PDA

View Full Version : Constrained Supplies Suggest Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro Server Headed for Refresh




MacRumors
Jun 9, 2011, 09:24 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/constrained-supplies-suggest-mac-mini-server-and-mac-pro-server-headed-for-refresh/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/apple_mini_pro_servers.jpg


According to 9 to 5 Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/71495/apple-updating-server-lineup-as-mac-pro-and-mac-mini-server-supplies-constrain/), trusted source Mr. X has indicated that supplies of the server models of Apple's Mac mini and Mac Pro lines are officially listed as constrained, suggesting that Apple may be drawing down supplies ahead of a refresh.In addition to OS X Lion, our sources are already expecting new MacBook Airs and Time Capsules fairly soon - due to supply shortages and now Mr. X tells 9to5Mac that Apple's Mac mini Server and Mac Pro Server are constrained with no shipment date yet in place for new models.Apple introduced (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/20/apple-updates-mac-mini-and-adds-server-option/) the Mac mini server option, which substitutes a second hard drive for the usual optical drive, in late 2009. The Mac Pro server configuration debuted (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/05/apple-releases-new-server-configuration-of-mac-pro-to-replace-xserve/) last November as the company announced the pending discontinuation of its Xserve rackmountable server. A report (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/) earlier this year indicated that Apple was developing a smaller, narrower Mac Pro that could be rackmounted, although much larger than the previous Xserve.

It seems reasonable to assume that the all models of the Mac mini and Mac Pro could see updates alongside refreshes of the server models, as the machines share the vast majority of their specs.

Article Link: Constrained Supplies Suggest Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro Server Headed for Refresh (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/constrained-supplies-suggest-mac-mini-server-and-mac-pro-server-headed-for-refresh/)



snebes
Jun 9, 2011, 09:28 PM
Interested to see if there will be a rackable version of the MacPro now.

nuckinfutz
Jun 9, 2011, 09:28 PM
Quad Core i5 for the Mac mini please Apple.

TOYSTER17
Jun 9, 2011, 09:34 PM
I'm interested in an airport extreme. I held off from buying one these past couple weeks.

(L)
Jun 9, 2011, 09:36 PM
A refresh of not just the server models, I would hope. We can probably expect the Mini to stay a bit behind the iMac in everything, including processor speed, I'd think. Otherwise it would approach "headless iMac" specs, which seems like something Apple would avoid. I'd expect a Thunderbolt port, though....

As for the Pro, what Intel chips would be used?

nuckinfutz
Jun 9, 2011, 09:36 PM
I'm interested in an airport extreme. I held off from buying one these past couple weeks.

Me too...if rumors are correct we could see some nice iCloud integration from the AE/TC running iOS.

centauratlas
Jun 9, 2011, 09:37 PM
It seems reasonable to assume that the all models of the Mac mini and Mac Pro could see updates

Exactly. It seems unlikely that only the server models would be updated. First because they are virtually identical to the non-server versions, and second because Apple will roll out Thunderbolt etc across the Mac line as soon as is practical.

(L)
Jun 9, 2011, 09:37 PM
I'm interested in an airport extreme. I held off from buying one these past couple weeks.

It'd be weird but interesting if an AirPort Extreme gained a Thunderbolt port... if only there were thunderbolt peripherals out there....

Cathode
Jun 9, 2011, 09:37 PM
Many of the regulars in the Mac Pro forum here have pointed out that a Sandy Bridge equivalent processor won't be available until Q4 2011.

However, with Lion, Thunderbolt and Final Cut Pro right around the corner it would make sense in my opinion for a incremental refresh.

8CoreWhore
Jun 9, 2011, 09:41 PM
9to5 mac has made a lot of news lately.

dkouts
Jun 9, 2011, 09:42 PM
Thrilled when see the word "Pro" at all any more from Apple.

MythicFrost
Jun 9, 2011, 09:43 PM
I guess this means we'll only be getting a 6970 2GB in the Mac Pro, too bad, I was hoping it'd be a 7970 :p

apolloa
Jun 9, 2011, 09:49 PM
Oh God, yet another 'constrained' rumour :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It'll be proved as false just like the other 3 we've had in the last 2 weeks.......

Mattsasa
Jun 9, 2011, 09:53 PM
so mac mini, mac pro, and macbook air, refresh are expected very very soon?

kiljoy616
Jun 9, 2011, 10:02 PM
Quad Core i5 for the Mac mini please Apple.

More in line with i3 than i5. I can't see Apple putting an iMac inside there, but then I could be wrong and I hope i am because that would be one rocking server.:D

TTarkas
Jun 9, 2011, 10:10 PM
Why would it indicate a refresh at all?

With Apple stating that the only thing about the server software is that it is an incremental load on top of Lion, and it only costs 50 dollars instead of 500 dollars, then you need to update the line for pricing, even if hardware doesn't change at all.

Mini server should be 1 to 2 hundred more than regular mini at the most. Slight bit of money for faster processor, same small bit for 4 instead of 2 gigs of memory, 30 bucks for 500 gig hard drive instead of super-drive DVD drive (if not actually cheaper),and fifty bucks for server software.

Regular pricing has mini server as 300 dollar option with the improvements. I predict that they will narrow the gap to 150 dollars instead and make mini server for $750 with basically the same specs.

Of course I'd like to see a faster and quad processor, better graphics, more memory, and bigger hard drives, and ThunderBolt also, but I think that's all coming later in the fall.

Pretty much same story for Pro. I'd probably upgrade my hex for a faster processor and better graphics card, even though I'm not constrained by anything from a performance standpoint at the moment.

But I predict that the Pro is only a pricing change without moving hardware specs at this time. Maybe 3 or 6 months.

makkystyle
Jun 9, 2011, 10:10 PM
Anyone who has read Apple's own press materials on OSX Lion Server will notice that they are heavy on the "any mac can be a server" language. I think the server models are being discontinued as Apple tries to position the 'server' as less of a hardware implementation and more of a software implementation. This is why only the server versions of the more-or-less same hardware is constrained.

TTarkas
Jun 9, 2011, 10:13 PM
Anyone who has read Apple's own press materials on OSX Lion Server will notice that they are heavy on the "any mac can be a server" language. I think the server models are being discontinued as Apple tries to position the 'server' as less of a hardware implementation and more of a software implementation. This is why only the server versions of the more-or-less same hardware is constrained.

I think we said the same thing, but you used a lot fewer words. Well done.

bearcatrp
Jun 9, 2011, 10:15 PM
Since I can afford a Mac pro, am really hope for a quad core mini, or at least a 2 core/4 thread of at least 2.8 ghz. Otherwise, time to leave apple. Don't really need a pro but a single chip FULL size desktop (not a iMac) i7 would be awesome. Would save the pennies for this setup.
Have a sneaky suspicion apple may get new chips early again.

314631
Jun 9, 2011, 10:15 PM
17" MacBook Pro was sold out here earlier I think it's getting a refresh in the next few weeks too.

mdgm
Jun 9, 2011, 10:18 PM
We'll need to see constrained supplies of the non-server models before we can expect an imminent refresh of the Mini and the Pro.

17" MacBook Pro was sold out here earlier I think it's getting a refresh in the next few weeks too.
17" MBP has been plagued with troubles with SATA III SSDs (though the MBP wasn't advertised as supporting SATA III). I don't know if this would mean they need to do a spec bump to it or not.

Constraining of supply doesn't necessarily indicate a refresh.

Mr Rogers
Jun 9, 2011, 10:22 PM
If Apple put low end 15 Quad and decent graphics chip - I'd be out to get server model and link to a large RAID 1 system.

Come on Apple if you want my cash.

RafaelT
Jun 9, 2011, 10:24 PM
Been waiting for the new mini for a while now, they need to get things rolling.

Yumunum
Jun 9, 2011, 10:24 PM
We'll need to see constrained supplies of the non-server models before we can expect an imminent refresh of the Mini and the Pro.


17" MBP has been plagued with troubles with SATA III SSDs (though the MBP wasn't advertised as supporting SATA III). I don't know if this would mean they need to do a spec bump to it or not.

Constraining of supply doesn't necessarily indicate a refresh.

I think he was being sarcastic, haha... But I for one hope all these computers DO get a refresh. Especially the MacBook Air.

rcjh22
Jun 9, 2011, 10:28 PM
Start the back to school sale!!

Rad99004
Jun 9, 2011, 10:30 PM
So lets Add the iPhone 5 to these "Hardware" rumors and the new IOS based "Air"

LarryC
Jun 9, 2011, 10:33 PM
Come on Apple, don't forget the MacBook!

VirtualRain
Jun 9, 2011, 10:49 PM
The editors should read their own stories... it might give them a clue...

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/06/mac-os-x-lion-set-for-july-debut-priced-at-29-99-mac-app-store-exclusive/

OS X Lion Server isn't a totally separate installation, just additional apps that can be run on top of Lion. Server will be available for $49.99 through the App Store.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/03/mac-os-x-lion-server-to-require-separate-paid-download-from-mac-app-store/

a discovery in a help file for a Mac OS X Lion developer build suggests that users will be required to download a paid app from the Mac App Store in order to activate the server components of Lion

Hmm... I wonder why there's a constraint on the server versions of these products???

Mak47
Jun 9, 2011, 10:56 PM
I'm hoping we see Apple embrace the concept of the Mini as a home media system. With the Mac App Store, all they need to do is tweak up the graphics and develop an awesome looking game controller and the Mac opens up a whole new platform. There are so many possibilities with that machine.

WiiDSmoker
Jun 9, 2011, 10:59 PM
I'm hoping we see Apple embrace the concept of the Mini as a home media system. With the Mac App Store, all they need to do is tweak up the graphics and develop an awesome looking game controller and the Mac opens up a whole new platform. There are so many possibilities with that machine.

A $700 game machine huh

DCBass
Jun 9, 2011, 11:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I've been waiting a good long while now for the Mac mini to be refreshed. The moment it is I'm buying one for my wife's family.

imolared
Jun 9, 2011, 11:02 PM
Mac Mini will be refreshed soon. You know why? Because I just bought 1 yesterday!!! (thought about waiting for Lion but I wanted to have a stable server for now and wait out ti'll the bugs in Lion gets ironed out, I do get a free upgrade anyways).

Apple website shows shipping within 24 hours on the current models.

LarryC
Jun 9, 2011, 11:11 PM
I'm hoping we see Apple embrace the concept of the Mini as a home media system. With the Mac App Store, all they need to do is tweak up the graphics and develop an awesome looking game controller and the Mac opens up a whole new platform. There are so many possibilities with that machine.

I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

digitalhen
Jun 9, 2011, 11:16 PM
Nothing looks particularly constrained on the Apple Store, normal build times. I suspect it might be a discontinuation of the line, and the other models will have it as a pre-install option.

macbook123
Jun 9, 2011, 11:17 PM
I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

+1. I couldn't agree more.

And to answer your question with my personal opinion, I think Apple just has horrible strategists and they're too full of themselves to care about what the market demands. The reason they can survive with this mentality is because the competition is sticking to a bad and overpriced operating system instead of picking up Linux and building it into a more serious OS X competitor in terms of user-friendliness.

It's been like this for years, and my guess is it'll be another 2-3 years before a group of entrepreneurs with serious startup cash will realize this obvious GAPING niche and fill it in. So maybe in 5 years we will see some real competition to Apple and they will be forced to listen to the consumer with an open mind again.

johnnymg
Jun 9, 2011, 11:24 PM
The Mac Mini and MP Server are NOT constrained. This looks like a totally bogus 'hit whore' rumor from 9-5.

JohnG

aaaaaaron
Jun 9, 2011, 11:27 PM
With Steve Jobs continuing on about the "post-pc era" we are in (what??), I am not hopeful about any MP or MM updates.

