2560x1440 monitors aren't a bad substitute for the money.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
2560x1440 monitors aren't a bad substitute for the money.
Agree 100%. I bought a new Air for 650$ but this is the first in 10 years of Apple refurb computers. I also buy refurb iphones and iPads.
[doublepost=1522353078][/doublepost]
I find 2560x1440 too small for 27". I do have a 4K dell that I use at 2048x1500ish and it's comfortable.
If Apple updated the Air, as infrequently as the mini, it wouldn't sell either.There are credible rumors of a new MacBook Air (or another machine to fill its niche), but it wasn't quite ready in time for the recent event. The MBA has seen a few spec bumps since 2014 and Apple also gave the base model MBA 8gb of RAM. Nothing like that on the Mini and there really aren't any rumors of an update or replacement.
So I don't think you can put the MBA and Mini in the same category. Apple has kept the MBA because it sells so well. Clearly, that isn't the case with the Mini.
Plus, I don't really consider the MBAir's 2017 'update' to a 2015 Q1 CPU, a real update.
The MBA sells because it's the cheapest laptop in the range regardless of specs. Without direct competition provided by the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer et al Apple can update at their own pace - their plans remain their plans.
The 2017 'update' does smack a bit of the Mac Pro 2010-2012 'upgrade' which - for me - appears to have been driven by Intel discontinuing the CPUs used in the 2010 - the 2012 was largely just a drop in replacement for the 2010.
The 2012 itself was only discontinued short of the release of the new Mac Pro in 2013 because EU regulations didn't like the exposed internal fan cooling blades. There was therefore a gap of months between the Mac Pro 2012 which stopped being sold in Europe in March 2013 and the new Mac Pro 2013 which came out at the end of 2013.
Back to laptops - Apple sold the 2012 non retina MacBook Pro model (with a price cut here and there) in one form or another for over four years. It served as the cheapest MacBook Pro you could buy for much of that. Unlike the Mac Pro update Intel haven't yet discontinued the Ivy Bridge CPU (also used in the base 2012 Mac Mini) so there might have been other reasons for Apple to drop the veteran laptop.
The ARM Macs are for everybody else!I didn't think you would consider a Mac without ARM CPU.
Other than CPU and iGPU updates, the MacBook Air has not really been updated since the Mid-2012 model. The display is the same. The front-side bus is the same. The RAM speed is the same. I believe the SSD interface is the same. The Mid-2013 model added 802.11ac and the Mid-2015 model went to TB2, but that is about it.
I have a 2013 MBA and it was a major update, the CPU change almost doubled the battery run time - very significant for a laptop. The SSD also almost doubled in speed compared to the 2012 model, and (as you noted) 802.11ac wifi was also a big upgrade. None of the following updates to the MBA were as significant, they went to an even faster SSD in 2015 (IIRC) and they made 8gb RAM standard without changing the price of the base model. Geez, if Apple even slightly cared about the Mini, they could have increased the base RAM to 8gb also, that doesn't require any re-tooling....
My Mini is a refurb (2012, i7, 2.3GHz). I got it about a year after it was released, and when the exchange rate was very favourable. Price $760 AUD.
It has easily been both the best computer, and best value computer, I have personally owned. Hard to see it ever being beaten for best value.
I look at the price/specs combo for the top model of the current Mini, and I think Linux box.
It has easily been both the best computer, and best value computer, I have personally owned. Hard to see it ever being beaten for best value.
I look at the price/specs combo for the top model of the current Mini, and I think Linux box.
Thats because 2560x1600 were mostly discontinued in 2008. I know because I bought one on clearance in 2008 and was unable to get another one like it. The same exact models were available in 2560x1440 with some of the top chopped off. I have no idea why the market preferred to have 160 fewer vertical pixels.
Aspect ratio. 16:9 is the standard these days.
16:10 are a bit old hat. NEC still sell a 30" 2560x1600.
People started watching a lot of movies on their computers. Aspect ratio changed to eliminate stretching or that apparently ugly blank space at top and bottom of your videos.
Nope. It was because the suppliers could get a few more dollars per wafer with the crappy useless 16x9 ratio. A damn shame.
I agree that 16:9 is good for video. But 16:10 is nice for things like CAD, PhotoShop, etc.. My 2012 quad mini is connected to a 23" Apple Cinema Display that I bought in 2006 with a PowerMac G5. It was really expensive back then but turned out to be a good investment and the image still looks surprisngly good. I use the quad for video editing so it also has a Sony production monitor with a BlackMagic UltraStudio as an external video device.
My NEC Spectraview is 16:10. But it's connected to a 21" iMac, as I prefer a duel screen set up.
Of course what I'd really like is a pair of monitors connected to a new Mac mini!
I'm looking for "lowest power" egpu solution for mm2012.
So, I can just keep it running all-day, without eating lot of electricity (why I swapped from mp3,1 to mm2012).
Now that we know for sure, that there will be no official support (just downloaded 10.13.3combo for future use), I'd guess there will be soon lots of unsupported egpu-boxes on 2nd hand market. I don't need 3d-power, I want just push more Mpx in 2d world.
AMD might the wiser choice now, so would it be RX 560 (60-80 W)?
What model?
And what egpu box would be cheapest but fine?
(It doesn't even have to be closed box, I have mini in a filter ventilated rack, where my mp also lies, now off for 99,9% of time.)
I'd suggest we'll have to live with it as the makers of the 16:9 large panels are utilising economies of scale to make these size panels for everyone to use. 16:10 will be more expensive these days - if anyone is still using them.
Apple are sticking to 16:10 for laptops for now though. Their only 16:9 modern laptop, the 11" MBA, was driven by available panels for the budget they had.
And Apple are increasingly looking isolated as one of the only manufacturers that sell 16:10 panels in their laptops - in their case they are one of the biggest volume buyers at that size making it less exorbitantly pricey for them. I'm sure there would be an uproar if the laptops switched to 16:9.
Mac Mini will be along shortly. Just reclaiming the thread. That is all.
I don't need insanely powerful for a Mini -- that's not the market. But I want something with a decent quad core processor, sufficient SSD and RAM, and TB3/USB-C. With that, there's enough external expansion capability with USB-C storage and eGPU support through TB3 that it would be a pretty good computing experience and yes, an adequate Mac gaming platform.
Only the MBP supports TB3 for external GPUs in the laptop line up. I'm surprised that the MB doesn't support them. That being the case, it suggests to me that the Mini wouldn't support TB3 until after the third gen rMB. So when TB3 comes to the rMB is generally the timeframe we might see a new Mini. That being said, how does the ARM Mini fit into this strategy? I think it suggests Apple's Mac strategy is a total mess.
The other concern for me is that Apple Marketing seems to be trying to position the iPad Pro as a low-end desktop replacement. One can wonder if that means pushing the Mini out of their plans at all. I want to run Mac OS on my desktop, not iOS. There's a reason (OK, several) why Windows 8 was such a flop, and one of the big ones was trying to put a phone/tablet OS interface into laptops and desktops. I don't want to see Apple go down that road, not for years to come anyway. Eventually I think the desktop and mobile experiences will merge and meet in the middle somewhere, but we won't be there for a few years.