The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[leo-tech]

I wish Apple would also consider creating and producing a variant of Mac Mini (or Mac Midi, or whatever) based on Xeon D processors (TDP 20-35W, 4c/8t to 8c/16t):

https://ark.intel.com/products/series/87041/Intel-Xeon-D-Processor

 

[PickUrPoison]

As I said, even though the change to slots was made, Apple doesn't want you upgrading the RAM yourself in the iMac 21.5". It's not considered user-serviceable, meaning the slots are only there for Apple's own technicians.

Why are you making an off-topic reply about upgrading RAM to my post?

I asked:

Why go to all the trouble of re-engineering a motherboard used by only one model, to use memory it doesn’t need—and that Apple doesn’t even let you CTO (the max is a 16GB config)?

The answer to the question of why Apple would re-design a BGA1352 CPU motherboard that had a max of 16GB LPDDR3 for years, to instead take 32GB of DDR4, wouldn’t seem to be “because Apple doesn't want you upgrading the RAM yourself” lol. But thanks anyway?

 

[toke lahti]

I think you all may be getting ahead of the game here. If you look at the recent history of lower end Mac refresh, Apple uses left over processors from previous generation Macs so I would expect a new Mini refresh may only get Skylake 2 core mobile processors.

This was my feeling also.
But then I checked the facts:
#12466

 

[redheeler]

The answer to the question of why Apple would re-design a BGA1352 CPU motherboard that had a max of 16GB LPDDR3 for years, to instead take 32GB of DDR4, wouldn’t seem to be “because Apple doesn't want you upgrading the RAM yourself” lol. But thanks anyway?

Perhaps the answer to your question is the same as the answer to Why does Apple ever refresh their products to be up-to-date or make them better?

The reason the 13" MacBook Pro has LPDDR3 instead of DDR4 is battery life. That's not a concern on the iMac, hence it got DDR4.

Also, nowhere is a max of 32 GB RAM advertised. You're only assuming it can take 32 GB because of socketed DDR4 instead of soldered LPDDR3. I'm not sure anyone has ever confirmed that it runs stable with 32 GB.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Perhaps the answer to your question is the same as the answer to Why does Apple ever refresh their products or make them better?

Also, nowhere is a max of 32 GB RAM advertised. You're only assuming it can take 32 GB because of socketed DDR4 instead of DDR3. I'm not sure anyone has ever confirmed that it runs stable with 32 GB.

No, you’re only assuming I’m assuming lol. OWC confirmed it and even sells a 32GB kit for it.

https://eshop.macsales.com/upgrades/imac-21-5-inch-mid-2017-2.3-ghz

It might have just been a cost saving move, who knows. But if you take that motherboard and put it in a mini case—and use all of the same processors Apple uses in the 13” MBP lineup—you’ve got an up-to-date mini with:

• Intel’s Coffee Lake i3-8109U dual-core CPU, for an inexpensive $499-ish base mini
• The new Coffee Lake 28W quads with performance up to i7 2.7/4.5GHz
• User upgradable, socketed RAM—32 GB maximum
• 4K@60Hz HDMI port
• two USB-C 3.1 Gen 2/Thunderbolt 3 ports
• four USB 3 ports
• Gb Ethernet
• 802.11ac/Bluetooth 4.2/SDXC SD Card slot/headphone jack

That’s a mini for 90% of the potential customer base.

The engineering has mostly been done, and it leverages parts that Apple will already be buying by the millions. That’s a sustainable product line for something that will sell well less than a million units a year—which would usually cause a product to be discontinued.

Just my $0.02, I’d love for people to discuss this, but most in this thread are too busy telling us what a crappy mini Apple will give us they can’t be bothered to care. They’re mostly interested in airing their feelings of being victimized, discriminated against and poorly treated by Apple.

 

[AZhappyjack]

The engineering has already been done, and it leverages parts that Apple will already be buying by the millions. That’s a sustainable product line for something that will sell well less than a million units a year—which would usually cause a product to be discontinued.

Just my $0.02, I’d love for people to discuss this, but most in this thread are too busy telling us what a crappy mini Apple will give us they can’t be bothered to care. They’re mostly interested in airing their feelings of being victimized, discriminated against and poorly treated by Apple.