Soon, Apple won't even sell computers anymore, so get them while they are still here people!! :D

snebes
Jun 9, 2011, 11:27 PM
I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.
The iMacs use desktop class processors. And the MBP people may have something to say to you about their non-"real" components.

FroMann
Jun 9, 2011, 11:29 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they release them when Lion + Lion Server is released.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2011, 11:35 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they release them when Lion + Lion Server is released.

Hasn't Lion Server been eliminated?

snebes
Jun 9, 2011, 11:36 PM
It's been like this for years, and my guess is it'll be another 2-3 years before a group of entrepreneurs with serious startup cash will realize this obvious GAPING niche and fill it in.

Do you mean the "gaping" niche that are running Linux netbooks? There is no "gaping" niche. There is a small, but vocal, group of people that think Linux is the answer to everything. It isn't for the vast majority.

However, your big group of entrepreneurs may be the companies making Chromebooks. They are 4 of the top 10 notebooks on Amazon (Apple has 3 in the top 10) today. Will they appeal to the general public? It isn't clear yet. Windows 7 is here to stay, and people in general do like it. Plus, it has this behemoth--Office.

ataboc
Jun 9, 2011, 11:37 PM
i could go for a mm update.

nuckinfutz
Jun 9, 2011, 11:46 PM
Come on Apple, don't forget the MacBook!

It's dead. MBA 11.6 for the win.

macbook123
Jun 9, 2011, 11:51 PM
Do you mean the "gaping" niche that are running Linux netbooks? There is no "gaping" niche. There is a small, but vocal, group of people that think Linux is the answer to everything. It isn't for the vast majority.

You misunderstood me. The niche is an alternative to OS X other than Windows, and one possible approach to filling it would be starting from Linux and making it more user-friendly, call it more OS X like if you will.

Chrome is not a serious attempt at an alternative since it is too internet-centric to be of widespread personal computer relevance in the near future imho.

Anonymous Freak
Jun 9, 2011, 11:56 PM
More in line with i3 than i5. I can't see Apple putting an iMac inside there, but then I could be wrong and I hope i am because that would be one rocking server.:D

Except the Mini still uses mobile chips - and the mobile quad-cores are i5-and-up-only. Unless they swap in desktop chips. Which is possible, they do have low-power quad-core i5 desktop chips now, whereas the low-power Core 2 quad-cores were either insanely expensive mobile chips, or mildly expensive desktop chips. The low-power i5 desktop chips aren't much more than the regular-power models. The space constraint is still an issue, though. Mobile chips are still much smaller packaging than desktop chips.

I'm hoping for quad-core (either way: QC mobile or QC low-power desktop) CPU, and dual 1 TB 2.5" hard drives. (Even better if they can throw in a MacBook Air-style SSD-on-a-stick as the boot drive in addition to dual 2.5" spinning drives. That would be a GREAT server. OS on the 64 GB SSD, two high-cap hard drives for storage. The SSD-on-a-stick would be okay as a build-to-order option, but it would rock as a standard, too.) Graphics are irrelevant to my use, the onboard Core i5 graphics are just fine for a server.

For the consumer model, I could see them foregoing both the SSD-on-a-stick and quad-core in trade for a dedicated GPU, though. (With quad-core as a build-to-order option, and the only SSD being as a 2.5" replacement for the spinning hard drive - as a build-to-order, of course. (The space used by the SSD-on-a-stick would be used by the discrete GPU.)

Anonymous Freak
Jun 10, 2011, 12:03 AM
It's dead. MBA 11.6 for the win.

The way I see it, the 13" MacBook Air is likely the successor to the 13" MacBook - and the 11" Air is the new ultra-mobile. Especially once updated with Thunderbolt. Then they have the high-speed port to replace FireWire (that hasn't been on the low-end MacBook for awhile anyway,) and even Gigabit Ethernet.

I mean, compared to the current MacBook, the only thing you're giving up is an optical drive (which Apple is deprecating anyway) and a Gigabit Ethernet port (which Apple has been deprecating for a decade as well.) You GAIN resolution, and you gain an SD card slot. You're also giving up maximum storage capacity, but I could see Apple offering a 512 GB SSD in the next revision, making the top-end choice equal. The Air would cost more at the same feature-set, largely because of SSD cost, though. But for the pure-value market, they still have the 11" Air, at the same cost as the 13" MacBook now.

motulist
Jun 10, 2011, 12:04 AM
Tsunami and earthquake damage in Japan may've constrained parts supplies that are now leading to constrained delivery of assembled computers.

Prynce
Jun 10, 2011, 12:12 AM
It'd be weird but interesting if an AirPort Extreme gained a Thunderbolt port... if only there were thunderbolt peripherals out there....

OH GAWD, I would DUMP the ole Ethernet Cable if it DID!!!

RichardBeer
Jun 10, 2011, 12:32 AM
You know, I wish Apple would produce a consumer desktop headless Macintosh, because the design of the iMac sacrifices graphical performance for the sake of form factor. I'd love to have a mac which did not compromise on graphical power and had a fast DVD drive.

Apple will never do this of course since they have the iMac range.

orest
Jun 10, 2011, 12:33 AM
I'm wondering what these requirements actually mean ....

To upgrade to Lion Server:

Step 2:
Get the latest version of Snow Leopard Server.
You’ll need Snow Leopard Server v10.6.6 or later to purchase Lion and Lion Server from the Mac App Store. If you have Snow Leopard Server, click the Apple icon and choose Software Update to install the latest version.

RafaelT
Jun 10, 2011, 12:35 AM
Hasn't Lion Server been eliminated?

No, I beleive in the beta it is an optional install and it sounded like it was going to be an app store app in the final.

The "server" version is mainly a GUI for options that are already in the OS with a few bits added in. It would actually be perfectly suited as an app.

Scottsdale
Jun 10, 2011, 12:41 AM
If Apple put low end 15 Quad and decent graphics chip - I'd be out to get server model and link to a large RAID 1 system.

Come on Apple if you want my cash.

I think you should expect a dual core i5 with Intel HD 3000 IGP for graphics. The prior 13" MBP, MBA, MB, and Mm all shared the same graphics chipsets and CPU type. If past considerations are to be followed we should expect the same basic computer as the 13" MBP... too bad really.

It sure would be nice to have a real GPU, even a low-end discrete GPU would blow away Intel's IGP. More important than a quad core CPU in my opinion. I own the current server Mac mini, and the Nvidia 320m rocks. Sure would be nice to have the successor to the 320m, hypothetically speaking.

Kwill
Jun 10, 2011, 12:49 AM
It was stated that Lion will be available from the App Store alongside server components. There should be no need to have separately listed hardware. Just BTO. It would simplify inventory. I'm just sayin'.

kdisjubjub
Jun 10, 2011, 12:51 AM
Hey guys, i need to get a Mac Pro for work. should i get one at the end of the month, or wait till they update. i cant really wait and i dont care much about thunderbolt. will there be anything worth the wait?

TripleCore
Jun 10, 2011, 12:58 AM
For Mac Pros, Best Buy is sold out online with discounted pricing.

Amazon is low on stock and discounting what they do have.

To me, this is another reason there will be updates in the next month or so, even if incremental. I'm optimistic.

Eidorian
Jun 10, 2011, 01:21 AM
Except the Mini still uses mobile chips - and the mobile quad-cores are i5-and-up-only. Unless they swap in desktop chips. Which is possible, they do have low-power quad-core i5 desktop chips now, whereas the low-power Core 2 quad-cores were either insanely expensive mobile chips, or mildly expensive desktop chips. The low-power i5 desktop chips aren't much more than the regular-power models. The space constraint is still an issue, though. Mobile chips are still much smaller packaging than desktop chips.The Core i7 2630QM is the entry level mobile quad core at a lovely 45W TDP.

munkery
Jun 10, 2011, 01:29 AM
It is possible that the shortage does not indicate a hardware update because with the release of Lion:

Mac Pro + Lion Server app ($50) = Mac Pro Server. Add RAM and second HDD to the base model to get the server spec. No need to sell a dedicated server model if the OS is not a separate version.

Mac Mini + Lion Server app ($50) = Mac Mini Server. Not an exact replacement due to not having dual drives.

logicfrog
Jun 10, 2011, 01:31 AM
The Core i7 2630QM is the entry level mobile quad core at a lovely 45W TDP.

Better still, i7-2617M 2C4T@1.5+1.1GHz all in a 17W package.

MacsRgr8
Jun 10, 2011, 01:40 AM
No, I beleive in the beta it is an optional install and it sounded like it was going to be an app store app in the final.

The "server" version is mainly a GUI for options that are already in the OS with a few bits added in. It would actually be perfectly suited as an app.

The server has been in all Lion DP's an "add-on" app, and will be like that in the final release.

Available through the Mac App Store once Lion has been installed you can run it.

It basically is the same idea as the Server Pref app from 10.6 Server (an app to make the services very easily configurable, no need for system admins).
You can separately download Server Admin and Workgroup Manager akin 10.6 server, but you'll find out that some services are not configurable in them....

This time Apple really wants the Server to be a simple app. In 10.6 server you could configure it that way, but in Lion server it really is the only way to go.

Wouldn't surprise me to find out that the "server hardware" might get discontinued all together like others have mentioned instead of waiting for an update.

Eidorian
Jun 10, 2011, 01:49 AM
Better still, i7-2617M 2C4T@1.5+1.1GHz all in a 17W package.Oh joy, Ultra Low Voltage in a desktop.

GregA
Jun 10, 2011, 01:58 AM
One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. ....
stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

Beyond style - Apple really doesn't want computers to look like computers. People saw an iMac and asked "where's the computer?". People see a Mac Mini and say "that's the computer?". iPhone, iPad, MBA, iMac, Mac Mini... the only computers they have that look like a computer are the Mac Pros, and they don't look like dells and HPs etc either.

They'll need to redesign the iMac soon, people are starting to realise that's a computer.

I'm hoping we see Apple embrace the concept of the Mini as a home media system. With the Mac App Store, all they need to do is tweak up the graphics and develop an awesome looking game controller and the Mac opens up a whole new platform. There are so many possibilities with that machine.

Isn't the AppleTV their home media system though?
I would like to see some App Store action with the AppleTV though.

GregA
Jun 10, 2011, 02:01 AM
if rumors are correct we could see some nice iCloud integration from the AE/TC running iOS.

I really liked Steve's slide saying that the computer was now the same as any other device. Unfortunately iCloud really doesn't replace your master iTunes library, they work in an odd parallel to each other.

I'd like a TimeCapsule with all my iTunes and photos on it. Then I'll sync a subset to my MBP, iPad, iPhone. Free up space on my laptop.

Hopefully eventually we'll pick where our master library lives - on a TimeCapsule, Server, or iCloud (paid).

Phooto
Jun 10, 2011, 02:38 AM
Hopefully eventually we'll pick where our master library lives - on a TimeCapsule, Server, or iCloud (paid).

You already can, although instead of iCloud, read iDisk.

stringent
Jun 10, 2011, 02:45 AM
I'm interested in this, the Mac Mini server, particularly with energy prices going up. I have to see how much energy my Tranquil PC Windows Server box is giving out idle and under load to see if its worth changing or not. I'd wait till Lion comes preinstalled though. All the iCloud integration and sync would be swish. :)

LimeiBook86
Jun 10, 2011, 02:49 AM
You already can, although instead of iCloud, read iDisk.

Yeah but the iDisk is very, very, slow and it'll be dead by this time next year. Unless Apple finally realizes that it's web gallery and site hosting features of MobileMe were what 80% of their customers used and bring them back in some way or another for a "Pro" or paid iCloud service. :rolleyes:

Winni
Jun 10, 2011, 03:02 AM
I'm hoping we see Apple embrace the concept of the Mini as a home media system. With the Mac App Store, all they need to do is tweak up the graphics and develop an awesome looking game controller and the Mac opens up a whole new platform. There are so many possibilities with that machine.

