Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Predict updated Mac Mini specs!

Tarkovsky said:
Don't be pedantic. Do I have to tell you OSX will be 64 bit in a few months?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think your grasp of the technology is pushing people to be pedantic towards you.

Tiger does not have 64-bit APIs.

Leopard *does* -- and will provide 64-bit support on computers that are able to make use of it (C2Ds, possibly G5s, but not G3s, G4s, CSs, or CDs).

But the mini is not now and will not in the future be shipped with a "stripped" OS -- the 64-bit APIs just are not accessible to processors that don't support them. At least, Apple has never shipped "stripped" versions of its operating systems before.

There are only two versions of OSX: the standard OS X and the Server version. The version of OS X on install DVDs is identical to the version on retail boxes with the exception that the install discs are locked to only allow installation on the hardware they were sold with.

When 64-bit apps do ship, it's pretty unlikely that there will be any for some time that "only run" on 64-bit hardware. Rather, they're likely to be designed with forks so that they run on both 32 and 64 bit hardware.

Besides that, it's going to be some time before there's going to be software that most Mac Mini users use that have significant 64-bit usage... it's going to trickle down from compute intensive apps over a relatively long time. Think about it this way. How long have 64-bit processors been shipping on computers (of all OS brands)? Several years. And yet there's almost no need for 64-bit either on Windows or in OS X. This is going to be a very slow transition.
 
Again the pedantacism. Those were two entirely seperate points. I guess I read a dodgy review of the mac mini, but if you read the post I didn't assert that I was entirely sure of it. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but your putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that OSX in its current form was 64 bit... Furthermore my point was, and I'm suprised you didn't get this by inference, unless of course your trying to pick a fight cause your bored, was that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?
 
Tarkovsky said:
that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?
Click to expand...

Yes

The advantage 64 bit gets is primarily being able to have more than 4GB (2GB per app) of RAM, the only Mac that can support that much RAM is the Mac Pro, the Macbook and Macbook Pro are limited to 3GB by motherboard design (and they *are* core-2)

Even Photoshop CS3 (as mentioned in my last post), due in May this year is still entirely 32 bit, the only other app's that will become 64-bit quickly are high end scientific app's (some which are 64 bit) or video editing apps (which are still 32 bit). Virtually no Mac Mini user will use these applications, those users want higher end hardware anyway.
 
I'd say theres a huge advantage in processors being able to do calculations to more than 72 decimal places in a cycle! I wouldn't buy one myself Iwoot, as HDTVs cost a fair bob in ye olde englande, (plus PAL shows more lines than NTSC anyway so hi-def a bit less of an inssue) but my reason de mac etre is pro audio and I have no idea whether that will go 64 bit very soon... tbh I don't think it makes a blind difference to me, but it could prove to be a bottleneck on a machine I might otherwise find a task for in the future! The gigabit ethernet has so far reduced one major bottleneck...
 
hmm... i think that they will have C2D chips, and lowered prices, also how much better is the X3000 than the 950? They are still both interegated.
 
gamerz said:
hmm... i think that they will have C2D chips, and lowered prices, also how much better is the X3000 than the 950? They are still both interegated.
Click to expand...

Though the actualy memory comes form the RAM, the X3000 chip itself has equivalent performance to an Ati X1300.:D
 
Tarkovsky said:
...was that C2D is important in 'future proofing'. Would you like me to pull up the article for you?
Click to expand...

If you don't mind linking the article, I am curious, and would love to read it.

Of course I want to see C2D in Mac Minis too. However, I do consider it future proofing to a very limited extent for this reason:

1) As I and others have pointed out several times, the progress of 64-bit apps has been *very* slow.

2) Right now, two things are happening with processors and have been happening for sometime, that are major possibilities for breakthroughs in performance: 64-bit and multiple cores. Much more progress is coming from the latter right now than the former, and they're independent benefits.

3) 64-bit app development has been very slow. The AMD and PPC/G5 64-bit processors particularly have been around for several years with minimal 64-bit development outside of very specialized areas.

3) As a result, my theory is this, and I think the data supports it: by the time 64-bit really becomes important in consumer apps, the current C2D are going to have been outdated by much faster processors, likely with several more cores than the processors have now. So even if the C2D future-proofs in the sense that it supports 64-bit, I just seriously doubt there will be a lot of 64-bit apps for a Mac Mini before its processor becomes prohibitively slow.

That's all. I'm sorry if you consider that pedantic. And again, I think Apple should continue to progress with both 64-bit and Core architecture processors across the board. So I certainly want to see them get C2D in Minis too. I'm just saying that I'm not holding my breath for the changes 64-bit will bring to the desktop.
 
Tarkovsky said:
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/MacMini2.html

The links pretty old school I couldn't find a newer one.
Click to expand...

