Next mac mini

[Yebubbleman]

I hope they add a 1TB drive option with 750GB base-drive. The lack of 1TB is a nuisance for anyone with an elongated and rich history to their prime drives. After 20 years of Apple, the data on my drive is over 750GB from music and documents (I already keep all video of any sort on a separate drive).

Get a Mac mini Server. RAID 0 the two drives for 1-1.5 TB (depending on how you customize it), and if you'd prefer, wipe the drive and the client version of Lion. I did that with my Mid 2010 Mac mini Server with Snow Leopard because I wanted a Mac mini with 1TB of storage; works wonderfully.

OR customize the higher-end Mac mini to have a 750GB Hard Drive and a 256GB SSD; OS and apps on the SSD, data on the HDD, done.

I mean, yeah a singular 1TB drive (with room for two of them) would be nice, but for the time being, given that the Mac minis have room for two drives, a solution for your need currently exists.

Not so sure about that, since the modular now includes the "barely used" optical drive. Use of opticals will wane drastically in the next 3 years. DVDs are still the major use, but with the rise of thumb drive media coming on soon, those opticals are getting old. They are also the last mechanical piece of the computer, and should be quickly put to sleep if a better solution can be found.

I agree that the trend has ODDs going away; however thumb media is nowhere near as cheap as DVD-Rs, and nowhere near as sharable with others; I can't hand off a thumb drive to someone without asking for it back. I also need an optical drive in order to make a bootable USB drive of an OS (such as Snow Leopard Server) that didn't originally exist in disk image form. I could certainly see the iMacs drop the ODD, but it does remove a lot of the "all-in-one-ness" of it. Similarly, I see no reason to nix it from at least the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros, given that these Macs are supposed to have more utility than the MacBook Airs. I can say that it'd greatly inconvenience me if the MacBook Pro I'm planning on eventually getting to replace my mini (which I'll presumably sell at that point) doesn't have one built-in and if I have to carry one around.

 

[Adamantoise]

They could supply a miniDisplayPort/Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter and then suddenly two or even three Thunderbolt ports (instead of the one HDMI and one Thunderbolt we have today) becomes a fantastic idea.

I don't think you understand that having many ports drives the cost of the machine up. Thunderbolt is relatively new technology. It's not just USB 2.0

That aside, what's the point of taking away a HDMI port only to have to include an adapter with the Mini? Besides a $1,000 Thunderbolt Display what exactly is your average consumer supposed to do with a Thunderbolt port? Much less two of them.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I don't think you understand that having many ports drives the cost of the machine up. Thunderbolt is relatively new technology. It's not just USB 2.0

I wasn't denying that. The person I was responding to asked what the benefit of two Thunderbolt ports versus the one Thunderbolt and one HDMI port configuration we have on today's Mac minis would be, and I said (and still maintain) that, given that Thunderbolt is capable of signals beyond those also included in an HDMI connection (as well as in your standard miniDisplayPort), provided Apple included an adapter, it would yield more functionality without sacrificing anything. Cost of extra port aside, that sounds like win to me.

That aside, what's the point of taking away a HDMI port only to have to include an adapter with the Mini? Besides a $1,000 Thunderbolt Display what exactly is your average consumer supposed to do with a Thunderbolt port? Much less two of them.

See above for the reasons why substituting an HDMI port for a second Thunderbolt wouldn't suck and would actually be a boon rather than a burden.

Otherwise, I'm not sure if you pay attention to this (and in all seriousness, and no sarcasm whatsoever, I won't fault you if you don't; it's easy not to, especially in these forums) but for what they are, Mac minis are expensive. You're paying essentially the cost of the exact same machine if it were a PC and a laptop for a machine that has all of the drawbacks to being a desktop and all of the drawbacks to having laptop components minus all of the benefits typically associated with both desktop PCs and laptops. For the $600 that the entry level Mac mini costs, you can get a PC laptop with the exact same specs. For the $800 that the high-end Mac mini costs, you can get a PC laptop with the same specs and probably a much better GPU than the AMD Radeon HD 6630M that said Mac mini has. For the $1000 that the Mac mini Server costs, you can build a server (let alone find a laptop to run as a server if you're crazy enough) that is way more powerful for way cheaper.

