You think the iMac, the most profitable machine, would sell if they had an easily expandable desktop? Apple has stood there ground for a very long time on this for a reason, or else they would do it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro
- Thread starter Blackberryroid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You think the iMac, the most profitable machine, would sell if they had an easily expandable desktop? Apple has stood there ground for a very long time on this for a reason, or else they would do it.
This has nothing to do with the Mac Mini...
I don't think Apple will choose to make something that is positioned to compete with desktop PCs. Because it has done that in the past (PowerPC series). They were widely criticised back then for those products being un-competitive.
The best way forwards is for Apple to keep the Mini serving the budget users like it is. However a "next gen" Mac Pro tower could easily be smaller more like whats being suggested here. That would inevitably be a replacement of the existing Mac Pro, and not co-exist alongside the old "Mac Pro".
In consideration: This topic really more to do with Mac Pro than Mac Mini, and therefore its more relevant for the "Mac Pro" thread. But for fun here's my take on the...
"next gen" Mac Pro tower
=================
* Mainly a heck of a lot smaller tower.
* No Dual CPU option. Takes up too much unnecessary space.
* A maximum of 4 x 2.5" Drive bays. For third-party SATA III SSDs. Or 2.5" 7200rpm mechanical backup drives.
* No 3.5" bays. Since that would be pretty pointless these days.
* Between 1 and 2 full length, Double height, full length PCI Slot for Discrete Graphics Cards. In other words between 2 and 4 *single-height*, full-length PCI slots. I wouldn't like to say how many exactly, it depends a lot on other people's views. But 4 slots gives enough space for 1xgraphics + 1pci SSD + 1 other PCI card eg peripheral. I don't believe SLI (dual-gpus) is worth it however.
* No Slot 5.25" for Blu-Ray. Do away with it because those people who need one can just plug in an external one.
* A really clever design may permit sharing between the PCI slots and the 2.5" drive bays.
* CPU:
=====
1) Mobile i7 Quad core power envelope is necessary for a smaller case.
2) We can ditch the Xenons for Mobile i7's and save the extra TDP headroom for other things in the case - namely a better discrete GPU. After all - its the lack of proper discrete graphics that's the one major defeciency of the Mac Mini.
3) The CPU socket is not missed. The next generation(s) Haswell, Broadwell don't have CPU-interchangable motherboards. Intel continue their integration strategy for the PCH, VAs, Thunderbolty controller and so on. Hence the CPUs are never going to be swappable with each other even if they did have a socket. So being a soldered mobile part is less drawback... At least until Broadwell.
4) However the Mobile i7 CPU will definately have the fastest integrated graphics bundled in it totally for free. iGPU has that Intel QuickSync transcoding engine which people desperately need for video editing. Not only is transcoding faster with QuicSync, its also freeing up the other main components (CPU+dGPU) while doing the transcoding in the background.
I don't think Apple will choose to make something that is positioned to compete with desktop PCs. Because it has done that in the past (PowerPC series). They were widely criticised back then for those products being un-competitive.
The best way forwards is for Apple to keep the Mini serving the budget users like it is. However a "next gen" Mac Pro tower could easily be smaller more like whats being suggested here. That would inevitably be a replacement of the existing Mac Pro, and not co-exist alongside the old "Mac Pro".
In consideration: This topic really more to do with Mac Pro than Mac Mini, and therefore its more relevant for the "Mac Pro" thread. But for fun here's my take on the...
"next gen" Mac Pro tower
=================
* Mainly a heck of a lot smaller tower.
* No Dual CPU option. Takes up too much unnecessary space.
* A maximum of 4 x 2.5" Drive bays. For third-party SATA III SSDs. Or 2.5" 7200rpm mechanical backup drives.
* No 3.5" bays. Since that would be pretty pointless these days.
* Between 1 and 2 full length, Double height, full length PCI Slot for Discrete Graphics Cards. In other words between 2 and 4 *single-height*, full-length PCI slots. I wouldn't like to say how many exactly, it depends a lot on other people's views. But 4 slots gives enough space for 1xgraphics + 1pci SSD + 1 other PCI card eg peripheral. I don't believe SLI (dual-gpus) is worth it however.
* No Slot 5.25" for Blu-Ray. Do away with it because those people who need one can just plug in an external one.
