Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fine, cognitive dissonance is the first step to overcome a false believe. You have to unlearn everything you think you know about PCs. Because your predisposition is misleading you in your continuously failed afford to understand Macs. If Apple stops to support a technology, it practically ceases to exist. You can either accept the new reality or switch to another platform. What you can't do is to complain about what people want. Peoples opinions don't count as long they are not working at Apple.

You know, people make jokes about Apple fans being cult like, but I usually take it as an over exaggeration. Yeah, I do find that some people are a little too attached to the brand, but it's nothing too out of the ordinary. You'll find Android and Microsoft people who do it, too.

...and then someone pops in, and things get taken to a whole new level. Seriously, man. That whole post reads like Moonie propaganda. It's profoundly creepy.

But anyway, to get on topic. Where has Apple abandoned dedicated GPUs? In the Mac Pro? Nope. It's got two of them. The iMacs? Not there either. They've got Geforces in them. The MBAs never had them. The Mac Mini had one the previous generation, but it only barely qualified as such. The 15" Macbook Pro is the only place where it's missing, and you can still get it in the high end offering.

So one difference that's only seen among one model is hardly any evidence that we're seeing the start of a trend. If the next gen iMacs only come with Broadwell integrated GPUs, then you might have some slight point. But for now? No. You have nothing.

And even if they do, GPUs aren't going anywhere elsewhere. It's not like Apple has ever had a history of using strong, top of the line GPUs anyway. Yet despite that, we haven't seen the rest of the industry top out at mid-line mobile graphics cards. They're aimed mostly at a market Apple hasn't played in for years and years now.
 
More to the point, the stuff that people do on the Mac mini, web browsing, email, word processing, isn't going to benefit from a 4k monitor for the most part.
You do realize that you sound just like those guys who argued that Retina displays were pointless - that they could see their iPhone and laptop screens just fine.

Totally agree. For what 99% of the people buying Mac minis are doing, dedicated graphics isn't at all necessary.
Do you even realize the circular logic of that argument?
 
I sure hope a new Mac Mini of some kind is coming soon. I've been wanting to upgrade mine for a while.

+1 I have a mid 2011 2.5 GHZ i5 with 8GB of RAM and while its a great machine and still runs strong, I would really love stronger / faster graphics and USB 3.0... USB 2.0 is starting to show its age when it comes to bigger files.
 
Recently put 16GB (up from 8GB) in my 2.5GHz 2011 iMac with the AMD graphics. Gives the computer much more headroom. And I put an SSD in it when I originally got it. Still runs great attached to a Thunderbolt Display. I'm in no real rush to replace it, but I'd be tempted by a reasonably priced quad core.
 
Nice: still hoping for the Mac Pro case design for the Mac Mini, but that will probably stay a dream. Haswell with Iris Pro 5200 would be nice though!

My take is we'll see the new Mac Mini follow the Mac Pro design style. That is a more round shape with the same black chrome of the Mac Pro. Also, SSD is an ootion with a quad core i7 the top for the line. The height will be the same with a flat top keeping it stack-able.

To me the big, advantage of the Mac Mini is its size and ease of connection to a KVM switch. Many dual Mac / PC work desks have a Mac Mini to hide it from the work scene keeping the Apple haters away.

----------

The Mac Mini could be a VERY good dev machine. (Devs need SSDs and hi-res monitors.) They aren't only for the casual Office folks.
.


A lot of developers work on a Mac Mini since it takes up less desktop space and they still have their PC for support work. I have seen some very complex iOS and Mac OS X app build fine on a Mac Mini.
 
All of us are "saying" stuff to hopefully get the attention of anyone at Apple as to what "we" are hoping in the mini...

BUT come on guys.....we have to face the facts: Apple has changed: No more Steve and Woz thinking. It is a completely new era.

Tim Cook is steering the ship. Not to say that he is doing a bad job, but he has shown himself to be "bottom line" focused and his drive is not to put out "world changing things" just for the sake of doing it. Steve Jobs would stop production if it was not "perfect" and not focus on losing costs in the concern of putting out "the best"; Tim Cook looks at the numbers to make decisions and what is best for the share holders....better business, but no good for "changing the world".

Mac mini will stay basic. We can dream, but Apple has taken away the "dream" out of technology for the user. We can predict what the next mac mini update will be, just watch what their competitors are doing, and what will make sense for business and costs/profits.

Again, not always a bad thing...but we have to face the facts..
 
Tb2

I am still running my 2010 mini quite happily, however, a mini with TB2 appeals to me.

