MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[danwells]

Apple is (wisely, in my opinion) trying to move all spinning rust outside the case. There is really no reason to have a hard drive as an internal component - it's physically large, mechanically unreliable, and loses nothing by being external. USB 3.0 has enough bandwidth for any single-drive and most dual-drive configurations, while Thunderbolt 3 can handle anything except a VERY large and specialized RAID. Something like 8 drives in RAID 0, 16-24 drives in RAID 5 or 6 or an 8 drive unit with heavy SSD caching might begin to stretch Thunderbolt 3 (it might use an x16 PCI-e card and a specialized interface cable). I would strongly expect the new Mini to be flash-only, and I'm as close to 100% sure as speculation can ever be that the modular Mac Pro will be flash-only. There will certainly be plenty of ways to hook up spinning rust outside the case.

There are 3 real possibilities for the new Mini, at least technically (Apple won't build some of them because they're Apple).

1.) The first and most likely has nothing to do with Mac Pros - it is essentially a headless laptop. The Mini has always been a headless laptop, and "we're focusing on pros" could mean nothing more than "it's a headless 15" (or even high-end 13")" laptop instead of "it's a headless low-end 13" laptop". It would have either integrated graphics only or perhaps low-end discrete graphics (think MacBook Pro level) if the chips they use had inadequate integrated graphics. It might (or might not) have a few more ports than a MacBook Pro - a couple of standard USB ports, HDMI and/or a (10G?) Ethernet port seem like decent possibilities. If Apple's feeling especially generous, it could have user-expandable RAM.

2.) The second possibility makes a lot of sense, but I think it's unlikely since Apple is Apple. It would be an iMac (if we're lucky, a 27" iMac) without the screen. It would be a great desktop, oriented towards pros who don't need the 5K monitor (either because they're in the photo/video/graphics business and use high-end Eizo and NEC monitors OR because they're musicians or software developers for whom the iMac monitor is overkill).

Despite years of forum clamor for this type of machine, Apple has assiduously protected the iMac since the day it was released 20 years ago. The last time we saw a desktop that neither underperformed the lowest-end iMac nor was more expensive than the highest end iMac was the beige PowerMac G3 (the Bondi Blue G3 was already more expensive than an iMac)! They've allowed headless laptops that are both cheaper and slower than any iMac, and they've allowed Mac Pros that are faster, but more expensive - but the iMac's price and performance range (which has moved upwards through the years) has always featured nothing but iMacs. The closest Apple ever came is that the highest end (mobile i7) version of the Late 2012 Mini performed almost identically to the base (desktop i5) version of the 21.5" iMac.

If they were to break this rule now, they'd release a great little pro desktop. Don't get your hopes up about internal expansion, although it might well have socketed RAM and there's some chance of a replaceable SSD. It would only have a ~200-250 watt power budget, so the 95W desktop CPU would go with a non-replaceable mobile Radeon. Plenty of Thunderbolt, several USB ports, and 10G Ethernet round out the package. If you don't need much GPU, it's ready for you with maximum CPU up to an 8700K or the October 1 9700K or 9900K (the 27" iMac would have to be updated to the same CPUs alongside it). If you do need GPU power, it's still worth considering with an eGPU. Unfortunately, you're dreaming - Apple has spent 20 years avoiding this thing!

3.) There is a slight (much less than a laptop derivative, but greater than the mainstream desktop they hate) chance that we'll see an iMac Pro without the screen. We don't know for sure that the iMac Pro is a protected model in the way that other iMacs are. If we see a fast, but limited expandability iMac Pro derivative, it is a direct signal about the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro will then be extremely high end - they will not release three versions of similar Xeon-W machines. If we get this one with a built-in Vega (plenty of ports for external expansion, but internal expansion limited to RAM and maybe SSD), the Mac Pro is certainly going to be Xeon-SP, may be late 2019 and may start above $10,000.

If we see only a laptop derivative Mini, it tells us nothing about the modular Mac Pro.

