The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[MRrainer]

The problem with building your own system (with anything but Windows) is the amount of choice.
There's so much crappy cases out there, so many motherboards and so many different fans.

I recently stumbled upon the Lenovo Think Station 320 Tiny.
It has a NV P600 GPU, 4 mDP 1.4, 2 mDP 1.2, 5 USB3, 1 RJ45 connectors and integrated VLAN - with an i7 CPU.
It has socketed RAM, socketed M.2 SSD. Even the GPU is socketed.

It's not cheap, but its ability to address six displays (four by the GPU and two by the iGPU) would be a real killer.

There's a long review in German here:
https://www.golem.de/news/lenovo-th...ung-in-der-zigarrenschachtel-1709-129768.html

with lot's of pictures. I'm sure you can run it through Google Translate if you're interested in the words...

I could build an absolutely dope video-wall of 3*2 displays (not sure what combined resolution this thing could address)

If it's the same P600 than here:
https://images.nvidia.com/content/p...-Quadro-Pascal-P600-US-03Feb17-NV-fnl-WEB.pdf

Apple has a lot to catch up with...

I run Linux at work - but I really love the way macOS works.

 

[sleconte]

I don't really ask people if what I do is ok - tech support wise.
I just ask them in vague terms what they want done. This or that working.
Generally they go from from older to Windows 10.
Apple? hahahaha when in 2016-2017 did you matter to me.

I don't remember writing that, guess I did.
As for new mac Mini - will never happen!

 

[Boyd01]

I do take a lot of photos which is why it is hard to give the mini's up.

a 2011 with a gpu
a 2012 with discrete

Are you sure about that? I thought all the 2012 Mini's had integrated graphics. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/58834/discrete-graphics

"Definition of: discrete graphics
A separate graphics subsystem in a computer. Discrete graphics may refer to a stand-alone graphics card plugged into a motherboard slot or a separate GPU chip on the motherboard. Contrast with integrated graphics."

 

[philipma1957]

Are you sure about that? I thought all the 2012 Mini's had integrated graphics. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/58834/discrete-graphics

"Definition of: discrete graphics
A separate graphics subsystem in a computer. Discrete graphics may refer to a stand-alone graphics card plugged into a motherboard slot or a separate GPU chip on the motherboard. Contrast with integrated graphics."

[doublepost=1507398876][/doublepost]an error on my part my 2012 is integrated as is my 2014

my 2011 is discrete

 

[ziggy29]

a real shame what they did with desk top basically killing the mini and the mac pro to make you buy the iMac.
the iMac died and they killed the mac mini and mac pro to bring the iMac back to life.
But at 999 an iPhone what do they care.

I'm sure the iMacs are fine machines. But I don't want to be forced to buy a new display every time I get a new machine, or be locked in to the display if I want a different one. (Yes, eGPU technology may start changing that but then the economics are pretty bad, and an iMac plus an extra (say 24" +) display PLUS the eGPU enclosure is a lot of real estate.

I'm intrigued as to how the eGPU will impact Apple's strategy. It certainly would make a new Mini more compelling in theory, but they probably figure that would cannibalize iMac sales so it may be a no-go. Frankly I don't think the Mini will be in Apple's plans any more. I think the eGPU will mostly be offered up as an accessory to a laptop, for gamers and graphics professionals who want the portability of a laptop but the ability to have a strong rig on the desktop (much as Dell did with the external GPU boxes for Alienware laptops). I suspect it will be aimed most at the MBP crowd, but we'll see. I'd love a "new" Mini with a quad i7, 16 GB of RAM, an SSD and TB3 driving a solid eGPU solution. But I don't think such a machine will come from Cupertino. I am enjoying the eGPU on my quad i7 2012 Mini, though part of me thinks I should get a new MBP funded by selling the Mini which is still selling for almost what it cost new. That quad i7 in the 2012 Mini is still a good one, and with an SSD it still flies -- and even with a TB1 connection my eGPU has no problem driving 60 FPS at 1080p for many games.

