The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[Micky Do]

I still think using a 1.4 kHz model would be all kinds of frustrating, Micky...

I'll pass.

As I suggested in this earlier post:

Yes, there were plenty who were scathing about the 2014 Mac Mini line-up when it was first announced, especially the low end model. Some are still quite sniffy about it. However, there are those who have used it, including some who have posted on threads in this forum, have found it more than adequate.

It is all the computer that some need…….. Which is not to say that it is all that everyone needs or desires.

Some who have the 2014 Mac Mini 1.4 kHz model, and have found it adequate for their needs, have posted in this thread, among others:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/base-mac-mini-2014-question.1902676/

I am also using a 2009 Mac Mini, the 2.0 kHz base model with an extra 4 GB RAM installed (to run Mountain Lion, which requires at least 2 GB RAM). I reckon it should remain adequate for my humble needs for a few more years. It still has the original HDD. If that failed I would consider replacing it, and soldiering on.

If there was a more serious problem, and I needed something urgently, I would probably head down to the local dealer and pick up the 1.4 kHz model off the shelf. With the i5 CPU having turbo boost to 2.7 kHz if and when required, it would perform better than what I have now.

That's what I did when my 2005 original (base model also) packed a sad (HDD and power supply both failed). Replacement was more cost effective than repair. Before Time Machine, it was fortunate that I had everything important backed up until about a week before. I was in action again in less than a day, with very little work lost.

If I could wait a bit I would consider ordering the mid range model with the Fusion Drive option. Given that I am doing quite a bit of photography now, it would probably be more suitable.

However, replacement is not a priority at this stage.

The new mac Mini is almost certainly coming, and I almost certainly won't be having to make any decisions until it does.

 

[littlepooch21]

yeah i agree. i am probably going to get the base model when i get paid next week. for basic stuff it should be just fine.

 

[Maxwill]

I'm wondering what size will it be.

 

[Miat]

Micky,

Hint: k ≠ G, by 6 orders of magnitude.



(EDIT: Meh. 5, 6, 8,... they all look the same to me. )

 

[mojolicious]

...or six?

Anyway, the new Mac mini is almost certainly coming.

 

[ixxx69]

As I suggested in this earlier post:


Some who have the 2014 Mac Mini 1.4 kHz model, and have found it adequate for their needs, have posted in this thread, among others:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/base-mac-mini-2014-question.1902676/

I am also using a 2009 Mac Mini, the 2.0 kHz base model with an extra 4 GB RAM installed (to run Mountain Lion, which requires at least 2 GB RAM). I reckon it should remain adequate for my humble needs for a few more years. It still has the original HDD. If that failed I would consider replacing it, and soldiering on.

If there was a more serious problem, and I needed something urgently, I would probably head down to the local dealer and pick up the 1.4 kHz model off the shelf. With the i5 CPU having turbo boost to 2.7 kHz if and when required, it would perform better than what I have now.

That's what I did when my 2005 original (base model also) packed a sad (HDD and power supply both failed). Replacement was more cost effective than repair. Before Time Machine, it was fortunate that I had everything important backed up until about a week before. I was in action again in less than a day, with very little work lost.

If I could wait a bit I would consider ordering the mid range model with the Fusion Drive option. Given that I am doing quite a bit of photography now, it would probably be more suitable.

However, replacement is not a priority at this stage.

The new mac Mini is almost certainly coming, and I almost certainly won't be having to make any decisions until it does.

Yeah, we all got it the first time. But you keep writing kHz instead of GHz... It's a million times difference. That's what all the replies are making fun of.

 

[MRrainer]

More seriously, difficult to see how Apple are going to deal with that huge gap in their headless options between a quadless Mini and the base Mac Pro (two powerful graphics cards as standard? Really? ), without eating into iMac sales.

You mean for servers?
I don't think Tim Cook loses two minutes of sleep per month over that segment of the market.
Most small-biz server needs are more and more migrating to the cloud - simply because vendors switch to a managed-hosting-in-the-cloud model to reduce support-costs and don't do on-premise installs anymore unless a large five or six-figure deal is involved.