I would disagree. I'd correct your statement to say that those of us whose expectations are somewhat tempered are simply realists who have been down this road before. I don't feel victimized or discriminated against, rather that I feel somewhat abandoned. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me. It's time for Apple to 'put up or shut up'... I'd love for Timmy to surprise me in a positive way, but let's just call me 'skeptical'.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I would disagree. I'd correct your statement to say that those of us whose expectations are somewhat tempered are simply realists who have been down this road before. I don't feel victimized or discriminated against, rather that I feel somewhat abandoned. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me. It's time for Apple to 'put up or shut up'... I'd love for Timmy to surprise me in a positive way, but let's just call me 'skeptical'.

I’m all for tempering expectations. Anyone who expects anything more than the current mini form factor, with the 28W CPUs of the current 13” and all the ports of the current iMac 2K are not being realistic, in my opinion.

Being realistic about price means the mini will be priced at typical Apple prices: expensive. It’s not going to be a Mac Pro-mini powerhouse on-the-cheap.

 

[DesertSurfer]

No, you’re only assuming I’m assuming lol. OWC confirmed it and even sells a 32GB kit for it.

https://eshop.macsales.com/upgrades/imac-21-5-inch-mid-2017-2.3-ghz

It might have just been a cost saving move, who knows. But if you take that motherboard and put it in a mini case—and use all of the same processors Apple uses in the 13” MBP lineup—you’ve got an up-to-date mini with:

• Intel’s current dual-core 15W CPUs, for an inexpensive $499-ish base mini
• The new Coffee Lake 28W quads with performance up to i7 2.7/4.5GHz
• User upgradable, socketed RAM—32 GB maximum
• 4K@60Hz HDMI port
• two USB-C 3.1 Gen 2/Thunderbolt 3 ports
• four USB 3 ports
• Gb Ethernet
• 802.11ac/Bluetooth 4.2/SDXC SD Card slot/headphone jack

That’s a mini for 90% of the potential customer base.

The engineering has already been done, and it leverages parts that Apple will already be buying by the millions. That’s a sustainable product line for something that will sell well less than a million units a year—which would usually cause a product to be discontinued.

Just my $0.02, I’d love for people to discuss this, but most in this thread are too busy telling us what a crappy mini Apple will give us they can’t be bothered to care. They’re mostly interested in airing their feelings of being victimized, discriminated against and poorly treated by Apple.

That would work for me. If the mini is indeed refreshed or reworked this year, those kinds of specs would be fine as far as I’m concerned. I guess we will find out fairly soon.

 

[leo-tech]

Anyone who expects anything more than the current mini form factor, with all the 15/28W CPUs of the current 13” and all the ports of the current iMac 2K are not being realistic, in my opinion...

Why not? I personally envision Mac Mini 2018 as a fanless cube, probably something like Streacom DB4, maybe a bit smaller, but not too small so it can accommodate the drives etc.

 

[PickUrPoison]

That would work for me. If the mini is indeed refreshed or reworked this year, those kinds of specs would be fine as far as I’m concerned. I guess we will find out fairly soon.

I think soon, also. Cook teased us last October but said it was too soon to share any details. In my book, anything after this October would be too late!
[doublepost=1531504739][/doublepost]

Why not? I personally envision Mac Mini 2018 as a cube, probably something like Streacom DB4 fanless chassis, maybe a bit smaller, but not too small so it can accommodate the drives etc.

I think you’re actually being serious!

That’s about as far from realistic as I can imagine for a refreshed mini . It might be your dream enclosure, but I’d venture it would only be found in Jony Ive’s nightmares. (And might cause me a few as well!)

I’m glad you at least mentioned smaller, that monstrosity is 13 times the size of the current mini

 

[HalfNelson]

You could be right, time will tell; I’m sure there will be a mini update, despite the overwhelmingly negative sentiment in this thread over the past months.

But I think the mini will keep the 28W CPUs and be based on the 13” MBP. 45W CPU + dGPU makes no sense. So I don’t expect anything but dual (15W only) and quad cores. But 32GB of DDR4 has been apparent for over a year.

When the Mini was at its peak in 2012, you could get the performance of a 15” MBP (minus the dedicated GPU), for under $1,000. The 2012 15” rMBP, with the 2.6 GHz quad-core CPU, was $2799. That year you could buy a Mac Mini, with the exact same CPU, and user upgradable RAM, for $899 (it was also a relatively simple task to swap out the 1TB hdd, for an ssd).

