The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[tibas92013]

My refurb 2012 Mini is 3 years old today, and just ran out of AppleCare.

We are on our own now. Just me and Mini, and the spare parts market.

Time to clean the air filter and be cool.

Me Too as my AppleCare on my Refurbished MM(late 2012) expired on August 1, 2016. Since this MM was running very slow I decided to upgrade from OS "Mountain Lion" to "El Capitan" last Friday and so-far-so good.

 

[Ebenezum]

I hear you, but that's their point of our machines no longer being supported. They're only maintaining support for the current code set and the systems on the officially supported list.

If it was only people with the technical proficiency to fix their own problems that messed around with the OS tweaks (i.e. the people that won't call Apple for support) it would be a non-issue, but there's just too many people that break things and call up begging for help. A good example is the forums here. How many times do people post problems that if they only caught up on the thread, the solutions have already been posted for them?

You have a point. However in this case I think Apple could give some leeway to customers. Maybe state clearly in the download page that these OS versions are not supported?

Download it now. Once it's removed from the app store you can still download it again from the Purchased tab.

Thanks but I did that last year. I downgraded from El Capitan to Mavericks because of too many bugs.

 

[fischersd]

You have a point. However in this case I think Apple could give some leeway to customers. Maybe state clearly in the download page that these OS versions are not supported?

Heh. Trust me - you'll still get thousands of customers calling in (and it's not good for customer sat having to tell them that they can't get support, no matter how much they whine, gnash their teeth or know someone, who knows someone, who knows Sir Jony)

 

[jpietrzak8]

However in this case I think Apple could give some leeway to customers. Maybe state clearly in the download page that these OS versions are not supported?

This has been the flaw in Apple's model from the very beginning: Apple sees itself as a hardware company. They treat their OS products merely as incentives to make you buy the hardware.

As such, if you're using an old Apple computer (or a hackintosh!), you're just a moocher. If you want an updated OS, you need to give Apple more money, which means you need to buy another computer.

I think this is why Apple is so comfortable with the current cell phone market, as people have been conditioned to believe that cell phones are disposable and should be thrown away after a year or two. It fits the standard Apple business model much better.

 

[Micky Do]

This has been the flaw in Apple's model from the very beginning: Apple sees itself as a hardware company. They treat their OS products merely as incentives to make you buy the hardware.

As such, if you're using an old Apple computer (or a hackintosh!), you're just a moocher. If you want an updated OS, you need to give Apple more money, which means you need to buy another computer.

I think this is why Apple is so comfortable with the current cell phone market, as people have been conditioned to believe that cell phones are disposable and should be thrown away after a year or two. It fits the standard Apple business model much better.

Nonsense…… Until 2014 (I think it was) if you wanted an updated version of OS X you had to give Apple more money. As I recall it cost about $120 for the CD to update my early 2009 Mac Mini from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The update to Mountain Lion (which I am still using) was about $20, and done on-line; I had the local dealer do that for me as I had a very poor internet connection and no credit card. From Mavericks on updates have been free.

In addition, iWork, which I paid about $160 for in 2009, is now included with the apps that come installed on Mac computers, and updates are free.

It has always been the case that OS updates have dropped support for machines that are several generations old. Snow Leopard did not support pre Intel machines. Sierra will not support Mac Minis earlier than 2010.

On the computer side of its business, Apple has always seen itself as a computer company, selling hardware and the OS as a package. Microsoft, on the other hand, is primarily a software company, which has made the odd, largely unsuccessful foray into hardware.

The new MacOS has already been announced, and the new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Nonsense…… Until 2014 (I think it was) if you wanted an updated version of OS X you had to give Apple more money. As I recall it cost about $120 for the CD to update my early 2009 Mac Mini from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The update to Mountain Lion (which I am still using) was about $20, and done on-line; I had the local dealer do that for me as I had a very poor internet connection and no credit card. From Mavericks on updates have been free.

Yes, absolutely! Apple has always provided a decent collection of add-ons for their computer products. You can get things like mice, keyboards, cables, adapters, and yes, OS upgrades for your computer purchase. And yes, in the last few years, the OS upgrades have been provided for free!