I'm afraid you didn't get the memo -or- you didn't fully understand the concept behind and the implications of iCloud. Home servers are dead in Apple land. You are supposed to use iCloud when it is publicly available; for Apple, your computer at home is no longer your digital hub -- iCloud is.

As for the game controller: It's already there, even in different versions: iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad...

zerofour
Jun 10, 2011, 03:21 AM
Hey guys, i need to get a Mac Pro for work. should i get one at the end of the month, or wait till they update. i cant really wait and i dont care much about thunderbolt. will there be anything worth the wait?

Depends really what you're doing for work and how desperate your need is. I've been doing FCP and Motion projects on a 2009 iMac - OK when it comes to rendering HD, I go climbing for the day LOL (I need to update if things get more complex!). But seriously if your need is urgent then buy what you need, you won't regret it - there's a fair few refurbs on the UK Apple Store, sure there is in the US or where you are. Sounds like this may be your best option.

Or hold off until the new models and get reduced price on 'old' stock :)

mdriftmeyer
Jun 10, 2011, 04:02 AM
No, I beleive in the beta it is an optional install and it sounded like it was going to be an app store app in the final.

The "server" version is mainly a GUI for options that are already in the OS with a few bits added in. It would actually be perfectly suited as an app.

It's much more than a GUI over command line services.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/

CplBadboy
Jun 10, 2011, 04:11 AM
As for the game controller: It's already there, even in different versions: iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad...

Its not a game controller. Far from it. i would like to see the Appl store on the Apple TV though with a dedicated wireless controller for playing games properly. A touch screen is not a substitute fro a physical controller.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:16 AM
If anything, I think these models (the "servers") are just going to go the way of the X-serve.

shaunp
Jun 10, 2011, 04:18 AM
I know this won't happen, I'm just thinking about what I would like to happen.

Mac mini - I'd like and SSD option and at least an i5 CPU. If it had that I'd buy one now. BTW Apple, it's not a server just because you put a server OS on it!

Mac Pro Server - Reduce the size a little so say 1U ;o) That aside I think the whole Mac Pro platform needs a rethink. There is no offering between an iMac and a Mac Pro. I don't need something that is physically so big, nor do I need multiple graphics cards or slots for FC HBA's, I just need a machine that can house multiple drives, and a single i7 would do. An iMac 27" with an external thunderbolt array should do it, but that's messy.

For a very small home/small office server a tall version of the mini that has 4 x 2.5" hotplug drive bays wold be fantastic. Put in a decent CPU and 8GB (maybe more) of RAM and that would be great as a small sized application/file server or a workstation if you start populating the bays with SSD's.

Just my two pennies worth. If you could have apple build it what would you have them do? I know it's slighly off-topic, but it's friday ;)

Hellhammer
Jun 10, 2011, 04:38 AM
They will both be discontinued as any Mac can now easily be converted into a server with Lion Server from App Store for 49$... No need to have separate models.

Heilage
Jun 10, 2011, 04:46 AM
If anything, I think these models (the "servers") are just going to go the way of the X-serve.

Give the Mini Thunderbolt, and you don't need a server version. :)

zephonic
Jun 10, 2011, 04:55 AM
---edited---

MacsRgr8
Jun 10, 2011, 05:09 AM
They will both be discontinued as any Mac can now easily be converted into a server with Lion Server from App Store for 49$... No need to have separate models.

Agreed.
Mac OS X Server could always be installed on any Mac. The only different server model was the Mac mini server. Buying the server license with the hardware is in Lion ridiculous.
The only question is what will happen to the dual-internal HD Mac mini?

Shattentor
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 AM
At last - an update for the Mac Mini! I just hope they don't forget the white Macbook along the way...

But if they really only update the server versions, I'm gonna puke (although I can't imagine such stupidity).

Hellhammer
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 AM
Agreed.
Mac OS X Server could always be installed on any Mac.

I know. Maybe I should have been more clearer. Now it makes very little sense to bundle hardware with server OS X as anyone can buy it for 49$. It made sense with SL as the server license is 499$ (you saved some $ by getting it with your Mac).

The only different server model was the Mac mini server. Buying the server license with the hardware is in Lion ridiculous.
The only question is what will happen to the dual-internal HD Mac mini?

I would expect Mini update fairly soon anyway so maybe they will keep the dual HD Mini but not bundle the server OS X with it. That would explain the constrained supplies.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 05:30 AM
Give the Mini Thunderbolt, and you don't need a server version. :)

What does having a Thunderbolt port have to do with running OS X Server, a 499$ piece of software right now ? :rolleyes:

I think you're misunderstanding the reason they would do away with the "Server" editions. The reason is simple : 49.99$ Server components on the Mac App Store. Thunderbolt has nothing to do with it. With the new low price for the Server software, no need to subsidize it in the price of these "Server" editions. So hence, no need for these server editions at all.

I would expect Mini update fairly soon anyway so maybe they will keep the dual HD Mini but not bundle the server OS X with it. That would explain the constrained supplies.

Or the dual HD mini could become the only Mini. No more optical drive... speculate away!

voigtstr
Jun 10, 2011, 05:52 AM
I'm wondering what these requirements actually mean ....

To upgrade to Lion Server:

Step 2:
Get the latest version of Snow Leopard Server.
You’ll need Snow Leopard Server v10.6.6 or later to purchase Lion and Lion Server from the Mac App Store. If you have Snow Leopard Server, click the Apple icon and choose Software Update to install the latest version.

Is that how I update my mac mini server? simply software update? Also if the server is managing its own updates will it simply offer lion when its available?

Lesser Evets
Jun 10, 2011, 05:56 AM
Interested to see if there will be a rackable version of the MacPro now.

I'm interested to see if they'll ever up the mini-Server upgrades to 2 2TB drives and make those things rack-able. Doubt it'll happen.

Popeye206
Jun 10, 2011, 05:59 AM
I'd love to see an all new design on the Mac Pro.... it's getting old. But I get the feeling that's not going to happen.

swhay
Jun 10, 2011, 06:16 AM
Many of the regulars in the Mac Pro forum here have pointed out that a Sandy Bridge equivalent processor won't be available until Q4 2011.

However, with Lion, Thunderbolt and Final Cut Pro right around the corner it would make sense in my opinion for a incremental refresh.

I thought Apple got the Nehalem processors first before anyone else when they came out? Might be the same thing this time with the high end Sandy Bridge Xeon, they might be released Q4 2011 to everyone else. Just a thought....

Newfiebill
Jun 10, 2011, 06:27 AM
Canadian Futureshop is showing the Mac Mini as SOLD OUT!
Taken from the Futureshop WWW Store.

Apple Mac Mini Intel Core 2 Duo Computer (MC270LL/A) - English
MC270LL/A
Regular Price:
$699.99
Not Available Online
Sold Out
Quantity Remaining: 0

fmaxwell
Jun 10, 2011, 06:28 AM
More in line with i3 than i5. I can't see Apple putting an iMac inside there, but then I could be wrong and I hope i am because that would be one rocking server.:D

The Mac Mini used to be one of the most attractive Macs from a price/performance standpoint. The price has steadily been creeping up from the original $499 list to $699. Add a keyboard, pointing device, and monitor and you are into the low-end iMac territory -- with significantly worse performance.

Remember that the 2005 $499 Mac Mini was intended as an inexpensive way for PC owners to try out, and switch to, the Mac. While PC prices have since plummeted, the Mac Mini prices, by contrast, have gone up by 40%. Apple has some serious momentum right now and a $499 Mac Mini would attract a lot of Windows users who view all of the current Macs as interesting, but too expensive.

BornAgainMac
Jun 10, 2011, 06:50 AM
It is possible that the shortage does not indicate a hardware update because with the release of Lion:

Mac Pro + Lion Server app ($50) = Mac Pro Server. Add RAM and second HDD to the base model to get the server spec. No need to sell a dedicated server model if the OS is not a separate version.

Mac Mini + Lion Server app ($50) = Mac Mini Server. Not an exact replacement due to not having dual drives.

It won't work. You have to have the $499 Snow Leopard Server product already installed to get the $49 dollar upgrade to Lion Server. It says this on the Apple site. The original Lion info from Apple suggested Lion and Lion Server were the same product so I can understand your comment.

fmaxwell
Jun 10, 2011, 06:51 AM
One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components?

Because almost all personal computers are grossly overpowered for the vast majority of users who surf the web, exchange e-mail, and edit documents. So there is no reason to make a bigger, louder, Mac Mini that consumes much more power (due to its use of desktop components).

Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small.

Because the ultra-small size is a major selling point to many style-conscious consumers.

This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components?

The problem with the Mini is that Apple has gotten greedy and lost sight of the fact that the Mini was intended as an inexpensive ($499 original list price in 2005) Mac system to bring PC users into the Mac world. The price of the Mac Mini has little to do with the cost to manufacture the Mac Mini.

I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

Most desktop computer users are not looking for something that rivals the computing power used to animate Shrek. People who need high performance Mac desktops buy a Mac Pro. iMacs and Mac Minis are aimed at the mass-market, not at gamers, not people doing state of the art computer animation, and not at guys who think that computer performance is a great way to compensate for their... shortcomings.

Considering that PC sales have fallen and Apple is seeing massive increases in computer sales, maybe Apple knows what they are doing when it comes to understanding what consumers want.

srf4real
Jun 10, 2011, 06:54 AM
BB has been sold out on the base MP for a month. They discontinuing this too?

LarryC
Jun 10, 2011, 07:11 AM
Because almost all personal computers are grossly overpowered for the vast majority of users who surf the web, exchange e-mail, and edit documents. So there is no reason to make a bigger, louder, Mac Mini that consumes much more power (due to its use of desktop components).



Because the ultra-small size is a major selling point to many style-conscious consumers.



The problem with the Mini is that Apple has gotten greedy and lost sight of the fact that the Mini was intended as an inexpensive ($499 original list price in 2005) Mac system to bring PC users into the Mac world. The price of the Mac Mini has little to do with the cost to manufacture the Mac Mini.



Most desktop computer users are not looking for something that rivals the computing power used to animate Shrek. People who need high performance Mac desktops buy a Mac Pro. iMacs and Mac Minis are aimed at the mass-market, not at gamers, not people doing state of the art computer animation, and not at guys who think that computer performance is a great way to compensate for their... shortcomings.

Considering that PC sales have fallen and Apple is seeing massive increases in computer sales, maybe Apple knows what they are doing when it comes to understanding what consumers want.

I do appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comments. Thank you.

brewcitywi
Jun 10, 2011, 07:11 AM
We called apple regarding a Mac mini server solution. They urged us to wait a few weeks!

miles01110
Jun 10, 2011, 07:12 AM
Hmm, kind of like the constrained supplies of Airport Extermes and Time Capsules led to a refresh right after WWDC? Oh wait.

Heilage
Jun 10, 2011, 07:44 AM
What does having a Thunderbolt port have to do with running OS X Server, a 499$ piece of software right now ? :rolleyes:

I think you're misunderstanding the reason they would do away with the "Server" editions. The reason is simple : 49.99$ Server components on the Mac App Store. Thunderbolt has nothing to do with it. With the new low price for the Server software, no need to subsidize it in the price of these "Server" editions. So hence, no need for these server editions at all.


I was thinking about the hardware configuration (two drive thingy) primarily. Since the software just can be upgraded, it makes sense to just have one type Mini, preferably with some CTO options.

EDIT: Or do away with the optical drive version.

Hellhammer
Jun 10, 2011, 07:59 AM
I thought Apple got the Nehalem processors first before anyone else when they came out? Might be the same thing this time with the high end Sandy Bridge Xeon, they might be released Q4 2011 to everyone else. Just a thought....