A Mac Mini with the same processing power as a 15” MBP for under $1,000 is not unreasonable, nor is it something Apple hasn’t already done in the past.

 

[PickUrPoison]

When the Mini was at its peak in 2012, you could get the performance of a 15” MBP (minus the dedicated GPU), for under $1,000. The 2012 15” rMBP, with the 2.6 GHz quad-core CPU, was $2799. That year you could buy a Mac Mini, with the exact same CPU, and user upgradable RAM, for $899 (it was also a relatively simple task to swap out the 1TB hdd, for an ssd).

A Mac Mini with the same processing power as a 15” MBP for under $1,000 is not unreasonable, nor is it something Apple hasn’t already done in the past.

The current mini with an i7 3.0GHz dual core, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD is $1,399. While a refreshed mini will give us a quad-core instead of that dual core, I really don’t think it’s realistic to expect price cuts.

Also, since there aren’t any 45W CPUs with GT3e graphics, I think Apple is going to stay with 28W parts. So I don’t think chips from the 15” are even on the table.

I’m sure many would disagree with either or both of the above points, but I try to separate what I think Apple will do from what I wish they would do, were I to get my perfect mini.

 

[alien3dx]

The beauty of virtualization is that you no longer need dual-boot in order to run this OS or that OS - why not run both this OS and that OS alongside, simultaneously, make them work together in harmony, bring the best of both worlds to your fingertips?

IF legal i just vm macos in 32 gb pc, no need mac it self.Not beauty of virtualization and mac is hunger of memory so want risk do vm in compress ran mode ? Not even dare unless have max ram 40 gb.

 

[sublunar]

I wish Apple would also consider creating and producing a variant of Mac Mini (or Mac Midi, or whatever) based on Xeon D processors (TDP 20-35W, 4c/8t to 8c/16t):

https://ark.intel.com/products/series/87041/Intel-Xeon-D-Processor

Xeon D is for servers - no GPU and many threads, but not great single thread performance. The Xeons you are looking for are Xeon W for Pro - and Xeon E for entry level (based largely on desktop CPUs). The Xeon M models are based on the i7 mobile CPUs that are in the 2018 15" MacBook Pros.
[doublepost=1531518608][/doublepost]

I think soon, also. Cook teased us last October but said it was too soon to share any details. In my book, anything after this October would be too late!
[doublepost=1531504739][/doublepost]

I think you’re actually being serious!

That’s about as far from realistic as I can imagine for a refreshed mini . It might be your dream enclosure, but I’d venture it would only be found in Jony Ive’s nightmares. (And might cause me a few as well!)

I’m glad you at least mentioned smaller, that monstrosity is 13 times the size of the current mini

What about the Blackmagic eGPU that was designed with co-operation from Apple and apparently being sold by Apple?
[doublepost=1531519542][/doublepost]

The current mini with an i7 3.0GHz dual core, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD is $1,399. While a refreshed mini will give us a quad-core instead of that dual core, I really don’t think it’s realistic to expect price cuts.

Also, since there aren’t any 45W CPUs with GT3e graphics, I think Apple is going to stay with 28W parts. So I don’t think chips from the 15” are even on the table.

I’m sure many would disagree with either or both of the above points, but I try to separate what I think Apple will do from what I wish they would do, were I to get my perfect mini.

• Apple have retained the price points on the hardware they updated this time.
• They also killed off the base 15" MBP with no intention to replace it
• And put the remaining stock into a clearance section on the Apple store at no discount.

While we could look at the existing new 2018 MacBook Pro for a guide on the specs that Apple could bring to a 2018 Mini we have yet to see what they are planning for the MacBook Air and whether or not there will be a CPU to put into the non touch bar 2018 MacBook Pro, or, indeed, the base model iMac 21.5".

The lazy update would be to slot the same 28w CPU into the middle and top Mini SKUs with the same Hard Drive/Fusion Drive options. The special sauce that would make people move would be the Thunderbolt 3 ports enabling the use of eGPU for people who wish to buy a box that costs potentially around the same as their Mini.

The base model would potentially be a Whiskey Lake 15w CPU (quad core, UHD620 graphics) but i'll guess the entry price goes up because Apple would have to make RAM 8Gb across the board for macOS Mojave.