Macs cost more, and, at times, they have premium features, such as Thunderbolt as a result. That being said, the 27" Thunderbolt Display isn't the only Thunderbolt device out there. Western Digital just announced a ton of cool Thunderbolt drives, Lacie has a ton of cool Thunderbolt stuff already out. I seem to recall hearing that NVIDIA was coming out with an external Thunderbolt video card (which would probably make owning a Thunderbolt Mac with an Intel HD 3000 suddenly not suck in video performance). Yeah, sure, these are all devices that will carry a premium price tag. Hell, even the Thunderbolt cable itself is $50. Premium features for machines that cost a premium (and for what the Mid 2011 Mac minis have inside otherwise, they definitely cost an absurd premium).

 

[Adamantoise]

I wasn't denying that. The person I was responding to asked what the benefit of two Thunderbolt ports versus the one Thunderbolt and one HDMI port configuration we have on today's Mac minis would be, and I said (and still maintain) that, given that Thunderbolt is capable of signals beyond those also included in an HDMI connection (as well as in your standard miniDisplayPort), provided Apple included an adapter, it would yield more functionality without sacrificing anything. Cost of extra port aside, that sounds like win to me.



See above for the reasons why substituting an HDMI port for a second Thunderbolt wouldn't suck and would actually be a boon rather than a burden.

Otherwise, I'm not sure if you pay attention to this (and in all seriousness, and no sarcasm whatsoever, I won't fault you if you don't; it's easy not to, especially in these forums) but for what they are, Mac minis are expensive. You're paying essentially the cost of the exact same machine if it were a PC and a laptop for a machine that has all of the drawbacks to being a desktop and all of the drawbacks to having laptop components minus all of the benefits typically associated with both desktop PCs and laptops. For the $600 that the entry level Mac mini costs, you can get a PC laptop with the exact same specs. For the $800 that the high-end Mac mini costs, you can get a PC laptop with the same specs and probably a much better GPU than the AMD Radeon HD 6630M that said Mac mini has. For the $1000 that the Mac mini Server costs, you can build a server (let alone find a laptop to run as a server if you're crazy enough) that is way more powerful for way cheaper.

Macs cost more, and, at times, they have premium features, such as Thunderbolt as a result. That being said, the 27" Thunderbolt Display isn't the only Thunderbolt device out there. Western Digital just announced a ton of cool Thunderbolt drives, Lacie has a ton of cool Thunderbolt stuff already out. I seem to recall hearing that NVIDIA was coming out with an external Thunderbolt video card (which would probably make owning a Thunderbolt Mac with an Intel HD 3000 suddenly not suck in video performance). Yeah, sure, these are all devices that will carry a premium price tag. Hell, even the Thunderbolt cable itself is $50. Premium features for machines that cost a premium (and for what the Mid 2011 Mac minis have inside otherwise, they definitely cost an absurd premium).

That's cool and all, but besides hard drives, those devices have been 'in development' for almost a year. For the consumer today ... Why should he care about Thunderbolt?

The standard is not picking up anytime soon (being a year), and when it does how many ports will you need exactly? 1 port has a 10Gbps bandwidth ... I would rather have a port I know I will use (HDMI) over a port that I could use to do all these amazing things (but won't)

Seems the only useful accessories are external hard drives. Whoop-de-doo.

 

[Icaras]

Why would someone want a thunderbolt display if they have a Mini?

Uhh, why wouldn't they?

 

[Yebubbleman]

That's cool and all, but besides hard drives, those devices have been 'in development' for almost a year. For the consumer today ... Why should he care about Thunderbolt?

The standard is not picking up anytime soon (being a year), and when it does how many ports will you need exactly? 1 port has a 10Gbps bandwidth ... I would rather have a port I know I will use (HDMI) over a port that I could use to do all these amazing things (but won't)

Seems the only useful accessories are external hard drives. Whoop-de-doo.

You can use a Thunderbolt port as an HDMI port. You can use a Thunderbolt port for anything. That's the whole point of it. So when I propose that replacing the configuration of one Thunderbolt port and one HDMI port for two Thunderbolt ports (either of which could be used for HDMI), I'm proposing an upgrade, plain and simple.

Uhh, why wouldn't they?

Exactly.

 

[iamthedudeman]

You can use a Thunderbolt port as an HDMI port. You can use a Thunderbolt port for anything. That's the whole point of it. So when I propose that replacing the configuration of one Thunderbolt port and one HDMI port for two Thunderbolt ports (either of which could be used for HDMI), I'm proposing an upgrade, plain and simple.



Exactly.

Not this again.

I don't think that you guys are thinking this through at all. Ask yourself why and how would it happen. What would be needed to make it happen.

Why would Apple remove the HDMI port the one port that can connect to any monitor without a adapter, which mind you is the main reason for the Mac Mini in the first place, Windows switchers.