Apple got them a month earlier. That would mean September at the earliest, assuming that the CPUs will be released right at the beginning of Q4.

lvlarkkoenen
Jun 10, 2011, 08:25 AM
iMacs and Mac Minis are aimed at the mass-market, not at gamers, not people doing state of the art computer animation, and not at guys who think that computer performance is a great way to compensate for their... shortcomings.

Had a discussion with someone about this over at the Mini subforum. While I agree that Apple probably has a primary aim in mind for their iMacs and Mac Mini's, I think they're supposed to serve more purposes than just that one. I mean, Apple did stick top of the line mobile GPU's in their current iMacs, so they'll be quite happy with those gamers that do want an Apple PC.

gri
Jun 10, 2011, 08:37 AM
About time the minis get an update. My old MacBook Pro from 2006 is slowly dying a heat death...

HyperZboy
Jun 10, 2011, 08:46 AM
You know, I wish Apple would produce a consumer desktop headless Macintosh, because the design of the iMac sacrifices graphical performance for the sake of form factor. I'd love to have a mac which did not compromise on graphical power and had a fast DVD drive.

Apple will never do this of course since they have the iMac range.

Basically a Mac Pro Mini-tower. I've always argued for this for years, but Apple is convinced it would cannibalize iMac sales so it will never happen.

But here's hoping they will eventually shrink down the current Mac Pro case a bit. These machines are just way too big. I know that would be technically difficult, but if anybody could do that, I would think Apple could.

The size difference between the discontinued Xserve and the Mac Pro Server is just insane. If Apple was thinking Xserve customers would flock to the Mac Pro Server, I think they thought wrong. I bet many of those potential Xserve customers just switched to a Linux or Windows solution instead.

But yes, when I replace my G5 and my Mac Pro, I will be looking for something slightly smaller yet more powerful and Apple doesn't currently offer such an animal as that. I'd love to see a benchmark of my high end G5 vs. the Mac Mini. I'm sure processor speed wise the Mini would win, but there's no way a Mini has the graphical performance that I've added to my G5 & Mac Pro for say gaming or high end graphics. Can the Mini even output 1080p to an HDTV set? A quick google search says difficult. I know I can on even my G5, although I'll admit there's some occasional skipping unless I use VLC. Obviously the Mac Pro can, but I don't it use for that purpose. I'd like to replace my G5 for that purpose, but I just don't see a product Apple offers that fills that void except another extremely expensive gargantuan Mac Pro.

I think Apple is missing an opportunity here, but I think a lot of the reasoning behind not having such a product is the BluRay "bag o' hurt" and the fact that the movie studios don't want you to have hundreds of movies on your computer that you could then file transfer to someone else. Ideally, they would want everything on the cloud and controlled by them. However, I prefer to OWN my content.

mobi
Jun 10, 2011, 08:50 AM
Been using our MacPro1,1 since 2006 and it has not skipped a beat. Contemplating selling it while there's some value left...We shall see what the refresh looks like...

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2011, 08:54 AM
Originally Posted by (L)
It'd be weird but interesting if an AirPort Extreme gained a Thunderbolt port... if only there were thunderbolt peripherals out there....

OH GAWD, I would DUMP the ole Ethernet Cable if it DID!!!

No, you'd plug your ethernet cable into a TBolt dongle - what's the benefit (other than somebody made a bunch of money selling you the TBolt to GbE dongle)?

milo
Jun 10, 2011, 08:56 AM
The iMacs use desktop class processors. And the MBP people may have something to say to you about their non-"real" components.

Processors yes, but other components no.

For example memory - the iMac uses laptop memory which means that 4x8 gigs costs about $3000 versus around $800 if it were desktop memory.

And in the case of the mini, ESPECIALLY the laptop hard drive which means much smaller drives at much smaller prices.

The earlier post is dead on, the mini and the iMac could both be better and cheaper machines if Apple wasn't so fixated on their size fetish. Laptops and mobile units? Sure, make them as small as possible. But for something that sits on or under a desk, the difference between a six inch square footprint and eight or ten inches is irrelevant to the vast majority of users.

For the mac pro, it definitely needs an update. The chip issue is definitely a concern, but what apple should have done years ago is use the i7 family for the single chip designs (4/6 core) and save the xeon for the dual (8/12 core). The quads haven't been competitive performance or price wise for years, and this would give them much much better bang for their buck. Heck, I'd argue that Apple should make the quad an entirely different model with a smaller and simpler case to make the price that much more competitive but that would probably eat into sales of their precious iMac. Too bad, when they refreshed the MP in 2009 I had cash in hand to buy one but walked away when I saw how shockingly bad they botched the refresh, especially the quads. The tower segment of the market isn't a big one but there's still plenty of money to be made there, and those machines have the potential to be easy on design resources. But Apple would rather you be locked in to buying that built in monitor so they can make more money. I can see why they did it but in my case they lost a sale (and on one of their most expensive models) and I"m sure I'm not the only one.

evilcat
Jun 10, 2011, 09:00 AM
I'd love to see a benchmark of my high end G5 vs. the Mac Mini. I'm sure processor speed wise the Mini would win, but there's no way a Mini has the graphical performance that I've added to my G5 & Mac Pro for say gaming or high end graphics.

I can tell you this much... I rock a quad G5 at home and just got a 27" imac with a quad i7 3.4 in it at work. There doesn't feel like there's any difference. Most applications don't do anything faster than the G5 until you get to video processing or rendering. Odds are an iMac would feel great. If they update the Mini to similar specs, it'll be fine. That said, I think the saving grace is the number of cores and the amount of RAM. Core 2 Duo machines feel very sluggish next to the quad G5, but odds are they'd be better at doing HD video playing.

I know I can on even my G5, although I'll admit there's some occasional skipping unless I
use VLC.

I found the only way to get a 1080p MKV to play smoothly on my G5 was to use Movist, which is much better than VLC and hasn't skipped on me.

deconstruct60
Jun 10, 2011, 09:02 AM
It won't work. You have to have the $499 Snow Leopard Server product already installed to get the $49 dollar upgrade to Lion Server. It says this on the Apple site.

No. That page starts off with "Upgrading your Mac server from Snow Leopard Server to Lion Server ..." [emphasis added] (http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/how-to-buy/ )

That is a description of how to upgrade your current server to Lion Server. There is a significant number of Mac OS X Servers out there that are not at the 10.6 level. In fact, I'd bet it is at least 35% and wouldn't be surprised at all if it is over 50%. ( The whole "if it ain't broke don't upgrade it" syndrome). If you throw out the Mac mini servers sold over last year from the population, I would raise those percentages even higher.


What they are illustrating is that there is no path to Lion except through Snow Leopard. There isn't going to be 10.4 -> 10.7 installer. Nor will there be a 10.5 -> 10.7 installer.

Additionally if your sever has lots of user data on it LDAP data, files, users acccounts , configuration settings that took weeks to tune , etc. etc. then you probably want to do an inplace upgrade. To do a " in place " Server upgrade you need SL Server. That's is the constraint they are outlining.

In the keynote they mentioned that "Lion Server" is just a set of apps. It is not a separate OS product (no separate OS SKU, product, disk , etc.) . In other words, it is the same OS with another set of apps on top. So if you have Lion installed on your machine, you can install Server. I don't see where there should be any doubt on that issue.

If you want to install a blank slate Lion Server you only need Lion installed and then buy/download the Server app. There is not going to be a need to go back and buy SL Server after the Macs start shipping that have Lion preinstalled on them.

milo
Jun 10, 2011, 09:15 AM
It won't work. You have to have the $499 Snow Leopard Server product already installed to get the $49 dollar upgrade to Lion Server. It says this on the Apple site. The original Lion info from Apple suggested Lion and Lion Server were the same product so I can understand your comment.

That is weird, I hadn't seen that pointed out before. What is it going to cost for people buying brand new macs after 10.7 ships? Or who upgrade to 10.7 then want to upgrade to Lion? The website only mentions upgrades from 10.6 server, which is a pretty limited number of cases.


Because almost all personal computers are grossly overpowered for the vast majority of users who surf the web, exchange e-mail, and edit documents. So there is no reason to make a bigger, louder, Mac Mini that consumes much more power (due to its use of desktop components).

There sure as hell is a reason to go that route - it would allow a much CHEAPER machine with that performance. Even if the CPU is overpowered for many users, these days even the lowest end users likely need a fair amount of hard drive space for music, photos, and video. A laptop hard drive is a terrible way to go for a desktop machine. And basic users are getting into things like video editing and Garage Band which are extremely consumer friendly but still CPU hogs. Even things like rerendering audio (and in the future possibly video) for mobile devices can benefit from more power.

And I'm very skeptical that the small size of the mini outweighs the disadvantages. I'd bet if they went slightly bigger to use desktop components and either bumped specs or lowered prices (or hopefully some of each), it would provide a nice boost to sales. But the main reason they won't do it is because it would probably make the mini too appealing and eat into iMac sales.


The price of the Mac Mini has little to do with the cost to manufacture the Mac Mini.

Flat out wrong. Just compare the prices of the components, particularly CPU, memory, and hard drives. The parts used in the mini are more expensive than their desktop counterparts, period.

toddybody
Jun 10, 2011, 09:22 AM
Slimmer, mid tower MP + 1500.00 starting point + full AMD 69xx support (no Mac only cards) + SATA III + TB = pure awesomeness

Umbongo
Jun 10, 2011, 09:29 AM
For the mac pro, it definitely needs an update. The chip issue is definitely a concern, but what apple should have done years ago is use the i7 family for the single chip designs (4/6 core) and save the xeon for the dual (8/12 core). The quads haven't been competitive performance or price wise for years, and this would give them much much better bang for their buck.

Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

toddybody
Jun 10, 2011, 09:56 AM
Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

Price would be the advantage. Xeons are considerably more than their i7 counterparts (with exception to the 980x, etc). Though it would be a step backwards in some processing tasks, an i7 2600 would be a fantastic CPU for non-server/heavy work station MP owners. As in my comment above, I'd love to see a consumer oriented MP with a friendlier price entry...IMO, SB would facilitate this. Apple could have a separate server/work station class with dual cpu options, etc.

Ha ha! Im just dreaming of the day when I can game on a Mac:o

macbook123
Jun 10, 2011, 10:00 AM
You know, I wish Apple would produce a consumer desktop headless Macintosh, because the design of the iMac sacrifices graphical performance for the sake of form factor. I'd love to have a mac which did not compromise on graphical power and had a fast DVD drive.

Apple will never do this of course since they have the iMac range.

Exactly my point! Thank you!

deconstruct60
Jun 10, 2011, 10:01 AM
Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

There are two subdivisions inside of i7 line ups. There the mainstream i7 which are not Xeon derivatives and the "extreme"/"ultra"/etc. (i.e., expensive) versions which are. In the first round of "Core iX" marketing labeling perhaps that was true, but the latest round of offerings from it is not. If this is a "cut costs" exercise the "extreme" i7s would get dumped too.


Since this is a "shave costs" exercise the is opportunity for a lower price point box. The design isn't driven by price it is driven by providing value. Turning it into an exercise of which parts bin has the cheapest parts leads to substantially lower profit. It is a race to the bottom. There zero reason for Apple to engage in that. They cannot possibly win the "PC" war because they only have a minor share of OS/Applications market. The correct strategy is to make money with what you got.


Splitting the Mac Pro design into two different boards/builds might lower costs for the i7 model but would raise R&D costs fo the Xeon model (even smaller numbers. ). That move would doom it to the same fate at the XServe (too few numbers sold to bother with). Once the dual package Mac Pro is gone then the single package one would be next in line on the chopping block. At that point it would be even more glaringly an value overlap with the high end iMac.

silentnite
Jun 10, 2011, 10:13 AM
This is excellent news. Hoping this leads to an i5 replacement in all Mac Mini's or at least an i3 with the option of an i5 upgrade.

opeter
Jun 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
I would be happy with an i3 CPU inside the Mac mini. Please, update it, Apple!