 

[vailr]

There are 3 real possibilities for the new Mini, at least technically (Apple won't build some of them because they're Apple).
..............
2.) ...........It would be an iMac (if we're lucky, a 27" iMac) without the screen.

MINI PowerMac G5 HACKINTOSH (3D Printable)
https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/mini-powermac-g5-hackintosh-3d-printable.258472/
https://www.zenvent.com/blog/hackintosh/

 

[JesterJJZ]

There is really no reason to have a hard drive as an internal component

How about cables? More things to plug into the computer and also into the wall. While I also have a raid tower and a slew of externals, there are certain files and assets I prefer to keep stored locally on/in my machine. SSDs have come a long way in terms of speed, capacity and price, but until I can get a 4TB SSD for under $200, I’m gonna need my spinners.

 

[OS6-OSX]

We better get a sneak peak soon. Hopefully something in October.

 

[Mago]

My opinion about the next mini Mac Pro or Mac Pro mini, or Mac mini-pro:

1- consider leaks from DNG are legit -or just has good luck-: Apple will introdouce an AMD basee mac mini running on AMD APUs, no Spinner HDD, moreless as capable as the iMac 27 w/o screen, moreless a Cube 2.0 passively cooled or a half sized Trash Can like.

2- consider DNG its a liar, Apple logic said the Mac mini will be based either on the MBP15 hardware (6c cpu + RX580), and likely a sligth update to the Pizza Box chassis, slimmer for sure and in Space Gray.

Anyone Impressed? NO, of course there will be a 45 min intro with artist researchers etc etc telling yuu how "powerful" efficient and practical is the new mac mini etc etc and closing Tim Cook with her hilarious "AMAAAAZING" ...

Kiss my @ss Apple

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple is (wisely, in my opinion) trying to move all spinning rust outside the case. There is really no reason to have a hard drive as an internal component - it's physically large, mechanically unreliable, and loses nothing by being external.

As long as the $/GB is dramatically different then there are reasons. For the "boot" drive though ( OS/Apps/User home directory) the $/GB of solid state is in the reasonable range. It is a bit early to push it all the way down to the lowest Mac Mini price, but the QLC options coming to market now are in the "close enough rang". ( Apple may not have mastered QLC yet though so 2018 would be early. )

The "reason" in the Mac Pro context is that the system probably should have more than just one drive. Unless Apple is driving to drive some "smaller than a Mini" literal desktop footprint then just having one drive might slimly work as a justification ( e.g., iMac Pro), but just one narrows the range of solutions spaces. Apple has a literal desktop pro solution ( iMac Pro), they don't reasonably need another. If Mac Pro shifts back to desk side then space isn't a super narrow, hard constraint. If Apple uses APFS "Fusion" drives with 14mm 2.5" drives in some other Mac systems then the next Mac Pro could provision those 2.5" drives also.

I think Apple's objective is to shrink the number of HDDs down as long as they can. ( So there is downward pressure on count and size), but zero isn't in the reasonable range if trying to add some diversity to the line up.

I would strongly expect the new Mini to be flash-only,

This presumes that the Mini doesn't have to meet cost constraints. That Apple will push the while price listing substantively higher. They are certainly looking for higher end (built to order) options for the Mini, but taking it completely off the historic base price that's pretty unclear. Especially, in the context of Mac Mini not appearing before they get APFS "Fusion" drive capability finished. [ it seems doubtful they are just working on that functionality 100% purely for the install base. That is probably the dominating factor, but once have that tool available why not use it? Pair a 32GB T2 SSD with a 1TB HDD and shave around $50-90 dollars off a pure SSD solution for highly price sensitive customers. ] HDD only systems disappearing is different than HDDs disappearing completely.

and I'm as close to 100% sure as speculation can ever be that the modular Mac Pro will be flash-only. There will certainly be plenty of ways to hook up spinning rust outside the case.

Again, single HDD only boot drive configuration? Extremely probably not. In context of MP 2013 and then iMac Pro, that kind of 180 into the past isn't likely going to happen. 5.25" optical bays chucked. Yep. However, shrunk so small loose room for even a single 2.5" HDD, there isn't a big driver for that. The monitor is detached so desk side is a reasonable viable option.