Why would apple take the most important port and replace it with a expensive port that is redundant as the Mini already has one of those ports. Twelve hard drives? A external GPU that isn't on the Market yet? If one of those ports is used anyway to hook up a display, than why bother adding a adapter? I mean you have to hook up the Mini to something. It is not a all in one. Who in their right mind would hook up twelve devices to a Mac Mini? Or need to instead of a HDMI port?

What purpose would it serve. Name one.

Other than a complicated way to hook up a display? Two thunderbolt ports. Yeah makes sense.

Lets make it more complicated for all the Windows switchers more so than it already is by going from a OS that you have always used to a less complicated and user friendly OS by removing a port that you already have on your monitor with a redundant thunderbolt port that you have to hook up a adapter first. Makes perfect sense.

Using a adapter would essentially make just like any other port. You would not be able to daisy chain with the adapter, unless Apple made a expensive adapter. How much is the thunderbolt cable now?

With one thunderbolt port that can be daisy chained, why two ports? No need. Weather you know it or not the Thunderbolt controller and port are very expensive. Not cheap at all and would add to the cost of the mini. The cost of a HDMI port and thunderbolt port are not equal.

Enough of the extra thunderbolt port on the Mini. When you can daisy chain six devices on one port there is no need for it.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Not this again.

I don't think that you guys are thinking this through at all. Ask yourself why and how would it happen. What would be needed to make it happen.

Why would Apple remove the HDMI port the one port that can connect to any monitor without a adapter, which mind you is the main reason for the Mac Mini in the first place, Windows switchers.

Why would apple take the most important port and replace it with a expensive port that is redundant as the Mini already has one of those ports. Twelve hard drives? A external GPU that isn't on the Market yet? If one of those ports is used anyway to hook up a display, than why bother adding a adapter? I mean you have to hook up the Mini to something. It is not a all in one. Who in their right mind would hook up twelve devices to a Mac Mini? Or need to instead of a HDMI port?

What purpose would it serve. Name one.

Other than a complicated way to hook up a display? Two thunderbolt ports. Yeah makes sense.

Lets make it more complicated for all the Windows switchers more so than it already is by going from a OS that you have always used to a less complicated and user friendly OS by removing a port that you already have on your monitor with a redundant thunderbolt port that you have to hook up a adapter first. Makes perfect sense.

Using a adapter would essentially make just like any other port. You would not be able to daisy chain with the adapter, unless Apple made a expensive adapter. How much is the thunderbolt cable now?

With one thunderbolt port that can be daisy chained, why two ports? No need. Weather you know it or not the Thunderbolt controller and port are very expensive. Not cheap at all and would add to the cost of the mini. The cost of a HDMI port and thunderbolt port are not equal.

Enough of the extra thunderbolt port on the Mini. When you can daisy chain six devices on one port there is no need for it.

First off, please read the thread more carefully next time.

Secondly, I'm not saying that Apple can or even will replace the HDMI port with an extra Thunderbolt port. Nor am I saying that I'd be entirely stoked on the idea of that, myself. Someone asked "what would be the BENEFIT (not "need") of Apple doing that?" to which I (and others replied) "what wouldn't?" My answer assumed that money was no object. But given that Thunderbolt can be any previously established port connection (including HDMI, Audio and DVI), and given that HDMI is limited to just DVI+Audio, it gives you more than just HDMI. Is it practical? Not at all. Necessary? Not at all. Superfluous? Absolutely. But if you had all the money on Earth and any adapter you could possibly imagine, it would be a superior connectivity option.

Thirdly, the amount of monitors that have an HDMI connection is nowhere near the amount of monitors out there that have a DVI connection. So if your argument is "why forego a monitor port with a standard connection in favor of Thunderbolt with a needless dongle", do be aware that most people will already be using the supplied HDMI to DVI adapter anyway, if not the MiniDisplayPort to DVI adapter. ...Unless you're specifically referring to TVs, in which case, sure, HDMI is far more common than anything else. But again, I'd wager that a majority of Mac mini users (which isn't to say that the minority doesn't constitute a lot of users, mind you) don't hook their mini up to a TV as an HTPC.

 

[Lesser Evets]

... however thumb media is nowhere near as cheap as DVD-Rs, and nowhere near as sharable with others; I can't hand off a thumb drive to someone without asking for it back.

Agreed, because it is sadly true. At this time. There will be a shift coming in the next few years when traditional DVDs and CDs will switch over. You can already use USB on most sets, the PS3, and other such devices.

I still remember the time when handing off a CD-RW came with having to ask for it back. Then when DVD-RW were the same (only a decade ago), and quite pricey.