* A really clever design may permit sharing between the PCI slots and the 2.5" drive bays.
* CPU:
=====
1) Mobile i7 Quad core power envelope is necessary for a smaller case.
2) We can ditch the Xenons for Mobile i7's and save the extra TDP headroom for other things in the case - namely a better discrete GPU. After all - its the lack of proper discrete graphics that's the one major defeciency of the Mac Mini.
3) The CPU socket is not missed. The next generation(s) Haswell, Broadwell don't have CPU-interchangable motherboards. Intel continue their integration strategy for the PCH, VAs, Thunderbolty controller and so on. Hence the CPUs are never going to be swappable with each other even if they did have a socket. So being a soldered mobile part is less drawback... At least until Broadwell.
4) However the Mobile i7 CPU will definately have the fastest integrated graphics bundled in it totally for free. iGPU has that Intel QuickSync transcoding engine which people desperately need for video editing. Not only is transcoding faster with QuicSync, its also freeing up the other main components (CPU+dGPU) while doing the transcoding in the background.
Last edited:
Would be nice, but i suspect that it wouldn't be much cheaper than a mac pro.
They could simply take a mac pro case and put a non-xeon motherboard in it, non-xeon cpu, gamer video card and that would be enough.
But the aluminium case, hot swap bays, etc would simply mean it would not be competitive with what you can get from alienware or whoever anyway - and given the dearth of games that are mac native, one has to question what would be the point...
Yes, bootcamp - i get it. But the proportion of mac users who do so are very very small.
If they were to NOT re-use the mac pro chassis, that means they need to set up an additional production line to produce another case. Which will cost money - which will drive the price (to build) of the new machine UP. Given the small quantity of such machines sold, I am guessing it would not be worth the cost - in apple's case it would likely be cheaper to simply use spare/surplus chassis from the Mac pro production line.
edit:
As to the "next gen" smaller mac pro with limited options - no point. An imac will do most of what that machine does, and they'll just burn money to develop a new chassis, run a seperate production line, etc as per my comments above.
Probably what would be more effective is a display/expansion device for macbooks/mac minis using multiple (generation 2 perhaps?) thunderbolt channels to drive a proper desktop class GPU and a few PCI slots.
They leave the mac pro alone - and users who simply need more GPU power or expansion slots (but not a xeon/big box) can hook up to one of those - from their imac, mac mini, macbook pro, macbook air, etc.
They could simply take a mac pro case and put a non-xeon motherboard in it, non-xeon cpu, gamer video card and that would be enough.
But the aluminium case, hot swap bays, etc would simply mean it would not be competitive with what you can get from alienware or whoever anyway - and given the dearth of games that are mac native, one has to question what would be the point...
Yes, bootcamp - i get it. But the proportion of mac users who do so are very very small.
If they were to NOT re-use the mac pro chassis, that means they need to set up an additional production line to produce another case. Which will cost money - which will drive the price (to build) of the new machine UP. Given the small quantity of such machines sold, I am guessing it would not be worth the cost - in apple's case it would likely be cheaper to simply use spare/surplus chassis from the Mac pro production line.
edit:
As to the "next gen" smaller mac pro with limited options - no point. An imac will do most of what that machine does, and they'll just burn money to develop a new chassis, run a seperate production line, etc as per my comments above.
Probably what would be more effective is a display/expansion device for macbooks/mac minis using multiple (generation 2 perhaps?) thunderbolt channels to drive a proper desktop class GPU and a few PCI slots.
They leave the mac pro alone - and users who simply need more GPU power or expansion slots (but not a xeon/big box) can hook up to one of those - from their imac, mac mini, macbook pro, macbook air, etc.
Last edited:
Because I've been continually employed in the computing industry (including as a service tech) since 1995.
If you are implying that most mac users (as in, 51% or more) upgrade things other than memory before buying a new machine, I'm quite certain you are wrong.
Last edited:
I don't think Apple will downsize the Mac Pro its no bigger then most PC equivalents, if you want smaller get a Mini and external RAID. The Pro is still useful for those who need a full size tower with internal upgrade options but for the rest of us we have 2 choices, iMac or Mini.
I really don't see the point in a Mini Pro, if its too small then 3.5" drives would not fit, they are still bigger capacity than 2.5". So what would be the point of a bigger case than the Mini? If you look at any of the mini PC towers they don't offer much in the way of upgrades and look butt ugly next to the Mac Mini with no real advantage apart from taking up more desk space.