There are 3 real possibilities for the new Mini, at least technically (Apple won't build some of them because they're Apple).

1.) The first and most likely has nothing to do with Mac Pros - it is essentially a headless laptop.

You could have stopped right there. It is a mini with some BTO options that a narrow set of "pro" may like. It is still primarily a classic Mini market targeted system.

2.) The second possibility makes a lot of sense, but I think it's unlikely since Apple is Apple. It would be an iMac (if we're lucky, a 27" iMac) without the screen.

Well the current Mini is that. The bottom, entry Mini has a MBA processor in it. The bottom entry iMac 21.5" has a MBA processor in it. That wouldn't be "new" because it is what is shipping now.

The last time we saw a desktop that neither underperformed the lowest-end iMac nor was more expensive than the highest end iMac was the beige PowerMac G3 (the Bondi Blue G3 was already more expensive than an iMac)! They've allowed headless laptops that are both cheaper and slower than any iMac, and they've allowed Mac Pros that are faster, but more expensive - but the iMac's price and performance range (which has moved upwards through the years) has always featured nothing but iMacs. The closest Apple ever came is that the highest end (mobile i7) version of the Late 2012 Mini performed almost identically to the base (desktop i5) version of the 21.5" iMac.

Buzzzzz! wrong 'answer'. The lowest iMac now has an entry model laptop processor in it. Going back to the G3 era is purely misdirection and hand waving.

It is unlikely Apple is going to drop that "super tight budget" iMac from the line up. There is a chance that Apple might expand the "laptop" CPU iMac options a bit wider (and that the mini might highly overlap with those. ). The desktop based 21.5" models would move up in price.

3.) There is a slight (much less than a laptop derivative, but greater than the mainstream desktop they hate) chance that we'll see an iMac Pro without the screen.

Wouldn't that be a Mac Pro ? Slight chance? Err pretty good chance since they said there are looking to do a Mac Pro. Same CPUs , better (not under clocked ) GPUs, and no screen is highly likely what they have been talking about.

That is the basis for the new Mac Mini is not a slight chance. That is far closer to a chance that some meteoroid falls out of the sky and blows up a significant chunk of the new Apple HQ. That is in the delusion fantasy zone.

 

[ssgbryan]

Apple is (wisely, in my opinion) trying to move all spinning rust outside the case. There is really no reason to have a hard drive as an internal component - it's physically large, mechanically unreliable, and loses nothing by being external. USB 3.0 has enough bandwidth for any single-drive and most dual-drive configurations, while Thunderbolt 3 can handle anything except a VERY large and specialized RAID. Something like 8 drives in RAID 0, 16-24 drives in RAID 5 or 6 or an 8 drive unit with heavy SSD caching might begin to stretch Thunderbolt 3 (it might use an x16 PCI-e card and a specialized interface cable). I would strongly expect the new Mini to be flash-only, and I'm as close to 100% sure as speculation can ever be that the modular Mac Pro will be flash-only. There will certainly be plenty of ways to hook up spinning rust outside the case.

There are plenty of ways, and every last one of them drives up the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) number and introduces multiple (3 per add-on) points of failure to the system.

Some of us "amateurs" actually have a lot of data. Especially if we bought into the whole Make your computer the hub of your digital lifestyle that P.T. Barnum was selling to the Apple Faithful back in the early days of OSX.

When the trashcan came out, It only took me about 20 minutes to realize that it was a non-starter due to the removal of so much from the previous generation:

Replace the internal 4 HD bays with thunderbolt enclosure - $600.
Replace the external 4 HD enclosure (can't connect it to the trashcan w/o a nonexistent Esata to thunderbolt dongle ) - $600.
Replace the upper Optical bay holding the Blu-Ray player - $200.
Replace missing connector ports with external dock - $200.

This increased the price of the trashcan by 20% and added 12 additional failure points to the system. This also applies to the iMac "Pro", btw.

