High-End Mac Mini Said to Feature Thinner Design With 'Plexiglass' Top, Magnetic Power Port

[polyphenol]

If you're connecting it to one single computer (which most home users do), I don't see any benefit to it being network based. You're just adding failure modes, for no benefit.

I'd have thought most households which see the need for a printer actually have more than one computing device. I don't have figures to back up my opinion but it has been my personal experience for many years.

Indeed, simply being able to print without physically being tethered to the printer by a cable is a very significant issue for those of who like to use portable computers. Or phones or tablets without suitable ports.

Clearly, parallel and serial are almost impossible these days as so few computers have either. And I was careful to say "in many cases" regarding USB.

Without any network connectivity, you preclude print via the internet in any form. (And, in so far as people often buy multi-functional devices, you also preclude scan to email. Although it is a roundabout way of managing scans, it is often the easiest for people to set up.)

Yes - I know some printers have the ability to access thumb drives. But that is a rather clunky approach.

(My own printing arrangements currently involve three air gaps and about 100 metres! Jolly glad the printer is wirelessly connected.)

 

[chucker23n1]

I'd have thought most households which see the need for a printer actually have more than one computing device. I don't have figures to back up my opinion but it has been my personal experience for many years.

Indeed, simply being able to print without physically being tethered to the printer by a cable is a very significant issue for those of who like to use portable computers. Or phones or tablets without suitable ports.

Yeah, that would be my guess as well.

I'd love to see a study on that.

In my estimation, having printers at home at all has either shrunk considerably, or at least hasn't experienced the same explosive growth as having a computer at home. For many, you can simply print at the office for the rare time you need to.

Then came smartphones and tablets, and having a printer connected to one computer locally made even less sense.

 

[polyphenol]

Yeah, that would be my guess as well.

I'd love to see a study on that.

In my estimation, having printers at home at all has either shrunk considerably, or at least hasn't experienced the same explosive growth as having a computer at home. For many, you can simply print at the office for the rare time you need to.

Then came smartphones and tablets, and having a printer connected to one computer locally made even less sense.

I also suspect that the abilities of phones to photograph documents - and convert to PDF (or whatever) - and email them has removed much of the need for scanners. But an awfully large proportion of devices which can print are multi-function. (I hate them with a vengeance.)

We older folk might not have offices to go to!

 

[chucker23n1]

Anyway, point is, the USB-A transition had its difficulties but was going to a clearly better standard. A to C is a less natural transition that people have been resisting, and probably will continue to resist, until hubs are cheap. And the people involved are just average people, unlike in 1998 when computing was much more niche.

I think it's far more complicated than "hubs are too expensive".

It's also:

• hubs are often unreliable, add complexity, and may not support the same features as a direct connection, even when powered.
• with the USB-A transition, there was a natural path for low-bandwidth ADB, serial, parallel, SCSI devices like keyboards, mice, scanners, printers, to move to a unified port. With USB 2.0, some higher-bandwidth ones like hard disks became feasible as well. With USB-C, moving many other things like displays to USB is possible, but is not at all the natural path when DisplayPort is still actively being developed, and HDMI is massive.
• plus, it's not like USB-A was the only port the iMac had! Yeah, it didn't have ADB, serial/GeoPort, or SCSI, but it did have Ethernet, and even a modem jack. While it's understandable that Ethernet is simply too thick to fit in a modern Mac laptop, it's not at all the slam dunk to move from "all sorts of ports" to USB-C-only as it was to go from "all sorts of porst" to USB-A-only, because the iMac didn't go to USB-A-only.

Four and a half years after the 2016 MacBook Pro, USB-C has become far more popular, but it is absolutely not the most likely port to use for a display, whether that's a screen or projector.

There's a reason tons of "bring all the ports back" adapters have sprung up. Is that an indictment on USB-C? Not at all; it's clearly a very flexible port. But it is a bit of an indictment on the hubris of moving the entire Apple laptop line-up to not offering more specific, often-needed ports.

 

[chucker23n1]

I also suspect that the abilities of phones to photograph documents - and convert to PDF (or whatever) - and email them has removed much of the need for scanners.

This, too. Apple Notes even has that document scanning feature built in now, and while I find the UI a bit confusing, the algorithms in Microsoft Lens are fairly good. You point it at a document, flipchart, whiteboard, etc., and it'll do the perspective transform, crop, contrast enhancement, etc. Yeah, a scanner is more accurate, but this is good enough and quick.

