Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim's latest speech on the front page says the usual zero about anything. This secrecy is OK with phones, but with computers, not so much. WTF is it so hard to say, "We will have a mac mini and mac pro refresh in (name month here)"?

To defend Tim, I want to mention the Osborne Effect. On the other hand, with a semi-predictable annual refresh there wouldn't be any cause for alarm that required a re-assuring word from him on behalf of Apple. We should look out for any news from the NAB show in April.

On Recode.net there's an article mentioning the average selling price of PCs is rising while average tablet shipments are falling. Although the PC unit shipments are similarly falling, those people who do need a desktop computer are paying more for a unit they intend to keep for several years, and there's a loose correlation with falling tablet sales which still have quantum leaps in spec on an annual basis but people don't want to be falling so far behind on specification.

I think a deciding factor in this is performance of the Cloud services which some people can't get their heads around or realise that they are sub-standard - looking at you iCloud...

Apple probably know full well that desktop buyers are keeping desktops longer and with average selling prices increasing they must surely be looking at giving consumers a PC that they would be happy to keep for 6 years.

So if the average Mini would-be buyer in this forum has a certain budget to spend (and let's face it - it's not $499), would keep their machine for upwards of 6 years (ok, not great for Apple but they get a chance to keep that person inside the Apple ecosystem with Apple Music, iCloud, the Mac App store etc?).

Updating hardware every 2-3 years in the computer world is just bizarre, never mind on a $499 Mini stuck on Haswell - what about the poor would-be Mac Pro owners who haven't had an update on their Ivy Bridge EP machine?

We'll soon be talking more openly in here about forthcoming Coffee Lake which will see 6 core options for both mobile and desktop Intel CPUs by early 2018.

In the meantime, Intel are partly combating the AMD Ryzen threat by offering Kaby Lake desktop parts that are clocked higher but with commensurate increases in power consumption. That's the i7 parts, some i5 parts could get hyper threading turned on like a cut price i7 and this is for parts which are likely available this summer.

Speed bumped parts could mean increases in TDP which in turn mean case/cooling system redesigns (and therefore form factor) if Apple feel that those parts are most appropriate for a redesign.

Regardless of this, a Coffee Lake solution for Apple in 2018 Macs including i7 desktops with 6 cores and 12 threads suggests an iMac Pro next year which potentially sees the Mac Pro base 4 core machine become very redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
To defend Tim, I want to mention the Osborne Effect. On the other hand, with a semi-predictable annual refresh there wouldn't be any cause for alarm that required a re-assuring word from him on behalf of Apple. We should look out for any news from the NAB show in April.

On Recode.net there's an article mentioning the average selling price of PCs is rising while average tablet shipments are falling. Although the PC unit shipments are similarly falling, those people who do need a desktop computer are paying more for a unit they intend to keep for several years, and there's a loose correlation with falling tablet sales which still have quantum leaps in spec on an annual basis but people don't want to be falling so far behind on specification.

I think a deciding factor in this is performance of the Cloud services which some people can't get their heads around or realise that they are sub-standard - looking at you iCloud...

Apple probably know full well that desktop buyers are keeping desktops longer and with average selling prices increasing they must surely be looking at giving consumers a PC that they would be happy to keep for 6 years.

So if the average Mini would-be buyer in this forum has a certain budget to spend (and let's face it - it's not $499), would keep their machine for upwards of 6 years (ok, not great for Apple but they get a chance to keep that person inside the Apple ecosystem with Apple Music, iCloud, the Mac App store etc?).

Updating hardware every 2-3 years in the computer world is just bizarre, never mind on a $499 Mini stuck on Haswell - what about the poor would-be Mac Pro owners who haven't had an update on their Ivy Bridge EP machine?

We'll soon be talking more openly in here about forthcoming Coffee Lake which will see 6 core options for both mobile and desktop Intel CPUs by early 2018.

In the meantime, Intel are partly combating the AMD Ryzen threat by offering Kaby Lake desktop parts that are clocked higher but with commensurate increases in power consumption. That's the i7 parts, some i5 parts could get hyper threading turned on like a cut price i7 and this is for parts which are likely available this summer.

Speed bumped parts could mean increases in TDP which in turn mean case/cooling system redesigns (and therefore form factor) if Apple feel that those parts are most appropriate for a redesign.

