No Quads in the 15/28 w Broadwells !!!

[crsh1976]

99% of users have 0 use for a quadcore.

True, but it's not a reason not to offer the option to those that either want it or could benefit from it - it's the whole chicken or the egg story all over again. Hence why it was nice to have a cheaper dual-core option and a pricier quad-core one. Now we only have slow dual-core and normal dual-core options.

If the main idea is to make the Mini so unappealing in order to discontinue it and push potential buyers towards the MBAs and the low-end iMacs, they're doing it super well on that end.

 

[Crosscreek]

True, but it's not a reason not to offer the option to those that either want it or could benefit from it - it's the whole chicken or the egg story all over again. Hence why it was nice to have a cheaper dual-core option and a pricier quad-core one. Now we only have slow dual-core and normal dual-core options.

If the main idea is to make the Mini so unappealing in order to discontinue it and push potential buyers towards the MBAs and the low-end iMacs, they're doing it super well on that end.

I think Apple will even push harder in that direction by offering a Mini nano for the next iteration.

The Mini does nothing more in the future than entry level limited capability OS X machine to bring people under the Apple eco system.

 

[Meister]

True, but it's not a reason not to offer the option to those that either want it or could benefit from it - it's the whole chicken or the egg story all over again. Hence why it was nice to have a cheaper dual-core option and a pricier quad-core one. Now we only have slow dual-core and normal dual-core options.

If the main idea is to make the Mini so unappealing in order to discontinue it and push potential buyers towards the MBAs and the low-end iMacs, they're doing it super well on that end.

I am not happy about taking out the quad core option either, simply because I like the mini lineup and I like diversity.
Nevertheless s reasoning is sound, but sad for some customers.

 

[paulrbeers]

I am not happy about taking out the quad core option either, simply because I like the mini lineup and I like diversity.
Nevertheless s reasoning is sound, but sad for some customers.

I agree with this completely. I wish I could have a processor like what is in my Wife's haswell 15" rMBP (2.0ghz quadcore with Iris pro graphics). That would make the Mini a beast with great graphics. With that said, I'm more than happy with my 2014 i5 with Iris and the ability to drive both of my 1440P monitors. Is the CPU as powerful as my two quad core 2012's? No, but with an SSD I haven't noticed much of a problem in day to day tasks.

 

[ssgbryan]

99% of users have 0 use for a quadcore.

And they don't need more than 640K of memory either......

 

[paulrbeers]

And they don't need more than 640K of memory either......

34 years ago that was accurate. For all we know in 34 years from now there will be some giant unified GPU/CPU core that will do everything any of us could ever imagine in a blink of an eye. Or maybe our CPU's will have 400 cores, or maybe we won't even have laptops and desktops.....

A crap load of things change in 34 years. Heck look at how things have changed in the last 10 years?

For now, most users do not need more than 2 cores. Unless you are doing a lot of CPU intensive tasks (that use more than 2 threads) or running VM's, most users wouldn't know whether they had 2 or 4 cores. Case in point, out of my entire family, My wife and I are the only ones with computers with 4 cores and if Apple had released a 15" rMBP with only a dual core processor, she probably would be on that instead (assuming it was cheaper than the quad core).

What's really interesting is on the Windows side with QuickSync, you can do a video encode in half the time with a dual core processor (since it uses the GPU) than you can with a quad core processor in OSX (but QuickSync is not available in OSX). I've seriously considered putting together a Windows box just for that purpose....