But an awfully large proportion of devices which can print are multi-function. (I hate them with a vengeance.)

We older folk might not have offices to go to!

Sure. And there are of course many people who don't have a job or whose job isn't in an office. Or whose office doesn't allow them to print for personal purposes. I don't mean to dismiss that; I'm just saying that, both economically and ecologically, it doesn't make sense for many people to have any printer at home at all. Especially an inkjet: if you rarely use it, you'll dry up its ink, so you're punished for underusing it (let's not even get into ink subscriptions…).

 

[Stephen.R]

I'd have thought most households which see the need for a printer actually have more than one computing device. I don't have figures to back up my opinion but it has been my personal experience for many years.

Possibly. IME the 'cheap' network capable printers before consumer-friendly IPP implementations like AirPrint was popular (which is very admittedly a while ago) were really ****ing terrible at it. Even some of the business oriented stuff from the likes of HP had really peculiar edge cases you'd never see in direct connect smaller printers.

Without any network connectivity, you preclude print via the internet in any form.

I'd consider that a net positive. The only reason "print from the internet" is a thing, is because Google has a death fear of client-side devices/software that's not a their browser.

 

[LovePeace]

I don't think MagSafe will work well with Mac mini. Considering many of these will be used in server farms, there would be no benefit but catastrophes if someone were to tug the cable a little too hard...

This model will not be used on server farms.

 

[LovePeace]

Separating the power supply may keep it fan-less. Which is a huge plus for some applications.

I have no problem with a separate power brick for two of my applications.

Well, simply said: If the next Mac mini is going to have a GPU that is going to solve many of the user's workflows (rendering video, bulk photography rendering, RAW rendering, complex 3D design rendering, or even gaming) then the external AC to DC brick has a reason to be.
Yet, if the new Mac Mini is not going to demand much inner space (mainly for GPU) or ventilation (for a revamped CPU) then that external brick with a special Apple proprietary plug is going to be (again) a way to depend even more on Apple. It was so comfortable up to now to take that Mac Mini with you on "vacations" or jobs from outside the office...
Apple: Better have a good reason to introduce that Apple proprietary plug!

 

[SuperMatt]

I think it's far more complicated than "hubs are too expensive".

It's also:

• hubs are often unreliable, add complexity, and may not support the same features as a direct connection, even when powered.
• with the USB-A transition, there was a natural path for low-bandwidth ADB, serial, parallel, SCSI devices like keyboards, mice, scanners, printers, to move to a unified port. With USB 2.0, some higher-bandwidth ones like hard disks became feasible as well. With USB-C, moving many other things like displays to USB is possible, but is not at all the natural path when DisplayPort is still actively being developed, and HDMI is massive.
• plus, it's not like USB-A was the only port the iMac had! Yeah, it didn't have ADB, serial/GeoPort, or SCSI, but it did have Ethernet, and even a modem jack. While it's understandable that Ethernet is simply too thick to fit in a modern Mac laptop, it's not at all the slam dunk to move from "all sorts of ports" to USB-C-only as it was to go from "all sorts of porst" to USB-A-only, because the iMac didn't go to USB-A-only.

Four and a half years after the 2016 MacBook Pro, USB-C has become far more popular, but it is absolutely not the most likely port to use for a display, whether that's a screen or projector.

There's a reason tons of "bring all the ports back" adapters have sprung up. Is that an indictment on USB-C? Not at all; it's clearly a very flexible port. But it is a bit of an indictment on the hubris of moving the entire Apple laptop line-up to not offering more specific, often-needed ports.

Apple was absolutely correct to move the original iMac to USB. If they hadn’t, adoption would have been far slower. Putting USB-C on all their computers (and iPad pros) will speed adoption, but not as fast as the original USB adoption I don’t think. Reason being: USB-C-to-A hubs are cheap and plentiful. There’s little impetus for device manufacturers to hurry up and switch to USB-C because of that.

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple was absolutely correct to move the original iMac to USB. If they hadn’t, adoption would have been far slower.

It's hard to say what adoption would've been like, but yes, it was the correct move. There was no point in sticking to the (mostly) inferior ADB and GeoPort.

Putting USB-C on all their computers (and iPad pros) will speed adoption, but not as fast as the original USB adoption I don’t think. Reason being: USB-C-to-A hubs are cheap and plentiful. There’s little impetus for device manufacturers to hurry up and switch to USB-C because of that.