AFA Thunderbolt - you might want to ask the trashcan owners how that is working out for them. Apple has cut them off from future development, that will also happen to those poor folks that bought the iMac "Pro".

Nearly 10 years on, thunderbolt is still a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Chancha]

USB3.0 HDD enclosures without RAID controller are almost at commodity price right now. And those who currently work with MBPs or iMacs probably are already invested in TB2 tier or above enclosures anyway. So then the remaining sectors who must have SATA slots in the mMP are those who expect to move their workflow and components directly from cMP / generic PC towers / spare parts lying around.

I don't see Apple giving a high priority for the latter group. The mobo circuitry design, heat budget, valuable space, air flow, noise levels... way too much to give up just to make way for. SATA HDDs is one of the few problems Thunderbolt has actually solved, or, has adequately moved out of the chassis with minimum compromise.

 

[krakman]

Nearly 10 years on, thunderbolt is still a solution looking for a problem.

The only thing in my 'sphere of use' that I can see a use for Thunderbolt for is eGPU, but Apple support only TB3!!!!

The 6 Thunderbollocks ports in my Trashcan are connected to monitors and dongles to allow me to connect to my legacy hard drives!

 

[deconstruct60]

My opinion about the next mini Mac Pro or Mac Pro mini, or Mac mini-pro:

There is no "Mac Mini Pro". That is largely a phantom made up by folks standing on their heads reading what they want to read into the latest info released. There are likely going to be some BTO options for the Mac Mini that some narrow set of pros will like. That isn't a new desktop product in the line up. It is a configuration of a Mac Mini (not unlike the Mac Mini Server was a config of the Mini in terms of hardware. )

- consider leaks from DNG are legit -

"Dark net guy" Another phantom. More likely to line pockets of Macrumors with ad page views than product credible info.

 

[barmann]

USB3.0 HDD enclosures without RAID controller are almost at commodity price right now. And those who currently work with MBPs or iMacs probably are already invested in TB2 tier or above enclosures anyway. So then the remaining sectors who must have SATA slots in the mMP are those who expect to move their workflow and components directly from cMP / generic PC towers / spare parts lying around.

I don't see Apple giving a high priority for the latter group. The mobo circuitry design, heat budget, valuable space, air flow, noise levels... way too much to give up just to make way for. SATA HDDs is one of the few problems Thunderbolt has actually solved, or, has adequately moved out of the chassis with minimum compromise.

Those are some good points .

However, apart from from single drive USB enclosures, quality external storage comes at a premium - if it needs to run 24/7 (ish) and be as fast and silent as , say a cMP sort of solution .
Or every other workstation tower out there .

TB connection adds even more to the cost .
TB has not solved any of those problems, it just gave Apple an excuse to dump storage from the tcMP .
The tcMP, iMacs and MBPs are not very capable workstations; they are not an industry standard by any means, and can not be used as an example for successful implentation of external storage etc. solutions .

Personally, I have a drawer full of USB drives, a 5 bay tower in the other room - all of those used only when needed - and 5 drives in my cMP which are constantly in use .

Having to move 3-4 of those internal drives to an external enclosure, and assuming the next MP will do a tad better than SATA II internally, I would lose speed for some drives, and pay a cool 500-800 Euros for a high quality enclosure, which still would be too noisy to have it close .

 

[mikas]

There are two kinds of Pro computers..

 

[fuchsdh]

As long as the $/GB is dramatically different then there are reasons. For the "boot" drive though ( OS/Apps/User home directory) the $/GB of solid state is in the reasonable range. It is a bit early to push it all the way down to the lowest Mac Mini price, but the QLC options coming to market now are in the "close enough rang". ( Apple may not have mastered QLC yet though so 2018 would be early. )

The "reason" in the Mac Pro context is that the system probably should have more than just one drive. Unless Apple is driving to drive some "smaller than a Mini" literal desktop footprint then just having one drive might slimly work as a justification ( e.g., iMac Pro), but just one narrows the range of solutions spaces. Apple has a literal desktop pro solution ( iMac Pro), they don't reasonably need another. If Mac Pro shifts back to desk side then space isn't a super narrow, hard constraint. If Apple uses APFS "Fusion" drives with 14mm 2.5" drives in some other Mac systems then the next Mac Pro could provision those 2.5" drives also.