But of course, this is only for people who own an Apple computer that is still supported. If you want to take advantage of the latest accessories, you need an up-to-date computer. And this has been true for as long as Apple has been around, whether the accessory (or OS upgrade) had a price tag or not.

It has always been the case that OS updates have dropped support for machines that are several generations old. Snow Leopard did not support pre Intel machines. Sierra will not support Mac Minis earlier than 2010.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying here. Apple drops support for devices, not due to whether the device can run the OS, but rather how long it has been since that device was sold.

Because of their business model then, Apple only maintains OS support for a device for something like seven to ten years. In the days when Moore's Law was really rocking, this generally matched what everybody else was doing. Now that CPU power is not leaping forward as fast every year, older PCs can still perform many tasks adequately; and in fact, there's a cottage industry now for hacking modern versions of OS X to run on older Mac hardware.

Because honestly, the only reason OS X can't run on an older Mac is because Apple says so.

 

[essiw]

So finally a mac rumour, while not specifically mentioning mac mini this gets my hope up for October October is one of the months where in they announced mac mini's (and iMacs and such) in the past. If not October then we will have to wait till January-March again :|

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/09/tim-cook-very-committed-mac-email/

 

[DesertSurfer]

Rumor: Apple, realizing that even such a giant corporation could not work on making a new car AND a new mac mini, has shelved the car project. The remaining employees have been secretly shifted to working on the new mac mini, almost certainly.

 

[satchmo]

The remaining employees have been secretly shifted to working on the new mac mini, almost certainly.

Or to the Watch band division.

 

[Crosscreek]

Tim will probably sell off some more stock and donate to up grading a new Mac Mini.

The new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming.

 

[toddzrx]

But of course, this is only for people who own an Apple computer that is still supported. If you want to take advantage of the latest accessories, you need an up-to-date computer. And this has been true for as long as Apple has been around, whether the accessory (or OS upgrade) had a price tag or not.

I guess I'm not understanding your point here. I mean, using the latest accessories usually does require an up to date computer, whether it's a Mac or PC; same for OS X or Windows. As an example, Kaby Lake will only run Windows 10. Besides, accessories and OS's are usually matched to the machine hardware anyway; running old versions of any one of them can bog down a system.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying here. Apple drops support for devices, not due to whether the device can run the OS, but rather how long it has been since that device was sold.

Because of their business model then, Apple only maintains OS support for a device for something like seven to ten years. In the days when Moore's Law was really rocking, this generally matched what everybody else was doing. Now that CPU power is not leaping forward as fast every year, older PCs can still perform many tasks adequately; and in fact, there's a cottage industry now for hacking modern versions of OS X to run on older Mac hardware.

Because honestly, the only reason OS X can't run on an older Mac is because Apple says so.

Again, I would hold up Microsoft to compare: they have discontinued selling Windows 7, they are discontinuing support of Windows 7 on processors up to Skylake over the next year, and they will allow KabyLake to run only Windows 10.

I don't expect a computer company to support an OS forever, just like I don't expect Ford to support the Model T anymore. Since supporting decade old hardware is pretty niche for the most part, cottage industries rise up to fill the void, as you've indicated.

Not trying to be argumentative; I just don't see your point, if I'm understanding it correctly.

 

[Cape Dave]

I do not know about anyone else, but I can say this: If there is no update to the Mac mini this October, I will not be visiting this thread ever again. It will be time to give up. Because the mini will for sure be dead if that is the case.

Now or never Apple. Even we big mini fans have our limits.

 

[orbital~debris]

I do not know about anyone else, but I can say this: If there is no update to the Mac mini this October, I will not be visiting this thread ever again. It will be time to give up. Because the mini will for sure be dead if that is the case.

Now or never Apple. Even we big mini fans have our limits.

But I just (reletively speaking) got here; was getting to know people like @Cape Dave !

 

[dogslobber]

I do not know about anyone else, but I can say this: If there is no update to the Mac mini this October, I will not be visiting this thread ever again. It will be time to give up. Because the mini will for sure be dead if that is the case.