Yes, that, too. Also, tons of surprising places with USB-A, such as airplane seats.

 

[polyphenol]

Apple was absolutely correct to move the original iMac to USB. If they hadn’t, adoption would have been far slower. Putting USB-C on all their computers (and iPad pros) will speed adoption, but not as fast as the original USB adoption I don’t think. Reason being: USB-C-to-A hubs are cheap and plentiful. There’s little impetus for device manufacturers to hurry up and switch to USB-C because of that.

I recently bought a non-premium USB-C SD card reader. The difference between that and a standard USB2 one is huge.

In the past the thought "Is it really taking that long to copy a few photos?" has always been hovering. Even if not in a hurry, it can surprise how long transfers take.

The USB-C one is more like an internal drive. And, should I wish, I can copy between SD cards at pretty impressive rates which seem limited by the SD cards themselves rather than the interface.

Should I feel the need for a scanner, I'll make sure I get a USB-C one.

 

[Stephen.R]

The USB-C one is more like an internal drive.

You may want to clarify what you mean there.

The SD slot in the last Mac laptop with one (the 2015 MBP) was connected using: USB2.

This is part of why the "bring back SD slots, real pros need built in speed" argument has never held much water.

 

[theluggage]

The SD slot in the last Mac laptop with one (the 2015 MBP) was connected using: USB2.

In 2015 the vast majority of SD cards in circulation would only have supported UHS-I - 50 MB/s - which would barely gain any advantage from USB 3 speeds.... and neither the 2015 MBP or the 5k iMac (with SD card slot) had seen a major re-design since 2012, when there would have been zero point in wasting USB-3 on an SD card.

One would hope that, if Apple re-introduce the SD reader in 2021, they'll support newer SD card standards. The iMac Pro supported UHS-II, at least.

The problem will be if Apple design the M1x/M2/whatever without enough I/O to support the range of ports people have been asking for since 2015. They're not restricted to whatever arcane permutations of PCIe/NVMe/USB 3/etc Intel lets them choose for each chipset any more.

Still, a slow, basic SD card reader in a MBP is better than a fancy fast SD card reader 500 miles away in your other bag...

 

[Stephen.R]

In 2015 the vast majority of SD cards in circulation would only have supported UHS-I - 50 MB/s - which would barely gain any advantage from USB 3 speeds.... and neither the 2015 MBP or the 5k iMac (with SD card slot) had seen a major re-design since 2012, when there would have been zero point in wasting USB-3 on an SD card.

The Intel iMac introduced an SDXC slot in 2010.

The Apple support document about using SD cards says this (notice how they don't clarify specific models or years, they just say desktops vs notebooks):

Mac notebooks use the USB bus to communicate with the SD card slot. They have a maximum speed of up to 480Mbit/s. Mac desktops use the PCIe bus to communicate with the SD card slot. Desktops can transfer data at a faster rate.

I was simply pointing out how absurd some "but it should to be built in, it's faster and real pros need that speed" type comments can be.

If it doesn't negatively affect other ports (and yes that includes not adding an extra USB4 port because the lanes go to a card reader exclusively) I don't much care, but as you and I both know, Apple very rarely just says "you get a port, you get a port, you get a port". It's give and take.

Still, a slow, basic SD card reader in a MBP is better than a fancy fast SD card reader 500 miles away in your other bag...

Sure convenience is a feature. But unless you're also advocating for hard-wired charging bricks that literally can't be left behind, I don't really buy that this is a massive problem worthy of sacrificing universal ports for.

 

[deevey]

I use a desktop too, for more tracks and less latency, but being connected to mains causes hums and computer noise that go away when I use my Air unplugged. I have been waiting for battery powered Mini Pro for years, to finally have usable studio.

Power conditioner, ferrite cores, USB isolator for your audio interface, grounded power cables etc ?

There's a ton of other more efficient ways to get rid of hum rather than waiting for a battery powered desktop (which will never come).

 

[chucker23n1]

I have been waiting for battery powered Mini Pro for years, to finally have usable studio.

Like a MacPortable Pro. Or a MacNotebook Pro.

Hm, I think I'm on to something.

 

[theluggage]

The Intel iMac introduced an SDXC slot in 2010.

