to turning that machine into a line up a wide array of users could buy into. The product line needs a wider array of performance options to match the rigid price points they seem to have. That means one box (maybe two) needs a quad core that doesn't suck.
Interestingly the GPUs are massively improved in the current Mini. For the vast majority of Mini users that is the right place to improve things but they still need a quad core option. More importantly this Mini would need DDR4 RAM to allow for the bandwidth to leverage the improved GPUs and quad CPUs. The evidence is pretty clear that AMD and Intel APUs both suffer from memory bandwidth problems. I'd consider DDR4 RAM as critical in a Mini upgrade.
They (Apple) have really missed the boat when it comes to turning that machine into a line up a wide array of users could buy into.
Apple does not want a wide array of consumer users for the Mini. They never have, and probably never will.
If companies didn't need it for server/industrial applications use, they would have cancelled it by now.
I find Mini's turning up in all sorts of places that are far removed from consumer uses. The problem is the platform is often running Windows. The commercial world just can't seem to wean itself from the world of Windows even if something like the Mini is an idea fit for their needs.
That is possibly so, but from a business management stand point it doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Apple would much rather sell you an iMac than a Mac mini, and it comes down to dollars, and customer satisfaction. They will always profit greater by selling iMacs, and they have more control over the customer sat experience when they ensure that you are using one of their displays and their peripherals.
You probably don't even consider the importance of customer sat, but it is extremely important. If someone has a crappy display, skyscraper keys on a wired keyboard and some awful Dell mouse...their experience with a Mac is hampered by all of that. Compared to zen-like experience of using an iMac...it doesn't even compare.
I'm using an Apple keyboard, a Vizio HDTV, and a Dynex mouse and my Mac experience has been awesome. I don't want an AIO because if the display dies, I'm screwed.
Baloney. People looking for a desktop machine are doing so to allow themselves that ability to configure what they need. It is a critical concept. Even with an iMac there are better alternative keyboards. The idea that you only get a good experience with Apple hardware has no basis in reality.
Too right.
Give it up, Wizard. The retina iMac is the best desktop ever. 5k display. R290 GPU. SSD. 4 gig i7 CPU. I've only 'played' with the baseline' retina iMac and it is a wonder to behold. As we move to Skylake and a possible R300 series GPU (?) and faster connections and memory(?) the iMac will only become a more impressive machine than it is already.
The iMac is becoming quite the beast. It's already rough housing the entry level Mac Pro which costs £500 more with no monitor, K/B or Mouse.
Desktops are dwarfed by laptop sales. By iPad sales. But 1 million desktop sales for the iMac with the Mini and Mac Pro likely trailing in its wake is some going for a single supplier of computers with a premium price.
We're in a golden age of Mac sales. Apple keep it simple. We can quibble about losing quad core Mac Minis but I'm sure that will be addressed with Skylake? We'll see. So if someone wants 'headless' they'll have to plump for the next gen Mini or Pro. Which are imminent if you consider the next half a year or year (Apple's schedule...) as a timeline. With Skylake, the Mini becomes a potentially impressive headless low to middle end machine with decent and much improved Int' graphics.
It's ironic that you beat up on the iMac while buying a 'Macbook Pro' which is essentially a portable iMac... Time to bite into your own 'baloney' sandwich.
The iMac is a fine machine. If you want a Mac Mini so much...buy one when Skylake comes out. (And buy a nice 4k IPS Ben Q monitor to go with it. But it sounds like you're on a budget.) The latter will only make both the iMac and Mini more impressive along with potentially leaps forward in GPU power from AMD.
Get over it. Apple isn't letting you 'configure' - at least, not in conventional PC terms. It isn't going to happen and it hasn't in the years you've been bemoaning it.
It's what you 'want' and maybe what you 'think' you 'need' but it aint happening. Decent priced 'towers' or 'headless' machines with the power you want haven't been done by Apple since the G3 blue and white.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The fact that Apple abandoned a market doesn't mean that they shouldn't revisit the market. Mac sales are impressive of late and all I saying is that they have the potential to be even better if the high end Mini was worth the sticker price. SkyLake might enable a Mini revision that makes the high end machine stand out but I'm not holding out hope here.
That will be perfect for Macbook.
I have this opinion that if Apple doesn't get its act together and fix some of the performance issues in Mac OS, Intel will never have a chip fast enough. I base this on my current experience with a brand new Briadwell based MBP 13". For the life of me I can't figure out why Preview and sone other apps beach ball so bad. If I had the machine heavily loaded at the time a beach ball might be acceptable. This isn't the case though.
In a nut shell it really looks like Apple needs to do something about the performance of the operating system and supplied apps. New processors won't solve the problem is Apples code continues to get slower.
I wouldn't buy anything until after WWDC, mainly due to the hope that Mini gets re engineered. It is about time it got a major update.
The rumors about new iMacs and MBPs Wednesday, offer me the hope that they have something different planned for release at WWDC. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part, but usually there is something hardware related at WWDC.
As for the NUC's, not a bad choice if you want to run Linux. I wouldn't buy the hardware to run Mac OS though.
I have this opinion that if Apple doesn't get its act together and fix some of the performance issues in Mac OS, Intel will never have a chip fast enough. I base this on my current experience with a brand new Briadwell based MBP 13". For the life of me I can't figure out why Preview and sone other apps beach ball so bad. If I had the machine heavily loaded at the time a beach ball might be acceptable. This isn't the case though.
In a nut shell it really looks like Apple needs to do something about the performance of the operating system and supplied apps. New processors won't solve the problem is Apples code continues to get slower.
That is why I hope the next OSX in this WWDC will fix that. I actually think Windows 7, 8.1 and now 10 has had tremendous improvement in performance, security etc. It has leapfrog OSX in many ways apart from some compatibility quirks and UX.
Speaking of WWDC i hope they will do something for Small enterprise as well, It seems many business are finally ready to upgrade their Computer System with Windows 10. This upgrade cycle is going to be huge. And as far as I can tell Apple will be missing out on it.