You can't even buy a thumb drive as small as a CD anymore (that I know of) and 2GB drives are $4 or even less. A 1GB was $100 back around 2004/5. It'll take a few more years before the cost of those memory chips are cheap enough to conquer the optical market.

But, yeah, at this time the optical drive still holds a clear edge. We're in an awkward and elongated transition out of optical media that will go until 2020, most likely. Circa 2016, DVD media will probably be as quaint as VHS tapes are today. There is still a palpable need by many for DVD optical drives, the 2011 Mini probably being put out to pasture before DVDs will be.

 

[iamthedudeman]

First off, please read the thread more carefully next time.

Secondly, I'm not saying that Apple can or even will replace the HDMI port with an extra Thunderbolt port. Nor am I saying that I'd be entirely stoked on the idea of that, myself. Someone asked "what would be the BENEFIT (not "need") of Apple doing that?" to which I (and others replied) "what wouldn't?" My answer assumed that money was no object. But given that Thunderbolt can be any previously established port connection (including HDMI, Audio and DVI), and given that HDMI is limited to just DVI+Audio, it gives you more than just HDMI. Is it practical? Not at all. Necessary? Not at all. Superfluous? Absolutely. But if you had all the money on Earth and any adapter you could possibly imagine, it would be a superior connectivity option.

Thirdly, the amount of monitors that have an HDMI connection is nowhere near the amount of monitors out there that have a DVI connection. So if your argument is "why forego a monitor port with a standard connection in favor of Thunderbolt with a needless dongle", do be aware that most people will already be using the supplied HDMI to DVI adapter anyway, if not the MiniDisplayPort to DVI adapter. ...Unless you're specifically referring to TVs, in which case, sure, HDMI is far more common than anything else. But again, I'd wager that a majority of Mac mini users (which isn't to say that the minority doesn't constitute a lot of users, mind you) don't hook their mini up to a TV as an HTPC.

Thats not what you said. I read the thread carefully enough. You are a big proponet of Apple removing the HDMI port and putting in a thunderbolt port regardless of cost. Or if cost was not a factor.

You can use a Thunderbolt port as an HDMI port. You can use a Thunderbolt port for anything. That's the whole point of it. So when I propose that replacing the configuration of one Thunderbolt port and one HDMI port for two Thunderbolt ports (either of which could be used for HDMI), I'm proposing an upgrade, plain and simple.

Why would Apple do such a thing? Ask your self why. One good reason to add another thunderbolt port. And sorry, most monitors today have a HDMI port. And DVI is going away ala optical drive. Your wrong on that one buddy. Apple does not make a habit of putting ports that are old tech. They remove them.

HDMI is the future. Display port is the future. DVI is not. Its as simple as that.
And most people who buy a modern monitor today will most likely have a HDMI port. If you buy a dell, or apple monitor no. Every other monitor yes.

If you daisy chain a thunderbolt port and use a HDMI to thunderbolt adapter. The adapter will require a chip to decode the signal the same as the Apple thunderbolt port cable that costs 50.00. Why add another adapter. Two adapters, not one but two. Complicated yes, in more ways than one.

Who has to hook up 12 devices to a mini? One port can handle six different devices. That is 6 devices. Why would any Mini user require more than that.

Doesn't make sense. And no it's not a good idea. And yes the cost would go up of the mini for a port that you will never use. One yes, two no. Anything that makes it more complicated for window switchers and adds to the price of the Mini isn't a good idea.

I would rather have a extra HDMI port or a USB 3.0 port than another thunderbolt port.

 

[Confuzzzed]

And most people who buy a modern monitor today will most likely have a HDMI port. If you buy a dell, or apple monitor no. Every other monitor yes.

Even Dell has HDMI ports. I own a Dell ST2320 and I have it hooked up to my mac mini server using an HDMI cable

 

[Yebubbleman]

Thats not what you said. I read the thread carefully enough. You are a big proponet of Apple removing the HDMI port and putting in a thunderbolt port regardless of cost. Or if cost was not a factor.

I am? This is news to me.

You can use a Thunderbolt port as an HDMI port. You can use a Thunderbolt port for anything. That's the whole point of it. So when I propose that replacing the configuration of one Thunderbolt port and one HDMI port for two Thunderbolt ports (either of which could be used for HDMI), I'm proposing an upgrade, plain and simple.