Thomas2006
Jun 10, 2011, 10:25 AM
Quad Core i5 for the Mac mini please Apple.
A quad-core i5 would be nice, but I would prefer the ATI graphics in the 15" MacBook Pro. Since the chances of that are pretty thin then I will second the quad-core i5. If you look at the internals (http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/macmini2010ifixit_001.jpg) of the Mac mini you can see how much more motherboard space would be available for dedicated graphics if the Mac mini was taller. I know Jonathan Ives could design a Mac mini that would be just as, if not more, ascetically pleasing as the current model if he would get the green light from Steve, but Steve's obsession with thinness is giving us form over function.

Umbongo
Jun 10, 2011, 10:37 AM
Price would be the advantage. Xeons are considerably more than their i7 counterparts (with exception to the 980x, etc).

Apple have offered six different processors in the single CPU LGA 1366 Mac Pros (2009-2010). The Core i7 counterparts had the same price, features and specifications - less ECC memory support.

Though it would be a step backwards in some processing tasks, an i7 2600 would be a fantastic CPU for non-server/heavy work station MP owners. As in my comment above, I'd love to see a consumer oriented MP with a friendlier price entry...IMO, SB would facilitate this. Apple could have a separate server/work station class with dual cpu options, etc.

Ha ha! Im just dreaming of the day when I can game on a Mac:o

It isn't the components used that make the price seem so high. A Core i7 2600 costs more than the Xeon W3530 used in the base Mac Pro.

pbuerk
Jun 10, 2011, 10:42 AM
Upgrades to both are way overdue, IMO. Thunderbolt finally gives mini's a way to connect to fibre, and it will be interesting to see exactly how the XSAN bundling in Lion will work. Some racked Quad Mini's could make for a decent software render farm at an attractive price. Now if they could only find a way to put redundant power on those things...

jonnysods
Jun 10, 2011, 10:44 AM
Great news! We are looking to get the Mac Pro server in the next few months at our office!

milo
Jun 10, 2011, 11:02 AM
Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

I didn't say it offers a benefit. The reason they should do it is because the Xeons offer no real benefit in a single chip machine and the i7s offer the same performance at a lower price. The main reason to use Xeon is because it allows multi chip use, in a single chip machine you're paying for a feature that isn't being used, it's wasted money. The only other benefit is ECC but in real world use consumers aren't even going to notice the difference.

Using Xeon in a single chip machine is just a waste of money, it was a dumb decision when they first shipped those machines and it's just as dumb today.


Since this is a "shave costs" exercise the is opportunity for a lower price point box. The design isn't driven by price it is driven by providing value. Turning it into an exercise of which parts bin has the cheapest parts leads to substantially lower profit. It is a race to the bottom. There zero reason for Apple to engage in that. They cannot possibly win the "PC" war because they only have a minor share of OS/Applications market. The correct strategy is to make money with what you got.

So what is the "value" in the 4/6 core mac pros? You're paying the price premium for the xeon but getting performance that doesn't beat the high end i7 iMac in many cases. If Apple was using a pricier chip that provided real benefit for the extra price, that would be defensible. But right now Apple is using expensive parts and selling an expensive machine that performs WORSE than many machines that are much cheaper. Apple absolutely could use cheaper parts and lower prices while still maintaining the same profit margins, there's no reason it would have to be a race to the bottom.

Splitting the Mac Pro design into two different boards/builds might lower costs for the i7 model but would raise R&D costs fo the Xeon model (even smaller numbers. ).

That would be a good point except that the MP line ALREADY has two different boards/builds. And they're not even that similar, they don't even have the same number of ram slots. Since there are two different mobos already, making the single chip one i7 wouldn't be a big deal. Not to mention that design for a tower has very minimal design demands. There's no optimization for space required like in a laptop (or iMac), and apple tends to just reuse intel's reference mobos with minimal tweaks anyway. Switching half the line to i7 would have minimal R&D impact.


Apple have offered six different processors in the single CPU LGA 1366 Mac Pros (2009-2010). The Core i7 counterparts had the same price, features and specifications - less ECC memory support.

But they wouldn't just be limited to the ones that are counterparts. If they can ship an i7 imac for $1699 with a screen (with performance that can beat the low end MP), there's no reason they can't ship a desktop without the screen (and without the size constraints, and with all desktop parts) for less than that.

the8thark
Jun 10, 2011, 11:03 AM
According to 9 to 5 Mac, trusted source Mr. X

http://www.claire-king.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/simpson-mr-x1.jpg

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 11:04 AM
The only other benefit is ECC but in real world use consumers aren't even going to notice the difference.

These aren't consumer grade machines, why would consumers buy them ? :confused:

milo
Jun 10, 2011, 11:14 AM
These aren't consumer grade machines, why would consumers buy them ? :confused:

Apple wants to convince you that they aren't consumer grade machines (and keep the price up)...but if the performance is the same or worse than other "consumer grade machines" I'd argue that's exactly what they are.

the8thark
Jun 10, 2011, 11:20 AM
The editors should read their own stories... it might give them a clue...
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/06/mac-os-x-lion-set-for-july-debut-priced-at-29-99-mac-app-store-exclusive/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/03/mac-os-x-lion-server-to-require-separate-paid-download-from-mac-app-store/
Hmm... I wonder why there's a constraint on the server versions of these products???

I happen to agree here. Apple even said in the latest keynote, almost 75% (I think it was) Macs sold are notebooks. And of the remaining I would guess most of those are iMacs. The Mac Pro as I see it is not getting a lot of love from the customers. Their dollars are (I guess) going to other Macs.

All of this makes me think Apple is trying to expand their market share. Ie people try Lion on a Mac and love it and want to start using the server features of Lion. An iMac or MBP with a 500GB+ HDD could be set up as a basic server. Maybe not as a file dump server. But with an external HDD (via thunderbolt) in the future it could be a possibility.

So people who like Lion can easily upgrade their current Macs into servers without having to repurchase anything like you now. Now you can only get SL or SL+Server Apps. You can't just buy the server Apps on their own. So for these people they would be buying SL 2x.

I really think this is the market Apple is trying to get into. Not too many people would purchase a bunch of Mac Pros for a server farm. Other hardware which does the same job is much cheaper and rack mountable. The small business server on the other hand with a recent iMac or decent MBP would to just fine. Sure you could be a Mini Server or Pro.

My point here? Apart from rambling on random stuff. All my own opinions. Is to say I think Apple's server only oriented hardware is slowly dying simply cause I think the prosumer (high end imac and high end MBP) can do the job just as well for most things.

Umbongo
Jun 10, 2011, 11:29 AM
Using Xeon in a single chip machine is just a waste of money, it was a dumb decision when they first shipped those machines and it's just as dumb today.

What alternative would you have proposed in 2009? The Core i7 processors were the same less ECC memory support and there were no LGA 1156 processors. Using Xeon processors rather than Core i5 and i7 DOES NOT increase the cost to any degree of significance.

Core i7 930 - 2.80GHz quad core - $294
Xeon W3530 - 2.80GHz quad core w/ECC - $294

So what is the "value" in the 4/6 core mac pros?

To run OS X on an expandable desktop system.

Gray.2
Jun 10, 2011, 11:40 AM
8Gb of Ram for the 2010 Mac Mini (from Crucial) dropped 10% over the past few days. Coincidence?

Even if this rumor had not come out, I think everyone would agree we are overdue for a Mac Mini refresh.

The most interesting question that a refresh will answer (for me) is where Apple has decided to go with the Mac Mini graphics card.

Are they going to stick with Nvidia, or are they switching to Intel Graphics?

Is AMD a possibility?

If I had to bet, I would say Intel. It seems to gel with Apple's previous commitment to making a low-end, word-processing and internet browsing machine that can also run WOW-level games type machine.

Eidorian
Jun 10, 2011, 12:29 PM
No, you'd plug your ethernet cable into a TBolt dongle - what's the benefit (other than somebody made a bunch of money selling you the TBolt to GbE dongle)?It is so compact. (http://www.sonnettech.com/news/nab2011/) :rolleyes:

kazmac
Jun 10, 2011, 01:20 PM
It will be interesting to see the new server-sized Mac Pros.

And always nice to see a Mac Mini or Mac Pro rumor. While I hope I don't have to get a new machine (may change if my job requires it), I'm still looking forward to seeing what the updates for both styles of desktop.

Anonymous Freak
Jun 10, 2011, 01:51 PM
The Core i7 2630QM is the entry level mobile quad core at a lovely 45W TDP.

Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

Hellhammer
Jun 10, 2011, 02:04 PM
Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

320M is the chipset, it has Northbridge and Southbridge functions in it. All what Mini has is the CPU and 320M, and that is 37W if we assume that 320M is 12W.

Eidorian
Jun 10, 2011, 02:20 PM
Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

320M is the chipset, it has Northbridge and Southbridge functions in it. All what Mini has is the CPU and 320M, and that is 37W if we assume that 320M is 12W.You're looking at ~48W total, if you include the PCH, if want a quad core over the 25-28W Medium Voltage Penryn Core 2 Duo you see right now.

Mord
Jun 10, 2011, 03:38 PM
I really hope they'll make the mac mini server more affordable. I've been considering picking one up for a while but £900 is just too much for what it is.

I also wish the mac pro would gain a credible number of drive bays, our main server has 9 drives in it and can fit another 9. Even ignoring the cost of an equivalent mac pro you simply can't get a mac with that sort of capacity.

mdelvecchio
Jun 10, 2011, 03:39 PM
I think Apple just has horrible strategists and they're too full of themselves to care about what the market demands.

er, what? sorry bud, you dont get to be the #1 valued tech firm and the #2 valued company anywhere by being horrible strategists and ignoring the market. to the contrary.


So maybe in 5 years we will see some real competition to Apple and they will be forced to listen to the consumer with an open mind again.

what? dude, they have PLENTY of competition. go look up the market shares.

and there is nobody selling computing hardware w/ as open a mind as apple. get real.

mdelvecchio
Jun 10, 2011, 03:44 PM
Remember that the 2005 $499 Mac Mini was intended as an inexpensive way for PC owners to try out, and switch to, the Mac. While PC prices have since plummeted, the Mac Mini prices, by contrast, have gone up by 40%. Apple has some serious momentum right now and a $499 Mac Mini would attract a lot of Windows users who view all of the current Macs as interesting, but too expensive.

yeah, it always bothered me that the $500-mac became a $700-mac, while the rest of the industry got cheaper. the mini *used* to be the perfect computer...i recommended it all the time. its a lot harder to do now. still do, but its not the sure fire sell.

KingCrimson
Jun 10, 2011, 04:01 PM
yeah, it always bothered me that the $500-mac became a $700-mac, while the rest of the industry got cheaper. the mini *used* to be the perfect computer...i recommended it all the time. its a lot harder to do now. still do, but its not the sure fire sell.

Yeah they keep peddling this underpowered C2D Mini for another year, Dell just might pass them by on that segment!

MCIowaRulz
Jun 10, 2011, 04:53 PM
Ah How I miss the $499 MacMini... Now if /when they are updated next month MacMini or iMac What are the possible spec list for the new Mini?

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:59 PM
Apple wants to convince you that they aren't consumer grade machines (and keep the price up)...but if the performance is the same or worse than other "consumer grade machines" I'd argue that's exactly what they are.

By your definition of consumer grade, a lot of my servers are consumer grade machines.

Hint : Consumer grade is not a measure of performance. I know damn well I don't want non-ECC memory in my servers and I'm sure a studio out in California doesn't want non-ECC memory in their editing stations. They don't give a damn that it would be much cheaper for the same performance.

The Mac Pro is what it is, a Xeon workstation class machine with workstation features. If you're not in the market for such a beast, you shouldn't be buying it and complaining its expensive.

MattyO
Jun 10, 2011, 05:25 PM
Ideally, they would want everything on the cloud and controlled by them. However, I prefer to OWN my content.