PC makers have realized many users don't want or need a tower so why not have an AIO? Just like Laptop users they will upgrade every few years or when the need arises instead of messing with the internals.
I really don't see the point in a Mini Pro, if its too small then 3.5" drives would not fit, they are still bigger capacity than 2.5". So what would be the point of a bigger case than the Mini? If you look at any of the mini PC towers they don't offer much in the way of upgrades and look butt ugly next to the Mac Mini with no real advantage apart from taking up more desk space.
PC makers have realized many users don't want or need a tower so why not have an AIO? Just like Laptop users they will upgrade every few years or when the need arises instead of messing with the internals.
If this is supposed to be a mac pro replacement, this makes little sense. You get a lot more from multiple 3.5" drives than going with 4x ssds. 2.5" HDDs are still a bit slow, although some brands offer systems that will take either 3.5" hdds or a greater number of 2.5" drives. I can't figure out the overall design intention here due to the seemingly high number of design conflicts.
That doesn't make sense with your other parameters. You want to go with mobile cpus. This means very few PCI lanes. Your typical mobile gpu actually runs on 8 instead of 16. The single package Xeons are capped at 40 under Sandy/Ivy. The mainstream desktop and mobile packages have less. When you see SLI (which isn't likely to ever be supported uner OSX) it's not sitting on 32 real lanes. If you're looking for a lot of bandwidth, you're actually tied to Xeons.
You're making an entirely different computer class. Even the imac uses desktop gpus, as they're cheaper at equivalent performance levels when when comparing the same generation.
This makes very little sense. You pay more for less with cpus deemed mobile, and 45W desktop cpus exist anyway. In terms of integrated graphics, you can get them on desktop gpu types as well. There isn't a reason to go this route at all if you're looking for cost effectiveness. Note that the biggest strain on the component budget of the mini is likely the cpu package. The other thing you're missing is that with units that are spatially constrained, they don't use card based gpus at all. That is the first thing to go embedded/mobile as some desktop cards can push 200W without overclocking. A desktop cpu would be 45-95W, with Ivy capping around 73.
Okay I can't respond to everything you said but some really good points of consideration raised about TDP, thermals and PCI lanes. I cannot say all of those specifics were thoroughly enough looked at.
In case you missed the overall design intention: Shrinking the size of the Mac Pro tower box, and also reducing its total thermal output. Everything else stems from that basic goal. Meaning being pretty ruthless about whats actually required, in some cases.
Drive bays
=========
You say: "what's the harm in the 3.5" bays?" I agree with your description of their merit as a form factor for Mechanical HDDs. However its not enough to make that a pressing necessity going forwards.
How many legitimate use cases for 3.5" HDDs anymore? It depends what you are comparing to. You can buy 512GB Crucial M4s which are pretty affordable these days (vs the total system cost of Mac Pro). And the newer 7200rpm 2.5" HDDs themselves aren't really that much different anymore than any standard 3.5" HDDs performance-wise. If you previously wanted a 10,000 RPM hard drive - it makes little sense not to buy an SSD instead.
The main reason for ditching 3.5" for 2.5" bays is that the 3D volume of saved space (or conversely wasted) becomes pretty significant, when multiplied over x4 bays. I didn't calculate the savings, but if you have ever compared two real 3.5" and 2.5" side-by-side, looking at them next to each other you will understand what kind of a size difference I am talking about.
CPU
=====
That's really good point which I totally forgot to look into. One of the primary differentiating factors of Xeons may indeed be its high number of PCI lanes. But what actually matters is not if the Xeons have double or more the total PCI bandwidth, but if the Mobile CPU is not too restricted and has sufficient PCI lanes to meet all of the typical demands. Biggest customer is the 1x high-end GPU, assuming you understand the SLI is a pointless waste then 2xGPU is never needed. So that saves some. But also up to 2 peripheral IO cards, and the integrated Thunderbolt, iGPU, etc. I really haven't checked but the advent of PCI 3.0 did doubling the bandwidth across the board. So maybe it is enough bandwidth, maybe not - I honestly don't know. But a in any case a good argument to make against using this particular Mobile part vs a desktop part.
