Will 2016 Mini be quad core only?

[Brad9893]

Yes rock solid...
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/13/macbook-pro-system-freezes-os-x-10-11-4/

Apple are like VW, trading on a name of reliability and thats just no longer the case.

If anyone was inclined to, they could post a gigantic list of links to webpages where people talk about their issues with Windows 10 based PC's. There is no such thing as an OS or a platform that has NO problems whatsoever, a platform that is reliable 100% of the time for everyone. Mac OS X has had issues from it's inception (this certainly isn't a new phenomenon), and so has Windows. So has iOS and Android.

There is clearly a driver issue with these 2015 MBP's, and I'm sure that Apple will fix it as soon as they can (probably with 10.11.5).

Personally, I find my Macs to be as reliable as they ever were. I have no issues.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Yes rock solid...
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/13/macbook-pro-system-freezes-os-x-10-11-4/

Apple are like VW, trading on a name of reliability and thats just no longer the case.

NEWS FLASH: First adopters of a new OS update find bugs! This amazing incident has never been seen before in the history of computing!

Come on, man. This happens frequently with new software releases. I personally prefer to avoid updating my machines to the latest bleeding-edge OS versions (whether from Apple or anybody else) for precisely this reason.

It doesn't detract from my personal experience with the OS.

$ uptime
8:06  up 21 days, 14:56, 2 users, load averages: 1.95 1.86 1.65

EDIT: Oh, and btw, here's my 2007 box running OS X 10.6.8:

$ uptime
8:11  up 243 days, 18:18, 2 users, load averages: 0.01 0.04 0.01

 

[AFEPPL]

I'm coming,
Still doesn't change the fact OS X is full of bloat and the quality has declined heavily over the last few years.
As you show, an old version without problems.

 

[theluggage]

wondering if the new Mini will contain a quad core ARM. I think that if there's any Mac to try the ARM OS X experiment the this it it.

As others have said, what you describe is called the "Apple TV" and it would probably run something more like iOS or TVOS than OS X.

If Apple want to try the ARM on OS X experiment, I'd suggest a convertible (along the MS SurfaceBook lines) with an ARM in the tablet portion and an Intel in the base. When its docked, it could run iOS and OS X apps side-by-side, when undocked its just iOS with anything running on Intel "hibernated" in the base. That's really just a reaction to the current popularity of convertibles coupled with the fact that Apple (unlike MS) has a huge catalog of tablet-specific ARM software.

If they wanted to go all-in on OSX for ARM they'd need to go for broke and switch everything but the 15" rMBP, the Mac Pro and the 5k iMac to ARM (& with the stated aim of switching those when workstation-class ARM chips were available). Otherwise you're asking developers to produce ARM versions of their software to support just one model... and while, yeah, for modern software written in XCode and using official frameworks that should be "just" a case of re-compiling, you don't do that without extensive regression testing at non-trivial cost.

I'm not suggestinh any of those ideas as likelihoods - just possibilities. The only real point of an ARM Mac at the moment is that it would cut Apple free from Intel and let the roll their own CPU/GPU combinations. I'm guessing a "pro" ARM would have lots of cores and make heavy use of OpenCL to offload work onto the GPU.

What would be nice for the future of the Mini is something like this, but in Mac form: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/nuc/change-the-game-with-nuc.html - but I'm not holding my breath. However, to be fair, I think that chipset has only recently become available (it might end up in MacBook Pros, too), so who knows...

 

[jpietrzak8]

Still doesn't change the fact OS X is full of bloat and the quality has declined heavily over the last few years.
As you show, an old version without problems.

I will admit that yes, modern OS X has taken on quite a bit of additional bloat. Still, I'm having no trouble running it; my 2010 Mini is indeed running 10.11.4 El Capitan. It only gets rebooted when I screw it up, or when the power goes out. (Or when my cats get too playful with the cords...)

 

[dogslobber]

One of the main reasons I have stuck with Apple is that OS X has never done a serious dirty on me. Barely even blinked.

I hate to say it, but right now Win 10 looks like an OS X killer. El Cap is a pig's ear compared to Win 10 on the same hardware. Apple should be aggressively making 10.12 the El Capitan Snow Leopard release.

 

[essiw]

I just hope there will be a 2016 mac mini, and that there will be at least quad core on it... :|

 

[Crosscreek]

Apple usually uses the chips in the low end MacBook Pro. I think it will be highly unlikely that will change. They are more interested in iMacs and Laptop sales which have higher demand and profits.

BUT you never can tell with Apple.