...The 2010 iMac was completely re-designed in 2012 and is now officially obsolete so quoting an Apple document with a 2021 revision date tells you zero about it. Not that it matters because there has been a continuous stream of improvements to the SDXC standard since then so - however it was connected - a 2010, 2012 or 2015 SD reader couldn't be as fast as a brand new external one, and the modern SD cards that can actually exploit PCIe-level speeds didn't exist (or were only just announced) then.

You are right, though, that the 2017 iMac has a PCIe SD reader. And - from the document you cited - both the iMac Pro and the 2020 iMac (which, thinking about it, had been significantly re-designed internally to use the T2 chip) support the faster UHS-II cards.

Or, to put it another way, there is absolutely no basis for your assumption that an internal SD slot in a 2021 MBP would be a slow, USB2 one rather than something more up-to-date. Maybe Apple will cheap out, but you can't assume that and use it as an argument.

and yes that includes not adding an extra USB4 port because the lanes go to a card reader exclusively

...which is where all your arguments become completely unreasonable. First, you're ignoring the fact that a full-featured USB4/TB4 port needs 4 lanes plus (if it's going to earn it's TB4 badge) 2 display port streams, whereas 1-2 lanes are more than enough to provide all the legacy connections people want. Then you're justifying that with the logic "I have no idea how many lanes the M2 will support - but however many it does I will not compromise even 1 lane for the convenience of others" (and you're accusing people of being obstinate and ignoring other people's use cases!)

You don't even seem to recognise the constraint that there's no point being able to connect more 40Gbps TB devices or ultra-high-definition displays then the processor and GPU can drive smoothly.

But unless you're also advocating for hard-wired charging bricks that literally can't be left behind, I don't really buy that this is a massive problem worthy of sacrificing universal ports for.

If you're harping on about the fact that the only two multi-downstream-USB-4/TB hubs announced so far come with charging bricks - that's because most people will buy them to leave on their desk along with the multiple 5k/XDR displays, SSD RAID array and rack of high-end A/V equipment that would justify needing more than 2-3 TB3 ports.

...because you still haven't explained why you would need that amount of TB connectivity on the road unless you're already travelling with a massive wheeled flight-case full of equipment (none of which apparently has daisy-chain ports). If there's a good answer to that then maybe someone will make a mobile option - so far, there's no market for the simple fact that nobody is selling a laptop that needs it.

You know, a bit like any sort of USB-C peripheral when the 2016 MBP was first announced.

 

[hot-gril]

Being hesitant to change is one thing. Being obstinate and discounting any other use-case but their own as either made up or not worth considering is a whole different thing.

A number of the posts I see these days would be the equivalent of someone saying in say 2002 "**** your USB ports, bring back parallel. Who needs three USB ports anyway. Parallel printers are far more common than USB".

In both cases there's a really simple solution if the person chooses to avail themselves of it. But they don't want a solution.

If you're referring to me, I've been suggesting a solution: cheaper USB-C hubs that have more USB-C ports on them. Otherwise, it's a big hurdle to accessories using -C.

In 2016, I wasn't asking for a solution. I was sitting out and letting everyone beta-test USB-C and the butterfly keyboard for me. Bought a 2015 MBP I needed for work, have been using it happily, and will happily replace it with an awesome Apple Silicon model when needed.

 

[polyphenol]

You may want to clarify what you mean there.

The SD slot in the last Mac laptop with one (the 2015 MBP) was connected using: USB2.

This is part of why the "bring back SD slots, real pros need built in speed" argument has never held much water.

Quite simply, using a modern, fast SD card, and my new USB-C card reader, felt like accessing an internal drive.

My previous SD card reader, which was USB2, accessing the same SD card on the same computer, felt slow.

I am convinced that the speed difference was almost entirely due to USB-C vs. USB2.

 

[HowardEv]

Being hesitant to change is one thing. Being obstinate and discounting any other use-case but their own as either made up or not worth considering is a whole different thing.

A number of the posts I see these days would be the equivalent of someone saying in say 2002 "**** your USB ports, bring back parallel. Who needs three USB ports anyway. Parallel printers are far more common than USB".

Excuse me, Stephen, but you have been mercilessly and obstinately discounting my use-case of a Mac mini that doesn't need to be plugged in. I need a battery. How much could it raise the price to add a battery, and who would possibly object to having a built in UPS, and being able to use their iMac on the kitchen table without worrying about a power cable being tripped over?