No sorry, the intention was to discuss about how to make a smaller form factor Mac Pro, and lower the TDP envelope. I think you meant to say something else comparing about the iMac and the Mac Mini. I'm not comparing any of the expectations specifically to the iMac or Mac Mini. Only to the current generation of Mac Pro. The basic premise is: what is the most allowed sacrifices can we get rid of without sacrificing the typical PC-type (ie desktop) upgrade choices and power-user options and choices over the performance that actually matters to people?
My thinking is that the one choice nearly all users do not wish to be taken away is the graphics card. So that is the one thing that cannot really be sacrificed. So must continue to allow the GPU up to the huge massive 200W of TDP headroom, ie for the fastest graphics / best performance per dollar graphics cards available. This also means you inevitably have to try to be a lot more frugal on whatever else draws power inside the box. Otherwise the overall target of reducing size and TDP is not achievable.
Your point about Desktop CPUs being only 70 Watts now - its a really good point. That is only 25 Watts more than the mobile part vs 200W GPU.
Indeed, Intel say that in future generations we will be given configurable TDP technology making the whole issue of distinction less problematic. However: You will always pay more for the highest binned parts with the highest TDP/watt. Whether Intel brand and sell them as a "K-series", a desktop part, or a Mobile part is really splitting hairs. The key difference was about QuickSync...
There is a reason, and you seem to have missed that. The key difference is that the video transcoding via QuickSync will be twice as fast. Which is actually a very significant thing (for that particular feature).
The choice of naming the quad mobile i7 was only because it is *today's* best Intel part/SKU for that. Intel's desktop CPUs may offer this aswell in the future. But until then, and for a concise shorthand, its a heck of a lot easier just to refer to "quad Mobile i7". Since then everybody knows what you are referring to. The thing is already in many other Apple products, including the well-known Retina MBP.
If anything, you can blame only the Intel policy, for crippling (halving) the intergrated graphics on all their own Desktop CPUs. Sorry for being the messenger to be pointing that niggly little problem out...
Don't forget that we are talking here about what is in Apple's control to change, and not what Intel is choosing to do. So Mobile i7 is the choice (or not) for those reasons - Since as I have already conceeded it must provide a good enough PCI bandwidth otherwise is not really acceptable either.
In case you missed the overall design intention: Shrinking the size of the Mac Pro tower box, and also reducing its total thermal output. Everything else stems from that basic goal. Meaning being pretty ruthless about whats actually required, in some cases.
Drive bays
=========
You say: "what's the harm in the 3.5" bays?" I agree with your description of their merit as a form factor for Mechanical HDDs. However its not enough to make that a pressing necessity going forwards.
How many legitimate use cases for 3.5" HDDs anymore? It depends what you are comparing to. You can buy 512GB Crucial M4s which are pretty affordable these days (vs the total system cost of Mac Pro). And the newer 7200rpm 2.5" HDDs themselves aren't really that much different anymore than any standard 3.5" HDDs performance-wise. If you previously wanted a 10,000 RPM hard drive - it makes little sense not to buy an SSD instead.
The main reason for ditching 3.5" for 2.5" bays is that the 3D volume of saved space (or conversely wasted) becomes pretty significant, when multiplied over x4 bays. I didn't calculate the savings, but if you have ever compared two real 3.5" and 2.5" side-by-side, looking at them next to each other you will understand what kind of a size difference I am talking about.
CPU
=====
That's really good point which I totally forgot to look into. One of the primary differentiating factors of Xeons may indeed be its high number of PCI lanes. But what actually matters is not if the Xeons have double or more the total PCI bandwidth, but if the Mobile CPU is not too restricted and has sufficient PCI lanes to meet all of the typical demands. Biggest customer is the 1x high-end GPU, assuming you understand the SLI is a pointless waste then 2xGPU is never needed. So that saves some. But also up to 2 peripheral IO cards, and the integrated Thunderbolt, iGPU, etc. I really haven't checked but the advent of PCI 3.0 did doubling the bandwidth across the board. So maybe it is enough bandwidth, maybe not - I honestly don't know. But a in any case a good argument to make against using this particular Mobile part vs a desktop part.
