Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by hari95, Oct 26, 2013.
Thoughts on this concept? http://www.behance.net/gallery/Mac-Mini-Concept/11738591
Looks the same to me just smaller and bundled with a magic mouse. The display looks just poorly designed, just remove the bezel and call it a day. "Ultra Stackable" what does that even mean? The current ones are stackable..
Anyway if this is some sort of concept where you can link the power of multiple mini's via thunderbolt I think it is very interesting. However I think that its pretty much the same form factor as the current one.
Yeah, if you read the descriptions, by stacking them on top of one another you can multiply the processing power by means of either Thunderbolt, wifi, bluetooth or NFC.
I just glanced through it. I don't know if wifi, bluetooth or NFC would be a good idea. IMO wired would be the best.
It will have huge overheating problems. No inlet vent like in the current mini. The current mini thickness is on the edge of what they can achieve without making the thing overheat. The CPUs are running at almost 100% of their heat specs. It either needs a vent out the top like the Mac Pro or it cannot go any thinner or smaller. Or they could redesign the heat sink and fan perhaps as James Dyson did with his digital motor. Apple needs to think outside the unibody 'square' if they are to make it smaller or thinner, and I am sure that's what they are doing.
It would be great if you guys could appreciate it!
We do appreciate it but the people who make these concepts don't think about limitations. As opinio this would not work because it would get to hot. The parts of a computer are the wrong fit for this so they would need to custom engineer everything for proper ventilation. If you ventilated out the top it could not stack nicely.
Haha no, I meant hit the appreciate button on the bottom of the page!
I actually have something similar on my desk right now, my mac mini is sitting on 2 of these:
Maybe in a few years but right now that's just a pipe dream.
8x faster - Nope. I doubt the 2013/2014 refresh will even be 2x as fast as the 2012.
$499 - Maybe but that's sort of pushing it.
4 x 4 x 0.7 - lol nope that would overheat in a second and is also so small that you'd basically have to use like phone/tablet parts. Also what benefit at all does this have for anyone? If compared to a current mini how does gaining like 10 square inches of desk/shelf space help anything, especially when you'd likely sacrifice performance and user repairability?
StackUp to combine power - erm how?
Allowing computers to be stacked is not that great of an idea, as even if those cost $499, four of them are still not quite as fast as a $1999 iMac.
How is your bluetooth and wifi with two mini stacks? Are you running them with USB 3.0?
No wifi issues but my trackpad had been acting up a few weeks ago... the ministack have something to do with that?
Consistency on with the type treatment would fix the concept as an experimental piece to no end.
I'd also recommend taking a look at different type treatments on your portfolio in general, from experience you're doing what most juniors do that is design for yourself and use the fonts you like not taking into account a holistic view. The problem being the work you'd put together isn't bad but isn't defining different styles or treatment to a specific design or ux issue.
The limiting part would be specifically typography being alignments, tracking, sizes of the fonts, spacing and font choice, and colours being ramped up a very high, this I feel is holding you back from making a good portfolio for a junior designer to "wow".
connection over NFC ? you need to look up NFC, it's not a data transfer protocol as such.
it's more of an identification system (send a ID code and a receiver who can read that, small bit of information and not really data stream, just a small block of data)
Without the down vote button the up vote button is worthless. I guess thats the world we live in where everyone gets a trophy.
My old boss had an expression "When the special kid catches the ball everyone claps". I have to agree the "Appreciate" button on Behance is a celebration of mediocrity and a tool for farming rank to a certain extent.
I have my portfolio on Behance, though I hardly ever give appreciations due to the overall network now being over-run by "designers" farming appreciations. I've even had some of my own worked ripped off thus I don't use the network as much as I used to. Also had a junior designer who I was interviewing email asking why he didn't get an second interview, he called it BS and said his Behance portfolio had a tonne of like thus why he was best suited for the job.
My point if there is a vapid point to items your Behance portfolio then expect no likes.
The only advice I would reiterate, is to learn typography and balance of the page. There's just too much scrolling within the content thus the "Appreciate" button is waaaaaaay below the fold, less is usually more.