Regardless of this, a Coffee Lake solution for Apple in 2018 Macs including i7 desktops with 6 cores and 12 threads suggests an iMac Pro next year which potentially sees the Mac Pro base 4 core machine become very redundant.

Got it. You are saying we need to wait another year. Ouch :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: robotica
Got it. You are saying we need to wait another year. Ouch :)

It's more like if we get a Mini that we'll be moaning in there because the Skylake Mini has only 2 cores whereas even a Macbook Pro gets 6 core Coffee Lake CPUs in 2018. ;)

It's going to be very tiresome next year :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
If they would just offer something small with a 7th gen mobile CPU I'd be happy enough. It's not asking a lot.
You can say the performance has not advanced far enough, but we'd be able to have higher clock speeds and there IS a performance increase. The newer HD graphics are worth it alone.

It's mildly amusing to see the slow 1.4ghz base model, with it's archaic innards listed at £479 on the Apple store.
 
If they would just offer something small with a 7th gen mobile CPU I'd be happy enough. It's not asking a lot.
You can say the performance has not advanced far enough, but we'd be able to have higher clock speeds and there IS a performance increase. The newer HD graphics are worth it alone.

It's mildly amusing to see the slow 1.4ghz base model, with it's archaic innards listed at £479 on the Apple store.

Really the HD 4000 in my 2012 Mini is the only area where my current computer is letting me down and then again that is just because I am pushing my Mini to do things it wasn't designed for (hello 3D gaming). I hate to say but I'd probably grab a new Mini even if it had the soldered parts of the 2014 unit just for the graphics upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DesertSurfer
Mac Mini 2012 with GTX 980 Ti works fine.

OS X Info 1.png


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/building-external-gpus-on-mac-egpu.1893792/page-9#post-24131181

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-4k-tv.1644192/page-3#post-23656730
 
If they would just offer something small with a 7th gen mobile CPU I'd be happy enough. It's not asking a lot.
You can say the performance has not advanced far enough, but we'd be able to have higher clock speeds and there IS a performance increase. The newer HD graphics are worth it alone.

It's mildly amusing to see the slow 1.4ghz base model, with it's archaic innards listed at £479 on the Apple store.

The last couple of days have seen lots of varying spec 2014 Mac Minis in the UK refurb store. There's still a plethora available even now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klaklash
It's mildly amusing to see the slow 1.4ghz base model, with it's archaic innards listed at £479 on the Apple store.

Amusing to the average geek, but for some average folk the base model Mac Mini is all the computer they need. For those who require or desire more, there are higher specced configurations available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trusteft
Amusing to the average geek, but for some average folk the base model Mac Mini is all the computer they need. For those who require or desire more, there are higher specced configurations available.
1.4Gh, 4 Gig or RAM, Spiny drive, and the latest MacOS = sub optimal performance to have the word Mac be associated with it. It was sub standard 2 years ago, and we've had two higher resource dependent OS updates since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: klaklash
Yeah, yeah, the point of view of the average geek.

You have to be kidding with this. It's not the perspective of the average geek. Get a clue and stop being dismissive of those tired of Apple's neglect in this area of the market. You can cheerlead if you want but respect others who disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DesertSurfer
I've used a 2014 Mac Mini with the 500gb mechanical, and it was utterly miserable.
It wasn't miserable because I'm a "geek", it was miserable because the performance was way below what competing machines offered.
From the sounds of things, my experience of the performance is not a one-off. Junk cheap-as-chips Dell Optiplex systems we get in for general usage are fine to use with mechanical drives. These Minis... No.
The slow i5, and 4gb memory aren't necessarily an issue, that drive though... Where do Apple source these?

For the record, if a new Mac Mini came out with a low clock 7th Gen i series CPU (even an i3), I'd be very tempted to buy. Apple have shown they use below par hard-drives though.
 
I've used a 2014 Mac Mini with the 500gb mechanical, and it was utterly miserable.
It wasn't miserable because I'm a "geek", it was miserable because the performance was way below what competing machines offered.
From the sounds of things, my experience of the performance is not a one-off. Junk cheap-as-chips Dell Optiplex systems we get in for general usage are fine to use with mechanical drives. These Minis... No.
The slow i5, and 4gb memory aren't necessarily an issue, that drive though... Where do Apple source these?

For the record, if a new Mac Mini came out with a low clock 7th Gen i series CPU (even an i3), I'd be very tempted to buy. Apple have shown they use below par hard-drives though.
Sad and pathetic hard drives. They are like molasses. May they burn in hell for sticking consumers with these pieces of crap.
 