Of course, Apple could choose to simplify their pricing by merging the rMB, MBA, and nTB MBP lines somehow. We'll have to see what they do and the Mini could be based off one of those but the important thing will be to look for a laptop with decent performance off a 15w CPU that has 4 cores and could drive an eGPU. This machine will probably outperform every Mac Mini ever and if cheap enough could actually just replace the Mini for anyone with a $1099 budget.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Xeon D is for servers - no GPU and many threads, but not great single thread performance. The Xeons you are looking for are Xeon W for Pro - and Xeon E for entry level (based largely on desktop CPUs). The Xeon M models are based on the i7 mobile CPUs that are in the 2018 15" MacBook Pros.
[doublepost=1531518608][/doublepost]

What about the Blackmagic eGPU that was designed with co-operation from Apple and apparently being sold by Apple?
[doublepost=1531519542][/doublepost]

• Apple have retained the price points on the hardware they updated this time.
• They also killed off the base 15" MBP with no intention to replace it
• And put the remaining stock into a clearance section on the Apple store at no discount.

While we could look at the existing new 2018 MacBook Pro for a guide on the specs that Apple could bring to a 2018 Mini we have yet to see what they are planning for the MacBook Air and whether or not there will be a CPU to put into the non touch bar 2018 MacBook Pro, or, indeed, the base model iMac 21.5".

The lazy update would be to slot the same 28w CPU into the middle and top Mini SKUs with the same Hard Drive/Fusion Drive options. The special sauce that would make people move would be the Thunderbolt 3 ports enabling the use of eGPU for people who wish to buy a box that costs potentially around the same as their Mini.

The base model would potentially be a Whiskey Lake 15w CPU (quad core, UHD620 graphics) but i'll guess the entry price goes up because Apple would have to make RAM 8Gb across the board for macOS Mojave.

Of course, Apple could choose to simplify their pricing by merging the rMB, MBA, and nTB MBP lines somehow. We'll have to see what they do and the Mini could be based off one of those but the important thing will be to look for a laptop with decent performance off a 15w CPU that has 4 cores and could drive an eGPU. This machine will probably outperform every Mac Mini ever and if cheap enough could actually just replace the Mini for anyone with a $1099 budget.

re: mini I think TB3 is a given, I can’t imagine they’d use TB2. Same with 8GB RAM. I don’t think Apple will use CPUs that don’t have GT3e graphics. So 8th gen dual-and quad-cores seem the most likely candidates to me.

Re: 13” lineup, I really have no idea what the plan might be. But I don’t think it makes sense to think a 13” MB could be brought out alongside the existing $1,299 12” MB and that somehow that’s the $999 Air replacement.

Reducing the price on the 13” nTB would seem more likely than coming out with a new, larger Y-series MB. Personally I’m hoping for a new 14” MB, I suppose it would start at $1499.

 

[leo-tech]

IF legal i just vm macos in 32 gb pc, no need mac it self...

Running macOS on non-Apple hardware, ditto running macOS in VM in hypervisors on non-Apple hardware, is not exactly LEGAL (as it violates Apple's EULA) - but, IMHO, it is perfectly LEGITIMATE, at least when it comes to running macOS in Virtual Machines on non-Apple hardware (as Apple allows Mac users to run any OS under the sun in VM in hypervisors on Macintosh computers, not to mention Bootcamp and dual- or triple-boot in order to run Windows and Linux on bare metal Macintosh hardware, in addition to or instead of macOS).

Let me reiterate the last part, as it is important - Apple allows Macintosh users to run any other operating systems under the sun (any Windows, any Linux, any BSD etc), in addition to or instead of macOS, on both bare metal and in Virtual Machines, for as long as they do it on Macintosh computers.

And, from where I stand, something is very wrong with this picture.

 

[triptolemus]

Let me reiterate the last part, as it is important - Apple allows Macintosh users to run any other operating systems under the sun (any Windows, any Linux, any BSD etc), in addition to or instead of macOS, on both bare metal and in Virtual Machines, for as long as they do it on Macintosh computers.

So? What's that got to do with macOS's license?

 

[alien3dx]

Running macOS on non-Apple hardware, ditto running macOS in VM in hypervisors on non-Apple hardware, is not exactly LEGAL (as it violates Apple's EULA) - but, IMHO, it is perfectly LEGITIMATE, at least when it comes to running macOS in Virtual Machines on non-Apple hardware (as Apple allows Mac users to run any OS under the sun in VM in hypervisors on Macintosh computers, not to mention Bootcamp and dual- or triple-boot in order to run Windows and Linux on bare metal Macintosh hardware, in addition to or instead of macOS).

