Ivy Bridge Mac Mini

[mopatops]

The exclusion of USB3 adds to APPLE'S bottom line. The proof is in the sales. Apple does not need you if you own a pc with windows. USB3 would help you as a pc users of windows Link up with apple gear quikly if apple had usb3.. Since Apple can sell a computer that legally can run windows why would they want to make it easy for you to keep a non mac pc?

I run windows on my mac minis and also ran windows on my mac pro. by keeping usb3 out of macs and making it illegal to run lion on a windows pc apple score big. Why should apple help out pc owners? Zero cash incentive. Asking for usb3 is the same as asking for all computers to run windows linux and osx.

BTW I would like it very much if the 3 major os systems would work on all machines.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post but your bottom line is that Apple adopting USB 3 means PC users have less incentive to buy a Mac? ...I'm pretty sure I have misunderstood your post!

It's not like USB 3 suddenly means all computers can run OSX, it's just one more feature to the Mac line-up.

 

[philipma1957]

Maybe I've misunderstood your post but your bottom line is that Apple adopting USB 3 means PC users have less incentive to buy a Mac? ...I'm pretty sure I have misunderstood your post!

It's not like USB 3 suddenly means all computers can run OSX, it's just one more feature to the Mac line-up.

Close to what I mean. Today If I own a mac the fastest way to interface with windows is to run it on my mac via bootcamp, VmWare fusion or parallels. If I want to use windows and I have a mac and a windows pc they can't transfer on a quick interface (usb3).

Lets say I have a usb 3 external a 2tb drive in windows format filled with info lets say my mac mini has windows 7 via vmware fusion. If I want access to the windows info on that drive while running windows on my mac I can use it today but at usb2 speeds. This means if I love my macs when the time comes to buy a second computer why buy a pc when it can't run lion or snow osx or mountain lion. My second computer will be another mac.

Apple does not stand to make any more money with usb3. Here is an example. You recorded 2tb of tv shows in a windows setup then transferred it to an external drive via usb3. You did this on your system at work which is a Dell so you can copy it for your home setup.

(forget the legality for a minute).

You say to yourself cool my mini runs windows I can watch the shows at my home with my mini. So you go to copy it to your system. Well if the mini had usb3 lack you can copy it at 130MB/s to your external lets say you have a lacie t-bolt. 3 to 4 hours time. Guess what you don't have a usb3 so you copy at usb2 speeds about 14 to 20 hours to copy that drive.

In a year or 2 when the dell dies at work you may say you know I want to use an apple at work I can hook it up with boot camp and when I bring an hdd home to copy it will be on t-bolt and only take 3-4 hours to copy not 14. So by allowing windows on a mac but restricting usb3 apples sells another mac.



This holding back of usb3 is done to discourage mac users from owning a pc or using a pc. It is not to discourage you from using windows. Just use a mac with bootcamp , VmWare fusion or
parallels. So apple is giving you a free fast way to use windows (boot camp) they had no incentive to give you a fast way to use you mac with a windows only piece of gear.

The argument of USB2 vs Firewire 800 is like USB3 vs t-bolt gets tossed around a lot. In fact I have spoke that it was true but it occurred to me . When that war started 95% of the computer gear on the market was not apple. Well apple's share of the market is huge today. In the usa 1 in 4 homes has apple gear they can afford to restrict USB3 because it makes more money for apple to restrict then if they do not restrict it.

I own a lot of apple gear for personal use. I did not own a windows pc until 2011 I just would buy more apple when I wanted more machines or expansion. If I needed to run windows I used bootcamp. Also A mac owner is more likey to replace his second windows pc with a mac when the pc dies. He can run windows on the new mac he buys.

So back to my argument Holding back USB3 gives a mac user more incentive to make the second computer a mac not quite the same as it stops a pc owner from buying a mac but close to that.

I say it again I am for all pc's running linux lion and windows having t-bolt usb3 fw800.

I am also for all apple running linux lion and windows with t-bolt usb3 and fw800.

The problem is apple has no cash incentive to use usb3.

Does anyone here think apple will allow us to use snow/lion/mountain L on all PC's? The answer is no why? It would hurt mac computer sales.

 

[Confuzzzed]

Hey Philip, thanks for the analysis above. Makes sense. On another matter, do you expect a mac mini refresh before the release of Mountain Lion? I have to say, my own view is negative on that score. What with the intel processors which will be used in mac minis not released until June at the earliest, why would Apple rush out a product which is not overdue a refresh anyway, rather wait and ship out together with the new US as it did last year with Lion and both MBA and MM

 

[Fishrrman]

"The problem is apple has no cash incentive to use usb3."