I think Apple's objective is to shrink the number of HDDs down as long as they can. ( So there is downward pressure on count and size), but zero isn't in the reasonable range if trying to add some diversity to the line up.





This presumes that the Mini doesn't have to meet cost constraints. That Apple will push the while price listing substantively higher. They are certainly looking for higher end (built to order) options for the Mini, but taking it completely off the historic base price that's pretty unclear. Especially, in the context of Mac Mini not appearing before they get APFS "Fusion" drive capability finished. [ it seems doubtful they are just working on that functionality 100% purely for the install base. That is probably the dominating factor, but once have that tool available why not use it? Pair a 32GB T2 SSD with a 1TB HDD and shave around $50-90 dollars off a pure SSD solution for highly price sensitive customers. ] HDD only systems disappearing is different than HDDs disappearing completely.

To me the problem with the mini is the same as the Mac Pro. Even assuming the thing was updated, which is really the big sticking point on all these machines, they've got a huge gamut of people who want them and want different things out of them. The mini probably suffers from more of that since the Mac Pro is so expensive; it's got to be the low-cost Mac, and it's also serving the NUC crowd and the server crowd and the headless desktop crowd.

Right now, the $499 Mac mini just exists to hit a price point. It's not a great machine, and I'd go so far as to argue that no $499 model of the Mac mini has been a good enough machine. If it costs $599 to get an SSD into it, that's a far better value for consumer and Apple.

If we take the Bloomberg reports as generally accurate (and I do have the same questions John Gruber does in that I don't get how they know so much about it yet not enough to actually say what this is going to be), then it seems like Apple is positioning the Mac mini as closer to the xMac model. It's still not going to have PCIe slots, I'm sure, but in previous years it simply didn't make cost-effective sense to kit it out like an iMac (which is an issue shared by the 21" iMac too—for the amount you add to BTO you might as well just get a 27" model.)

They also mention the server uses of the Mac mini, which at least suggests it'll keep multiple storage interfaces. If they keep a 2.5" bay in there that kills two birds with one stone—ship the low end with a cheap SATAIII SSD and keep the PCIe flash as an upgrade.

I doubt this has much effect on the Mac Pro—I very much doubt it'll be cheaper than $2499, so it's much more about the Mac mini drifting up to fill some of that gap versus the Mac Pro getting pushed higher.

 

[deconstruct60]

.... So then the remaining sectors who must have SATA slots in the mMP are those who expect to move their workflow and components directly from cMP / generic PC towers / spare parts lying around.

I don't see Apple giving a high priority for the latter group. The mobo circuitry design, heat budget, valuable space, air flow, noise levels... way too much to give up just to make way for. SATA HDDs is one of the few problems Thunderbolt has actually solved, or, has adequately moved out of the chassis with minimum compromise.

The latter group isn't just HDDs. If look at the slot survey thread a fair number of folks bought into a x4 PCI-e card to put 1-2 2.5" SSDs onto. SATA SSD as the "cheapest" bulk storage option is still a 'thing'. Doesn't have the noise problem and the power requirements of the modern (2018 era) ones are relatively low (compared to 2013 era HDDs. ). Besides that it was somewhat common for folks to toss a sled-less 2.5" SSD drive into the bottom ODD bay. So two or three SSDs in an old system is not radically far out of the mainstream. And more data on SSD is a direction that Apple is highly aligned with. They probably want to hang onto the folks who are aggressively trying to push as much data on to SSDs as they can.