Wait, is this really the article you read? I'm about to have to get pedantic on you again. :eek: That's a satire website. If you did miss the joke, read some of the other articles they put together.... This site has come up on MR before. When they called OS X on the Mini stripped down, they were joking....
 
Again your comprehension lacks. I never wished to prove to you that OSX on the mini was stripped down, only that there were references to such a modification on the internet. This is also not the original article I read, but a quick google, which you were apparently unable to perform for yourself.
 
Getting this thread back on track...

I'm hoping for the processor bumps, maybe a memory bump and because of the weak dollar, a damn price drop.

Oh, and shipping this Tuesday, that makes up for making other people wait so long on this update.
 
I'm waiting to buy a Mac Mini for my kitchen. Waiting till after the show, so I can either buy a new one (if the spec changes are worth my while), or pick up a used one on ebay or something.

I'll be starting a new thread with pics and notes on the kitchen mac install :)
 
eXan said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! I'd say, about 3-15 on average (except PhotoShop CS2, which does see a formidable increase)

Benchmarks
Click to expand...

Intel's benchmarks are going to be higher, regardless but Mac OS X tends to be taking a toll on the processors.

Leopard will likely have better throughput on Intel since Apple have had over a year to look at results of actually production versions of the operating system and applications running after many years of guessing at what would work well.

I'd hope that they next Mac mini has a better GPU (along with the MacBook) as well as the updated processors. They might as well add 802.11n-compatible WiFi hardware since the standard will be approved eventually.
 
bousozoku said:
Intel's benchmarks are going to be higher, regardless but Mac OS X tends to be taking a toll on the processors.

Leopard will likely have better throughput on Intel since Apple have had over a year to look at results of actually production versions of the operating system and applications running after many years of guessing at what would work well.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by Intel? You mean that Intel's own benchmarks are higher than those from barefeats?
 
Well C2D or not any improvement is still an improvement.

Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.

2) Minis get bumped to C2D chips of the same speed, hence we get Core (2) Duo 1.66 and 1.83 machines. But IMO this is not very likely as Apple probably has warehouses full of unused CD chips.
 
iW00t said:
Well C2D or not any improvement is still an improvement.

Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.

2) Minis get bumped to C2D chips of the same speed, hence we get Core (2) Duo 1.66 and 1.83 machines. But IMO this is not very likely as Apple probably has warehouses full of unused CD chips.
Click to expand...

I actually think that #2 is more likely, because lately Apple has been trying to keep up with PC manufacturers in including the most advanced CPU in their computers, so if Apple bumps Core Duos to 1.8 and 2.0 GHz, it would still sound worse to an average consumer than Core 2 Duo, even if both CPUs turn out to be equal in performance.

Also, recent mini PCs already have Core 2 Duos in them, so it seems logical for Apple to put C2D in Mac mini.
 
iW00t said:
Right now we probably have 2 possibilities.

1) Minis get bumped to Core (1) Duo 1.83 and 2.0 speeds, so that way Apple can still maintain their market segmentation (ie: Minis slower than Macbooks, Macbooks slower than Macbook Pros) without having to upshift the other 2 lines.
Click to expand...

What is the big deal with the Mac Mini being faster than the MacBook? The Mac Mini is in the desktop segment not the portable segment. The 24" iMac is the same speed as the low end MacBook Pro, honestly, if anything You need to compare the iMac to the Mac Mini. What I would like is a 2 GHz Core solo at $399 and a $299 17" display.
 
Spock said:
What is the big deal with the Mac Mini being faster than the MacBook? The Mac Mini is in the desktop segment not the portable segment. The 24" iMac is the same speed as the low end MacBook Pro, honestly, if anything You need to compare the iMac to the Mac Mini. What I would like is a 2 GHz Core solo at $399 and a $299 17" display.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly I have no clue either.

All along the Mac Mini has been trailing behind the Macbook, so it really seems obvious that it is Apple's intention to keep it that way for market segmentation purposes.
 
eXan said:
What do you mean by Intel? You mean that Intel's own benchmarks are higher than those from barefeats?
Click to expand...

I mean that Intel has tweaked their compilers to provide very good benchmarks, but Apple and other developers aren't using icc for Mac OS X development, they're using gcc. It's gotten better but you'll notice that gcc is rarely used on Windows because they have good commercial compilers.
 
Cybix said:
I'm waiting to buy a Mac Mini for my kitchen. Waiting till after the show, so I can either buy a new one (if the spec changes are worth my while), or pick up a used one on ebay or something.

I'll be starting a new thread with pics and notes on the kitchen mac install :)
Click to expand...

This I wanna see! I was planning on installing a Kitchenmac using an old Powerbook of mine, so I'd be curious to see what route you go with it. What are you going to use it for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back