 

[Santabean2000]

Considering Apple's R&D budget, maybe they are tinkering with the idea of Mac desktops and laptops that use Ax SoC chips. These chips are getting progressively powerful every year, some engineer there had to have batted around the "What if we develop our own CPUs?" idea or whatever around the water cooler. I'm sure a portion of said budget goes to developing various concepts and feasibility tests for different things that we don't even know about.

They'd be stupid not to be exploring these options. Personally, I wouldn't mind switching to ARM; the heaviest app I use is FCP X and that could be optimised by  pretty quickly. [I fully understand why others would not be so keen tho...]

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

wondering if the new Mini will contain a quad core ARM. I think that if there's any Mac to try the ARM OS X experiment the this it it.

Which problem does this solve?

 

[dogslobber]

Which problem does this solve?

It maximizes AAPL profit by reducing costs and burdens to middle men. If you invest in a chip technology that is demonstrabley equivalent to the middle men then why would you continue to leave money on the table? Doing so is failing AAPL shareholders.

There's the business reason.
[doublepost=1463253374][/doublepost]Here's the technical reason:

http://barefeats.com/macbook2016b.html

 

[Count Blah]

They could go core m with active cooking for the base model but given the sku cost the won't as they wouldn't get a decent margin.

Apple would rather push people to the iMAC, Portable Mac, or Mac Pro, than produce a quality Mac Mini at this point.

 

[sublunar]

My take on this is a Mac Nano, using M.2 flash and getting rid of the 2.5" spinning disk in favour of either USB connected storage or NAS, or cloud. It might also be the right device to have a remote control and AppleTV theatre mode and ability to natively run iOS AppleTV apps making it the de facto AppleTV 5.

If they do this, however, I think it's a perfect opportunity to make it Mac App store only for software which will obviously also have to be compiled specifically for the platform. If they can bring such a device in at half the price of the current Mini it might be a hint at a future direction for the Mac.

It might also mean a move upmarket for the existing Intel Mini...

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

It maximizes AAPL profit by reducing costs and burdens to middle men.

<<<ouch<! And this in a customer-oriented forum!

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I just hope there will be a 2016 mac mini, and that there will be at least quad core on it... :|

I want to see Quad-core and dGPU like it used to have. But usually when Apple "dumbs something down", it doesn't recover from that. I'm not expecting anything great. I'm partly expecting the Mac Mini to be discontinued.

 

[Micky Do]

I want to see Quad-core and dGPU like it used to have. But usually when Apple "dumbs something down", it doesn't recover from that. I'm not expecting anything great. I'm partly expecting the Mac Mini to be discontinued.

Unlikely and unlikely.

Some have been dreaming of some kind of Mac Super Mini, and some have been expecting the Mac Mini to be discontinued for years; dunno why.

The Mac Mini is what it is, and likely to remain in the line up for a good while.

 

[ssmed]

...
Come on, man. This happens frequently with new software releases. I personally prefer to avoid updating my machines to the latest bleeding-edge OS versions (whether from Apple or anybody else) for precisely this reason....

Using 10.11.4 is hardly bleeding edge on a 2015 Macbook Pro that was bought in early 2016. It's meant to be the bug fix software for the OX 10.11.2 that came on the computer and although this machine can run 10.10.x Apple do not support such downgrades. For business at least, Apple should offer OS choice when purchasing. Our latest MBP has a hard crash 3 times a week.

 

[phrehdd]

Beyond the present offering of Minis being castrated Macs, the supposed or at least presented goal was to be a pathway for Windows users to the Mac world. Why would Apple bother with using a non-Intel CPU that would cause more problems?

ARM belongs in items like the ATV and when enough apps are available then maybe a Mini version.

Candidly I would love a quad Mini (again). Until such time, I have not bothered to get a new/another Mini that is less powerful than the Quad Server 2.0 from years back. Now I get to enjoy considering Asrock and a few other iTX and mATX offerings which I can use for HTPC, traditional computer, NAS and then some. Apple should get out of the computer biz and stick to the iPhones and iPads along with watches and other "stuff" since they basically screwed the consumer on ability to upgrade their Macs, castrating the Mini and going inside out proprietary with the new Mac (mini) Pro.

 

[loby]

I hate to say it, but right now Win 10 looks like an OS X killer. El Cap is a pig's ear compared to Win 10 on the same hardware. Apple should be aggressively making 10.12 the El Capitan Snow Leopard release.

True...Microsoft has put great efforts into Windows 10 and it seems to be paying off for them, though they are forcing it on users... Yes, they may get some of the OS X users to jump ship, but many Apple fans have already spent too much money in Apple's ecosystem and have to stay.