Nonsense.

Why continue to equip your product with USB2 when the CPU chip you're using (Ivy Bridge) has native support for USB3 and it costs nothing more production-wise to include the upgrade?

Apple's move to USB3 will become its most significant product improvement for 2012, hands down. It will eclipse anything else they do this year.

 

[philipma1957]

"The problem is apple has no cash incentive to use usb3."

Nonsense.

Why continue to equip your product with USB2 when the CPU chip you're using (Ivy Bridge) has native support for USB3 and it costs nothing more production-wise to include the upgrade?

Apple's move to USB3 will become its most significant product improvement for 2012, hands down. It will eclipse anything else they do this year.

This is what makes mac rumors fun. You could be correct. I hope you are correct !




While I think you are wrong here is my prediction on the first iPad:

"Looks like a tweener product to big for a cell phone and too wimpy for a laptop . I can't see it doing well "


It is easy for apple to restrict USB3 for another year and expand t-bolt. If they add USB3 no one will put an ssd in the iMac or the mac mini they will use external USB3 ssds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Because you disagreed with me on USB3 I looked around and found these

http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-120-BK.html
http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-240-BK.html
http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-480-BK.html



this would be a big seller for imac users and mini users.


btw this comes in a mac version in silver so because you disagreed with me this is the best evidence i have seen any where that usb3 will be in the new macs!!!

look at the thumb nail below. this company makes a lot of gear for other companies they are pretty big and this is the first USB3 ssd I have seen for macs!!! lets hope your disagreement with me has the ring of truth to it.


This gear would kill t-bolt .


629 for a 480gb usb3 ssd 319 for a 240gb usb3 ssd would mean death to t-bolt for an external osx drive.


to confuzzed;

I think the mac mini will come out in july or aug at best. Maybe even sept or oct.

the 2009 mini had an oct drop time.

 

[Confuzzzed]

to confuzzed;

I think the mac mini will come out in july or aug at best. Maybe even sept or oct.

the 2009 mini had an oct drop time.

Thank you. Kind of similar timeframe that I had in mind, unless, as some developers have said Mountain Lion is 4-6 weeks ahead of Lion at the same time last year, in which case it could be late June...

 

[theSeb]

Nice find Philip. I have an external 2.5" enclosure with USB 3 from Oyen. They make some good stuff but I didn't realise they made SSDs

 

[tshrimp]

It's a guess, and a bad one at that. The new Intel board chipsets for Ivy Bridge have USB3 support natively. For USB3 not to be included in Ivy Macs, Apple would have to have made Intel manufacture control chips to special order that were specifically crippled in that way, adding cost and delaying availability for what in return, some nebulous marketing focus on thunderbolt? No. Apple keeps it much simpler than this. There is no USB3 support so far because Apple saw no compelling reason to add it. There will be USB3 support on the Ivies because it's already there and there is no compelling rationale for Apple to eliminate it, if they even have that option.

Thank God. I am hoping for USB3. If not my Mini is new enough I can skip the Ivy.

 

[Quash]

This gear would kill t-bolt .

Hell no, thunderbolt is superior in every way. It's just more expensive.
The fact that you can dock a mobile device with one cable (with a small easy to use connector) is fantastic.

When you get more lanes of pci express in thunderbolt chipsets you can even add graphics in the docking station/screen. Also thunderbolt provides for much faster storage options, where usb 3 is limited to 5gbit a sec.
Not so much a factor now for a single ssd, but ssds will get faster and faster over the years.

Sure if you just wanna connect 1 harddrive to your computer then you might as well use USB3, it's much cheaper. Just like it makes no sense to connect a mouse over thunderbolt.

I'm not saying usb3 is useless, it's great for connecting external storage drives and memory sticks. It's just not directly competing with thunderbolt.

 

[philipma1957]

Hell no, thunderbolt is superior in every way. It's just more expensive.
The fact that you can dock a mobile device with one cable (with a small easy to use connector) is fantastic.

When you get more lanes of pci express in thunderbolt chipsets you can even add graphics in the docking station/screen. Also thunderbolt provides for much faster storage options, where usb 3 is limited to 5gbit a sec.
Not so much a factor now for a single ssd, but ssds will get faster and faster over the years.

