Hp z2 mini (Apple mac mini killer?)

[MRrainer]

Apple already licensed their OS once. It didn't go very well. It's unclear if the parameters have changed enough that a revisit of that decision is necessary.

The problem Apple has at its hands is that they ship so few Macs that upgrading the specs more often would not be economically viable for them - they'd also probably have to throw more resources at it, which they currently don't really look like they're willing to do.

Would I be thrilled to have a Mac Mini with Skylake, user-serviceable SSD, RAM and four TB3-ports available for purchase?
Absolutely!
Would I buy one?
No, because I don't really buy very often these days. It will be a couple of years before I buy a replacement.

 

[jpietrzak8]

OS X and iOS come from the same source base. You can't separate them easily to open source them.

Nonsense. OS X and iOS more or less just share Darwin as their base -- and Darwin is already open source. So far as I can tell, much of iOS is radically different from OS X at this point; I don't think it would be all that hard to separate them. And even if not, Google has shown that it's fairly easy to lock down an OS that is almost entirely open, if you just retain control over a few essential bits.
[doublepost=1479608978][/doublepost]

One of the nice features of OSX in its day was that it only had to work on limited hardware and as such "appeared" more stable. Opening it up to too many types of hardware you get a kluge like Windows faces (and now a bit of what Linux too faces).

...

So Apple just needs to learn one thing - THIN is not needed for desktops.

Hmm. First you say that less hardware is a good thing, next you ask for different hardware.

The truth is, Windows used to be a bit klugy, but they've been getting better. Linux was designed from the very beginning to be adaptable to almost any kind of hardware; the OS flies on practically any target you want, and has usable UI features (GUI or otherwise) on an astonishing range of devices.

And I am certain that we have not seen the end of new hardware, and new UI devices. Linux will adapt much more handily to new concepts such as VR, as it is not tied explicitly to a two-dimensional screen-sized UI. Even Windows has become more adaptable in that manner. It may just be that OS X will be the OS left in the dust, if Apple avoids supporting a broad range of hardware...

 

[dogslobber]

Nonsense. OS X and iOS more or less just share Darwin as their base -- and Darwin is already open source. So far as I can tell, much of iOS is radically different from OS X at this point; I don't think it would be all that hard to separate them.

The upper UI layers are different. The rest are not dissimilar.

 

[Partron22]

Lenovo M900 Tiny is getting me excited. It's here NOW.
The thought of having an actual serial port instead of having to resort to claptrap and kludgery pleases me, as does 4 fast cores, and two swappable drive bays.
I can live with Windows 7. I can even live with 10. And I can run Debian Linux off the spare drive bay to talk to my Raspberry Pi.
So I won't have a dedicated superspeed GPU. Don't care. Rather make things that work than play games.
Making things that work keeps getting harder and harder on Apple products. They're locking down the hardware too hard, so I'll go elsewhere.

 

[phrehdd]

Nonsense. OS X and iOS more or less just share Darwin as their base -- and Darwin is already open source. So far as I can tell, much of iOS is radically different from OS X at this point; I don't think it would be all that hard to separate them. And even if not, Google has shown that it's fairly easy to lock down an OS that is almost entirely open, if you just retain control over a few essential bits.
[doublepost=1479608978][/doublepost]

Hmm. First you say that less hardware is a good thing, next you ask for different hardware.

The truth is, Windows used to be a bit klugy, but they've been getting better. Linux was designed from the very beginning to be adaptable to almost any kind of hardware; the OS flies on practically any target you want, and has usable UI features (GUI or otherwise) on an astonishing range of devices.

And I am certain that we have not seen the end of new hardware, and new UI devices. Linux will adapt much more handily to new concepts such as VR, as it is not tied explicitly to a two-dimensional screen-sized UI. Even Windows has become more adaptable in that manner. It may just be that OS X will be the OS left in the dust, if Apple avoids supporting a broad range of hardware...

To be clear - if OSX/MacOS was licensed out to a 3rd party computer maker it would be a computer designed to run OSX/MacOS which is different than just having MacOS on any ol' PC which any ol' video card and any ol' network card with any ol' audio card, with any ol RAID card with .... you follow the difference?
[doublepost=1479624958][/doublepost]

Apple already licensed their OS once. It didn't go very well. It's unclear if the parameters have changed enough that a revisit of that decision is necessary.

The problem Apple has at its hands is that they ship so few Macs that upgrading the specs more often would not be economically viable for them - they'd also probably have to throw more resources at it, which they currently don't really look like they're willing to do.

Would I be thrilled to have a Mac Mini with Skylake, user-serviceable SSD, RAM and four TB3-ports available for purchase?
Absolutely!
Would I buy one?
No, because I don't really buy very often these days. It will be a couple of years before I buy a replacement.