 

[SuperMatt]

Excuse me, Stephen, but you have been mercilessly and obstinately discounting my use-case of a Mac mini that doesn't need to be plugged in. I need a battery. How much could it raise the price to add a battery, and who would possibly object to having a built in UPS, and being able to use their iMac on the kitchen table without worrying about a power cable being tripped over?

Such a use case is so unlikely that it really isn’t worth the money to implement it, IMHO. I’ve also never heard of a monitor with a battery, so unless you found a company that made one, your computer would run on battery, but you’d have no way to see what it was doing. I rate the chances of this happening as near-zero. For people that want a battery-powered computer, there are already laptops.

 

[SuperMatt]

If you're referring to me, I've been suggesting a solution: cheaper USB-C hubs that have more USB-C ports on them. Otherwise, it's a big hurdle to accessories using -C.

In 2016, I wasn't asking for a solution. I was sitting out and letting everyone beta-test USB-C and the butterfly keyboard for me. Bought a 2015 MBP I needed for work, have been using it happily, and will happily replace it with an awesome Apple Silicon model when needed.

So this doesn’t affect you at all currently. Just wondering, did the late 90s, early 2000’s USB transition affect you at all?

 

[hot-gril]

So this doesn’t affect you at all currently. Just wondering, did the late 90s, early 2000’s USB transition affect you at all?

It sorta affects me since my new job has me using a corp-managed 2019 MBP (and previously a 2016 one). So I do what everyone does, adapt to older ports, and they paid for the $150 hub. The cheap ones flake too much.

In 2016 it was a much bigger problem because the hubs were expensive and still flaky. But I wasn't working there yet. Combined with the keyboard and t*uchb*r, the 2016 MBP was the biggest downgrade ever and an easy no-buy for me.

Early 2000s transition, not really. My only accessories were KB, mouse, printer, and flash drive, all of which were ubiquitously USB by then. Once I was messing with some older home control system and had to deal with RS-232.

 

[Stephen.R]

so quoting an Apple document with a 2021 revision date tells you zero about it

That document said the same thing about connection in 2015.

I’m not suggesting a modern one isn’t faster. I’m suggesting that the ridiculous calls about it being required to be internal “like it was” for speed purposes are just that: ridiculous.

given the existing i/o limitations on m1s, surely even you’d admit that a built in sd slot that uses a lot of dedicated lanes is going to be a poor use of those lanes if they’re in limited supply.

Or, to put it another way, there is absolutely no basis for your assumption that an internal SD slot in a 2021 MBP would be a slow, USB2 one rather than something more up-to-date. Maybe Apple will cheap out, but you can't assume that and use it as an argument.

I’m not trying to claim that at all.

im saying that anyone who has a laptop and cared about speed was already using an external card reader. I can’t believe this concept is hard to get across.

whereas 1-2 lanes are more than enough to provide all the legacy connections people want

Are they?

you can’t argue that Apple might include a really modern SD slot and then claim it will definitely only need 1 lane. A modern sd reader can use as many as 2x 4.0 pcie lanes - the same bandwidth a tb3 port uses.

You don't even seem to recognise the constraint that there's no point being able to connect more 40Gbps TB devices or ultra-high-definition displays then the processor and GPU can drive smoothly.

Who knows how many displays it’ll support.

If you think the cpu is a bottleneck for I/O I’d kindly ask you to go read about DMA. It’s... quite relevant.

unless you're already travelling with a massive wheeled flight-case full of equipment

I could max out the existing four tb3 ports just with m2 drives I can stick in my pockets, much less stuff I’ll put in a laptop bag. No need to break out the pelican case mate.

 

[Stephen.R]

If you're referring to me, I've been suggesting a solution: cheaper USB-C hubs that have more USB-C ports on them. Otherwise, it's a big hurdle to accessories using -C.

In 2016, I wasn't asking for a solution. I was sitting out and letting everyone beta-test USB-C and the butterfly keyboard for me. Bought a 2015 MBP I needed for work, have been using it happily, and will happily replace it with an awesome Apple Silicon model when needed.

No sorry if I gave that impression.

I was referring to people who insist trading tb3 port(s) to get hdmi back is a good/not a problem for everyone and then insisting that no one could possibly use four tb3 ports.

I agree with what you said but from memory there’s a technical limitation in USB 3.x that prevents multiple downstream type c ports on native USB hubs. The limitation is removed in 4.0 but they’re expensive and very much not portable for now.