Apple could put 2-3 2.5" drive sleds in the space that two 3.5" sleds took up rather easily. If they are not fixated on being a literal desktop solution that kind of internal space/volume isn't a pressing issue. If they make the sleds so that they take 14mm 2.5" then capacities in the range of 4TB are possible now ( and greater capacity in the future). 12TB would cover lots of folks who had high capacity $/GB value demands. Wouldn't cover "everybody" , but many. Certainly far more than the iMac Pro does now and probably will in the future. (the point is to have something different than an iMac Pro so the "other" folks have something to buy ).

With the next Mac Pro folks could toss those 2.5" drive add in cards because those were primarily driven by the age of the old Mac Pro, not really direct utility. mainstream SATA is probably not going to get any faster going forward. It is primarily about "cheaper" now, not "fastest". ( there are some very high end SAS 2.5' that are super high capacity. Questionable whether Apple wants to chase that narrow submarket. ). if Apple isn't going to deliver 4 slots then helping folks toss cards would be a good thing.

M.2 slots they should cover for same reason. Folks with current cards with M.2 slots can toss the card and just use the specific slot directly. ( similar issue present in current Mac Pros as much because of age than anything else. ).

In both of those cases tossing the much less expensive card and keeping the $400-800 SSD (priced at time they bought it. sunk cost) device will probably wins lots of fans. However, Apple trying to keep someones $40-80 hard drive in play I don't think they are going to be very pressed about.


The side effect of letting in those 2.5" SSD is that the 2.5 HDD come in also ( especially is allocate 14mm height for them). If Apple had 1-3 M.2 slots that would a substantive amount of collective capacity. Relatively extremely fast if all of it is SSD. Or better than average if pair up the 2.5" HDDs with M.2 SSD for Fusion drives.

What I would not expect that that Apple would sell (or perhaps enable) the system to be singular HDD boot drive system. That's there is some kind of bare bones configuration that only has the lowliest HDD drive Apple sells in it. That's probably gone.

3.5" drive sleds don't have much of an SSD alternative to drive them. Noise isn't a problem if they are optional. ( Apple is primarily doing noise for their standard configurations. ), but if move to a deskside solution, then noise could be dealt with. ( so perhaps just 3 sleds that are easy to adapt to 2.5"). However, if the iMac dumps the 3.5" HDDs then I don't see Apple keeping them just for the Mac Pro. That they made the 3.5' drive disappear in the iMac Pro ( although for space reasons) is an indicator that it isn't very high on the priority list. What they probably want is a path were folks switch to SSD only going forward into the future.


If Apple is trying to peg the Mac Pro into literal desktop then highly likely probably no 3.5" and perhaps one 2.5" drive position. Space/volume would probably come into play. Likewise heat (given the CPU GPU thermal issues) . But with deskside all those things aren't so high to drive them out just on those dimensions.

 

[goMac]

"Dark net guy" Another phantom. More likely to line pockets of Macrumors with ad page views than product credible info.

...has DNG ever been reliable? I recall "DNG" getting something right once and then making a whole bunch of inaccurate predictions, and now we're still pretending it's an accurate source.

 

[deconstruct60]

To me the problem with the mini is the same as the Mac Pro. Even assuming the thing was updated, which is really the big sticking point on all these machines, they've got a huge gamut of people who want them and want different things out of them. The mini probably suffers from more of that since the Mac Pro is so expensive; it's got to be the low-cost Mac, and it's also serving the NUC crowd and the server crowd and the headless desktop crowd.

Apple isn't going to make everything for everybody. if there is a set of folks they can hit with a Mac model (e.g., the Mac Mini) then if the product is a very good match for the 80% of the bell curve then that is just fine. Bell curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

the red one above is the normal bell curve, but either one of those three would be fine. Lots of folks here freak out if Apple isn't covering the -4.5 to -5 and the 4.5 to 5 range. Those folks won't determine getting to break even or even major return on investment. If miss the "meat" of the middle then in big trouble as a product.

What the mainstream PC vendors do is stack up lots of products so the the outer "tails' on these normal distributions overlap with central 'cores' of these distributions. That's because they are pragmatically obsessed with putting up a filter to capture everyone possible. Apple doesn't have that obsession or objective. 90+ % of the market is not buying their stuff. Capturing everybody is going 'fail' if only going to get some single digit percentage. The objective is to go after the pockets that will likely show some growth and avoid the ones that largely won't or don't.