To say that I think it'd be an upgrade doesn't mean that I give one crap one way or the other. I own a Mid 2010 Mac mini Server. Odds are, it'll probably be the last Mac mini I ever own, and as soon as the MacBook Pro gets its next refresh, I'm going to sell it. So really, I have no stake one way or the other. Again (and please pay attention this time), someone earlier in the thread asked what the technological benefit would be to such a thing (not whether or not I thought they'd do it) assuming price was no object. Once again, I stand by my claim; if price is no object, then wild-card port + wild-card port > wild-card port + specific port, where wild-card port can be any specific port. Plain and simple. How do you not see this?

Why would Apple do such a thing? Ask your self why. One good reason to add another thunderbolt port. And sorry, most monitors today have a HDMI port. And DVI is going away ala optical drive. Your wrong on that one buddy. Apple does not make a habit of putting ports that are old tech. They remove them.

Do I think that technologically it'd be a boon (provided Apple supplied a free miniDisplayPort to HDMI adapter)? Yes, absolutely. I don't think you could argue against it. Do I think they'll replace the HDMI port with a second Thunderbolt? I honestly don't know. Probably not, due to the cost of the port. But I can't claim to be knowledgable enough to make a claim one way or the other.

HDMI is the future. Display port is the future. DVI is not. Its as simple as that.

Thunderbolt is DisplayPort + PCIe in a port that conforms to the miniDisplay port, which itself conforms to the standards set by DisplayPort, which itself can send an HDMI signal. What are you trying to tell me here? "I fail to see the point of using this port that is the future that, worst case scenario, can also double as this other port that is way more the future than that first port"? 'Cause if so, that's just silly. Also, HDMI is DVI + Audio, so when you say that DVI isn't the future, but HDMI is, I have no choice but to lol at you for clearly not knowing what you're talking about.

And most people who buy a modern monitor today will most likely have a HDMI port. If you buy a dell, or apple monitor no. Every other monitor yes.

They'll also all have DVI, which means that they'll all need an adapter if all they have is a DVI cable. Most monitors come with a DVI cable. Most monitors don't come with an HDMI cable. The Mac mini comes with an HDMI to DVI adapter. See where I'm going with this?

If you daisy chain a thunderbolt port and use a HDMI to thunderbolt adapter. The adapter will require a chip to decode the signal the same as the Apple thunderbolt port cable that costs 50.00. Why add another adapter. Two adapters, not one but two. Complicated yes, in more ways than one.

Again, this is where your lack of knowledge on the matter shines. Thunderbolt uses miniDisplayPort. Therefore, you can take a regular miniDP to HDMI adapter and it'll work on the Thunderbolt port, no Thunderbolt decoder chip (found in the actual Thunderbolt cables) required. Period. It adds the complication of another dongle for the use of HDMI. Given that all of my monitors use DVI, it's not like I'm not already used to that degree of inconvenience (and given that I am, I can attest that it's really not that big of a deal).

Who has to hook up 12 devices to a mini? One port can handle six different devices. That is 6 devices. Why would any Mini user require more than that.

I have 6 devices hooked into my Mac mini at any one given time. Most don't, but I definitely do, and I know I'm nowhere near the only one. Given that most people don't want to be spending the $2500 for a base-model Mac Pro, but still require the expansion that one offers, a hypothetical Mac mini with two Thunderbolt ports might be economical for those customers. Personally, I wouldn't need it, but I'll bet there are those who would be happy with it. You have to figure that they're putting two of these ports on the 27" iMacs for a reason.

Doesn't make sense. And no it's not a good idea. And yes the cost would go up of the mini for a port that you will never use. One yes, two no. Anything that makes it more complicated for window switchers and adds to the price of the Mini isn't a good idea.

Until you show me exactly how much more the cost of a second Thunderbolt port would be on the Mac mini, then I can't take this statement seriously. Given that the Mac mini is already way more money than it's even worth, I doubt the cost of an additional Thunderbolt port would be enough to turn the side and dissuade Windows users, but please, feel free to present me with data that proves me wrong.

I would rather have a extra HDMI port or a USB 3.0 port than another thunderbolt port.

Cool story, bro. Again, I don't care what they do as I'm not a regular Mac mini customer. They could remove Thunderbolt altogether for all I care. My only argument in all of this is that as far as ports go, Thunderbolt trumps every other port on that machine given that it can convert to any of those other ports. What Apple actually does, is anyone's guess.

 

[kas23]

And ladies and gentlemen, this will spell the end of the HDMI port on the next Mac Mini. Get it while you can:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/16/airpl...the-board-room-to-the-living-room-and-beyond/

 

[grouch]

And ladies and gentlemen, this will spell the end of the HDMI port on the next Mac Mini. Get it while you can:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/16/airpl...the-board-room-to-the-living-room-and-beyond/

i don't care if it loses hdmi as long as there are two display connectors of some sort be it mini displayport or whatever.