 

[toke lahti]

I'm sure the iMacs are fine machines. But I don't want to be forced to buy a new display every time I get a new machine, or be locked in to the display if I want a different one. (Yes, eGPU technology may start changing that but then the economics are pretty bad, and an iMac plus an extra (say 24" +) display PLUS the eGPU enclosure is a lot of real estate.

I'm intrigued as to how the eGPU will impact Apple's strategy. It certainly would make a new Mini more compelling in theory, but they probably figure that would cannibalize iMac sales so it may be a no-go. Frankly I don't think the Mini will be in Apple's plans any more. I think the eGPU will mostly be offered up as an accessory to a laptop, for gamers and graphics professionals who want the portability of a laptop but the ability to have a strong rig on the desktop (much as Dell did with the external GPU boxes for Alienware laptops). I suspect it will be aimed most at the MBP crowd, but we'll see. I'd love a "new" Mini with a quad i7, 16 GB of RAM, an SSD and TB3 driving a solid eGPU solution. But I don't think such a machine will come from Cupertino. I am enjoying the eGPU on my quad i7 2012 Mini, though part of me thinks I should get a new MBP funded by selling the Mini which is still selling for almost what it cost new. That quad i7 in the 2012 Mini is still a good one, and with an SSD it still flies -- and even with a TB1 connection my eGPU has no problem driving 60 FPS at 1080p for many games.

I'd like to have an eGPU to my 2012 mini.
What choises there are? How much they cost? Any differences on how solid they are? Any hickupps when updating the OS?

 

[ziggy29]

I'd like to have an eGPU to my 2012 mini.
What choises there are? How much they cost? Any differences on how solid they are? Any hickupps when updating the OS?

It is nice but not necessarily cost effective depending on what you are doing. I bought mine because I'd like to be able to sell off a PC build I made a few months ago since I'd much rather use a Mac, and this does make it more possible.

I'd look here for your answers:

https://egpu.io/setup-guide-external-graphics-card-mac/

Short answer is -- some Radeon cards (mostly the RX480, RX580 and Vega families) are supported in High Sierra as plug and play out of the box, but the Vega may draw too much power for most eGPU enclosures. The AMD Radeon cards seem to be more hit and miss in Sierra (10.12) while nVidia cards work pretty well in 10.12.6 with the most recent driver for that OS -- but right now the nVidia cards don't seem to work in High Sierra at all while the AMD Radeon family is reportedly plug and play. Sort of confusing, sort of ironic in a sense.

I'm currently using a GTX 1050 Ti in a Mantiz Venus box under 10.12.6 with an SSD and it works great -- with that card, the TB1 bottleneck isn't a major issue. That enclosure is a little more expensive than some others (US$399) but it has a lot of useful ports built in (several USB ports, Ethernet port and a SATA port) and has a 550 watt power supply so it can drive powerful video cards and even charge laptops. For me, with that enclosure and OS 10.12.6, following the instructions at the link above made it trivial. I haven't done it yet, but you could put an SSD into the enclosure as well, but with a TB1 connection I think it would cannibalize too much bandwidth from the GPU (though I don't think that would be an issue with a Mac that had native TB3). I

I'm loving it, and looking forward to seeing where this technology goes. I can actually play some current games and get 60 FPS on medium-high settings; even with just TB1 I think the eGPU bought me a year or two to see how the technology matures. And I'm pretty sure that I can use this setup on the next computer upgrade.

 

[Crosscreek]

It is nice but not necessarily cost effective depending on what you are doing. I bought mine because I'd like to be able to sell off a PC build I made a few months ago since I'd much rather use a Mac, and this does make it more possible.

