Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

I don't need to upgrade my base 2022 Mac Studio... I don't need to upgrade my Mac Studio... I don't need to upgrade....

But damn... would love to buy the new M5 Pro Mac mini with TB5 and 48Gb of ram (guess would be cheaper than my original Mac Studio at $1800-1900 when I bought).

Certainly do not need the new Mac mini
 
Populus said:
One of the reasons many of us are really eager for Apple to release the M5 Mac mini, is that due to the war to Iran, a lot of oil and production capacity has been damaged. This is going to have a long standing effect into the economy, and maybe the M5 family are the last devices we can purchase at the “old” traditional prices, before the economy enters into an inflationary spiral… because energy is going to be more expensive.

This isn’t something we’ll see tomorrow or next week, but especially in the coming months and years, when most of the oil reserves start to decrease and a higher average oil price gets stuck on the $100 per barrel price.

Although, who knows, the Mac mini is a carbon neutral device, so maybe remains unaffected… /j

I wish the M5 Mac mini (and Mac Studio) are released as soon as possible, because the effects of the war on the economy are going to arrive like a slow-motion tsunami.

And that’s without taking into account the situation with RAM and SSDs…
Click to expand...
You do wonder a bit if Apple know that a price increase could be on the cards based on current world events.

The gamble will be whether refreshing to m5 series chips for desktop macs will come with a real terms price increase or if Apple will hold on knowing that m6 generation will certainly be where price increases come for laptops (OLED screens etc) so something serious like a storage bump could be saved for that.

Trouble is, the storage bump has already happened for the m5 macbooks so not doing it for the m5 desktops will look like a price increase through the back door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Populus and Cape Dave
With the M6-series of SoCs, there's gonna be a price increase anyway, what with the increased pricing of the 2nm process...?
 
DaveFromCampbelltown said:
Because it's different. Most people who complain about it can't remember the original Mac OS X, and how different it was from OS 9.
Tahoe has brought back some of those features.
Also Tahoe is a tiny, teensy bit faster than Sequoia, but you have to use a stopwatch to measure it.
Click to expand...
The pre-OS X versions of the OS were all junk based off code from 1983. OS X was real UNIX and has no relation to those junk versions while Sequoia and Tahoe are iterative. People think the aesthetic changes to the windowing system are trash because they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75
DaveFromCampbelltown said:
Because it's different. Most people who complain about it can't remember the original Mac OS X, and how different it was from OS 9.
Tahoe has brought back some of those features.
Also Tahoe is a tiny, teensy bit faster than Sequoia, but you have to use a stopwatch to measure it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is not because it is different. It is because it goes hard against known UI/UX principles that we have all worked so hard to attain. Effing ROUND buttons is NOT an improvement in any way. Change for the sake of change, which is nearly always stupid, and certainly so in this case. A large percentage of the population has old tired eyes. Lack of contrast and "translucency" are not our friend. Ef you, Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leifp, it wasnt me, Basic75 and 1 other person
Corefile said:
The pre-OS X versions of the OS were all junk based off code from 1983. OS X was real UNIX and has no relation to those junk versions while Sequoia and Tahoe are iterative.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, MacOS 1 through 9 did not support preemptive multi-tasking and had no command line support. MacOS X and above is "real UNIX" but has a few differences from traditional UNIX. One such difference is traditional UNIX has case sensitive file systems, where one file can be named cc and another CC (where cc is the C compiler and CC is the C++ compiler). One other change from MacOS 1-9 to MacOS X and higher is a new line for text files is <CR> for MacOS 1-9, and <LF> for MacOS X (as in UNIX). DOS text files use <CR><LF> for new lines as would be used when printing on a TTY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75
IvyKing said:
From my understanding, MacOS 1 through 9 did not support preemptive multi-tasking and had no command line support. MacOS X and above is "real UNIX" but has a few differences from traditional UNIX. One such difference is traditional UNIX has case sensitive file systems, where one file can be named cc and another CC (where cc is the C compiler and CC is the C++ compiler). One other change from MacOS 1-9 to MacOS X and higher is a new line for text files is <CR> for MacOS 1-9, and <LF> for MacOS X (as in UNIX). DOS text files use <CR><LF> for new lines as would be used when printing on a TTY.
Click to expand...
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. OS X has a foundation of UNIX where you can have various file system implementations. You can enable filename case sensitivity in volumes of Tahoe for example. The original MacOS used a baked in third party abomination called Multi-Finder which changed little over the years in lieu of real preemptive multitasking. MacOS was so awful that Apple spent the 90s spinning up skunkworks projects to replace the underlying OS but they all crashed and burned. Apple didn't have any real OS engineers in that period and only survived by buying NeXT OS division. I'm sure history revisionism is written to make it appear that the transition was smooth and planned but Macs of that period were not making money and only Apple 2 as a cash cow kept them going during the dark periods. Michael Dell wasn't wrong when he made his comments about Apple in the mid-90s. It was a garbage company filled with useless people.
 
Corefile said:
We're talking about the Apple Mac OS here, not what NeXT Inc. did for their OS.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Mac OS X, from its very first release, was not much more than NeXTSTEP with a pre-X design, aren't you? And last time I checked, Apple did not replace the OS foundations by something entirely different; so if you say that the "pre-OS X versions of the OS were all junk based off code from 1983", which you did, I think it should at least be added that the "OS X and later versions of the OS, including Tahoe, were all based off code from 1986".
 