 

[pjarvi]

And ladies and gentlemen, this will spell the end of the HDMI port on the next Mac Mini. Get it while you can:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/16/airpl...the-board-room-to-the-living-room-and-beyond/

Unless you want to work at a resolution higher than 720p (1280x720). There's already enough Mac addicts pissed off at glossy displays, pulling something like that on them could very well push them over the edge.

 

[kas23]

Unless you want to work at a resolution higher than 720p (1280x720). There's already enough Mac addicts pissed off at glossy displays, pulling something like that on them could very well push them over the edge.

I'm sure this will have the very same effect as Apple putting out a 720p ATV when 1080 is considered standard, or releasing a 3G iPhone 4S when there are already LTE-enabled phones currently being released, or failing to adopt USB 3.0 when sub-$300 netbooks even have them...which is nothing. As we have already suspected, and Apple likely knows themselves, Apple is fairly impervious to people getting pissed at them. An HDMI-less mini with 720p mirroring will sell better than salt in China after a nuclear reactor meltdown.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm sure this will have the very same effect as Apple putting out a 720p ATV when 1080 is considered standard, or releasing a 3G iPhone 4S when there are already LTE-enabled phones currently being released, or failing to adopt USB 3.0 when sub-$300 netbooks even have them...which is nothing. As we have already suspected, and Apple likely knows themselves, Apple is fairly impervious to people getting pissed at them. An HDMI-less mini with 720p mirroring will sell better than salt in China after a nuclear reactor meltdown.

True, though they could sell a 720P AppleTV at a cost that is more inexpensive than 1080P TVs, but still more expensive than 720P TVs to the point of the usual "Apple Tax".

 

[philipma1957]

True, though they could sell a 720P AppleTV at a cost that is more inexpensive than 1080P TVs, but still more expensive than 720P TVs to the point of the usual "Apple Tax".

yes but the size will be 46 inch or less.

the problem with 52 55 65 and 70 inch tvs is that 720p looks mediocre.

Apple has been rumored to be in the tv market at the 40- 46 inch size. have to wait and see.

 

[Corinco]

And ladies and gentlemen, this will spell the end of the HDMI port on the next Mac Mini. Get it while you can:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/16/airpl...the-board-room-to-the-living-room-and-beyond/

I created an account just to call bull***t on your prophecy.

There is no way they are getting rid of HDMI. All on the current monitors and TVs on the markets use HDMI. So now you would have to buy an AppleTV in order to connect your mini to a display? Or force everyone to buy an $800 Apple Monitor with Thunderbolt.

The streaming technology is made for people who don't want to hook up their macbook to their TV.

 

[iamthedudeman]

HDMI is the future. DVI is not. End of story. HDMI has audio in a single cable and is on audio devices as well. You will not see DVI on any modern TV's. I know what HDMI is. I don't need you to explain it to me. You will see DVI on Zero modern TV's.

HDMI is the upgrade to DVI, the only difference they added audio and called HDMI. DVI does not have audio and is being fazed out. Most modern monitors other than Dell and Apple have HDMI. It is the norm not the exception. If you cannot grasp that fact I can't help you.


It is you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

The thunderbolt adapter would have to have a active chip to control the stream of data since it is a two way controller. The controller is what costs the most amount of money.


Again, this is where your lack of knowledge on the matter shines. Thunderbolt uses miniDisplayPort. Therefore, you can take a regular miniDP to HDMI adapter and it'll work on the Thunderbolt port, no Thunderbolt decoder chip (found in the actual Thunderbolt cables) required. Period. It adds the complication of another dongle for the use of HDMI. Given that all of my monitors use DVI, it's not like I'm not already used to that degree of inconvenience (and given that I am, I can attest that it's really not that big of a deal).


Really?

In order for you to use a monitor and high speed devices on the same cable. You need a thunderbolt cable. Period. Yes you can use a regular adapter. But that would render that port unusable for high speed devices on the same thunderbolt cable.

In essence that extra thunderbolt port or ports could only be used to hook up a display monitor or TV and nothing else if just a regular HDMI to display port adapter was included.

Intel provides two types of Thunderbolt controllers, a 2 port type and a 1 port type. Both Peripherals and devices(mac mini) need to have their own controller. So adding the two port controller would cost more money.


http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011...down-reveals-enough-chips-to-make-a-computer/

http://www.gennum.com/products/thunderbolt-cable-transceivers/gn2033

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/apple-thunderbolt-explained/

Here is your good idea. Regardless of weather you think they will do it or not. Or if you care or not.