No sorry, the intention was to discuss about how to make a smaller form factor Mac Pro, and lower the TDP envelope. I think you meant to say something else comparing about the iMac and the Mac Mini. I'm not comparing any of the expectations specifically to the iMac or Mac Mini. Only to the current generation of Mac Pro. The basic premise is: what is the most allowed sacrifices can we get rid of without sacrificing the typical PC-type (ie desktop) upgrade choices and power-user options and choices over the performance that actually matters to people?
My thinking is that the one choice nearly all users do not wish to be taken away is the graphics card. So that is the one thing that cannot really be sacrificed. So must continue to allow the GPU up to the huge massive 200W of TDP headroom, ie for the fastest graphics / best performance per dollar graphics cards available. This also means you inevitably have to try to be a lot more frugal on whatever else draws power inside the box. Otherwise the overall target of reducing size and TDP is not achievable.
Your point about Desktop CPUs being only 70 Watts now - its a really good point. That is only 25 Watts more than the mobile part vs 200W GPU.
Indeed, Intel say that in future generations we will be given configurable TDP technology making the whole issue of distinction less problematic. However: You will always pay more for the highest binned parts with the highest TDP/watt. Whether Intel brand and sell them as a "K-series", a desktop part, or a Mobile part is really splitting hairs. The key difference was about QuickSync...
There is a reason, and you seem to have missed that. The key difference is that the video transcoding via QuickSync will be twice as fast. Which is actually a very significant thing (for that particular feature).
The choice of naming the quad mobile i7 was only because it is *today's* best Intel part/SKU for that. Intel's desktop CPUs may offer this aswell in the future. But until then, and for a concise shorthand, its a heck of a lot easier just to refer to "quad Mobile i7". Since then everybody knows what you are referring to. The thing is already in many other Apple products, including the well-known Retina MBP.
If anything, you can blame only the Intel policy, for crippling (halving) the intergrated graphics on all their own Desktop CPUs. Sorry for being the messenger to be pointing that niggly little problem out...
Don't forget that we are talking here about what is in Apple's control to change, and not what Intel is choosing to do. So Mobile i7 is the choice (or not) for those reasons - Since as I have already conceeded it must provide a good enough PCI bandwidth otherwise is not really acceptable either.
Expanding the machine does nothing for those who don't enjoy throwing a display away when the computer is dead/outdated. Most users prefer to not pay for a display they can only use with one machine when they can have options as far as connectivity/monitor preference/etc.
The iMac is apples most profitable computer solely because it is an all-in-one, and while it will not fulfill all mac users needs, it sells enough at its current profit margin to not be going anywhere soon.
This is why the hope of a desktop as described by OP and countless others over the last decade has had no rumor of actually coming to life. We will all keep hope though
Just on 2.5 vs 3.5" drives - I suspect that 3.5" will be gone "soon" (exactly when is anyone's guess, but the writing is on the wall), and here's why:
- SSDs are 2.5" form factor or smaller
- drive capacities are getting to the point where if you use a large drive in RAID it may never rebuild (too much data = takes too long) before a second failure - especially if you're only running a desktop style array (often RAID5 due to the limited number of bays) without a hot spare. Sure, RAID6 or RAID10 or mirroring will overcome that - but you need more drives to get the same space/performance... hence... more 2.5" drives rather than 3.5". Capacity has gone up dramatically, but MTBF has not.
- you can fit more spindles in the same space / thermal envelope / power consumption
We just put in a new Netapp FAS2240 at work. We went for 2.5" drives (SAS) because we could get 1.5x as many drives in the same space, and they were still 10,000 rpm.
More spindles = better random IO performance, improved resiliency, etc. The extra capacity you can get in a single spindle is pretty pointless if you can't actually risk using it due to fear of data loss (due to a single drive failure taking way too long to rebuild). We're not quite at that point yet, but 2-3tb SATA is right on the edge I think.
So - it would certainly not surprise me to see a slightly different Mac Pro case in the next few years - aimed at fitting more 2.5" SAS drives in the case.
- SSDs are 2.5" form factor or smaller
- drive capacities are getting to the point where if you use a large drive in RAID it may never rebuild (too much data = takes too long) before a second failure - especially if you're only running a desktop style array (often RAID5 due to the limited number of bays) without a hot spare. Sure, RAID6 or RAID10 or mirroring will overcome that - but you need more drives to get the same space/performance... hence... more 2.5" drives rather than 3.5". Capacity has gone up dramatically, but MTBF has not.