Hmm We certainly are not on the same page here. 3rd party Apple computers sold well and I mentioned NEC as being quite successful. Let's recall who opted to stop it - Steve Jobs as he wanted full control and that is the only reason it stopped. Apple's pulling the carpet out banged up a couple of companies along with IBM.

 

[MRrainer]

Steve Jobs stopped the licensing-program because the licensees were siphoning-off a lot of profit for little returns.
They could do this because they didn't do any R&D. Or very little.
The high-end machines they sold directly impacted the profit of Apple on their high-end machines, leaving Apple hemorrhaging cash like an Ebola patient is hemorrhaging... stuff.

Apple as it is and as we have come to know it can currently only exist in a world where it's the only one building devices for its software-cosmos.
If people buy less Macs, they'll just produce less Macs. (Almost) no money lost. Or at least, no sale lost to a competitor.
If there were multiple vendors, if you lower your production, chances are that a competitor snaps up that sale!
It's one of the joys of a monopoly.

 

[phrehdd]

Steve Jobs stopped the licensing-program because the licensees were siphoning-off a lot of profit for little returns.
They could do this because they didn't do any R&D. Or very little.
The high-end machines they sold directly impacted the profit of Apple on their high-end machines, leaving Apple hemorrhaging cash like an Ebola patient is hemorrhaging... stuff.

Apple as it is and as we have come to know it can currently only exist in a world where it's the only one building devices for its software-cosmos.
If people buy less Macs, they'll just produce less Macs. (Almost) no money lost. Or at least, no sale lost to a competitor.
If there were multiple vendors, if you lower your production, chances are that a competitor snaps up that sale!
It's one of the joys of a monopoly.

You are stating what some might consider an obvious conclusion but it is not quite accurate. Jobs, stopped the entire process of 3rd party because he wanted 100 percent control AND the 3rd party offerings were superior to Apple's own. Funny how 3rd party computers went for a high price, sold and created profit and yet Apple with all its truly great innovations fell prey to its own greed back then. The restructuring that followed pushed forward some innovation and we can thank the 3rd party computer makers for putting a fire under Apple. Let's also consider that PCs with another operating system were smashing down the profits for Apple and better to have Apple OS on than PC with the other maker and so forth. Apple might have created some newer more high end computers but it narrowed Apple's market down.

 

[jpietrzak8]

To be clear - if OSX/MacOS was licensed out to a 3rd party computer maker it would be a computer designed to run OSX/MacOS which is different than just having MacOS on any ol' PC which any ol' video card and any ol' network card with any ol' audio card, with any ol RAID card with .... you follow the difference?

Oh, I see! Yes, that would be a problem, as you couldn't possibly manage an OS in such a way as to run on all that hardware. Just as BSD, the OS on which macOS is based, couldn't possibly run on any ol' PC with any ol' video card and any ol' network card with any ol' audio card, with any ol RAID card.

Oh, wait...

 

[fokmik]

lets wait for the new mini and then to compare with this HP z2
[doublepost=1479674958][/doublepost]i wonder when this hp z2 mini will be release?

 

[MRrainer]

You are stating what some might consider an obvious conclusion but it is not quite accurate. Jobs, stopped the entire process of 3rd party because he wanted 100 percent control AND the 3rd party offerings were superior to Apple's own.

Back then, I wasn't into Apple, so I can't really comment.
But AFAIK, they did affect the profitability of the company. Any CEO would have had to do something about this.
Jobs did what he did.
And as I said, at this point, it's very difficult to turn back the wheel - especially, as iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS and the hardware they run on is so interconnected these days and uses special hardware (Touch Sensor, Secure Enclave etc.pp.).
We're not talking about Siamese Twins - it's more like Siamese Quadruplets.
[doublepost=1479676926][/doublepost]

lets wait for the new mini and then to compare with this HP z2
[doublepost=1479674958][/doublepost]i wonder when this hp z2 mini will be release?

http://bgr.com/2016/11/16/mac-mini-alternatives-2016-hp-z2/

On the pricing front, HP is starting the Z2 at a fairly reasonable $699, which will score you the base configuration. If you’re looking for the top-of-the-line Z2, HP isn’t quite ready to share that figure, so you’ll have to save your pennies and hope the number isn’t too insane when the computer debuts in December.​

 

[fokmik]

i wonder if those usb-c are thunderbolt 3?

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Nice box, but either Quadro or integrated? Why is there no intermediate GTX option?

 

[MRrainer]

Nice box, but either Quadro or integrated? Why is there no intermediate GTX option?

Because it's either for people who don't need 3D - or for those who need professional 3D.

Gamers need not apply.

 

[ActionableMango]

The problem Apple has at its hands is that they ship so few Macs that upgrading the specs more often would not be economically viable for them

So few Macs? Macs generate about $5-6.5 billion annual revenue. Mac marketshare puts Apple at #4 right behind Dell and in line with Acer and Asus. Those companies have no problem selling many more models and keeping them up to date.