Let me reiterate the last part, as it is important - Apple allows Macintosh users to run any other operating systems under the sun (any Windows, any Linux, any BSD etc), in addition to or instead of macOS, on both bare metal and in Virtual Machines, for as long as they do it on Macintosh computers.

And, from where I stand, something is very wrong with this picture.

fall back to mac mini. If legal , dual boot or vm for sure a lot want to moved to intel skull platform if mac mini is rip

 

[HalfNelson]

The current mini with an i7 3.0GHz dual core, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD is $1,399. While a refreshed mini will give us a quad-core instead of that dual core, I really don’t think it’s realistic to expect price cuts.

Also, since there aren’t any 45W CPUs with GT3e graphics, I think Apple is going to stay with 28W parts. So I don’t think chips from the 15” are even on the table.

I’m sure many would disagree with either or both of the above points, but I try to separate what I think Apple will do from what I wish they would do, were I to get my perfect mini.

Didn’t suggest price cuts, you just configured the machine in a way that I didn’t suggest. 16GB of RAM jumps the price $200, and jumping to 256GB of flash storage jumps it another $200. I would gladly take a 5400rpm hdd that I could easily swap out, and 8GB of RAM I could upgrade on my own, in order to save that $400.

My main point was that in 2012, Apple offered a Mac Mini, with a high end CPU from a 15” MBP, for under $1000. A true upgrade to that 2012 Mac Mini, that people have wanted for over 4 years now, would offer a 2018 Mac Mini with the option of CPUs from the 2018 15” MBP for under $1000, and going back to user upgradable RAM. Paired with a couple of Thunderbolt 3 ports and you finally have a worthy successor to the 2012 Mini.

 

[redheeler]

Also, since there aren’t any 45W CPUs with GT3e graphics, I think Apple is going to stay with 28W parts. So I don’t think chips from the 15” are even on the table.

The high-end 2011 Mac mini did have a dedicated GPU, so that is also something Apple has done before. It was a tier or two below the one found in the 15" MacBook Pro. So in 2018 this would likely be a 550 or 550X (while the 15" MBP has a 555X), and only found on the more-expensive model (with cheaper quad-core + Intel Iris models).

I’m sure many would disagree with either or both of the above points, but I try to separate what I think Apple will do from what I wish they would do, were I to get my perfect mini.

A lot of us are making that distinction, myself included, again due to the negative sentiment you mentioned earlier. I'm arguing in favor of practicality, not that Apple will actually do it.
[doublepost=1531583716][/doublepost]

Didn’t suggest price cuts, you just configured the machine in a way that I didn’t suggest. 16GB of RAM jumps the price $200, and jumping to 256GB of flash storage jumps it another $200. I would gladly take a 5400rpm hdd that I could easily swap out, and 8GB of RAM I could upgrade on my own, in order to save that $400.

My main point was that in 2012, Apple offered a Mac Mini, with a high end CPU from a 15” MBP, for under $1000. A true upgrade to that 2012 Mac Mini, that people have wanted for over 4 years now, would offer a 2018 Mac Mini with the option of CPUs from the 2018 15” MBP for under $1000, and going back to user upgradable RAM. Paired with a couple of Thunderbolt 3 ports and you finally have a worthy successor to the 2012 Mini.

I agree with all of this but for the 5400 RPM HDD. The price of smaller-capacity SSDs (32 GB / 128 GB / 256 GB / 512 GB) has come down since 2012, even the high-end ones Apple uses, and absolutely no 2018 Mac should be shipping without one.

For the base model, I'd want to see 500 GB (32 GB SSD portion) Fusion drive standard. For the $799+ models, I'd want to see 1 TB (128 GB SSD portion) Fusion drive or 256 GB pure SSD standard.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Didn’t suggest price cuts, you just configured the machine in a way that I didn’t suggest. 16GB of RAM jumps the price $200, and jumping to 256GB of flash storage jumps it another $200. I would gladly take a 5400rpm hdd that I could easily swap out, and 8GB of RAM I could upgrade on my own, in order to save that $400.