I'd look here for your answers:

https://egpu.io/setup-guide-external-graphics-card-mac/

Short answer is -- some Radeon cards (mostly the RX480, RX580 and Vega families) are supported in High Sierra as plug and play out of the box, but the Vega may draw too much power for most eGPU enclosures. The Radeon cards seem to be more problematic in Sierra (10.12) while nVidia cards work pretty well in 10.12.6 with the most recent driver for that OS -- but right now the nVidia cards don't seem to work in High Sierra at all.

I'm currently using a GTX 1050 Ti in a Mantiz Venus box under 10.12.6 with an SSD and it works great -- with that card, the TB1 bottleneck isn't a major issue. It's a little more expensive than some others (US$399) but it has a lot of useful ports built in (several USB ports, USB port and a SATA port) and has a 550 watt power supply so it can drive powerful video cards and even charge laptops. For me, with that enclosure and OS 10.12.6, following the instructions at the link above made it trivial. I haven't done it yet, but you could put an SSD into the enclosure as well, but with a TB1 connection I think it would cannibalize too much bandwidth from the GPU (though I don't think that would be an issue with a Mac that had native TB3).

I'm loving it, and looking forward to seeing where this technology goes. I can actually play some current games and get 60 FPS on medium-high settings; even with just TB1 I think the eGPU bought me a year or two to see how the technology matures. And I'm pretty sure that I can use this setup on the next computer upgrade.

There are drivers now for Nvidia High Sierra. I have a GTX 1070 running in my hack.


http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/125379/en-us

 

[ziggy29]

There are drivers now for Nvidia High Sierra. I have a GTX 1070 running in my hack.
http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults.aspx/125379/en-us

I know this driver exists. I've just not heard much success in getting this to work with an eGPU solution, as the usual scripts designed to install them haven't worked well in High Sierra. The link I quoted above even specifically points to another tutorial suggesting that people with nVidia cards not yet upgrade to High Sierra.

Would love to hear how you did it.

 

[Crosscreek]

I know this driver exists. I've just not heard much success in getting this to work with an eGPU solution, as the usual scripts designed to install them haven't worked well in High Sierra. The link I quoted above even specifically points to another tutorial suggesting that people with nVidia cards not yet upgrade to High Sierra.

Would love to hear how you did it.

I just had to install the drivers with sip enabled and after oking unsigned kext in settings, security, general I disabled sip to boot with acceleration.
I use Clover Configuration for my hack to enable and disable sip. On a regular Mac you have to use the recover at boot to set sip.

 

[Miat]

I just had to install the drivers with sip enabled and after oking unsigned kext in settings, security, general I disabled sip to boot with acceleration.
I use Clover Configuration for my hack to enable and disable sip. On a regular Mac you have to use the recover at boot to set sip.

And this is why Hacks will never threaten Apple, and why they are happy to leave the Hack community alone. Just waaaaay too geeky and involved a process for the average user.

 

[Crosscreek]

And this is why Hacks will never threaten Apple, and why they are happy to leave the Hack community alone. Just waaaaay too geeky and involved a process for the average user.

It has become much more difficult for enabling Nvidia cards in 10.13.
Igpu is a breeze and AMD cards because they are supported by Apple.

 

[jpietrzak8]

And this is why Hacks will never threaten Apple, and why they are happy to leave the Hack community alone. Just waaaaay too geeky and involved a process for the average user.

But this is also what confuses me about Apple's business strategy. If they really wanted to, they have had the power to utterly dominate the PC OS market for years. Microsoft has been making mistakes for some time now, releasing versions of Windows that nobody really likes. If Apple simply made OS X available to use on generic PCs, they could have made a significant impact on the market. Instead, it is now Apple who seems to be fading in the desktop PC world, and Microsoft has finally gotten its act together again.

The average user is going to start finding Windows PCs more usable, more flexible, and more inexpensive than Macs.