Yeah. Lets add a redundant port that can daisy chain 6 devices.

Now lets remove the HDMI which is the most important port on the whole computer since it allows windows switchers to use their existing monitor or TV. Or piss off Mac users who prefer Matte displays more so than they already are by adding another thunderbolt port that is redundant that can handle 12 devices. 12 devices hooked to a Mac Mini. Makes perfect sense.

I have alot of devices as well. Not devices that need to be hooked via a thunderbolt port. How many people need 12 high speed devices that need to be hooked to a thunderbolt port. Alot you say. Really. What 6 hd's and four monitors. Lol. Most devices can be hooked via usb or firewire after you run out of the six device limit on thunderbolt.

All while driving up the costs of the Mini for this thunderbolt port pissing off your intended target customers even more.

Your logic is sound.

 

[kas23]

I created an account just to call bull***t on your prophecy.

There is no way they are getting rid of HDMI. All on the current monitors and TVs on the markets use HDMI. So now you would have to buy an AppleTV in order to connect your mini to a display? Or force everyone to buy an $800 Apple Monitor with Thunderbolt.

The streaming technology is made for people who don't want to hook up their macbook to their TV.

Well, I'm sorry you went through all the trouble of signing up, but I don't make the decisions.

Nevertheless, Apple is trying their very best to shift their devices to being wireless. We're seeing this with the iPhone (geez, I can't even get a file off of it by simply plugging it into another computer's USB port), we're seeing this with how we share another computer's optical drive (for those of us with Airs), we're seeing this with iCloud (and iTunes match), seeing it with ATV, seeing it with AirPrint/AirPlay, seeing it with Time Capsule etc. You'd be naive to deny that Apple has it in their sights.

As for having to buy an ATV (or unannounced/future iTV) to stream content from a Mini to a TV, wouldn't Apple just love that?! In fact, if Apple had their druthers, they would likely make all monitors have mini-DVI ports, which would then be compatible with their TB ports. Apple is never scared of dropping/adding ports. They've even gone as far as dropping the ethernet port from their Air (wait, there's another example of Apple shifting all they can to wireless!).

As for "all" the current monitors on the market having HDMI ports, this is very wrong. Go onto the amazon and search the top 5 selling monitor they have. All of them use DVI or VGA ports. Sure, they are compatible with HDMI, but not without an adaptor.

 

[Corinco]

Well, I'm sorry you went through all the trouble of signing up, but I don't make the decisions.

Nevertheless, Apple is trying their very best to shift their devices to being wireless. We're seeing this with the iPhone (geez, I can't even get a file off of it by simply plugging it into another computer's USB port), we're seeing this with how we share another computer's optical drive (for those of us with Airs), we're seeing this with iCloud (and iTunes match), seeing it with ATV, seeing it with AirPrint/AirPlay, seeing it with Time Capsule etc. You'd be naive to deny that Apple has it in their sights.

As for having to buy an ATV (or unannounced/future iTV) to stream content from a Mini to a TV, wouldn't Apple just love that?! In fact, if Apple had their druthers, they would likely make all monitors have mini-DVI ports, which would then be compatible with their TB ports. Apple is never scared of dropping/adding ports. They've even gone as far as dropping the ethernet port from their Air (wait, there's another example of Apple shifting all they can to wireless!).

As for "all" the current monitors on the market having HDMI ports, this is very wrong. Go onto the amazon and search the top 5 selling monitor they have. All of them use DVI or VGA ports. Sure, they are compatible with HDMI, but not without an adaptor.

Sorry, but your logic just isn't sound. If that were the case, they would remove all of the connectors from the mac mini, so it was an iMini. You would carry it in your bag and set it next to your television hooked up to Apple TV. Or maybe you would set it next to your monitor on your desk hooked up to an Apple TV.

Your argument would have been more compelling if you told me that Apple hates the HDMI pr*cks and doesn't want to have to pay royalties anymore and that you thought they would design it out in the next revision. But, you didn't and instead used a borderline absurd argument based on the macs streaming to an Apple TV in the next OS release.

Apple tried to just do a displayport and finally woke up and smelled the coffee and realized that half of the people using a mac mini actually hook them up to their TV as a HTPC.

HDMI is not going away next release. Really it's not - the sky is not falling.

 

[mdgm]

I think with people willing to spend a lot more on a Mac Mini with HDMI than an Apple TV, Apple would think the extra several hundred dollars would be acceptable and better for Apple profit wise than them just getting an Apple TV. Having said that they'd push most people towards getting an Apple TV but aren't going to complain if some people want to buy more expensive products and make them more money.