Now or never Apple. Even we big mini fans have our limits.

Put it this way, we're a day closer to the new Mini than we were yesterday. If that doesn't get you excited then nothing will!

 

[jpietrzak8]

I guess I'm not understanding your point here. I mean, using the latest accessories usually does require an up to date computer, whether it's a Mac or PC; same for OS X or Windows. As an example, Kaby Lake will only run Windows 10.

Well, I'm going in the opposite direction here. Sure, only the latest version of an operating system will support the most recently released hardware. However, I have an old 2007 Mac Mini that I'm still using daily as an HTPC. Apple dropped support for the 2007 Mini in OS X several releases ago; but Windows 10 should be able to run on it (or so I have read), as will most distributions of Linux (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, etc.).

What I'm saying is that older computing hardware is still quite able to perform a lot of standard tasks quite well (browsing the net, managing e-mail, performing tasks like word processing or managing spreadsheets or databases). And under Linux or Windows, these machines still do! Apple computers could as well, if Apple wanted to continue supporting them; but Apple's business model doesn't work that way...

Besides, accessories and OS's are usually matched to the machine hardware anyway; running old versions of any one of them can bog down a system.

Operating systems don't quite work that way. Properly managed, an operating system will generally work better over time as the authors of the code work to increase efficiency and improve performance of the underlying algorithms. The latest version of Linux should run faster on a 10-year-old machine than Linux did ten years ago, because Linux has improved during that time.

Certainly, commercial operating systems do tend to grow bloated over time, as companies try to throw in "amazing new features!" to attract new users. But the fundamental elements of a well-designed OS tend to remain stable over long periods of time, and as such can continue to be used on older hardware. If, that is, the designer of the OS chooses to maintain such support...

Again, I would hold up Microsoft to compare: they have discontinued selling Windows 7, they are discontinuing support of Windows 7 on processors up to Skylake over the next year, and they will allow KabyLake to run only Windows 10.

Oh, sure! But, you don't have to have a Kaby Lake CPU to run Windows 10. As it turns out, a PC with a Pentium D processor and 2GB of RAM will run Windows 10 just fine.

Anyway, the question here is not whether a particular company will support an OS forever, but rather how quickly a company will drop support for older hardware. (In my experience, for one reason or another most commercial software eventually dies, either due to lack of interest on the company's part, or due to the company itself shutting its doors. This is a major reason why open source OSs like Linux and BSD now command much of the PC market and practically all of the smartphone market, as they have a serious seniority advantage over all current commercial options...)

 

[scotttnz]

Well, I'm going in the opposite direction here. Sure, only the latest version of an operating system will support the most recently released hardware. However, I have an old 2007 Mac Mini that I'm still using daily as an HTPC. Apple dropped support for the 2007 Mini in OS X several releases ago; but Windows 10 should be able to run on it (or so I have read), as will most distributions of Linux (Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, etc.).

What I'm saying is that older computing hardware is still quite able to perform a lot of standard tasks quite well (browsing the net, managing e-mail, performing tasks like word processing or managing spreadsheets or databases). And under Linux or Windows, these machines still do! Apple computers could as well, if Apple wanted to continue supporting them; but Apple's business model doesn't work that way...

I get it, and my 2009 Mac Pro has been left out in the cold, despite the fact that the hardware in virtually identical to the 2010 model that Sierra does support. (I have hacked my firmware to 2010, and from what I have read Sierra will work with that.) But Apple's business model is totally different to MS. They make no money off the OS. The purpose of the OS is to get you to buy new Macs, so you can't expect them to support it on old hardware indefinitely. I'd almost prefer that they charged for OS upgrades, and supported older hardware though.

The problem of course is I'd gladly replace my old Mac Pro with a new Mac, if apple would just produce a Mac I want to own. A quad core Mini, with a moderate GPU, good enough for 4K desktop apps (at 60Hz) and casual 1080p or 1440p games and I'd be interested. Throw in user upgradable RAM (or at least reasonably priced BTO RAM options) and I'd be there with bells on. It's coming though.....almost certainly.....