No it's not the drive that's so slow, (though it's certainly not zippy) it's the latest versions of Mac OS. That's what's slow.

I have a 2010 Mac Mini with 8 GB RAM & had the stock mechanical 320 HD partitioned in 2 blocks. One got Snow Leopard, the other got EL Capitan.
(I've since swapped to a SSD).

The speed difference in using just the Finder is appalling. El Capitan is almost unbearable, Snow Leopard is zippy. Yes zippy. And el cap was installed on the first, faster partition.

Besides the overall ugliness and illegibility of El Capitan, it's not doing anything differently functionality wise compared to SL except the ability to have notifications and full screen. There's nothing evident that can explain its chronic lagging. And why on earth does it take more than twice as long to boot than SL?

I think Apple intentionally slows down each new OS to cripple older machines. Speed is the number one driving force to upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
Besides the overall ugliness and illegibility of El Capitan, it's not doing anything differently functionality wise compared to SL except the ability to have notifications and full screen. There's nothing evident that can explain its chronic lagging. And why on earth does it take more than twice as long to boot than SL?

Ok, I can't stand this any more. I also am running a 2010 Mini with 8 GB RAM. I also am using El Capitan. And I love it.

You are correct in stating that El Capitan takes longer to boot up. You are also correct in stating that the Finder takes longer to display files, and I should add that System Preferences takes longer to load as well.

So, can I ask, have you ever tried running anything other than the Finder on your machine?

Let me just bring up one single, revolutionary aspect of OS X versions from 10.9 (Mavericks) onward: memory compression. Normally, when a modern computer starts running low on RAM, it starts paging it out to the long-term storage device (HD or SSD) in order to free up space. Not so in modern versions of OS X; rather than do this, it will compress pages, allowing the data to remain in RAM. And, as RAM is so much faster than both HDs and SSDs, this allows the computer to manage heavier application loads without slowing down significantly.

So, you can load up on heavy websites in multiple browser tabs with less worry about hitting long-term storage. You can run a hefty IDE in the foreground for several hours, and yet be able to swiftly bring your e-mail app back to the foreground when needed without having to wait for it to be paged back out of storage. I'm still fine with 8 GB on this machine today, whereas I'd have probably sprung for 16 GB if I were still on an OS like Snow Leopard. (And yes, I really don't need to worry about my ancient HDs most of the time, because all my apps can reside entirely in RAM.)

tl;dr: The operating system of a computer is a program that is designed to allow the user to more easily manage the features of their hardware in order to get their work done. It is meant to facilitate the running applications; but not to be the only application you ever run. Modern versions of OS X do a fine job when dealing with large application loads, much better than older versions did.
 
You are correct in stating that El Capitan takes longer to boot up. You are also correct in stating that the Finder takes longer to display files, and I should add that System Preferences takes longer to load as well.

I have a 2014 base mini on El Capitan for an iTunes server, it's also connected to 24" screen and my home stereo system and used with iTunes directly. It's fine for that, but I agree, there is just something about this machine that seems unbearably slow. Opening System Preferences does take a surprisingly long time. I sure would not want one of these machines for everyday interactive use. My base model 2012 mini was noticeably faster, although it was running Mavericks.
 
I have a 2014 base mini on El Capitan for an iTunes server, it's also connected to 24" screen and my home stereo system and used with iTunes directly. It's fine for that, but I agree, there is just something about this machine that seems unbearably slow. Opening System Preferences does take a surprisingly long time. I sure would not want one of these machines for everyday interactive use. My base model 2012 mini was noticeably faster, although it was running Mavericks.

I find that Sierra runs really well on my 2012 i5 mini, for what it's worth (with an SSD replacing the spinner).
 
I sure would not want one of these machines for everyday interactive use. My base model 2012 mini was noticeably faster, although it was running Mavericks.

I've gotta agree, I don't think a base-model 2014 Mini is all that useful in general, as macOS will consume about half of the available RAM for itself, leaving very little for most modern applications (which often require entire gigabytes for themselves). And yeah, the rest of the equipment (CPU, GPU, HD) are very low-end parts, so they can't take up the slack.