I totally agree. Call me paranoid, but this cloud thing just seems like another way of apple reeling you in and being in control of you, your software, music, and movies. Apple will soon be the hub of the home electronics and entertainment.

ThomasJL
Jun 10, 2011, 06:45 PM
I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

Well said, LarryC.

Apple's catering to fanboys' and superficial women's preference of form over function limits the potential of most of their hardware, especially their desktops. As you mention, more powerful desktop components are less expensive than laptop components. It's a shame that Apple chooses to use laptop components in the Mac Mini.

LarryC
Jun 10, 2011, 06:58 PM
Well said, LarryC.

Apple's catering to fanboys' and superficial women's preference of form over function limits the potential of most of their hardware, especially their desktops. As you mention, more powerful desktop components are less expensive than laptop components. It's a shame that Apple chooses to use laptop components in the Mac Mini.

Thank you.

scottsjack
Jun 10, 2011, 07:13 PM
Apple wants to convince you that they aren't consumer grade machines (and keep the price up)...but if the performance is the same or worse than other "consumer grade machines" I'd argue that's exactly what they are.

I can't figure out why so many people think the Mac Pro is less of a machine than an iMac because the maxed out iMac can top the Mac Pro in a few tests? That's like rating automobiles by their zero to sixty speed. There's obviously a lot more to cars than how fast they can reach 60/mph.

It's the same with a Mac Pro. It can do so much more than an iMac in many categories. They are two very different machines. If the iMac works for a user and they don't need all the features of a Mac Pro then the choice is simple. Get the iMac.

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2011, 08:45 PM
It is so compact. (http://www.sonnettech.com/news/nab2011/) :rolleyes:

LOL - the needs the picture.

http://www.sonnettech.com/news/nab2011/gigabittb0411.png

Still no price (and "summer" up here is less than two weeks away).

FluJunkie
Jun 11, 2011, 12:35 AM
The idea that this means a refreshment of the line, rather than "Need a server? Buy a Mac. Then buy Lion Server." is puzzling to me.

munkery
Jun 11, 2011, 01:46 AM
No, you'd plug your ethernet cable into a TBolt dongle - what's the benefit (other than somebody made a bunch of money selling you the TBolt to GbE dongle)?

Obviously, it would have both ethernet ports and a thunderbolt port. No need for a dongle as you suggest.

Is thunderbolt even relevant to most users? I imagine the need for such peripherals only applies to the professional settings, such as audio/video, where the technology would be a benefit and Macs are often used.

It won't work.

It will work.

Mord
Jun 11, 2011, 06:05 AM
Well said, LarryC.

Apple's catering to fanboys' and superficial women's preference of form over function limits the potential of most of their hardware, especially their desktops. As you mention, more powerful desktop components are less expensive than laptop components. It's a shame that Apple chooses to use laptop components in the Mac Mini.

Hey, don't blame women for this, it's steve jobs' obsession.

Who the hell puts a mac mini in their handbag!? I owned a G4 cube and I wish every bit as much as you that apple would return to that form factor, use a desktop chipset with a proper pci-e graphics card and a 3.5" drive bay.

KnightWRX
Jun 11, 2011, 08:24 AM
Is thunderbolt even relevant to most users?

Of course not. But Apple is going to shovel it everywhere and hope the consumers buy into it and buy all those "made for profesional" peripherals (which are mostly expensive as hell since they're aimed at a niche market like you stated) and claim it's superiority in a bid to outdo USB3.

In the end, it'll fizzle away like FW, USB3 will be ubiquitous and Mac users will again have paid the price for Apple trying to do things differently.

Sackvillenb
Jun 11, 2011, 09:36 AM
Well... maybe with the refresh, the $2500 Mac Pro will come with more than a measly 3 Gb of ram.... :eek:

arkmannj
Jun 11, 2011, 09:48 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Here's what I want from the next Mac Mini


Yeah, I posted this in another forum, but I'm to lazy to type another similar one :p


For me it depends on which Mini, Desktop or Server. Right now I have my sights set on a server, but I'll wait for Lion if they really are combining Server and client all into one.

But as for the server hardware, here's what I'd like to see (sorry, it's a really quick mock up, and I'm no photoshop wiz.)


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4335596/MacMini_Srvr_2011.png

Basically,
Replace the HDMI and Display ports with 3 Thunderbolt ports (each on their own bus)


Move the SD Card slot to the front
Add an Ethernet jack
move the Power Supply to the outside (for easier replacement since this is a server after all, plus that should make the internals slightly cooler
Upgrade the processor/RAM/Video Card
USB 3 would be nice, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
Power button on the front
Better Ventilation
Bootable Thunderbolt ports


Oh and the i7 sticker is representing the processor upgrade, not that I actually want a sticker on it. (but for a server I don't care, I"ll just peel the stupid thing off before I send it to a colocation facility or shove it in a closet.

--------

For the desktop version, I'd like similar, but I'm indifferent on where the power supply is, and I'd either like an optical drive, or a reduced price on an external firewire drive that matches the look/style of the mini.
a Thunderbolt to HDMI Dongle or a dedicated HDMI port would be nice to have included.

linux2mac
Jun 11, 2011, 01:02 PM
The Mac Mini used to be one of the most attractive Macs from a price/performance standpoint. The price has steadily been creeping up from the original $499 list to $699. Add a keyboard, pointing device, and monitor and you are into the low-end iMac territory -- with significantly worse performance.

Remember that the 2005 $499 Mac Mini was intended as an inexpensive way for PC owners to try out, and switch to, the Mac. While PC prices have since plummeted, the Mac Mini prices, by contrast, have gone up by 40%. Apple has some serious momentum right now and a $499 Mac Mini would attract a lot of Windows users who view all of the current Macs as interesting, but too expensive.

Its still worth the extra couple hundred bucks to not have to deal with buggy Windows.

munkery
Jun 11, 2011, 04:22 PM
In the end, it'll fizzle away like FW, USB3 will be ubiquitous and Mac users will again have paid the price for Apple trying to do things differently.

When are Macs getting USB3?

Do USB3 peripherals work with USB2? If yes, then this is really not much of an issue.

How often does a typical user move around large amounts of data to peripherals? Maybe during initial set up of a backup drive or etc, but not much after initial set up so connection speed to peripherals really doesn't impact the average user tremendously.

For professionals, faster is better. So, Thunderbolt is better than USB3. It makes sense to use the better technology when it impacts professionals but does not really make a difference to the typical user.

If my older USB peripherals are working when I upgrade to a machine with USB3, I am still going to use those older peripherals. Users that upgrade for the sake of upgrading most likely won't mind dropping the extra dough for Thunderbolt peripherals.

KnightWRX
Jun 11, 2011, 04:27 PM
For professionals, faster is better. So, Thunderbolt is better than USB3. It makes sense to use the better technology when it impacts professionals but does not really make a difference to the typical user.

Very few Macs are sold to professionals these days.

munkery
Jun 11, 2011, 05:06 PM
Very few Macs are sold to professionals these days.

Mac market share is growing so a smaller percentage of Mac users are professionals but that number is still growing as well.

None of this negates the fact that most users are not impacted enough by the transfer speed of data to peripherals to really worry about it.

So, it makes sense to cater to the group of users that are impacted by the issue given that it makes no difference to most other users.

caspersoong
Jun 11, 2011, 07:41 PM
Major changes please... Or I will just have to wait again.

rquick
Jun 11, 2011, 08:52 PM
It's such a crying shame Apple deliberately cripples the mini so badly. I think they desperately need a desktop alternative, but they just don't want to make a box to compete with the higher profit iMac. Everyone who wants an Apple desktop is forced to buy a new display, whether they need it or not, or a full workstation class machine, whether they need it or not. They also constrain the cases so that fewer people are tempted to buy and install non-Apple parts where Apple doesn't get their enormous markup. I like to upgrade often as tech improves, but I am not willing to junk the display or prevent myself from installing the parts I want. Displays don't improve as fast as other hardware so it makes no sense for me to tie them together. Otherwise I would be fine with buying a Mac desktop every year or so and pass them down to my family. As it is, I just assemble my own with non-Apple hardware with Windows 7 and it works fine. I guess Apple loses and I win. And before everyone thinks I am an Apple hater, I'm working in OSX on a 2010 MBP 17" right now. But I'm going upstairs to play Metro 2033 on my windows rig. Just kinda silly there is no real Mac alternative for that.

xheathen
Jun 11, 2011, 10:43 PM
Very few Macs are sold to professionals these days.

I think this is slightly misleading. Few Macs are being sold in the corporate environment, but nearly every person I know in my company (which is pretty large) has a Mac at home. And Macs are generally field-specific. So like web and graphic design shops generally always utilize mac, while networking and technology consulting maintain PC to be on the same platform most of their clients use.

Seeing that the Air looks like it'll be refreshed this coming week and the rumored constraints on the mini, I hope the two end up coming out along side one another this week.

twoodcc
Jun 11, 2011, 11:28 PM
Maybe this Wednesday too?

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 07:13 AM
I think this is slightly misleading. Few Macs are being sold in the corporate environment, but nearly every person I know in my company (which is pretty large) has a Mac at home.

I don't use my home Mac to run a dedicated SAN over FC and process tons of e-Commerce, ERP, CRM and other basic business transactions though. The machines I buy professionally do that stuff. My home Mac does consumer, home stuff.

So going with context of the sub-thread you are responding to, this is a ridiculous notion. The professionals that buy Macs for home don't do so in a professional context hence they don't need niche stuff like the Thunderbolt peripherals that are announced.

There has yet to be a mass of consumer thunderbolt stuff announced. It does look like right now that TB won't be a very consumer friendly technology, but a few Mac heads with too much money and too little sense will buy those 5 disk RAID arrays for a few thousand $.

Atlantico
Jun 12, 2011, 08:14 AM
I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

Very much agreed and fuels much of my frustration of Apple Mac products. I *want* to love them, but when Steve introduced the current iMac form factor (some time ago) and gloated it was almost an inch thinner than the last one.. it was clear Steve and by extension Apple was going for form over performance and price.

I'd love a relatively bulgy iMac if it had all desktop components, desktop performance and a lower price (same goes for the mini) - but essentially the business model seems to be: Use the laptop components already being bought for the MacBook and MacBook Pro and make the Mac mini and iMac respectively (with some minor tweaks)

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2011, 10:28 AM
There has yet to be a mass of consumer thunderbolt stuff announced.

And few of those with announced prices, and none of them available yet. Only 9 days to the start of summer (NH), and about 13 weeks until the end of summer.


It does look like right now that TB won't be a very consumer friendly technology,

+1


...but a few Mac heads with too much money and too little sense will buy those 5 disk RAID arrays for a few thousand $.

I wouldn't say "too little sense" - once you have a TB or two of data, you should be very nervous about disk failures.

I have a 6 TB RAID-5 array on my home server - cost about $520 (eSATA cabinet for $199, 4*2 TB disks @ $79).

munkery
Jun 12, 2011, 01:13 PM
Why would there be a plethora of home consumer thunderbolt peripherals when home consumers are not the targeted consumers for the technology?

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2011, 06:25 PM
Why would there be a plethora of home consumer thunderbolt peripherals when home consumers are not the targeted consumers for the technology?

An Imac is not a consumer-oriented device?

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 06:54 PM
I wouldn't say "too little sense" - once you have a TB or two of data, you should be very nervous about disk failures.

I have a 6 TB RAID-5 array on my home server - cost about $520 (eSATA cabinet for $199, 4*2 TB disks @ $79).

Too little sense in the fact that they could have had a RAID solution for much less money had they not gone the ThunderBolt route.

I myself right now use a QNAP NAS with drives in RAID-1.


Why would there be a plethora of home consumer thunderbolt peripherals when home consumers are not the targeted consumers for the technology?