It potentially has access to the expansion boxes that will be built for the Mac Pro which will allow you to add as many external graphics cards, hard drives or whatever - seems like a good option for those who want a bit more but don't have a budget for a Mac Pro.

It is also perfect for a home hub or media centre which is what most consumer desktop machines are these days. A typical home setup from my observation is one desktop with the printer and NAS attached and - lots of laptops and tablets that talk to it wirelessly.

The mini is not a pro machine - never will be. Laptops are powerful enough for most people, but the screens and keyboards are a compromise because of portability. The mini simply lets you get this power in a format that allows you to choose a bigger monitor and a better keyboard in a more cost effective manner than adding them to a laptop.
 
Now that there's no need to accommodate an optical disk, I'd like to see them make it a little cube. It would be a fitting tribute to the beautiful (albeit commercially unsuccessful) Mac G4 Cube, and to a lesser extent the NeXT Cube before it.



Wait, half as many ports? Why is this a good thing? My USB ports are full up as it is on the old mini.

Because asking for any kind of update to the mini is like asking for the moon :roll eyes:

Kidding aside, I can guarantee you Apple won't put too much effort in closing the gap. You want ports, buy a Pro.
 
Wait, half as many ports? Why is this a good thing? My USB ports are full up as it is on the old mini.

You do realize that one USB controller can handle up to 127 devices, right? So really, you only need one port... well, maybe more, depending on your bandwidth needs, but the fact that your ports are "full" doesn't mean you don't have enough ports.
 
Average users have zero use for 4k and don't ever touch FCP X or Motion. You are in no way the average user. These systems are meant for entry level users. Realize that the average user does nothing but web surfing, email, word processing, plays iTunes, and maybe a little iPhoto. The specs offered by the current mini are more than enough for what their target market, and the market actually buying them, is looking for.

Why is it that everyone always assumes THEY are the target for every product on the market? "The iPhone doesn't have the very top of the line specs." That's because for what the vast majority of the users, the largest group of people buying the iPhone, it's more than enough as is. They want to make calls, go on Facebook and Twitter, send a email here and there, text, and run a couple basic apps and that's it. That's 95% of Apple's iPhone sales right there. Smart business in looking to the heart of your buyers. You're never going to satisfy everyone but you're best off going for the biggest portion.

I'm not suggesting that all the mini configs are higher end, just that there is the option to bump up - like there is now with the quad core i7s.

For sure, still offer the dual core i5 entry point, but by adding the Crystalwell option to the lineup, Apple could expand the prospective user base further than at present.

By using already utilised components there is a benefit in economies of scale. Additionally, the mini could later help dissipate any surplus supplies from the 15" rMBP when it gets a bump later this year.
 
I think they will leave the form factor as is but do the following:

Get rid of the FW800 port
Maybe add another thunderbolt port and go to Thunderbolt 2
Add 802.11AC
Add PCI-SSD as a BTO
Change over to Haswell architecture with the Iris Pro graphics


I doubt Apple will offer 32GB of memory for BTO but does Haswell support 32GB over two dimms ?

I agree with all of it except for the PCIe-SSD. Just because that means that it would have an option much faster than any of the iMacs, and they don't even offer that for them.
 
please no laptop parts (processor, harddisk, graphics etc) and i'll be the first in line.
 
What a nonsense! 4K is interesting for everyone because it makes text nice and sharp.

It would only look nice and crisp if they decided to make it allow HiDpi mode to replicate 1920 by 1080, otherwise keeping it at 3840 by 2160 would just make it look really tiny.

But yes, i would like the mac mini to allow 4k :p

----------

But anyway, to get on topic. Where has Apple abandoned dedicated GPUs? In the Mac Pro? Nope. It's got two of them. The iMacs? Not there either. They've got Geforces in them. The MBAs never had them. The Mac Mini had one the previous generation, but it only barely qualified as such. The 15" Macbook Pro is the only place where it's missing, and you can still get it in the high end offering.

Not saying that it was exactly dedicated, but the 2009 models to 2010 carried the 9400m and the 320m.

But you are right, most user don't necessarily need dedicated graphics. If they did need it for work, they would probably have a good reason to justify the cost of buying the products with dedicated graphics.
 
I would tend to argue the point about MacPro being high end.

It's high end in a very narrow field and very mediocre end in other areas.

I couldn't agree more.

The only people mindlessly defending bias against facts are using ridiculous presumptions too: -

CPU benchmarks don't count because they don't take into account the GPU?