But man, what exactly is "everyday interactive use", anyway? ;) It sometimes seems that my own interactions with my machine are nowhere near what anyone (at least on this forum) does with theirs... I've gotta agree with @Micky Do once again; ultimately, a computer is designed to be a tool to serve a particular purpose. If the base Mini serves your specific purpose, then it is an appropriate tool for the job at hand. You don't need a muscle car just to drive to the grocery and back... ;)

But yeah, I would still like to see a Mini sporting up-to-date hardware (or even better, a standard tower Mac!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnderBeta
So, can I ask, have you ever tried running anything other than the Finder on your machine?

Finder was an example, but Finder IS the OS. If Finder is slow, then the OS is slow. Sure, SL & El Cap will both rip a DVD with handbrake at the same speed, or photoshop will perform some function equally on both OSes, but once you've got to go back to Finder, it's back to hell again. Slow computer.

All the fancy shmancy technology behind the latest OSes sounds good. But in the end all it really did was slow down the user experience.

And as for RAM, El Capitan is a RAM HOG. Snow Leopard is fine with 3-4 GB of ram or even 2GB is fine for for light duty stuff. Where SL is fine with 4GB, El Cap requires 8 GB. It basically steals 4 GB of your RAM and all you get in return is a laggy machine.

That's my experience anyway.
 
Finder was an example, but Finder IS the OS. If Finder is slow, then the OS is slow. Sure, SL & El Cap will both rip a DVD with handbrake at the same speed, or photoshop will perform some function equally on both OSes, but once you've got to go back to Finder, it's back to hell again. Slow computer.

All the fancy shmancy technology behind the latest OSes sounds good. But in the end all it really did was slow down the user experience.

And as for RAM, El Capitan is a RAM HOG. Snow Leopard is fine with 3-4 GB of ram or even 2GB is fine for for light duty stuff. Where SL is fine with 4GB, El Cap requires 8 GB. It basically steals 4 GB of your RAM and all you get in return is a laggy machine.

That's my experience anyway.

That is the nature of the beast. With increased complexity in code comes increased requirements. If I could upgrade the RAM as I need to within the limits of the chipsets then I wouldn't care at all if an older machine is no longer capable of handling the task.

The real crime here is soldering on the RAM so machines can't be upgraded. My 2015 MacBook Pro 13" has 8GB of RAM and it will to the day I sell it unless I swap out the entire logic board. There is no valid reason why this was done other then greed. Compound the 2016 models with soldered storage and forget it.

This will surely effect the resale value too as eventually when one piece fails the entire thing is garbage. With the potential loss of resale value and longevity why then is the price going up?

The answer is greed pure and simple.
 
Finder was an example, but Finder IS the OS. If Finder is slow, then the OS is slow.

Finder is not the OS. Finder is a GUI file manager and application launcher that runs on top of the OS. And yeah, I disagree with some of the design decisions made by the Finder folks, because it really is overweight for what it does.

The OS X operating system (built on the XNU kernel), however, is comprised of a combination of a Mach kernel and the BSD unix distribution. Quite powerful, and given how Apple has configured it, quite capable for handling significant application loads.

Sure, SL & El Cap will both rip a DVD with handbrake at the same speed, or photoshop will perform some function equally on both OSes, but once you've got to go back to Finder, it's back to hell again. Slow computer.

So, can I ask, if you hate Finder, why do you use it? It is, after all, not part of the operating system. There are alternatives available! Path Finder, Commander One, etc. (I often just use the command line myself; this is a fully featured BSD Unix OS, after all.)

And as for RAM, El Capitan is a RAM HOG. Snow Leopard is fine with 3-4 GB of ram or even 2GB is fine for for light duty stuff. Where SL is fine with 4GB, El Cap requires 8 GB. It basically steals 4 GB of your RAM and all you get in return is a laggy machine.

Well, I do have to agree that OS X has become a memory hog in the most recent releases. However, let me correct you on one item: El Cap only consumes slightly less than 2 GB of RAM. :) But yeah, that leaves only 2 GB to work with in a base Mini, which can disappear quickly with the way that modern applications hog memory; so I agree that 8 GB of RAM makes more sense as a lower limit with modern OS X.
 
But man, what exactly is "everyday interactive use", anyway? ;)
But yeah, I would still like to see a Mini sporting up-to-date hardware (or even better, a standard tower Mac!).

Yeah, I guess that was a little vague. :) I was thinking of stuff that "average" users do: e-mail, Safari, basic productivity apps (Spreadsheet, word processing), perhaps some light duty image editing and video using the bundled apps. I think the base 2014 model would frustrate most people doing these basic things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.