Even if Apple removes the HDMI port from the Mini there'll probably fairly quickly be a Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter so it won't be that big of a problem though I'd prefer to keep the HDMI port.

 

[Yebubbleman]

HDMI is the future. DVI is not. End of story. HDMI has audio in a single cable and is on audio devices as well. You will not see DVI on any modern TV's. I know what HDMI is. I don't need you to explain it to me. You will see DVI on Zero modern TV's.

HDMI is the upgrade to DVI, the only difference they added audio and called HDMI. DVI does not have audio and is being fazed out. Most modern monitors other than Dell and Apple have HDMI. It is the norm not the exception. If you cannot grasp that fact I can't help you.

At this point, I can't tell who you're talking to. I don't think anyone on here is disagreeing with the notion that HDMI is a step up from DVI and is found on more modern TVs than HDMI ever will.

It is you who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Who? Me? Surely not.

The thunderbolt adapter would have to have a active chip to control the stream of data since it is a two way controller. The controller is what costs the most amount of money.

Again, I'm just going to assume that you're directing this at me, since you don't know how to use quotes on this forum but boldface stuff I've written at me anyway. Money wasn't the point of my argument, hence prefacing my argument repeatedly with "if money was no object". PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME!

Again, this is where your lack of knowledge on the matter shines. Thunderbolt uses miniDisplayPort. Therefore, you can take a regular miniDP to HDMI adapter and it'll work on the Thunderbolt port, no Thunderbolt decoder chip (found in the actual Thunderbolt cables) required. Period. It adds the complication of another dongle for the use of HDMI. Given that all of my monitors use DVI, it's not like I'm not already used to that degree of inconvenience (and given that I am, I can attest that it's really not that big of a deal).


Really?

In order for you to use a monitor and high speed devices on the same cable. You need a thunderbolt cable. Period. Yes you can use a regular adapter. But that would render that port unusable for high speed devices on the same thunderbolt cable.

I wasn't talking about using high-speed devices and the HDMI port, I was talking about retaining HDMI port functionality in the hypothetical event of Apple nixing it in favor of a second Thunderbolt port. PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE QUOTING!

In essence that extra thunderbolt port or ports could only be used to hook up a display monitor or TV and nothing else if just a regular HDMI to display port adapter was included.

Intel provides two types of Thunderbolt controllers, a 2 port type and a 1 port type. Both Peripherals and devices(mac mini) need to have their own controller. So adding the two port controller would cost more money.


http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011...down-reveals-enough-chips-to-make-a-computer/

http://www.gennum.com/products/thunderbolt-cable-transceivers/gn2033

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/06/apple-thunderbolt-explained/

Again, hence the prefacing "if money was no object".

Here is your good idea. Regardless of weather you think they will do it or not. Or if you care or not.

I never said it was a "good idea" and no, I don't think they'll do it. And no, I really couldn't care less.

Yeah. Lets add a redundant port that can daisy chain 6 devices.

Now lets remove the HDMI which is the most important port on the whole computer since it allows windows switchers to use their existing monitor or TV. Or piss off Mac users who prefer Matte displays more so than they already are by adding another thunderbolt port that is redundant that can handle 12 devices. 12 devices hooked to a Mac Mini. Makes perfect sense.

12 devices hooked up to a Mac mini does make sense. Maybe not for you, but there are those that it does make sense for. Otherwise, my point isn't that Thunderbolt isn't useless or overly expensive, which seems to be the point you seem hell bent on driving home. My point was that Thunderbolt is a wild-card port that can be used for any other connection type, HDMI included. You have yet to refute that, instead you keep trying to drive home completely irrelevant points solely to counter the notion of Thunderbolt to begin with.

I have alot of devices as well. Not devices that need to be hooked via a thunderbolt port. How many people need 12 high speed devices that need to be hooked to a thunderbolt port. Alot you say. Really. What 6 hd's and four monitors. Lol. Most devices can be hooked via usb or firewire after you run out of the six device limit on thunderbolt.

All while driving up the costs of the Mini for this thunderbolt port pissing off your intended target customers even more.

Your logic is sound.

For the (hopefully) last time, my argument is that wild-card port + HDMI < wild-card port x 2 + wild-card port + HDMI adapter. Would it cost more, yes, but again I was talking from a purely "if money was no object" stance. I am dumbfounded at your inability to get that.


Obviously, it's not something I'd be in favor of, were I a Mac mini customer as the damn thing is a rip-off as it stands today. Though you shouldn't need me to repeat that to you. Or should you? (READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME PLZ)