 

[ijlakw]

I'm sure the iMacs are fine machines. But I don't want to be forced to buy a new display every time I get a new machine, or be locked in to the display if I want a different one. (Yes, eGPU technology may start changing that but then the economics are pretty bad, and an iMac plus an extra (say 24" +) display PLUS the eGPU enclosure is a lot of real estate.

I'm intrigued as to how the eGPU will impact Apple's strategy. It certainly would make a new Mini more compelling in theory, but they probably figure that would cannibalize iMac sales so it may be a no-go. Frankly I don't think the Mini will be in Apple's plans any more. I think the eGPU will mostly be offered up as an accessory to a laptop, for gamers and graphics professionals who want the portability of a laptop but the ability to have a strong rig on the desktop (much as Dell did with the external GPU boxes for Alienware laptops). I suspect it will be aimed most at the MBP crowd, but we'll see. I'd love a "new" Mini with a quad i7, 16 GB of RAM, an SSD and TB3 driving a solid eGPU solution. But I don't think such a machine will come from Cupertino. I am enjoying the eGPU on my quad i7 2012 Mini, though part of me thinks I should get a new MBP funded by selling the Mini which is still selling for almost what it cost new. That quad i7 in the 2012 Mini is still a good one, and with an SSD it still flies -- and even with a TB1 connection my eGPU has no problem driving 60 FPS at 1080p for many games.

If you need more than a single 27" monitor, you end up having to buy a 2nd monitor that does not match the iMac monitor. Second.... if you a prefer non-glossy monitor, you're sol.

And... if you are a pro and you need to have a backup, if you lose the GPU or the monitor, or any component for that matter, you have no choice but to schedule a time at the genius bar, usually taking a day or two and then you have to leave it and get it repaired. And through all this time.... you're down unless you have a mirrored 2nd system waiting in the closet. It's absolutely ridiculous to say the iMac is a pro solution. Time is money... and any downtime is lost revenue and productivity.

 

[Count Blah]

[doublepost=1507398876][/doublepost]an error on my part my 2012 is integrated as is my 2014

my 2011 is discrete

With an artificially LOW amount of V-RAM, to ensure it didn’t take sales away from the MBP and iMac.

Just pointing that out, for those who think Apple doesn’t consider that, in coming up with the different Macs.

 

[Crosscreek]

But this is also what confuses me about Apple's business strategy. If they really wanted to, they have had the power to utterly dominate the PC OS market for years. Microsoft has been making mistakes for some time now, releasing versions of Windows that nobody really likes. If Apple simply made OS X available to use on generic PCs, they could have made a significant impact on the market. Instead, it is now Apple who seems to be fading in the desktop PC world, and Microsoft has finally gotten its act together again.

The average user is going to start finding Windows PCs more usable, more flexible, and more inexpensive than Macs.

I barely use my hack any more. I keep it updated and play in its beauty but I find Windows 10 much more flexible and useful but I not an arty sort of person editing video or photos. I more of the engineering and real world problem solving kind which Windows provides the tools to use.
Between Linux and Windows 10 I can easily do with out OS X but I still admire its beauty and I enjoy hacking it on my machine.

 

[CWallace]

But this is also what confuses me about Apple's business strategy. If they really wanted to, they have had the power to utterly dominate the PC OS market for years.

I'm going to be polite and just note that such a thing has been, is, and will be impossible.

Microsoft's licensing deals are so ingrained in the business world that even if they never sold another consumer license, they would still dominate. And beyond the license deals, business is so dependent on both Microsoft languages (like Visual Basic) for their in-house applications as well as Microsoft desktop applications (Office) and server applications (Exchange, SQL Server, VM, etc.) that they cannot switch to anything else (be it macOS, Linux or Unix).

And as long as PC makers are willing to make $300 "good enough" PCs, the vast majority consumers will continue to run Windows (by default).

 

[DeepIn2U]

This thread completely reminds me of ...

I'm going to be polite and just note that such a thing has been, is, and will be impossible.