Sure if you just wanna connect 1 harddrive to your computer then you might as well use USB3, it's much cheaper. Just like it makes no sense to connect a mouse over thunderbolt.

I'm not saying usb3 is useless, it's great for connecting external storage drives and memory sticks. It's just not directly competing with thunderbolt.

USB3 SSD like this


http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-240-SL-MAC.html $319 for 240gb


is in direct competition against this


http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/buy.en.html#section_2


an elgato thunderbolt ssd 240gb for $699


so if apple adds the usb3 option with booting which one will an iMac or mac mini user buy 240gb for $319 or 240gb for $699?

Better yet oyendigital.com has a 480gb usb3 ssd for only $629.00!

http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-480-SL-MAC.html

how is that for a choice

240gb t-bolt for 699

480gb usb3 for 629

add a 256gb ssd inside your iMac bto option 600

This is one of my reasons that I still believe gives apple a real cash incentive to hold back usb3 for 2012 macs.

 

[theSeb]

Yes, but those products are not made by Apple.

 

[Poki]

Nope, it gave them cash 2011. They don't earn money with the TB devices sold by other manufacturers. But it'd cost them no single cent more to include USB 3.0 and earn a bit by selling USB 3.0 devices in the Apple Store. That's just simple business.

The first year was to spread Thunderbolt, the second year is to get TB to the pros out there - along with a new Mac Pro and some even more professional TB accessories, so no reason to prevent us "normal" users to use USB 3.0.

 

[theSeb]

Philip, have you used the Elgato TB SSD?

Edit: it seems to be SATA II and not very fast, relatively speaking in the SSD world, of course.

All I really want is a TB based enclosure to put my own SSD into.

 

[Quash]

USB3 SSD like this


http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-240-SL-MAC.html $319 for 240gb


is in direct competition against this


http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/buy.en.html#section_2


an elgato thunderbolt ssd 240gb for $699


so if apple adds the usb3 option with booting which one will an iMac or mac mini user buy 240gb for $319 or 240gb for $699?

Better yet oyendigital.com has a 480gb usb3 ssd for only $629.00!

http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-SSD-480-SL-MAC.html

how is that for a choice

240gb t-bolt for 699

480gb usb3 for 629

add a 256gb ssd inside your iMac bto option 600

This is one of my reasons that I still believe gives apple a real cash incentive to hold back usb3 for 2012 macs.

Think you didn't get the point i was trying to make. USB 3 and T-Bolt are not competing technologies like firewire and usb 2 were. Sure you can connect a single drive on a thunderbolt connector. But Thunderbolt can do a lot more, things which usb 3.0 will never be able to do.

But that's not the reason why apple is pushing for the technology.
Apple is now a mobile device company, and thunderbolt allows you to make your mobile device (laptop) into a fully functional desktop workplace with just one cable, no mess. That is why apple is pushing the technology so hard.

USB 3 does not really get in the way of that, hell it even allows them to sell a USB 3 capable Thunderbolt display in a year or so and have people upgrade to it.

 

[philipma1957]

Yes, but those products are not made by Apple.

My point exactly.

Philip, have you used the Elgato TB SSD?

No

Nope, it gave them cash 2011. They don't earn money with the TB devices sold by other manufacturers. But it'd cost them no single cent more to include USB 3.0 and earn a bit by selling USB 3.0 devices in the Apple Store. That's just simple business.

The first year was to spread Thunderbolt, the second year is to get TB to the pros out there - along with a new Mac Pro and some even more professional TB accessories, so no reason to prevent us "normal" users to use USB 3.0.

The reason to hold back on USB3 is this. You own an iMac a t-bolt ssd is a lot of money the elgato is an example 699 for 240gb.

Most would say efff that I will pay apple to put the ssd inside as a bto cost 600. So every year apple delays usb3 is a chance to sell more internal ssd's as bto . Apple sells more computers then anyone so making you buy an expensive internal ssd or an expensive external t-bolt ssd has not hurt the bottom line. every year the percentage of macs gets higher and the percentage of pcs gets lower.

My hope would be USB3 and t-bolt expansion for all macs this year. Turn all USB2 ports into USB3 ports and add an extra t-bolt to all mac.

My accounting degree tells me Apple won't do it.

I understand that t-bolt is a lot more then just an external hdd for storage or osx.

I know that down the road apple will have usb3 and t-bolt maybe kill the fw800 port but that may be 2013 or 2014.