All that said the Mini with modern versions of the CPU+GPU options would be useful for NUC, small media server , basic headless desktop. The as the CPU+GPU combo gets more capable the current form factor covers more ground.

Right now, the $499 Mac mini just exists to hit a price point. It's not a great machine, and I'd go so far as to argue that no $499 model of the Mac mini has been a good enough machine. If it costs $599 to get an SSD into it, that's a far better value for consumer and Apple.

It isn't a better value for someone who only has a hard limit of $550 to spend. Not everyone can stretch to a higher price point. There are probably more than a few folks doing an "extra reach" stretch just to get to $499. Going from $499 to $599 is a 20% increase. For folks on a very tight budget that is a substantial amount.

If we take the Bloomberg reports as generally accurate (and I do have the same questions John Gruber does in that I don't get how they know so much about it yet not enough to actually say what this is going to be),

IMHO, Gruber is confused. That second stab at the MBA replacement that wanders off into the weeds is just only indicative.

1. What he calls the "Escape" MBP 13", in IMHO was the MBA replacement. I think Apple hi-jacked it because they weren't sure the TouchBar thing would work. So they "escape" was that if the TouchBar imploded they'd have something to release.

So for the "Escape" , function key MBP 13" to be stripped of a few things (like extended backlighting: Rentina but not P3 color space retina, strip out he SSD down to minimal 128GB , dropping some horsepower on the CPU+GPU package and possibly skipping the T2 and using existing 'old' SSD blades for now. ) that would put the MBA right back on the path it probably was on 2 years ago. With the bugs somewhat worked out better keyboard ( that it didn't have to suffer through).


2. He's right in that Apple has the names of the MacBook and the MacBook Air swapping. Where is goes off into the weeds is missing the extra ordinary simple solution of just swapping them at some point. It would be better if Apple just did it now but they might wait.

The MacBook has a flawed case design. ( it is another designed into a corner problem where too small for Thunderbolt). If they aren't ready to fix that ( too much drama for industry design to deal with just updating the MBP , Mini and MBA ) then it can wait until next year.



3. More than likely Apple will let the function key MBP 13" just drift for a while until new MBA settles into place.

then it seems like Apple is positioning the Mac mini as closer to the xMac model.

No. Again Guber is a bit whacked. The Bloomberg aritcle is not a "tech porn" article. Although folks on these forums are treating it that way. Why would Apple only talk about the attractive "upscale" options of the Mac Mini. Hmmm, could the potential to increase the average selling price of the Mac Mini be of interest to foks buying Apple stock. could be. After all what do most of the folks reading Bloomberg are looking for... latest tech porn or better places to invest and new business news ?

Selling the cheapest Mac possible isn't front page Bloomberg news. Exactly to what I talked about above of the expectations of trying to chase high volume when a single digit vendor. Most likely the outside biz stat world is going to label that a 'fail' more so than a success.

Furthermore, why isn't some Apple leaker talking in more detail. Well maybe because they don't want to be fired. These may possible be sanctioned directed/targeted leaks to control expectations, but they not trying to grossly violate the corporate policy and do a early reveal . If not sanctioned at all then the more you tell the easier it is to identify you. And again leaking to bump the stock price is probably a motivation. The tech porn details don't matter as much as the stock price bump will. Someone trying to put more money in their own pockets.

It's still not going to have PCIe slots, I'm sure, but in previous years it simply didn't make cost-effective sense to kit it out like an iMac (which is an issue shared by the 21" iMac too—for the amount you add to BTO you might as well just get a 27" model.)