Microsoft's licensing deals are so ingrained in the business world that even if they never sold another consumer license, they would still dominate. And beyond the license deals, business is so dependent on both Microsoft languages (like Visual Basic) for their in-house applications as well as Microsoft desktop applications (Office) and server applications (Exchange, SQL Server, VM, etc.) that they cannot switch to anything else (be it macOS, Linux or Unix).

And as long as PC makers are willing to make $300 "good enough" PCs, the vast majority consumers will continue to run Windows (by default).

This depends mostly on the nature of the enterprise and location geographically.

Example:
Germany's federal government, and health and educational arms ALL uses SUSE Linux and Linux created appliations.

Educational schools - roughly 10+ in the Western coast of USA use GMAIL for email services. i will agree on just how powerful microsoft is though.

 

[jpietrzak8]

Microsoft's licensing deals are so ingrained in the business world that even if they never sold another consumer license, they would still dominate. And beyond the license deals, business is so dependent on both Microsoft languages (like Visual Basic) for their in-house applications as well as Microsoft desktop applications (Office) and server applications (Exchange, SQL Server, VM, etc.) that they cannot switch to anything else (be it macOS, Linux or Unix).

Yeah, it really is too bad that you can't run Microsoft Office on a Mac.

But that's the thing; for the better part of a decade, Microsoft was annoying all of its customers with products like Windows 8, inconvenient licensing schemes, strange hardware requirements, and the like. Apple, on the other hand, had a really good thing with OS X; people were switching.

And as long as PC makers are willing to make $300 "good enough" PCs, the vast majority consumers will continue to run Windows (by default).

There's no reason you can't compete against a $300 Windows PC with a $300 macOS PC. Microsoft gives special deals to manufacturers who only sell Windows boxes, and there's no reason Apple couldn't do the same thing.

 

[ziggy29]

There's no reason you can't compete against a $300 Windows PC with a $300 macOS PC. Microsoft gives special deals to manufacturers who only sell Windows boxes, and there's no reason Apple couldn't do the same thing.

There *is* a reason. Sure, you could say corporate greed is a part of it, but Apple has always highly valued tight integration of hardware and software, where as the Windows (and Linux) world is closer to the Wild West with a mish-mash of drivers and such. That said, Apple moved to a free OS upgrade model with (I think) Mountain Lion, and now the Mac OS is the carrot to sell the premium-priced hardware.

People can differ as to how much they value that tight integration, and I think that's why they take baby steps in how they will support non-proprietary hardware, such as eGPUs in High Sierra. If Apple were to even partially go in the route you were suggesting, they would have to start charging for the OS again.

 

[jpietrzak8]

If Apple were to even partially go in the route you were suggesting, they would have to start charging for the OS again.

And? In general, Microsoft also follows the "free upgrade" policy (although the Windows 10 free upgrade was a limited-time-only offer). The pricing for Windows varies wildly, from unbelievably expensive single-license retail pricing to cheap-as-dirt licenses for manufacturers selling PCs in volume.

There's no reason Apple couldn't use the same mechanism. Besides, they're mostly a mobile devices company these days, I would imagine they'd be happy to migrate out of the desktop PC business at this point.

 

[CWallace]

Yeah, it really is too bad that you can't run Microsoft Office on a Mac.

Hey, for a time there was real talk that Microsoft was going to kill the Mac Software division. Once Office went to a subscription service, the steady licensing revenue (there is that word again) made it worthwhile to keep going. Same with why the pushed Office 365 to iOS.

But that's the thing; for the better part of a decade, Microsoft was annoying all of its customers with products like Windows 8, inconvenient licensing schemes, strange hardware requirements, and the like.

Yes, nobody really liked Vista nor Windows 8, but Microsoft quickly resolved both with Windows 7 and Windows 10. And since you paid for a copy of Windows OS whether you wanted to or not if you bought from a PC OEM, people just held their nose and carried on.