 

[jpietrzak8]

I'd almost prefer that they charged for OS upgrades, and supported older hardware though.

This! More than just almost; this is absolutely what Apple should do. OS X is a superb desktop & laptop OS; in many ways, I would say it is just about the best OS available. But the available Mac hardware limits the ways in which it can be used; in fact, given Apple's apparent decline in interest in expanding the Mac lineup, I'd say they'd make more money if they simply dropped the Mac line altogether and switched to Microsoft's model.

Apple is not currently competing directly with Microsoft for the PC market. The Mini is too limited for many tasks; the Pro is far too expensive for a general-purpose PC (and not flexible enough to be customized for most high-end purposes); and the iMac, while pretty, provides neither the flexibility nor anything like the performance-per-dollar of a standard PC. And as such, the best desktop OS ever created is slowly being made irrelevant. Apple should break it from its chains and let it compete head-to-head with Windows and Linux!

 

[scotttnz]

This! More than just almost; this is absolutely what Apple should do. OS X is a superb desktop & laptop OS; in many ways, I would say it is just about the best OS available. But the available Mac hardware limits the ways in which it can be used; in fact, given Apple's apparent decline in interest in expanding the Mac lineup, I'd say they'd make more money if they simply dropped the Mac line altogether and switched to Microsoft's model.

Apple is not currently competing directly with Microsoft for the PC market. The Mini is too limited for many tasks; the Pro is far too expensive for a general-purpose PC (and not flexible enough to be customized for most high-end purposes); and the iMac, while pretty, provides neither the flexibility nor anything like the performance-per-dollar of a standard PC. And as such, the best desktop OS ever created is slowly being made irrelevant. Apple should break it from its chains and let it compete head-to-head with Windows and Linux!

Yes, all they would have to do is run a "certified for MacOS" program for PC motherboards, which I'm sure most motherboard manufactures would jump on. They would collect the apple tax on the purchase price, and in exchange guarantee compatibility. Maybe do the same for GPUs, all other components are pretty generic. Then they could do away with that pesky Mac Mini and Mac Pro development cost and effort (if they haven't already) while still giving their customers proper desktop options.

Unfortunately I suspect that the vast majority of Mac buyers just want the shiny silver (or rose gold) box from apple to just plug in, rather than the build your own, officially supported hackintosh I would love to have. I'm quite sure it will never happen.

 

[Easttime]

So, it's a new day. Any new MM rumours?

 

[Miat]

I'd say they'd make more money if they simply dropped the Mac line altogether and switched to Microsoft's model.

Said it before: I will happily pay $100 a year to use OS X if Apple licence it to other hardware manufacturers (and strictly enforce the compliance standards).

OS X officially supported on a custom self-assembled mini-tower. Count me in!

 

[Crosscreek]

Said it before: I will happily pay $100 a year to use OS X if Apple licence it to other hardware manufacturers (and strictly enforce the compliance standards).

OS X officially supported on a custom self-assembled mini-tower. Count me in!

I would say $100 initial license fee with a $50 yearly subscription service for updates.

Knowing Apple tho they would charge $200 initial with $100 subscription.

 

[navaira]

Knowing Apple tho they would charge $200 initial with $100 subscription.

Knowing Apple it will never happen though, they'll run it into the ground instead.

 

[EnesM]

As it turns out, a PC with a Pentium D processor and 2GB of RAM will run Windows 10 just fine.

You mean Windows 1 right? Define what you mean by "just fine"...

 

[jpietrzak8]

You mean Windows 1 right? Define what you mean by "just fine"...

Check out the article. The author is able to boot into Windows 10, navigate the menu system, and manage files just fine. He does have trouble when he tries to browse the net; but then, he's trying to run a modern browser on a 10-year old machine (and with just 2 GB of RAM).

I would imagine if he tried a more efficient browser (or increased the amount of RAM in the machine) he would have found it more usable. Not all applications demand vast amounts of resources to run. And neither does Windows 10.

 

[Cape Dave]

But I just (reletively speaking) got here; was getting to know people like @Cape Dave !

True that. Hanging out with the folks here has been way fun.