 

[theSeb]

What I meant is that none of those products are made by Apple, whether they are TB or USB 3 based. Also Apple gets no royalties from TB devices. Whether they sell USB 3 or TB based stuff on the Apple store makes no difference to them.

 

[philipma1957]

What I meant is that none of those products are made by Apple, whether they are TB or USB 3 based. Also Apple gets no royalties from TB devices. Whether they sell USB 3 or TB based stuff on the Apple store makes no difference to them.

Right the only t-bolt products they sell that are their own are computers and cables. All other t-bolt gear is from other companies. They do not care about selling you a lacie lbd or some usb3 ssd. The money for them is internal bto ssds. They will lose the ability to sell them at the huge markup that they do if they Give USB3.



If you buy an iMac/server mini today there are 2 ways (really 3 diy one in yourself) to get an ssd buy an external t-bolt drive of some type = big cash or put in the internal BTO option = big money.

Most of us want low cost USB3 to add an external ssd cheap and easy.

An external t-bolt is easy but not cheap. So delay USB3 for one more year and Apple stands to make more not less money.

give a booting USB3 port now and apple will not be able to sell bto ssds as internal options.
___________________________________________________________________________
Why put in a 256gb internal ssd in your iMac for 600 when you can have an external 480gb usb3 ssd for 629?

Why buy a mini server with the 256gb ssd and the 750gb hdd for 550 extra when you can add a 240gb usb3 ssd for 319?
____________________________________________________________________________


Once again I rather be wrong and apple gives the usb3 sooner (2012) then later (2013 or 2014).

 

[NewbieCanada]

Close to what I mean. Today If I own a mac the fastest way to interface with windows is to run it on my mac via bootcamp, VmWare fusion or parallels. If I want to use windows and I have a mac and a windows pc they can't transfer on a quick interface (usb3).

Lets say I have a usb 3 external a 2tb drive in windows format filled with info lets say my mac mini has windows 7 via vmware fusion. If I want access to the windows info on that drive while running windows on my mac I can use it today but at usb2 speeds. This means if I love my macs when the time comes to buy a second computer why buy a pc when it can't run lion or snow osx or mountain lion. My second computer will be another mac.

Apple does not stand to make any more money with usb3. Here is an example. You recorded 2tb of tv shows in a windows setup then transferred it to an external drive via usb3. You did this on your system at work which is a Dell so you can copy it for your home setup.

Except if I have that Dell at work it's because I have no choice anyway.

People who have Macs and PCs at home, also have a NETWORK. I never, ever, ever, use USB to transfer between my Windows PCs and my Macs. Nor would I if they all had USB 3 - or even Thunderbolt. They're all connected to the same network and that's how I transfer files.

But let's say I had a Mac at home and at work and needed to transfer those videos. I'm not going to buy a Thunderbolt drive to do it, I'm going to use a USB flash drive or USB hard drive. Whether it's USB 2 or USB 3.

The idea that having USB 3 on Macs will encourage Windows ownership is the most convoluted piece of non-logic I've ever heard.

 

[philipma1957]

Except if I have that Dell at work it's because I have no choice anyway.

People who have Macs and PCs at home, also have a NETWORK. I never, ever, ever, use USB to transfer between my Windows PCs and my Macs. Nor would I if they all had USB 3 - or even Thunderbolt. They're all connected to the same network and that's how I transfer files.

But let's say I had a Mac at home and at work and needed to transfer those videos. I'm not going to buy a Thunderbolt drive to do it, I'm going to use a USB flash drive or USB hard drive. Whether it's USB 2 or USB 3.

The idea that having USB 3 on Macs will encourage Windows ownership is the most convoluted piece of non-logic I've ever heard.

My arguements are simply saying that the better financial gain for apple is to delay USB3 until 2013. Remember I want USB3 as much as you do.
Give me an example of why apple would give you Usb3 this time 2012>

Do not give the one that it is free for them to do it since the board will have usb3 on it. I know that the chipset support it natively.

How will giving USB3 this year 2012 help them make more money is what I am asking.


I am not saying they can't do it. I am not saying That I don't want them to do it.

I am saying that they make more money holding it back till 2013.

I gave more then one reason why they would make more money with the delay.