If you are wanting likes, then max of 5 images no bigger than 600px height each, generally from a usability perspective people will generally look at one or two items if they're not interested they'll exit the modal (thus no likes).
I would also end with a question, is the purpose of putting your work up is a need for validation or a need for getting your work out there and seen? In the long run the likes don't matter but using your portfolio as a method of gaining work is
That page is awful. Mediocre at best. The concept isn't remotely reasonable with current tech. We aren't going to give you pitty "Appreciations".....
You didn't even match the gray background, so you can see a defined line where you screen printed from Apple and then started your own page. So, even ignoring the fact that what you propose couldn't possibly work, you didn't even do a good job of designing your page mock up.
Ignoring the merit/idea/feasibility of the concept, the size alone is definitely possible. The Intel NUC is 4"x 4"x1.36", has modular components and is somewhat of a "budget" machine. Processor wise its the same as a Macbook Air with an i5-4250U so it definitely is not a slouch for most applications.
The argument of "Why make it smaller?" is valid for sure, but this is Apple we're talking about. Why did they shrink the Mac Pro and sacrifice performance and user upgradability? Same for the iMac, and that was just shaving an inch of depth off behind the screen.
I don't necessarily think this would be a great idea (rather see a Mini with quad core i7 and HD5200), but if the Mini were to be redesigned with U series processors like the Air and with integrated RAM/SSD it seems that 1" of height could be achieved rather easily.
Rationale for a change like this?
The U series processors may be cheaper/easier for Apple to acquire, higher margin is never a bad thing.
Maybe they bring the entry price of OSX down to $499 again.
Maybe this fits better in Apple's quest to turn their consumer products into "appliances" - buy one of these "tiny, magical, amazing" fully functioning computers and have absolutely zero maintenance/upgrades over its lifetime, from parts to software now that OS updates may be free going forward.
Computer revenue at Apple has gone from 20% in FY2011 to 15% in FY2012. We find out FY2013 today, if it drops to 10% maybe they feel the Mini has become so inconsequential to the big picture they drop it all together. Lots of ambiguity with the Mini at the moment.
I knew he was going to get a baptism of fire after this one.
Yes, the "Lego" style of building blocks for "more power." I don't say this to be sarcastic but it is very flawed though I tip my proverbial hat to you on trying to create a simple "additive" system.
Some things to consider beyond some physical challenges -
1) An entirely different OS would have to be in place where by at least one processor would have to act as an arbitrator (decision maker) as to who gets what instruction sets.
2) Why have we gone for multi-core chipsets over the last few years? The reason is that it is faster (literally) due to shorter distance and the way on chip and near chip cache can be set up.
3) What you are creating in effect is a distributed system though the proximity of each computer/cpu seems close to one another.
4) Applications - this is where it could be very interesting if multiple tasks were to be done. If typical applications of today are in use, this system would not be usable (and even if usable it would fall way behind with those apps that could exploit a magnitude of processors as opposed to one or two CPUs with multi-core).
5) if there was a computer at each users desk and they went to this "server" that is set up the way you have it, and assuming the OS was made to handle it and the application, it would possibly be a nice rendering farm in one or similar.
In the past, there were systems that were passive plane where cards with processors would put in and various ways of working with these cpu cards were put in place. It fell mostly out of favour over the years. I also remember when Macs would allow a card with an Intel cpu on board to be used so that accountants in Mac only shops could load Windows and get to their accounting software. - So many variations on a theme but the point remains that what you are trying to do has real serious challenges and very little on return.
Again - I absolutely appreciate the creativity and forward thinking for simple additive "power."
Sad but true, when like farming the concept of iterative design goes out the window.
I hate to be "that guy", but parallel processing doesn't work like that. GHz is a measure of clock speed, and adding more processing cores isn't going to make the clock tick faster. You can add up the processing power (measured in MIPS or something like that), but GHz are GHz.
Harsh but true.
+1. The bits you have designed yourself aren't in balance with the page, typography is way off and always, always, always check your spelling.
My biggest gripe (more on-track) would be that there's only one image that actually shows the size in context - next to the mouse. All other images make it look just like the original.