My point from the very beginning. Leave it to Apple to try to shove a niche technology into consumer machines, making buyers have to pay for stuff they will never use (the TB controller) while leaving out other consumer tech. It's FW all over again.

Ice Dragon
Jun 12, 2011, 07:00 PM
Is it just me or has there been a total 180 on Thunderbolt since before it got released?

I seem to remember prior to the new MacBook Pros, some couldn't wait for the then Light Peak. Now, it's taking on a life of ":mad: Thunderbolt sucks!"

KnightWRX
Jun 12, 2011, 07:01 PM
Is it just me or has there been a total 180 on Thunderbolt since before it got released?

I seem to remember prior to the new MacBook Pros, some couldn't wait for the then Light Peak. Now, it's taking on a life of ":mad: Thunderbolt sucks!"

Reality sinking in. TB sounds good on paper, however, lack of peripherals, lack of industry support seemingly (few peripherals announced, price of those that are, type of peripherals), issues with Apple's use of MDP (I have to unplug my monitor to plug in stuff in the chain? What now ?), space taken by the controller on the logic board while we're stuck with an Intel IGP, etc.. etc..

Basically, I think a lot of people are realizing the compromises just aren't worth it.

DisMyMac
Jun 12, 2011, 08:27 PM
Is it just me or has there been a total 180 on Thunderbolt since before it got released?

I seem to remember prior to the new MacBook Pros, some couldn't wait for the then Light Peak. Now, it's taking on a life of ":mad: Thunderbolt sucks!"

I'm starting to wonder if the TB port is actually a piece of aluminum beer can that's been shaped to look like it does something.

Reality sinking in. TB sounds good on paper, however, lack of peripherals, lack of industry support seemingly (few peripherals announced, price of those that are, type of peripherals), issues with Apple's use of MDP (I have to unplug my monitor to plug in stuff in the chain? What now ?)

Apple promises a tropical paradise, and instead you get Jonestown. Who's to blame for that? We were fools, and even now the excuses keep coming...

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2011, 08:31 PM
Too little sense in the fact that they could have had a RAID solution for much less money had they not gone the ThunderBolt route.

I myself right now use a QNAP NAS with drives in RAID-1.

OK, I agree. I also went with the simple two-drive RAID-1 eSATA box until it became too small (and it looked like using larger drives in a two-drive RAID-1 would only postpone the inevitable for about a year), and went with the RAID-5 solution.


My point from the very beginning. Leave it to Apple to try to shove a niche technology into consumer machines, making buyers have to pay for stuff they will never use (the TB controller) while leaving out other consumer tech. It's FW all over again.

Think that the new MBAs and MiniMacs will have USB3?

(ducks)


Reality sinking in. TB sounds good on paper, however, lack of peripherals, lack of industry support seemingly (few peripherals announced, price of those that are, type of peripherals), issues with Apple's use of MDP (I have to unplug my monitor to plug in stuff in the chain? What now ?), space taken by the controller on the logic board while we're stuck with an Intel IGP, etc.. etc..

Basically, I think a lot of people are realizing the compromises just aren't worth it.

It's hard to get industry support for a proprietary, single source, vendor-owned technology these days. That kind of thinking led to the demise of Digital Equipment Corporation at the end of the last century.

You'd think that Apple would be smarter than to climb into bed with something like that.

While Apple has been shacking up with Intel for a while, the rest of the industry has settled into a comfortable position of playing AMD against Intel. As long as TBolt isn't in the AMD chipsets, IMO it's doomed to an expensive niche.

How expensive? We still don't know. Nobody is shipping TBolt peripherals, and almost nobody has announced prices for the devices that have been announced for shipment "this summer". ("Summer" in the north starts in about a week, and ends in about 13 weeks.)

I can't wait to visit Newegg when things start shipping....


Apple promises a tropical paradise, and instead you get Jonestown. Who's to blame for that? We were fools, and even now the excuses keep coming...

TBolt post of the month!

munkery
Jun 12, 2011, 08:37 PM
An Imac is not a consumer-oriented device?

An iMac can be used for anything. If a photographer wants a Mac desktop, why get a Mac Pro when an iMac comes with a good quality display?

My point from the very beginning. Leave it to Apple to try to shove a niche technology into consumer machines, making buyers have to pay for stuff they will never use (the TB controller) while leaving out other consumer tech. It's FW all over again.

The machines that have TB are used in professional settings. All but the MacBook are marketed for such purposes.

I agree that the inclusion of TB does not apply to most users. Catering to the niche segment that uses Macs in a professional setting prevents losing those customers.

I agree this does allow Apple to profit more from average consumers that purchase Macs that will not use the technology. But, I disagree that necessary technology is left out because of this.

srf4real
Jun 12, 2011, 08:42 PM
So I like koolaid. But come on guys we're talking about servers here not consumer computers. TB blows doors on USB3 and we know it. Maybe Apple intends to rule the world, one server at a time.;)

btw. iMac may be targeted largely at consumers, but lots of professional engineers, designers and media creators are buying truckloads of 'em because they can do what they do and come with that shiny ips screen already. The kind of folks who need fast access to servers and storage or multiple external displays controlled from a TB hub. Why ask why?

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2011, 08:47 PM
I agree this does allow Apple to profit more from average consumers that purchase Macs that will not use the technology. But, I disagree that necessary technology is left out because of this.

So, where's USB 3.0?

I won't ask "where's Blu-ray", since that has nothing to do with the system engineering - it's only whether you have the option of having a SATA optical drive that's DVD or BD.

The NEC USB 3.0 controller chip is far smaller than Intel's proprietary TBolt chip, yet Apple finds room for the proprietary TBolt chip and disses USB 3.0.

I guess that you justify your position by saying "necessary technology" instead of "desirable technology". Yes?


So I like koolaid.

Wow. You sure do.


But come on guys we're talking about servers here not consumer computers. TB blows doors on USB3 and we know it. Maybe Apple intends to rule the world, one server at a time.;)

Apple makes servers? Didn't you hear that they cancelled their one and only entry-level server early this year?

And, by the way, we don't know that "TB blows doors on USB3" since there are NO TBOLT PERIPHERALS AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE TODAY. TBOlt may give you a woody when you read the specs, but "we don't know" whether it's even viable.

And, "one server at a time"? Let us know when Apple builds and sells a server. As weak as the XServe was, at least it met the main check list items for a server. A MiniMac without an optical drive is laughable, and the maxi-tower Mac Pro is closer but fails on some critical points (redundant power supplies, for example).

munkery
Jun 12, 2011, 09:05 PM
So, where's USB 3.0?

I won't ask "where's Blu-ray", since that has nothing to do with the system engineering - it's only whether you have the option of having a SATA optical drive that's DVD or BD.

The NEC USB 3.0 controller chip is far smaller than Intel's proprietary TBolt chip, yet Apple finds room for the proprietary TBolt chip and disses USB 3.0.

I guess that you justify your position by saying "necessary technology" instead of "desirable technology". Yes?

Does the average consumer desire these things? Most people I know do not care about USB3 and do not have a BD in their laptops. Only spec geeks care about these features.

The average consumer doesn't care about the difference between USB2 and USB3. All they care about is being able to plug in the peripheral and have it work. But, TBolt is a better solution over USB3 for professionals.

Having to connect your computer to a TV every time you watch a BD is enough of a hassle to motivate someone to buy a BD player. On a small screen what benefit is BD given that the user then also has to bring the external media with them to use. Digital media that is purchased online is much more convenient than BD.

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2011, 11:25 PM
The average consumer doesn't care about the difference between USB2 and USB3.

But wouldn't some of them wonder why external disks on Windows systems are ten times faster than the same external disks on Apple OSX systems?


Having to connect your computer to a TV every time you watch a BD....

Where's this nonsense coming from. My graphics card has an HDMI output, my monitor has an HDMI input - I simply press "play" and IT JUST WORKS.


Digital media that is purchased online is much more convenient than BD.

But the quality is crap compared to BD. If you want to watch convenient crap, OK.

munkery
Jun 12, 2011, 11:51 PM
But wouldn't some of them wonder why external disks on Windows systems are ten times faster than the same external disks on Apple OSX systems?

Not if the user is using TBolt. :p

Also, most users don't notice or care given that they don't do any transfers that take long enough for them to even notice the duration or care about it. Also, they typically only use peripherals in this manner on their own machines.

Also, USB3 (and TBolt) market share is too low for most users to be in a position to notice. The only users that care about transfer speed are spec geeks and those that have their financially valuable productivity decreased while waiting for large transfers to complete; in this regard, TBolt is better than USB3.

Where's this nonsense coming from. My graphics card has an HDMI output, my monitor has an HDMI input - I simply press "play" and IT JUST WORKS.

Still more work than a BD player which is already set up. This is compounded by the configuration of the rest of the home media system in relation to its auxiliary components.

Why put that milage on a relatively expensive computer when it can be put onto a much cheaper BD player?

But the quality is crap compared to BD. If you want to watch convenient crap, OK.

Most downloadable digital media is available in HD and the difference between the different HD formats is only perceivable on screens much larger than the largest laptop screens. Also, some digital media formats have higher resolution than BD.

AidenShaw
Jun 13, 2011, 12:20 AM
Not if the user is using TBolt. :p

Which no user is using - since TBolt is pure vaporware at the moment. Can't buy it - can't even tell what the price for TBolt devices will be.


Most downloadable digital media is available in HD and the difference between the different HD formats is only perceivable on screens much larger than the largest laptop screens.

This is the lame "nobody can tell the difference between fake HD (720p) and True HD (1080p) on screens smaller than 10/20/30/40/50/50/60/70/80 inches..." argument, no?

This has been debunked so many times - it's a matter of screen size and viewing distance.


Also, some digital media formats have higher resolution than BD.

Please enumerate, and point out legal sources of "higher resolution than BD" material for current movies.

We may all be red in ten years, but today it's irrelevant for watching a commercial release.

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 12:40 AM
If the inclusion of USB3 mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

If the inclusion of a BD drive mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

Why does it have to be limited to current movie releases? Most users also consume video media not defined as such. Youtube provides video media up to 4k!

If the necessity to watch current movies in 1080 on a laptop mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

AidenShaw
Jun 13, 2011, 12:42 AM
If the inclusion of USB3 mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

If the inclusion of a BD drive mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

Why does it have to be limited to current movie releases. Most users also consume video media not defined as such. Youtube provides video media up to 4k!

If the necessity to watch current movies in 1080 on a laptop mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

You sound like a smarter *LTD* ....

And you also fail to address the question "would Apple market share grow *faster* if...?

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 12:48 AM
But the quality is crap compared to BD. If you want to watch convenient crap, OK.

This has been debunked so many times - it's a matter of screen size and viewing distance.

Hey, now you are debunking yourself.

How can 1080 be absolutely better and necessary when it's just a matter of screen size and viewing distance?

AidenShaw
Jun 13, 2011, 12:56 AM
Hey, now you are debunking yourself.

How can 1080 be absolutely better and necessary when it's just a matter of screen size and viewing distance?

Clever - enjoy your over-compressed 720p instead of high bitrate 1080p.

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 01:13 AM
Hopefully it doesn't cost you too much to replace the BD drive in your laptop after it fails due to wear and tear from being used as a glorified BD player. Moving parts have a life span that gets shorter the more you use them.

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2011, 04:19 AM
The machines that have TB are used in professional settings. All but the MacBook are marketed for such purposes.

MBPs and iMacs are used in professional settings ? Those are some of the top selling consumer devices. Apple doesn't really have profesional offerings beyond the Mac Pro these days.

So I like koolaid. But come on guys we're talking about servers here not consumer computers.

Hum, the Mac mini server is a consumer computer. It sure as heck ain't an entreprise solution. Same for the Mac Pro server.