I can give you this reason if they put in USB3 more people will buy the machine because it has the extra feature of USB3. This is a good selling point. Remember that selling more macs each year is already happening. So do they want more profit on the 10,000,000 new macs that have no USB3 but sell more BTO ssd's or do they sell 10,500,000 macs with USB3 and on each one make a little less because they drop the BTO ssd sales. They have a lot of suits asking these questions. My guess is they say eff it lets delay usb3 for another year and push t-bolt and internal ssd's.

 

[dissolve]

Apologies for jumping on this thread for something possibly unrelated, but can MacRumors staff explain to us why in the Buyer's guide the Mac mini is denoted as "Don't Buy" with refresh expected soon whilst other products sporting the mobile intel chips like MBA and the entry level MBP remain in amber?

Is it not only the Mac mini server that uses a quad core processor (which were the ones released on the ivy bridge platform recently). Do we expect all mac minis to have quad core processors for the refresh?

https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//

AFAIK the buyers guide is only based on previous release dates. The current suggestion is driven by the average cycle of updates, not any current developments or rumors.

I think many doubt a full quad-core 2012 mini lineup, which is one reason we'll likely be waiting until June or later for Intel to release the rest of the IVB processors that include the dual-core chips.

 

[Sheppard]

This is my view.

Right the only t-bolt products they sell that are their own are computers and cables. All other t-bolt gear is from other companies. They do not care about selling you a lacie lbd or some usb3 ssd. The money for them is internal bto ssds. They will lose the ability to sell them at the huge markup that they do if they Give USB3.



If you buy an iMac/server mini today there are 2 ways (really 3 diy one in yourself) to get an ssd buy an external t-bolt drive of some type = big cash or put in the internal BTO option = big money.

Most of us want low cost USB3 to add an external ssd cheap and easy.

An external t-bolt is easy but not cheap. So delay USB3 for one more year and Apple stands to make more not less money.

give a booting USB3 port now and apple will not be able to sell bto ssds as internal options.
___________________________________________________________________________
Why put in a 256gb internal ssd in your iMac for 600 when you can have an external 480gb usb3 ssd for 629?

Why buy a mini server with the 256gb ssd and the 750gb hdd for 550 extra when you can add a 240gb usb3 ssd for 319?
____________________________________________________________________________


Once again I rather be wrong and apple gives the usb3 sooner (2012) then later (2013 or 2014).

Apple purchased Anobit to bring in-house SSD's to the mac line-up. This means the cost will be brought down dramatically so competing with USB3 devices shouldn't be a problem. Who wants an external sitting next to or on there Mini when they can have it built in instead where OSX will boot quicker and everyday tasks are quicker. Excuse me for being naive, but has Apple ever put CPU's into Macs and ignored technology natively available??

 

[philipma1957]

Apple purchased Anobit to bring in-house SSD's to the mac line-up. This means the cost will be brought down dramatically so competing with USB3 devices shouldn't be a problem. Who wants an external sitting next to or on there Mini when they can have it built in instead where OSX will boot quicker and everyday tasks are quicker. Excuse me for being naive, but has Apple ever put CPU's into Macs and ignored technology natively available??

Not sure about tech being ignored in any particular cpu. Remember that almost every mobo is custom in a mac.

 

[Ice Dragon]

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26957-possible-reason-for-ivy-bridge-heat-problem-explained <--- Thoughts on this?

 

[theSeb]

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26957-possible-reason-for-ivy-bridge-heat-problem-explained <--- Thoughts on this?

We can't overclock Mac computers so I don't have any strong feelings one way or another.

 

[philipma1957]

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26957-possible-reason-for-ivy-bridge-heat-problem-explained <--- Thoughts on this?

the iv cpu paste issue has been tested by few people no real improvement with paste or no paste. All this heat issue is about die size a smaller area means the energy is more concentrated and harder to remove.

most of these issues are for overclocking not standard speed. personally this cpu will not be a big improvement on the cpu end. core 2 duo to sandybridge was a big jump . sandybridge to ivy bridge will not mean much other then that the 4000 graphics may be a lot nicer the the 3000 graphics.
The best case of nice would be the 4000 graphics are pretty good and they give us native USB3.


I built 2 pc's with this chip



http://ark.intel.com/products/52212/Intel-Core-i5-2500T-Processor-(6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz)




the replacement chip in ivy bridge is not out yet but it would be the i5-3570t


http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core i5-3570T.html

this chip is not a lot better then the i5 2500t if you don't count the 4000 graphics.


I think a lot of people will be disappointed if these new macs do not have usb3 as the cpu improvement will not be much as c2d to sb.