I've come to the conclusion that Apple doesn't want my desktop computer business. That is certainly my problem and not theirs. Like others I enjoy using W8.1. OSX is entertaining to use (EyeTV, iDVD, iTunes, etc.) but I find working on Windows to be easier than on a Mac so I'll be able to make the transition if needed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
I've come to the conclusion that Apple doesn't want my desktop computer business. That is certainly my problem and not theirs. Like others I enjoy using W8.1. OSX is entertaining to use (EyeTV, iDVD, iTunes, etc.) but I find working on Windows to be easier than on a Mac so I'll be able to make the transition if needed.
It's discouraging seeing Apple fall so far behind in desktop offerings with only a choice of a glued together all in one for consumers. I don't think their interested in consumer desktops any longer. Mac Pro and a 4or 5k iMac for $5k. Bling for the rich or a tool for the professional.
At the end of the day it doesn't techincally make sense that the Mini can't at least match a Macbook Pro in specs. Obviously Apple is purposely holding it back a ton in order to not cannibalize sales other products(Mac Pro).
If you were able to get a mini with the 2.8GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M at a decent price it would eat into Mac Pro sales. Especially if Apple updated them once a year.
If you were able to get a mini with the 2.8GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M at a decent price it would eat into Mac Pro sales. Especially if Apple updated them once a year.
Look at it from Apple's perspective. They can either do what they did in 2011 (include a discrete GPU in the high-end model) or do what they did in 2012 (no discrete GPU in any Mac mini). First, adding a discrete GPU adds $100 to the retail price. That almost certainly would mean fewer sales with a dGPU. Second, providing space on the motherboard for dGPU is a design constraint that requires compromises to the rest of the system (as does any design constraint). Third, it adds some risk and complexity to an already complex supply chain.
If iGPUs were inadequate for a significant number of possible buyers (as they were in 2011), then Apple would bite the bullet and include a dGPU in the high-end model. However, Apple decided that the iGPU of 2012 was good enough for the high-end model. Now it's already dramatically better than that. So there is no way Apple will take what is from their perspective a backward step.
Apple are phasing out dGPUs from all Macs -- except the Mac Pro. The Mac mini and MacBook Air are already dGPU free, the MacBook Pro has only one model (out of six) with a dGPU and that one will go dGPU free with either the Broadwell or Skylake model. Apple started phasing out dGPUs from the iMac line in 2013. This process will only go in one direction, the same direction that all progress in integrated circuits takes: ever increasing integration.
Agreed. Which is why I don't understand the rumours of a new intermediate 'Macintosh'.
Basically all we want is a special order iMac: "hold the display'.
Can someone educate me here... what is the distinction between bringing back the "macintosh" and just a better headless mac?
I used to own macintoshes.... Macintosh plus and LC II back in the 80s and 90s. iMac is basically a macintosh plus for the modern age and mac mini is basically a LC II. Do people want to bring back a computer with the processing power of a TI-85? I just don't get it.
I think the 2012 MacMini on my desk is probably the last MacMini Apple will manufacture. I hate to say it, but I feel like Apple is pushing me to buy an iMac if I want a desktop with dedicated graphics.
I can't imagine it will. I think they sell a lot of mini's as servers. Worst case scenario, they'll sell a server mac with a terrible integrated gpu without many up-gradable options.
I have thought "way" too much about the significance of the invite for tomorrow's event. Two things strike me, though. The first is that, given the similarity to the 30th anniversary logo, I'm confident it has something to do with the Mac. The second is that it must be significant enough for them to center the marketing for this event around it.
We know there's a new iMac coming, but I don't see how the line "It's been way too long" could refer to that. OTOH, no way would Apple use that line to refer to the fact that they haven't updated the Mini recently. Why point out a shortcoming that most people probably haven't even noticed?
The exception is if an updated Mini comes with a twist, like being available in multiple colors. "It's been way too long since you could pick your Mac's color as though it were an iPod."
We know there's a new iMac coming, but I don't see how the line "It's been way too long" could refer to that. OTOH, no way would Apple use that line to refer to the fact that they haven't updated the Mini recently. Why point out a shortcoming that most people probably haven't even noticed?
The exception is if an updated Mini comes with a twist, like being available in multiple colors. "It's been way too long since you could pick your Mac's color as though it were an iPod."
It doesn't technically make sense that the Mini can't be a lot of things. If they wanted to they could redesign it and make it as powerful as the Pro. A Mac Pro is an extremely different machine than the Mini, 750m or not, and they are very different markets. The people in the market for the Pro are so because they need the power. The people in the market for a Mini aren't just going to suddenly quadruple their budget to get a Pro. There is no way the Mini would cannibalize the Pro. Cannibalizing the iMac, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.
see ya later then because you aint getting that...you wont have haswell ivy or sandy bridge. but you can do all that with some good old westmere.
I am sorry, but I think way more people are not buying Mac Mini because it doesnt have a dGPU than people actually but it because it is cheap.
In 2012 Apple decided to use integrated GPUs ONLY because it was in Mini's thermals.
45W of TDP. Thats all that design can handle. If it would handle 45W CPU and 25W GPU - they would put it there. But it cannot.
One more thing. Its not Apple that is phasing out GPUs from computers. Its Intel, and their PCI-Ex, and price policy.
Replacing discrete GPUs with integrated GPUs is strategic for Intel. For Apple, it's merely convenient and profitable.
Sound logic if 1080p was the end of the line for screen resolution. Apple is rumored to be working on a 27" 5K iMac; a 5K iMac would surely get a dGPU. There is chatter about a 21" Retina iMac which could possibly get a dGPU depending on its resolution. The 27" 5K iMac, if true, would likely indicate a 5K Cinema Display. While I will confidently say that the Airs will not get a dGPU, I'll hold my tongue on the Mini. Someone is going to have to be buying those 5K displays.
In laptops, All-In-One's, NUC's it will be profitable.
Not in desktops such as Mac Pro. Or potentially - Mac Mini.
Those are two markets, where there will have to be a dGPU. Small computers, and workstation-class computers.
The implicit suggestion that Intel don't have the technology to drive a 5K display is not credible. Intel offer a whole range of iGPU options (with Haswell: 4200, 4400, 4600, 4700, 5000, 5100, 5200). I know the 5100 and 5200 drive 4K displays just fine. I haven't tried them with a 5K display, but I have no doubt that Broadwell CPUs will include iGPU options that drive 5K displays quite well.
They do not have architecture for HDMI2.0 and they do not have codex for h.265 video compression.
Show me a full 4k video running on the 5100 at 60 hz. Not UHD. Show me Steam running at 60fps.
I had a rMBP with Iris and tried to run it at 4k and the lag on the trackpad and the jerk in the display was unbearable.
You may be able to throw documents on the screen at 4k but you won't be doing much with video.
yep. this is why apple is delaying . they want to be able to drive 4k on a mac mini without that lag. especially if you have a second screen at 720 p or 1600 by 900.
What you are saying is that if there was a nice $1500 mini it would eat into $3000 minimum Mac Pro sales. I just do not see how that is true. I can find no evidence to support that idea.