Aren't we getting a bit obsessed over hardware?

[ElectronGuru]

I could agree with this thread %100 if it was in ipad/iphone ram or other similar topics. However mac mini is choice of many semi-pro people and developers who develop for apple and make them money.

That is part of the problem. Apple doesn't have a mid range desktop. If there was an xMac with 4 and 6 cores, drive bays, and GPUs, most of the people wanting more from the mini wouldn't even care the mini didn't have them.

On top of this, haswell requires a separate motherboard for quad options. There are no quad core MBP 13, there are no dual core MBP 15, apple only makes one mobo per model. So Apple should make two mobos for a cheaper model?

On top of this are huge delays from Intel. Apple could have delayed longer on a refresh, but was already getting pressured for action (including by us).

I'm hoping to pick up a refurb, but I am clearly done with the mini lineup if this is a permanent step for Apple, which I highly expect it is. I use several minis as servers and the ability to swap drives, improve RAM etc is important to me.

Minis are based on MacBooks. The last one was based on the last MBP 13. This one is based on the MBA. The MBA has PCI SSD and soldered ram so the new mini has PCI SSD and soldered ram. The next mini is likely to be redesigned. If it's still based on the MBA, it will likely remain inflexible.

 

[johngwheeler]

Minis are based on MacBooks. The last one was based on the last MBP 13. This one is based on the MBA. The MBA has PCI SSD and soldered ram so the new mini has PCI SSD and soldered ram. The next mini is likely to be redesigned. If it's still based on the MBA, it will likely remain inflexible.

That's not entirely accurate. The Mid & top level 2012 Minis were based on the same quad-core CPUs available in the rMBP 15, with the entry level being a MBP 13 processor.

The 2014 entry level has the same 1.4GHz CPU as the base MBA, but the other two use the mid and top tier of the rMBP 13 with the same BTO i7 3.0GHz op[tion, which aren't actually bad processors, albeit 2 core.

 

[iososx]

Apple is basking in the riches they've received for the world class hardware they create. With that comes loyal product focused customers.

The entire industry is alive and well off its efforts in hardware. Without which there'd be no need for software. It all balances out.

 

[reco2011]

RDP or no, applications like Office, simple web browsing, etc will overall be faster due to a faster CPU and (at least the potential for) improved disk transfer speed.

Contrary to what may be popular belief, increase in IPC per core and clock speed actually do produce measurable positive impact in applications that aren't thread limited. Increasing core count isn't the only way to increase performance and since I'm not doing anything all that thread intensive, this should be a notable upgrade in performance whether I'm sitting at it or connecting remotely, the inherent latency of RDP not withstanding.

I appreciate your interest in my use case, however.

I fully understand the gains which can be had from IPC increases, higher clock speeds, faster memory systems, etc. I considered all that irrelevant because you said:

"This machine exists for only one purpose, and that is to run Windows and allow RDP access."

Apparently that was not an accurate statement?

 

[torquer]

I fully understand the gains which can be had from IPC increases, higher clock speeds, faster memory systems, etc. I considered all that irrelevant because you said:

"This machine exists for only one purpose, and that is to run Windows and allow RDP access."

Apparently that was not an accurate statement?

Not to put too fine a point on it here, but if you are under the belief that RDPing into a PC makes its performance irrelevant you're sorely mistaken. RDP or no, I still experience the same slowdowns as anyone else and thus experience the same increase in performance as anyone else. I still search emails, I still load web pages. RDP isn't a magical veil that conceals native performance of a PC.

And to be even more candid, I guess I'm curious why you are challenging me on the reasons I spent my money on an upgrade I wanted? It is absolutely and quantifiably an upgrade for me, the issue of quadcoregate notwithstanding. I would have liked to have had a quad core option, but I'm fine with a fast dual core.

For those with a different use case I expect they'll have a different opinion and that's fine. I'm no more trying to convince someone to change their desires for their mac mini any more than I need to convince you or anyone else that mine are valid.

This is whats wrong with Internet forums and posts. Its not enough for someone to be happy with their choices and use case - someone always has to come along to prove them "wrong" somehow.

 

[reco2011]

Not to put too fine a point on it here, but if you are under the belief that RDPing into a PC makes its performance irrelevant you're sorely mistaken. RDP or no, I still experience the same slowdowns as anyone else and thus experience the same increase in performance as anyone else. I still search emails, I still load web pages. RDP isn't a magical veil that conceals native performance of a PC.

And to be even more candid, I guess I'm curious why you are challenging me on the reasons I spent my money on an upgrade I wanted? It is absolutely and quantifiably an upgrade for me, the issue of quadcoregate notwithstanding. I would have liked to have had a quad core option, but I'm fine with a fast dual core.

For those with a different use case I expect they'll have a different opinion and that's fine. I'm no more trying to convince someone to change their desires for their mac mini any more than I need to convince you or anyone else that mine are valid.

This is whats wrong with Internet forums and posts. Its not enough for someone to be happy with their choices and use case - someone always has to come along to prove them "wrong" somehow.

I am not challenging you. You're free to spend your money however you see fit. I was merely curious as to why you would upgrade a system when it would offer nothing over the system you were upgrading. But if it's what you wish to do then so be it.

With that said I think there is a fundamental disconnect between what you stated you do with this system and my understanding of what you do with it. Like you I have a system solely used as an RDP gateway. It receives the income RDP request and hands it off to the system for which I am attempting to connect. It appears you're not using RDP in that configuration. It appears you're RDP to the system and running programs from it remotely. IOW an evaluation of your needs would be essentially the same as if you were sitting down in front of it. You're just accessing it remotely via RDP.

Understanding this is not merely an RDP gateway, as I thought it was, I now understand your reason for upgrading.

 

[torquer]

I am not challenging you. You're free to spend your money however you see fit. I was merely curious as to why you would upgrade a system when it would offer nothing over the system you were upgrading. But if it's what you wish to do then so be it.

With that said I think there is a fundamental disconnect between what you stated you do with this system and my understanding of what you do with it. Like you I have a system solely used as an RDP gateway. It receives the income RDP request and hands it off to the system for which I am attempting to connect. It appears you're not using RDP in that configuration. It appears you're RDP to the system and running programs from it remotely. IOW an evaluation of your needs would be essentially the same as if you were sitting down in front of it. You're just accessing it remotely via RDP.

Understanding this is not merely an RDP gateway, as I thought it was, I now understand your reason for upgrading.

Ah, that makes sense. We're on the same page now. No wonder you were questioning me before

 

[thedeske]

This is whats wrong with Internet forums and posts. Its not enough for someone to be happy with their choices and use case - someone always has to come along to prove them "wrong" somehow.

true - entertaining if we're lucky - wasteful most of the time

 

[reco2011]

true - entertaining if we're lucky - wasteful most of the time

Or, as was my intent, to save him a few hundred dollars by avoiding a purchase I, at the time, believed wouldn't do anything for him. Now that I understand there was a misunderstanding of his use case I fully understand where he's coming from.