  • Like
Reactions: leifp
it wasnt me said:
You are aware that Mac OS X, from its very first release, was not much more than NeXTSTEP with a pre-X design, aren't you? And last time I checked, Apple did not replace the OS foundations by something entirely different; so if you say that the "pre-OS X versions of the OS were all junk based off code from 1983", which you did, I think it should at least be added that the "OS X and later versions of the OS, including Tahoe, were all based off code from 1986".
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're confused. The non-UNIX based Mac OS is the junk OS I am referring to. NeXT Inc. was bought by Apple in 1996 and that's why Steve (Jobs) returned to the company. That purchase became the foundation of OS X UNIX which was released around 1999/2000 timeframe and eventually became stable by 2004.
 
Corefile said:
The non-UNIX based Mac OS is the junk OS I am referring to. NeXT Inc. was bought by Apple in 1996 and that's why Steve (Jobs) returned to the company.
Click to expand...

I know. Yet you said that the old Mac OS was based on code from the 80s in a derogatory sense, although macOS isn't really much newer either. So please decide: Is code going back to the 80s "junk" (Mac OS 9) or "not junk" (Tahoe)?
 
it wasnt me said:
I know. Yet you said that the old Mac OS was based on code from the 80s in a derogatory sense, although macOS isn't really much newer either. So please decide: Is code going back to the 80s "junk" (Mac OS 9) or "not junk" (Tahoe)?
Click to expand...
Mac OS 1 through 9 == junk. Tahoe UI changes are trash.
 
Corefile said:
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. OS X has a foundation of UNIX where you can have various file system implementations. You can enable filename case sensitivity in volumes of Tahoe for example. The original MacOS used a baked in third party abomination called Multi-Finder which changed little over the years in lieu of real preemptive multitasking. MacOS was so awful that Apple spent the 90s spinning up skunkworks projects to replace the underlying OS but they all crashed and burned. Apple didn't have any real OS engineers in that period and only survived by buying NeXT OS division. I'm sure history revisionism is written to make it appear that the transition was smooth and planned but Macs of that period were not making money and only Apple 2 as a cash cow kept them going during the dark periods. Michael Dell wasn't wrong when he made his comments about Apple in the mid-90s. It was a garbage company filled with useless people.
Click to expand...
NextStep/MacOS X is BSD userland on top of a modified Mach kernel as opposed to a traditional UNIX kernel, somewhat the same way QNX has a UNIX compatible userland with a micro-kernel. This doesn't make MacOS X or QNX bad, but they are subtly different than traditional UNIX.

I have used HP-UX, Solaris, QNX, various forms of Linux, and OpenBSD and aware of the differences between traditional UNIX and MacOS X. The case preserving vs case sensitive aspect of file names was one of the first things I noticed about MacOS X when first exposed to it.

As for OS development in the 1990's, Microsoft was having a lot of issues with extending Windows, it took getting Dave Cutler to get Win NT going.
 
Last edited:
@Corefile "Mac OS 1 through 9 == junk."

Not. That's a junk viewpoint, about something you appear to know nothing about. 🙁
It was what it was, which was streets ahead of the various DOSs and Windows 1 to 3.1.
The better-OS high end, Sun, SGI, DEC were $30,000 up (and up).

So that left MacOS having total dominance in the first world's DTP, Printing and Pre-Press landscape, and owning the high ground in anything requiring photographic excellence, and later, creative visual interactivity and video.

Like everything else, it was 1980s code - cleverly written Pascal, and like everything else, needed to be superseded by the mid 1990s.
Windows did NT, and Unix became Linux, and we all know how it worked out for Apple... 🙂
 
Last edited:
Ex
PaulD-UK said:
@Corefile "Mac OS 1 through 9 == junk."

Not. That's a junk viewpoint, about something you appear to know nothing about. 🙁
It was what it was, which was streets ahead of the various DOSs and Windows 1 to 3.1.
The better-OS high end, Sun, SGI, DEC were $30,000 up (and up).

So that left MacOS having total dominance in the first world's DTP, Printing and Pre-Press landscape, and owning the high ground in anything requiring photographic excellence, and later, creative visual interactivity and video.

Like everything else, it was 1980s code - cleverly written Pascal, and like everything else, needed to be superseded by the mid 1990s.
Windows did NT, and Unix became Linux, and we all know how it worked out for Apple... 🙂
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Imagine for a moment that Apple kills off the mini for a Mac Neo, and brings in a slightly lower spec’d Studio to replace the higher end mini. Thoughts?
 
Corefile said:
Not really sure what point you're trying to make. OS X has a foundation of UNIX where you can have various file system implementations. You can enable filename case sensitivity in volumes of Tahoe for example. The original MacOS used a baked in third party abomination called Multi-Finder which changed little over the years in lieu of real preemptive multitasking. MacOS was so awful that Apple spent the 90s spinning up skunkworks projects to replace the underlying OS but they all crashed and burned. Apple didn't have any real OS engineers in that period and only survived by buying NeXT OS division. I'm sure history revisionism is written to make it appear that the transition was smooth and planned but Macs of that period were not making money and only Apple 2 as a cash cow kept them going during the dark periods. Michael Dell wasn't wrong when he made his comments about Apple in the mid-90s. It was a garbage company filled with useless people.
Click to expand...
Steve Jobs publicly said Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy when he came back as Apple’s iCEO (i for interim in this case).
 
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