- you can fit more spindles in the same space / thermal envelope / power consumption
We just put in a new Netapp FAS2240 at work. We went for 2.5" drives (SAS) because we could get 1.5x as many drives in the same space, and they were still 10,000 rpm.
More spindles = better random IO performance, improved resiliency, etc. The extra capacity you can get in a single spindle is pretty pointless if you can't actually risk using it due to fear of data loss (due to a single drive failure taking way too long to rebuild). We're not quite at that point yet, but 2-3tb SATA is right on the edge I think.
So - it would certainly not surprise me to see a slightly different Mac Pro case in the next few years - aimed at fitting more 2.5" SAS drives in the case.
Last edited:
Most of Apple's products have been un-competititve during that time, especially in terms of price/performance ratio.
3.5" drives still offer 2 times the size compared to their 2.5" counterparts. For quite some of the intended use cases for a "Mac Pro" this may have some importance.
For smaller devices - agreed. But the whole idea of a big box computer (let alone a tower) is to have more options inside the box and less cluttering on the desk, plus the fact that internal connections used to be a lot better/faster before Thunderbolt - nowadays the internal connections are at least significantly cheaper for comparable speeds.
Ahem - there is more than black and white. Quite some people love to have upgrade options for one reason or the other (e.g. upgrading / replacing the harddrive) and are forced to either use external devices (clutter, power consumption, does not help in case of defect on the internal unit) or be upsold to the expensive, server-grade Mac Pro. While the mini can be considered a low-noise, low power-consumption entry-level device where certain compromises can be accepted somehow, the iMac does _not_ fill the void of a medium level unit for people who like/need the expansion/self-service options together with some performance for less than server-grade prices.
Better airflow = better (quieter) cooling, accessability for upgrades / repairs of defective drives or upgrades, option to used internal solutions to avoid cluttering. For quite some people those reasons are perfectly valid and even a potential dealbreaker.
Other people may have different requirements than you (see above). Apple itself proved that a computer bigger than the mini can look good while still providing more / better options. Think about what possibilities modern technology would offer in e.g. a Cube case!
There are people like that and for those the market is favourable currently. But there still is the other group which does not want/like/need an AIO - and be it only that they have to pay for the hardwired monitor which they don't need/want (glare!) and which threatens to make the whole computer unusable in case of a defect.
Chicken-egg-problem! Most of Apple's products does not allow any upgrades except for memory in the first place. Is it really that people would not use upgrade options if they were actually available on an Apple computer that is not technical and financial overkill for anything less than business use?
Just want a small computer with a big slot for the PCI graphics card. That is the only thing missing in the Mac Mini - the discrete graphics. I don't want a massive PC chassis. I mean, who does if given the choice? (that was a rhetorical question). No space to put a big clunking box anywhere, - sorry! They all weigh a ton.
Yet there is no valid argument as to why a smaller chassis must ditch the 3 main upgrade options: GPU, memory, and hard disk. A few PC manufacturers are beginning to do that now for Gamer PCs.
Yet there is no valid argument as to why a smaller chassis must ditch the 3 main upgrade options: GPU, memory, and hard disk. A few PC manufacturers are beginning to do that now for Gamer PCs.
We may have to agree to disagree here. You can buy 3TB HDDs that are affordable. For larger storage, ssds make very little sense. 10k rpm SATA drives haven't been popular for a long time. You're still pushing forward with something that doesn't solve any real problems. There's a good chance that your design would drop more customers than it would recover as you're just trying to make a smaller desktop. As I've already mentioned, other brands often have setups that can accept 2.5 or 3.5" drives. In the case of 2.5" drives, you can fit more of them. What could you possibly gain over such a solution by making it 2.5" only?
I don't see the point of prioritizing the engineering toward a small form factor. These aren't built as cluster units, and many of these suggested compromises turn away more users than they would ever bring. In the end you could end up with something nearly as expensive with fewer options and a much more limited market. The mid range desktop has held on with Windows to a degree due to gaming, where performance differences are still significant, and their occasional use as light duty workstations. The best things about the mac pro are performance, flexibility, and lack of noise. When you start to take those things away via shrinking them to the point where smaller fans may be a requirement, going to less powerful but more expensive cpus, and limiting internal storage capability, you kill half the appeal in favor of a novelty form factor. In the end it needs to appeal to someone, and I see this as a machine that would have limited marketability. If the goal was more one of a compact desktop, the mini is actually a better starting point if you're going to gut the features that far.