 

[DesertSurfer]

You mean for servers?
I don't think Tim Cook loses two minutes of sleep per month over that segment of the market.
Most small-biz server needs are more and more migrating to the cloud - simply because vendors switch to a managed-hosting-in-the-cloud model to reduce support-costs and don't do on-premise installs anymore unless a large five or six-figure deal is involved.

The gap is there for everyone, even if the server angle is fading. If you want a computer with decent horsepower and you don't want to buy a screen, it's the Mac Pro or nothing right now at Apple.

 

[MRrainer]

The gap is there for everyone, even if the server angle is fading. If you want a computer with decent horsepower and you don't want to buy a screen, it's the Mac Pro or nothing right now at Apple.

That is of course true. And unfortunate.

 

[Miat]

You mean for servers?

No, it is not about servers and the cloud.

Some stuff requires more CPU grunt than the current quadless Mini offers, but less than the Pro.

There is a big gap there, and Apple are about to cede it to other companies, which I think is a big mistake for Apple.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Some who have the 2014 Mac Mini 1.4 kHz model, and have found it adequate for their needs, have posted in this thread, among others:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/base-mac-mini-2014-question.1902676/

I am also using a 2009 Mac Mini, the 2.0 kHz base model with an extra 4 GB RAM installed (to run Mountain Lion, which requires at least 2 GB RAM). I reckon it should remain adequate for my humble needs for a few more years. It still has the original HDD. If that failed I would consider replacing it, and soldiering on.

If there was a more serious problem, and I needed something urgently, I would probably head down to the local dealer and pick up the 1.4 kHz model off the shelf. With the i5 CPU having turbo boost to 2.7 kHz if and when required, it would perform better than what I have now.

I think the last few posters were just pointing out that you're saying kilohertz instead of gigahertz. The Intel 4004, the first commercially available cpu, ran at 740kHz. Just to show you how silly it looks to us to be talking about 2 kHz being adequate, even through I think we all understand you meant Ghz.

 

[Micky Do]

OK folks, enjoy your giggle at my expense…..

'Tis one of those errors that becomes sort of internalized from a bloke who has seen IT hardware go through k, M, G, and T over the years……. alphabet soup to the old chappy. There are a few words I habitually spell wrongly too, and am probably far from unique in that.

Until a couple of months ago my 3G (so called) based internet speed reached low k/sec level on a good day. Now the neighbourhood has fibre installed, and I have a package that is reliably 30 times faster at about 8 - 10 MB/sec. Eight years ago I had no internet access from my apartment at all.

I still have, and occasionally use, the first 128 kb memory stick I bought, ten years ago. I bought a couple of 16 GB ones recently, as well as 500 GB and 1 TB external HDD's. Stashed away in a box at home, 8 kilo-miles from where I am now, I have, long redundant, the odd 3 1/2" and 5 1/4" floppy disc (used with the original Mac and a MS-DOS IBM PC clone respectively in 1985), plus a set of punch cards used to feed data from an trial I did, into an IBM mainframe back in 1975.

I still think using a 1.4 kHz model would be all kinds of frustrating, Micky...

Micky,

Hint: k ≠ G, by 6 orders of magnitude.



(EDIT: Meh. 5, 6, 8,... they all look the same to me. )

Yeah, we all got it the first time. But you keep writing kHz instead of GHz... It's a million times difference. That's what all the replies are making fun of.

I think the last few posters were just pointing out that you're saying kilohertz instead of gigahertz. The Intel 4004, the first commercially available cpu, ran at 740kHz. Just to show you how silly it looks to us to be talking about 2 kHz being adequate, even through I think we all understand you meant Ghz.

After an underwhelming initial reception, even the humble 1.4 GHz Mac Mini does seem to have found acceptance, among some at least

yeah i agree. i am probably going to get the base model when i get paid next week. for basic stuff it should be just fine.

However, for eternally dissatisfied cynics…….

the new Mac mini is almost certainly coming.

….. eternally.

 

[DesertSurfer]

Great excitement, as there is a minuscule chance the the new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming in September!

 

[Micky Do]

Great excitement, as there is a minuscule chance the the new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming in September!

Methinks likewise.…. the excitement of anticipation is mounting and and may even reach fever pitch.