Apple, on the other hand, had a really good thing with OS X; people were switching. There's no reason you can't compete against a $300 Windows PC with a $300 macOS PC. Microsoft gives special deals to manufacturers who only sell Windows boxes, and there's no reason Apple couldn't do the same thing.

At least in the past those licensing agreements often mean a PC has to ship with a copy of Windows whether or not the customer wanted it or not. One of the companies I worked for bought HP workstations with Red Hat Linux on it and they were more expensive than buying it with Windows because HP's contract with Microsoft required a copy be shipped with each PC. So you paid for the Windows license you threw away plus you paid for the Red Hat license.

As for selling a license for "cheap", Apple right now generates around $1500 in average revenue for each Mac they sell, to the tune of nearly $6 billion a quarter on over 4 million units. If they just matched the $200 of Windows 10 Pro, Apple would need to move 30 million copies of macOS a quarter to match the revenue Macs bring in. Now yes, the profit margin on those licenses would be significantly higher since software costs nothing to duplicate whereas a Mac costs a fair bit to duplicate. But Apple would still have to move a shedload of macOS licenses every quarter to make up for the loss in Mac sales due to cheaper PC OEM hardware.

And then there is the amount of work Apple would need to do to make macOS run on any type of PC hardware. One of the reasons Windows 8 and earlier were such nightmares was because of all the legacy code in them to support hardware like serial ports and parallel ports and SCSI and Token Ring and god knows what else. Plus all the 16-bit Windows applications. Windows 10 has significantly improved stability by tossing much of that out and forcing people to just buy a "modern" PC with USB-only peripherals, but folks still use converters to get their legacy non-USB hardware to connect and Windows still tries to support them in many ways.

Look at the Hackintosh community, where you either need to use a very narrow list of hardware similar to what is already in the Mac line or use modified/hacked drivers for the stuff that is not. If someone is paying $200 for a retail copy of macOS, they're going to want their hardware to be supported. And adding in all that support is going to make macOS less stable and open new vectors for malware infection, making it overall less secure.

And more stability and more security is one of the main reasons I switched from Windows to macOS in the first place.

 

[Miat]

But this is also what confuses me about Apple's business strategy. If they really wanted to, they have had the power to utterly dominate the PC OS market for years. Microsoft has been making mistakes for some time now, releasing versions of Windows that nobody really likes. If Apple simply made OS X available to use on generic PCs, they could have made a significant impact on the market. Instead, it is now Apple who seems to be fading in the desktop PC world, and Microsoft has finally gotten its act together again.

Apple have sunk serious resources into a major development of their desktop/laptop system (High Sierra), with a whole new file system, and eGPU capacity.

Why do that while also letting their desktop hardware wallow and fall well behind?

 

[jpietrzak8]

Apple have sunk serious resources into a major development of their desktop/laptop system (High Sierra), with a whole new file system, and eGPU capacity.

Why do that while also letting their desktop hardware wallow and fall well behind?

Yes, they are still developing macOS. But "serious" resources? Development of a new file system takes years; that wouldn't have been something they just started yesterday, but rather back when the Mac was a more serious effort. And support for graphics displays over Thunderbolt is implemented by Intel; all Apple needs to do is include drivers for various graphics cards, which is something they already do (and every other operating system does). That doesn't require serious resources to implement.

Seriously, almost since Apple made the move to Intel CPUs, they'd had a significant advantage over Microsoft in software and parity in hardware. And they squandered that lead. Now, they have no significant advantage in software, and are back to a deficit in hardware.

 

[Crosscreek]

Apple have sunk serious resources into a major development of their desktop/laptop system (High Sierra), with a whole new file system, and eGPU capacity.

Why do that while also letting their desktop hardware wallow and fall well behind?

The new APFS for Mac is in response to make OS X compatible with I products (phones and tablets). The file system makes efficient use of flash and SSD.
Notice that it's not compatible with spinners at this time because of the nature of how the new file system stores blocks of information.