Answer: It's not the biggest single way to save a lot of space. But no one individual reduction can be enough on its own. There was other reasoning discussed in the previous commentary and should have been enough to explain it. You are bringing the question up again because it remains a sticking point that you personally don't like very much? I cannot argue against an individual's preference. However I don't believe enough other people agree with your views for it to matter very much.
Its clear that you don't. But that was MY prime reason which I explained pretty clearly. Good or bad, its the reason why the other bullet points... including the 2.5" drive bays, clear enough?
No. I disagree. The qualities you are valuing there are all excelled by any typical Dektop PC these days. Lots of big drive bays and so on etc. Perhaps those are the kinds of user you think would be turned away? But the basis of my argument is that the Mac Pro is definately not a PC. So why should it have to look anything like one? The person you are actually disagreeing with: Johnny Ive.
This product (Mac Pro) has always been in the category of "Powerful workstation". For example: do you remember those lovely Sun Sparc Workstations back in the 90's? Perhaps you aren't familiar. But that is more the kind of a thing I'm talking about here. They had a small chassis, but were like - really powerful.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. Since that is exactly what it is... However its important to realize what is still OK to be upgraded: the RAM, the Storage (or at least any 2.5", as we previously disagreed), and the graphics card. In particular, there is no other Apple product where people can upgrade any GPU themselves. Thunderbolt enclosure doesn't work well enough, and probably never will. It doesn't mean all those people who want to do that also want to have a massive chassis and upgrade everything else too.
You have just described the CURRENT Mac Pro.
The real question is: would Apple justify to keep the Mac Pro as a seperate class, rather than replace it with a smaller machine? I suggested that it makes no business sense for them because they can't steal the (never profitable) cheap PC market.
Heck, if it makes the idea more palateable to YOU. Then sure "I want a bigger Mac Mini". I don't care at all whether you keep the old Mac Pro, like the classic Macbook Pros and the Retina model. The distinction makes no difference to *me* whatsoever. You're whole argument falls down because you assume that I care about getting rid of the old Mac Pro. I don't - they can keep the old Mac Pro.
Perhaps a better way to put this:
1) Apple won't get rid of the old Mac Pro.
2) They introduce their new product "the mega Mini with PCI graphics"
3) After they introduce the new product (just like the Retina MBP) it will be only a couple of years until almost everyone is buying the new product instead.
4) Apple will stop updating the old product (because it makes more money on the new product now).
5) Apple will stop selling the old product.
I said "replace" as a shorthand of all of the above ^^ process. Sorry not to be so clear about the reasoning. But its all so obvious now with those Retina Laptops.
Ya, I became disinterested after staring far too long into an abyss known infamously as The Apple Gaping Lineup Hole for way too long. I finally relegated my mid 2010 Mini to my spouse and built a 6-core i7 SB-E rig with 32GB 4-channel ram, ssd, hdd and the nvdia flagship gpu. Plus many usb3 abd 6GB sata ports to chose from as well as a uefi bios. Future expansion allows up to triple SLI/Crossfire and 32GB more ram which should keep my heavy duty cad/cam/cae work humming along nicely. With my current water cooling I could overclock to 5GHz but for now I'm playing it a bit safe at 4.8GHz.
I am quite tempted to make it a Hackintosh but at this point I don't want to deal with any hassles. Perhaps I'll get a separate drive to load OS-X and see what I can get out of it.
I am quite tempted to make it a Hackintosh but at this point I don't want to deal with any hassles. Perhaps I'll get a separate drive to load OS-X and see what I can get out of it.
You're wishing for something the Mac community has been wanting since the dramatic simplification of Apple's product line back in 1998, the Mythical Midrange Macintosh Minitower. Keep hope alive
But that "simplification" included entry level desktop macs till they switched to Intel. I had the entry level Desktop G3, the entry level 800Mhz Quicksilver G4 (which I upgraded to a dual CPU at a later date) and with the G5s they offered an entry level single CPU tower even though they had the G4 based Mac Mini too.
They've literally left anyone wanting more than a laptop or laptop for their desk out in the cold since switching to intel unless they have £2000 laying around for the basic system and even more at a later date to pay for the expensive RAM Xeon based systems use.
