Constrained Supplies Suggest Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro Server Headed for Refresh

[Shattentor]

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

BB has been sold out on the base MP for a month. They discontinuing this too?

 

[LarryC]

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]

Mac mini

We called apple regarding a Mac mini server solution. They urged us to wait a few weeks!

 

[miles01110]

Hmm, kind of like the constrained supplies of Airport Extermes and Time Capsules led to a refresh right after WWDC? Oh wait.

 

[Heilage]

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

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]

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]

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]

About time the minis get an update. My old MacBook Pro from 2006 is slowly dying a heat death...

 

[HyperZboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.