Apple should be focusing on OS X, but they make their money on toys now, especially the iphone.

 

[Miat]

I hate to say it, but right now Win 10 looks like an OS X killer. El Cap is a pig's ear compared to Win 10 on the same hardware.

Good. I am all for stiff competition in the market place and have no problem with Apple being given frequent kicks up the rear.

Something similar is also currently happening with competition for the Mini type machines.

I personally prefer to avoid updating my machines to the latest bleeding-edge OS versions (whether from Apple or anybody else) for precisely this reason.

Cannot up vote this enough.

I have almost always stuck with the previous generation of both the OS (still on Mavericks) and hardware (main machine is a refurb 2012 Mini). They have been well tested in the market place, and refurb hardware is very good value. I have never regretted doing so.

Not for everybody, of course, but you rarely go far wrong doing so.

Did buy a 2012 Air (USB 3 version) when they were first released, but it was only a modest update to specs, not a brand new product as such.

 

[Crosscreek]

Candidly I would love a quad Mini (again). Until such time, I have not bothered to get a new/another Mini that is less powerful than the Quad Server 2.0 from years back. Now I get to enjoy considering Asrock and a few other iTX and mATX offerings which I can use for HTPC, traditional computer, NAS and then some. Apple should get out of the computer biz and stick to the iPhones and iPads along with watches and other "stuff" since they basically screwed the consumer on ability to upgrade their Macs, castrating the Mini and going inside out proprietary with the new Mac (mini) Pro.

The Mac Mini use to be the jumping point from Windows to OS X. Now it's the opposite and not because of OS X but because of hardware vs value.

Mini PC's are a mature market now and Apple was the founder. Like every thing that Apple use to be great at is now mediocre at best with old hardware, soldered and glued systems and bloated OS's.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Using 10.11.4 is hardly bleeding edge on a 2015 Macbook Pro that was bought in early 2016.

??? 10.11.4 is the very latest version of the OS. You can't get more bleeding edge unless you participate in the beta testing program -- 10.11.5 hasn't been released yet.

It's meant to be the bug fix software for the OX 10.11.2

You may want to believe that, but I'm not sure about Apple's numbering scheme any more. Features seem to get modified, added, or removed pretty much as needed these days; the "bigger" number changes seem mostly associated with large GUI modifications more than anything else. In any case, you're right, best to keep business-critical machines a few steps back from the latest version of the OS.

although this machine can run 10.10.x Apple do not support such downgrades.

Sadly, this is true. Still, they can't stop you from performing such downgrades yourself, if you're desperate enough.

But in any case (to return to the topic of this particular forum), I haven't yet seen such problems on the Mac Mini.
[doublepost=1463306469][/doublepost]

Beyond the present offering of Minis being castrated Macs, the supposed or at least presented goal was to be a pathway for Windows users to the Mac world. Why would Apple bother with using a non-Intel CPU that would cause more problems?

Yup, while the Mac Mini was created to play in the Small-Form-Factor PC niche, it was most definitely marketed as a pathway for Windows users to switch to a Mac. But at that time, all Macs were running on PowerPC processors, not Intel chips. Apple isn't necessarily tied to a single hardware architecture.

 

[MysticCow]

wondering if the new Mini will contain a quad core ARM. I think that if there's any Mac to try the ARM OS X experiment the this it it.

God I hope not. There are issues with El Cap, but running to ARM is not going to solve any of them.

 

[phrehdd]

???

Yup, while the Mac Mini was created to play in the Small-Form-Factor PC niche, it was most definitely marketed as a pathway for Windows users to switch to a Mac. But at that time, all Macs were running on PowerPC processors, not Intel chips. Apple isn't necessarily tied to a single hardware architecture.

I don't follow your comment here. Mini have gone the exact same course as other Macs when going to Intel. Thus, Mini shared the same change of CPU. ALL of the Macs were Intel and continued. Taking one and moving it into a new venue with zero support (apps etc.) makes as I have suggest zero sense. Apple continues to market the Mini as that Windows to Mac device. So I will politely not find agreement with your statement.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Taking one and moving it into a new venue with zero support (apps etc.) makes as I have suggest zero sense.

Oh, I agree completely. If Apple chooses to move the Mini to their new in-house CPU, I would assume that they'll move the iMac and the laptops to it as well. Perhaps even the Pro, if they can manage to get enough cores working together well enough in a single machine.

And they won't make the change in a single day, either. The previous two times they've shifted architectures, they've signaled the change many months in advance, and provided dev tools to create "universal" binaries, able to run on both architectures. So there is really no problem with app support.