I'm only glad the speed increase from PowerPC to Core 2 Duo was so dramatic and SSDs are so cheap or I'd still be saving for a used Mac Pro, not using a 2009 Mac Mini. The current quad core Mac Mini would match a 2008 Mac Pro, infact up until recently the current Mac Pro had a 2.8Ghz CPU on the entry level with under 4% more CPU power than the 2Ghz Core i7 in the Mac Mini sever. Add 16Gb of aftermarket RAM and a potentially warranty voiding 6Gb/s SSD upgrade and that Mac Pro looks so over-priced with it's 3Gb of standard RAM at £2049 it's not even funny.
Apple need to think about offering a mini-tower based on desktop, not workstation or laptop parts and keep it around that golden £1000-1100 mark.
Last edited:
NO IT HASN'T.
It was Jobs return that brought the G3-G5 entry level systems, the iMac, the Mac Mini, the simplification of their lineup!
I guess you've only being using Macs since they switched to Intel because you can still run Windows on them, have no idea what they used to offer and only know Jobs from all the iHype
No way this will happen. IMHO Apple is more likely to slowly phase out desktop computers before they start adding new models to the product mix. When Tim Cook repeats the phrase "post PC era" several times during every keynote he gives I doubt they will be adding new desktop models.
The iMac is a good fit for 90% of Apple's desktop market. It doesn't take care of every single need, but then again neither does the iPhone or iPad. Apple has always shot for the middle of the market and if you fall outside of that range you will have to look elsewhere.
The iMac is a good fit for 90% of Apple's desktop market. It doesn't take care of every single need, but then again neither does the iPhone or iPad. Apple has always shot for the middle of the market and if you fall outside of that range you will have to look elsewhere.
I think the desktop wouldn't sell because iMac has all you need. If you want a desktop to upgrade the cost will be similar to a Mac Pro. The Mac Mini itself with a comparable monitor will cost roughly close to the iMac but worse in performance.
Its just not worth the cost for any party, Apple and customers.
Unless you want to customize it with 3rd party components, but then it ceasses to be an Apple product.
barkmonster said:
cosmichobo said:
Ha; you're funny. Such a vitriolic response to a comment that was essentially agreeing with you.
I switched to Mac from an Atari 2600 games console in 1991. I've never owned a PC.
I know Jobs as the guy who allowed me to buy a Twentieth Anniversary Mac, by slashing the price tag and essentially making it an entry level Mac...
And, I can't say I know many of the i-buzz crowd who love Jobs - they just love the products...
Since Job's return, the upgrade-ability of the Mac lineup has been reduced... Even the LCIII, my 2nd Mac, had some card expansion options, performable by the user... but now really only RAM can be expanded on most Macs, with or without voiding warranty.
Last edited:
I want a headless MacBook pro retina, basically a mini with HDMI, SSD, graphics card and latest and greatest intel. Don't care really if it's upgrade able or not. Would be great in the living room.
The G4 Cube was my first
. And very good it was too!I can see a market for a computer with better expansion than the Mini, less cost and size than the Pro, and more flexible than the iMac. I rather doubt that Apple would agree though, they seem more interested in iToys than Mac these days.
this machine can fit 3x 4tb hdds
a mSata
it can fit a hd 7970 gpu and a full size psu
http://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master...347962200&sr=8-6&keywords=cooler+master+elite
my build with mods
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2268192
there is no way apple would sell this machine. forget looks they can make it pretty.
this machine would hurt sales of mac pros, imacs and mac minis.
since it offers large storage.
small size.
can use an i7- 3770s cpu or even an i7 3770t
an amd hd 7970 gpu or a gtx 680
a 256gb mSata
and 3x hdds as large as 4tb 3.5 inch
(or maybe it would suffer the fate of the cube)
a mSata
it can fit a hd 7970 gpu and a full size psu
http://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master...347962200&sr=8-6&keywords=cooler+master+elite
my build with mods
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2268192
there is no way apple would sell this machine. forget looks they can make it pretty.
this machine would hurt sales of mac pros, imacs and mac minis.
since it offers large storage.
small size.
can use an i7- 3770s cpu or even an i7 3770t
an amd hd 7970 gpu or a gtx 680
a 256gb mSata
and 3x hdds as large as 4tb 3.5 inch
(or maybe it would suffer the fate of the cube)