Nonsense. The GPUs have niche uses at best. CPU power is the single reason to upgrade from a Quad to an 8-Core, a Core 2 Duo to an i7 etc... Increased bandwidth barely makes a dent in that reason too.

But it's infinitely more expandable because of Thunderbolt2

Nope. You pay half the cost of the entry level Mac Pro again just for a third party way of mounting 3 PCIe cards and 3 HDDs externally that cost nothing to add to the previous tower version.

It's only for "Professionals"

In what field? The quad Mac Pro is insignificantly faster than a 2.6Ghz i7 Mac Mini or 2.3Ghz Haswell MacBook Pro. "Professionals" is limited to niche areas of the graphics and video field.
 
Last edited:
You do realize that one USB controller can handle up to 127 devices, right? So really, you only need one port... well, maybe more, depending on your bandwidth needs, but the fact that your ports are "full" doesn't mean you don't have enough ports.

What and buy a USB hub to add to the cable clutter? No thanks.
 
Kidding aside, I can guarantee you Apple won't put too much effort in closing the gap. You want ports, buy a Pro.

I wasn't asking for more ports, just querying why you wanted half the amount of the current model! Or perhaps you meant, half as many as the Pro?? :confused:
 
lol, I live in Belgium and they definitely don't know what their talking about :)

"If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium!" :D

and

"Horum omnium MacMinissimi sunt Belgae.", the latter "quote" being a warning that Belgians will thoroughly fight back all invaders attracted by this attractive bait :)

If we are the first to get the new Mini, we'll buy them all. Belgians will be extremely popular to be friends with, very shortly.

I wouldn't put any penny on this rumor, yet it gave me a healthy smile ... and a bit of hope.
 
Apple's obsession with thinness is getting crazy. My Mac Mini hits 95C+ easily under load. Though CPU is designed to take it, I'm pretty sure CPU throttles at such high temperatures and may also affect the life of the machine. All because Apple wants crazy small device. My Mac Mini isn't even visible at the desk and I can really appreciate the small footprint and few ports it has:rolleyes:

Btw there's nothing between a Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Not everyone wants an iMac or an extremely small device at the cost of performance and ports. I'm sure a lot of people would buy something like an iMac without the built-in display. Its unlikely that'd would happen though...

/rant
 
But anyway, to get on topic. Where has Apple abandoned dedicated GPUs?
Well, there are integrated GPUs and there are intelgrated GPUs. Of course the moaning is not only about separate graphics RAM, but whether the chip itself comes from Intel or not. Because Intel hasn't much history and reputation as a GPU maker, people rather want "dedicated" Nvidia chips.

Although that's not the right definition for integrated vs. dedicated, that is what the complain is about. Around 2010 MBA, MBP 13" and Mm all had Nvidia 320M in them, and they got replaced with not much faster Intel HD3000. Since then these most-affordable Macs are on Intel and that will remain so.
 
I agree, it's one of the reasons I went for the 2012 iMac.

If you don't need some hardcore graphics, the quad-core Mac Mini is a steal compared to other Macs.

----------

:rolleyes: at all of the stupid comments wishing for better graphics in the mini. The mini never has and never will be the gaming machine you want. It's not about graphics at all. It's about a base machine that can do web browsing, email, and word processing. It's a basic machine to get people onto the OS X platform. That's it. Anyone thinking they're going to add higher-end features is an idiot yet every time they refresh, people cry about graphics and lack of higher end features.

Except for the fact that the quad-core high-end Mac Mini is a beast.

The top 2012 config has a geek bench score of 12500.

The new one will probably have 14000 which will be just below the new entry Mac Pro.

For this who just need a little processing power house without the serious graphics, the Mac Mini is an amazingly little yet powerful machine.
 
Well if you can afford to spend an extra $2,000.00 on a machine you don't really need than hats off to you. :rolleyes:

Yes I do need it, I don't need all the power it's got, but it's the Mac I need because there isn't currently another model that does meet my requirements.

Unfortunately when the only choices are "not good enough" or "too good", there's only really one option isn't there? I'm not sure why so many people seem to have an issue with new Mac Pro buyers who aren't going to be maxing out every core all day long or don't run video editing businesses. Why the elitism? - I want a high spec Mac that's going to last me a good 5 or 6 years and the new Mac Pro seems to be my best option at the moment, albeit overspecced for my current needs, unless a new high-spec Mini is on the horizon.

Some people choose to spend their money on cars that can go 200mph when they'll never drive them more than 80mph. Most people don't seem to have an issue with that.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.