My main point was that in 2012, Apple offered a Mac Mini, with a high end CPU from a 15” MBP, for under $1000. A true upgrade to that 2012 Mac Mini, that people have wanted for over 4 years now, would offer a 2018 Mac Mini with the option of CPUs from the 2018 15” MBP for under $1000, and going back to user upgradable RAM. Paired with a couple of Thunderbolt 3 ports and you finally have a worthy successor to the 2012 Mini.

Well I think you’ll get the upgradable RAM, and TB3 is a given, but I’m rather doubtful about the CPUs. Apple uses the 28W CPUs with GT3e graphics in the current models. As I’m sure you’re well aware, that meant quad core wasn’t possible with the last refresh. But now Intel has quad core available in 28W, so there’s no doubt quad returns to the mini.

But Mac mini needs to start around $499, so that means dual core CPUs at the low end. Models from $699 or $799 would get the new 28W quad core.

However, I don’t think you’ll see a hexacore + discrete graphics chip option above that, which it sounds like you want as your “worthy successor”. It would need a different motherboard at a minimum, maybe a different cooling solution and power supply as well, since it would consume 2 to 3 times more power.

Apple can’t afford to ignore the sub-$999 segment of Mac mini customers, because that’s probably where 75% of the potential customers will be. Those wanting $1,000 HDD hexacore minis (then $1,200 for SSD or 16GB, then $1,400 for SSD and 16 GB) are a niche segment of a niche product, and as such, not likely to be addressed with the updated mini.

 

[alien3dx]

Well I think you’ll get the upgradable RAM, and TB3 is a given, but I’m rather doubtful about the CPUs. Apple uses the 28W CPUs with GT3e graphics in the current models. As I’m sure you’re well aware, that meant quad core wasn’t possible with the last refresh. But now Intel has quad core available in 28W, so there’s no doubt quad returns to the mini.

But Mac mini needs to start around $499, so that means dual core 15W CPUs at the low end. Models from $699 or $799 would get the new 28W quad core.

However, I don’t think you’ll see a hexacore + discrete graphics chip option above that, which it sounds like you want as your “worthy successor”. It would need a different motherboard at a minimum, maybe a different cooling solution and power supply as well, since it would consume 2 to 3 times more power.

Apple can’t afford to ignore the sub-$999 segment of Mac mini customers, because that’s probably where 75% of the potential customers will be. Those wanting $1,000 HDD hexacore minis (then $1,200 for SSD or 16GB, then $1,400 for SSD and 16 GB) are a niche segment of a niche product, and as such, not likely to be addressed with the updated mini.

If even 1200 pretty step but compare to latest skull bare bone need to buy own ram and m2 . I WOULD SAID MIN 1.8K

 

[leo-tech]

Mac Mini 2018: more chassis design ideas

 

[Cape Dave]

The high-end 2011 Mac mini did have a dedicated GPU, so that is also something Apple has done before. It was a tier or two below the one found in the 15" MacBook Pro. So in 2018 this would likely be a 550 or 550X (while the 15" MBP has a 555X), and only found on the more-expensive model (with cheaper quad-core + Intel Iris models).

A lot of us are making that distinction, myself included, again due to the negative sentiment you mentioned earlier. I'm arguing in favor of practicality, not that Apple will actually do it.
[doublepost=1531583716][/doublepost]
I agree with all of this but for the 5400 RPM HDD. The price of smaller-capacity SSDs (32 GB / 128 GB / 256 GB / 512 GB) has come down since 2012, even the high-end ones Apple uses, and absolutely no 2018 Mac should be shipping without one.

For the base model, I'd want to see 500 GB (32 GB SSD portion) Fusion drive standard. For the $799+ models, I'd want to see 1 TB (128 GB SSD portion) Fusion drive or 256 GB pure SSD standard.

Time to dump Fusion Drive too. For crying out loud, most people just do not need so much space. And for the few that do, a 256GB is not that much $$. Fusion drive is just more crap to go wrong. Marketing hype.

 

[enc0re]

Time to dump Fusion Drive too. For crying out loud, most people just do not need so much space. And for the few that do, a 256GB is not that much $$. Fusion drive is just more crap to go wrong. Marketing hype.

I feel almost the opposite about the situation. For laptops, sure. HDDs are a bad idea for reasons of space, weight, resilience, and speed.

But Intel's new Optane stuff is basically a better version of the current Fusion Drive technology. I'm hoping that Apple adopts it under the Fusion Drive brand, perhaps even as Fusion Drive 2. They do owe us 7200RPM spinners minimum at this point though.