 

[talmy]

After an underwhelming initial reception, even the humble 1.4 GHz Mac Mini does seem to have found acceptance, among some at least

It should! It's actually twice as fast as the 2009 mini I use daily at work.

 

[opeter]

Yes, we will see. New Mac minis should arrive in September or October. If not, than next year (2016) in autumn.

But you never know, what plans Apple have. Maybe they will kill it off.

 

[NinjaDuck]

Yes, we will see. New Mac minis should arrive in September or October. If not, than next year (2016) in autumn.

But you never know, what plans Apple have. Maybe they will kill it off.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9507/intel-quietly-launches-mobile-xeons-skylake-e3-1500m-v5

Xeon Mac Mini with GT4e graphics. One can dream.

 

[Micky Do]

Yes, we will see. New Mac minis should arrive in September or October. If not, than next year (2016) in autumn.

But you never know, what plans Apple have. Maybe they will kill it off.

What on earth makes you even suggest that Apple would want to kill the Mini?

After a couple or three months at Neutral, mid-cycle, MacRumors now have a Caution, approaching end of cycle tag on the Mini, only about ten months after the current model was released. Experience suggests the new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming, possibly even within the next 18 months or so.

 

[for this]

Yes, we will see. New Mac minis should arrive in September or October. If not, than next year (2016) in autumn.

But you never know, what plans Apple have. Maybe they will kill it off.

The mini is currently the 2nd best selling desktop computer on Amazon (iMac is at #18).
Apple would need a very good reason to kill it.

 

[Miat]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9507/intel-quietly-launches-mobile-xeons-skylake-e3-1500m-v5

Xeon Mac Mini with GT4e graphics. One can dream.

From that link:

"...the mobile workstation market (according to IDC’s most recent report) has showed its sixth straight quarter of year-over-year growth which is a big pointer..."

Seems of some relevance to the future of the Mini.

 

[Crosscreek]

Next week when Intel holds their developer conference we should get an indication of where Apple may go with the new Skylake architecture.

With the introduction of mobile Xeon chips it would be a perfect time to introduce a Mac Mini Pro level desktop.

If Apple doesn't do it you can bet that other Mini PC manufacturers will be introducing Pro level mini PCs.

 

[MRrainer]

Next week when Intel holds their developer conference we should get an indication of where Apple may go with the new Skylake architecture.

With the introduction of mobile Xeon chips it would be a perfect time to introduce a Mac Mini Pro level desktop.

If Apple doesn't do it you can bet that other Mini PC manufacturers will be introducing Pro level mini PCs.

And they'll equally fail.
The few people like me and maybe you, who would like to run lots of VMs or do large Logic projects or whatever - they're hardly a market.
Unfortunately. Because I'd certainly like a Xeon Mini. But I fear it would be severely memory-constrained.
This thing can probably accommodate eight or more banks. Even if they solder it (no big "if" here, TBH), that would be the whole housing of the current Mini just filled with RAM ;-)

 

[Crosscreek]

And they'll equally fail.
The few people like me and maybe you, who would like to run lots of VMs or do large Logic projects or whatever - they're hardly a market.
Unfortunately. Because I'd certainly like a Xeon Mini. But I fear it would be severely memory-constrained.
This thing can probably accommodate eight or more banks. Even if they solder it (no big "if" here, TBH), that would be the whole housing of the current Mini just filled with RAM ;-)

This is true. Xeon Mobil supports 64 Gbs of RAM. I suppose Apple may put them in the iMac which I would probably take a hard look at.

I think there will be a MacBook Pro since Lenovo has already released specs on a 15 and 17" laptop.
http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/lenovo-thinkpad-workstation-mobile-xeon,1-2794.html

Should know more on Apples plans soon.

 

[opeter]

The mini is currently the 2nd best selling desktop computer on Amazon (iMac is at #18).
Apple would need a very good reason to kill it.

As I wrote. You or I don't know, what Apple thinks. Anything can happen. As other wrote, we could get a new Mac mini successor based on mobile Xeon CPus (I highly doubt, this would happen), we would get any of the normal Skylake Mobile U CPus in the next Mini ... or we won't get anything this year, maybe next.

 

[Micky Do]

This September, or next……. or both?