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 04:46 AM
MBPs and iMacs are used in professional settings ? Those are some of the top selling consumer devices. Apple doesn't really have profesional offerings beyond the Mac Pro these days.

Check out the laptops used by most of the sports journalists just outside the cage at UFC events.

Hum, the Mac mini server is a consumer computer. It sure as heck ain't an entreprise solution. Same for the Mac Pro server.

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmacmini.html

http://www.macminicolo.net/

KnightWRX
Jun 13, 2011, 05:41 AM
Check out the laptops used by most of the sports journalists just outside the cage at UFC events.

And those journalists have pro needs ? No really, that consumer devices are used in a professional setting is not the question, but the devices' true purpose remains the consumer market. I use my MBA for my job sometimes, which is entreprise level systems administration. It doesn't make the MBA an entreprise solution.

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmacmini.html

http://www.macminicolo.net/

I know them. Still doesn't make the Mac Mini an entreprise solution. It's very much a consumer type machine. Again, because some people use it professionally doesn't make the machine a "pro-level" machine.

Some professionals just don't have pro-level needs out of computers sometimes.

JabbaII
Jun 13, 2011, 06:39 AM
Does the average consumer desire these things? Most people I know do not care about USB3 and do not have a BD in their laptops. Only spec geeks care about these features.

The average consumer doesn't care about the difference between USB2 and USB3. All they care about is being able to plug in the peripheral and have it work. But, TBolt is a better solution over USB3 for professionals.

Having to connect your computer to a TV every time you watch a BD is enough of a hassle to motivate someone to buy a BD player. On a small screen what benefit is BD given that the user then also has to bring the external media with them to use. Digital media that is purchased online is much more convenient than BD.

If you do video editing, BD support is very welcome. Also price of monitors have come down. 27", 30" screens are dirty cheap compared to 5 years ago.

Can't send to grandma home video over the internet :p

USB3.0 has not arrived in the mac world yet.

What I am saying is that like iphone, itouch, Apple needs to move with the times when it comes to personal computing.

A lot of PC notebooks have USB3.0 now.

The beauty of USD3.0 is that consumers don't need to be looking for nor care about it.

Cost of making USB3.0 devices looks to be the same as usb2.0 judging by the prices. USB2.0 HDD/Thumdrives are slowly being phased out at least in Japan. After 2 years USB3 is finally available mainstream.

USB3.0 thumb drive
http://buffalo.jp/product/usb-memory/speed/ruf3-ss/
USB3.0 HDD
External SSD
http://buffalo.jp/products/catalog/storage/shd-pehu3/
External HDD
http://buffalo.jp/products/catalog/storage/hd-hxu3/
Bus powered HDD
http://buffalo.jp/product/hdd/portable/hd-pctu3/

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 11:43 AM
Some professionals just don't have pro-level needs out of computers sometimes.

Or, your perception of what constitutes pro-level in relation to computing is skewed to only one segment of a diverse range of needs.

If you do ....

How so? Most professional video media is filmed at higher resolutions than 1080.

IPS displays that are used in professional settings and included with an iMac are still pricey.

Even if it is a benefit, most users don't care about specs related to USB3 as long as peripherals work. USB2 is compatible and I am sure Macs will get USB3 in the future.

In terms of moving with the times, I think Apple is way ahead in providing the average consumer with easy to use cloud based services.

AidenShaw
Jun 13, 2011, 02:47 PM
...and I am sure Macs will get USB3 in the future...

Many people were sure that Apples would get BD drives in the future, but a turtle-necked CEO is blocking that obvious step.

Eidorian
Jun 13, 2011, 02:48 PM
Many people were sure that Apples would get BD drives in the future, but a turtle-necked CEO is blocking that obvious step.Probably when the Intel 7 Series (not X79) come out. ThunderBolt still is not on the PCH so enjoy the massive controller.

LarryC
Jun 13, 2011, 03:54 PM
If the inclusion of USB3 mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

If the inclusion of a BD drive mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

Why does it have to be limited to current movie releases? Most users also consume video media not defined as such. Youtube provides video media up to 4k!

If the necessity to watch current movies in 1080 on a laptop mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?

Quote: "If the inclusion of USB3 mattered to the average consumer, then why is Mac market share growing?" Apple charges a high premium on their products, I think that everyone here can agree on that one. I have read that the cost of using USB 3.0 is the same or less than 2.0. I believe that if apple is going to put USB on their products then they should be giving us the best that they can and apple simply isn't doing that. I don't really care if someone knows why their computer is much slower than their friend's computer at performing the same task. Should the less tech-savvy consumer be charged more for less simply because they don't know any better? That doesn't seem too ethical to me.

munkery
Jun 13, 2011, 04:03 PM
With intel eventually natively including both TBolt and USB3, it sounds like both technologies will become quite ubiquitous in the future.

Until then, given that the USB standards are cross compatible, the inclusion of USB3 really is not that important to the average consumer.

Who knows, with the support of intel behind it, TBolt peripherals may not even be that expensive or uncommon. I do think that it will not be the technology most used by average consumers.

Seems like TBolt is more of a competitor for eSATA than USB3.

I believe that if apple is going to put USB on their products then they should be giving us the best that they can and apple simply isn't doing that. I don't really care if someone knows why their computer is much slower than their friend's computer at performing the same task. Should the less tech-savvy consumer be charged more for less simply because they don't know any better? That doesn't seem too ethical to me.

I agree. But, what anyone believes and what the average consumer cares about are two different things.

srf4real
Jun 13, 2011, 07:31 PM
And just to stay on topic, my search of BB online shows ZERO Mac Pros in online inventory, has been the case for over one month. There are none available for in store pick up either. Today I discovered that the base mini is "on backorder". There are remaining units in some local stores for in store pickup, but BB online orders are projecting 1-2 weeks to ship date. Not to dispute the 'experts' here... obviously if these products are updated now, there will be some compromises since the new chips from intel can not possibly be ready. It still may be enough of a bump to open my wallet. Or maybe BB isn't going to carry any models but the imac and laptop macs now that geniuses are moving into every store.:confused:

Burning Mac
Jun 14, 2011, 11:22 AM
Please make a Mac Mini with eSATA so it can run a fast Media RAID array.

Thank you! ~Leo

diamond.g
Jun 14, 2011, 11:29 AM
Please make a Mac Mini with eSATA so it can run a fast Media RAID array.

Thank you! ~Leo

Not gonna happen, TB will fulfill that requirement (from Apples point of view).

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 08:35 PM
Not gonna happen, TB will fulfill that requirement (from Apples point of view).

...because Apple never considers the effect of their choices on your budget.

A TBolt drive array will probably cost much more than an eSATA array (because of the tiny volumes, not solely because of the technology).

However, if somebody comes out with a $29.99 TBolt to 4 eSATA port dongle with PM support - everyone could be happy.

(four port SATA PCIe card for $24.99 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816132014&cm_re=esata_pcie-_-16-132-014-_-Product))

JabbaII
Jun 14, 2011, 11:23 PM
Or, your perception of what constitutes pro-level in relation to computing is skewed to only one segment of a diverse range of needs.

How so? Most professional video media is filmed at higher resolutions than 1080.

I am not talking about professional editing. Even home videos nowadays are at 1080. You ingest it, edit it and burn to BD to show to your friends and family on their HD TV.

Only solution is to get a external BD drive. I think the only reason for not sticking in a BD drive is cost + mac os. Apple will put in BD only when "it just works". Right now people are doing it al la carte (BD drive, Roxio, VLC, Windvd from bootcamp).

munkery
Jun 15, 2011, 04:31 AM
I am not talking about professional editing. Even home videos nowadays are at 1080. You ingest it, edit it and burn to BD to show to your friends and family on their HD TV.

Only solution is to get a external BD drive. I think the only reason for not sticking in a BD drive is cost + mac os. Apple will put in BD only when "it just works". Right now people are doing it al la carte (BD drive, Roxio, VLC, Windvd from bootcamp).

Not many average consumers have BD burners. Most users that want BD burners have non OEM burners. So, even most Windows users have to resort to those methods.

There are other ways to accomplish viewing the media on a TV if the TV has a USB port or if a peripheral attached to the TV has a USB port. Or, any other connectivity solution will suffice as well.

Some Mac users have a Mac mini connected to their TV as a media server. No need for BD to view home movies in 1080 if you do so.

The data can be transferred to friends and family by setting up secure file sharing over the Internet with those individuals instead of sending a BD disk via the mail.

There are always alternative solutions to accomplish any task related to viewing 1080 video media. Many of these other solutions are a lot cheaper than buying writable Blu-ray disks. I suspect the cost of BD is the reason most users still burn video media to DVD given the cost of writable DVDs.

But, the average consumers typically doesn't use BD in this manner nor any of the alternative solutions. They just use the web to pay bills, check Facebook, and send email.

ipmasta
Jun 15, 2011, 07:33 PM
I think that the Mac Mini has a lot of potential. I used to look down on them until I started reading a lot of the posts here at MR by owners. One of the things that I don't understand (and there are a bunch) is why does Apple limit the potential of these machines by using laptop components? Yeah, I do realize that it is small, but why is it that small. This is a desktop computer. Why not make something the size of the G4 Cube and use some real and less expensive components? I read a comment recently where someone was talking about the current iMac and making suggestions on how they could make the iMac 50% thinner! I don't know why it is as thin as it is now. These are desktop computers, they do not need to be so small that they can fit into a woman's purse! These are desktop computers and desktop computer buyers want as much performance as possible. So stop hobbling these computers for the sake of style over substance.

I think the big reason they use laptop components is because they try to keep a low footprint. One of the things they talk about is the mac mini not consuming a lot of electricity. I bought my mac mini in 2009 and just sold it so I can upgrade to a newer model when they are released in the next month or two. They are awesome computers and I would like the next one to have a Core i7 processor however I don't know if they can maintain a low power consuming computer with that processor however we shall find out soon.

ipmasta
Jun 15, 2011, 07:40 PM
Not many average consumers have BD burners. Most users that want BD burners have non OEM burners. So, even most Windows users have to resort to those methods.

There are other ways to accomplish viewing the media on a TV if the TV has a USB port or if a peripheral attached to the TV has a USB port. Or, any other connectivity solution will suffice as well.

Some Mac users have a Mac mini connected to their TV as a media server. No need for BD to view home movies in 1080 if you do so.

The data can be transferred to friends and family by setting up secure file sharing over the Internet with those individuals instead of sending a BD disk via the mail.

There are always alternative solutions to accomplish any task related to viewing 1080 video media. Many of these other solutions are a lot cheaper than buying writable Blu-ray disks. I suspect the cost of BD is the reason most users still burn video media to DVD given the cost of writable DVDs.

But, the average consumers typically doesn't use BD in this manner nor any of the alternative solutions. They just use the web to pay bills, check Facebook, and send email.

I think its one of those things that other than steve jobs saying blu ray is "A bag of hurt" I don't think that as many people would use it yet. Even DVD Burners and CD Burners are getting to be an optional device and not as much of a necessity. Everything is going digital with flash drives and hd movie services like Netflix and even iTunes lets you purchase digital copies of hd movies. Think about your laptop - as often as you use your laptop; how often do you use your dvd drive? 1 out of 10 times? 1-30 times? I do like to burn discs and plan on buying an external blu ray drive just to be able to burn a lot of data as a backup to archive however I think it is not necessary and like you said the average customer doesn't use BD. Personally, I don't care for the firewire 800 slot, unless you do a lot of video or actually have a firewire 800 drive you won't ever use the port. Hopefully the new thunderbolt port will open up a lot of options for various hubs and other high-speed connections.

Eidorian
Jun 30, 2011, 05:38 PM
http://vr-zone.com/articles/sandy-bridge-e-delayed-until-january-2012/12816.html

Though this might not be a problem for Xeon stocks. Then again the November 2008 launch of Core i7 9xx was a beta test for the later Xeon launch.