These are BTO options. At the lower half of the price curve Apple doesn't try to grossly separate the BTO options from a lower product from an upper product. If you go on even the stale Mac Mini 2014 now and select all of the BTO options you top out at roughly $1,700. That's is price point of the base configuration of the 27" model. ( so have completely covered the 21.5" models). From the article it sound like they may try to push that even higher $2K... ( with Apple pricing on 4TB SSDs that wouldn't be hard. ). If you simply add the same super sky high 4TB SSD to any iMac then it jumps up higher than the Mac Mini would top out at. Going OCD on separating the BTO options is not useful.

They also mention the server uses of the Mac mini, which at least suggests it'll keep multiple storage interfaces. If they keep a 2.5" bay in there that kills two birds with one stone—ship the low end with a cheap SATAIII SSD and keep the PCIe flash as an upgrade.

Unless, they are looking at the "cost is no object" home media server off an SSD. The media server as a "pro" option isn't really suggestive of folks who are highly price sensitive. Or attach a bus powered external drive to some minimal SSD OS/Boot drive.

I think it is not coincidental that this new machine doesn't arrive until after they have APFS "fusion" drive working. I won't be surprised if Apple has removed the only HDD boot option. But that probably depends upon just how high a discount they can wrangle out of Intel on the lowest end CPU+GPU option.

If no T2 in the new Mini then perhaps. There wasn't any info on that leaked. What wasn't evident in either the MBA or Mini was whether Apple was highly motivated to push the T2 into those also. That will tip the scales on HDD only.

I doubt this has much effect on the Mac Pro—I very much doubt it'll be cheaper than $2499, so it's much more about the Mac mini drifting up to fill some of that gap versus the Mac Pro getting pushed higher.

The product overlap issue with the Mac Pro is largely going to be the iMac Pro. The Mini is an issue for the Mac Pro because some folks are going to "move down" the product line up. Mostly folks who "overbought' a Mac Pro because they "hate" iMacs integrated screens. Those with workload at the same levels as 2010 levels may move down.

I would be better for the lower end of the Mac Pro market if it did start at $2,499. I don't think Apple is going to backslide from the $2,999 mark they set with the MP 2013. If that just means higher starting base RAM capacity and/or SSD capacity they'll probably just crank it up.

 

[JVNeumann]

One has to assume the decision to beef up the Mini's specs is a result of their positioning the new Air to be the entry level Mac. It makes sense in that everyone nowadays who needs a cheap low end computer at all for non-pro use (as opposed to just a smart device) would rather it be a portable all-in-one than a desktop. A desktop, to that kind of 'not really a PC person but I like to check emails, store photos and browse the web' type of user, is just a relic in today's world. They'd rather have an Air they can use on the couch or take on the plane. And fair enough too: that's what I use my Air for.

TBH I'd even imagined them trying to pass the new Mini off as a home media device that subsumed the Apple TV a bit, considering Apple doesn't even sell in-house monitors anymore (I know they're making one for the modular Mac Pro, but I doubt we'll see that this year). The smart move would be to have some new home media ecosystem for this age of streaming and smart speakers/TVs that seamlessly includes Macs - low end Macs especially - a lot more than is currently the case.

 

[Chancha]

The latter group isn't just HDDs. If look at the slot survey thread a fair number of folks bought into a x4 PCI-e card to put 1-2 2.5" SSDs onto. SATA SSD as the "cheapest" bulk storage option is still a 'thing'. Doesn't have the noise problem and the power requirements of the modern (2018 era) ones are relatively low (compared to 2013 era HDDs. ). Besides that it was somewhat common for folks to toss a sled-less 2.5" SSD drive into the bottom ODD bay. So two or three SSDs in an old system is not radically far out of the mainstream. And more data on SSD is a direction that Apple is highly aligned with. They probably want to hang onto the folks who are aggressively trying to push as much data on to SSDs as they can.

Apple could put 2-3 2.5" drive sleds in the space that two 3.5" sleds took up rather easily. If they are not fixated on being a literal desktop solution that kind of internal space/volume isn't a pressing issue. If they make the sleds so that they take 14mm 2.5" then capacities in the range of 4TB are possible now ( and greater capacity in the future). 12TB would cover lots of folks who had high capacity $/GB value demands. Wouldn't cover "everybody" , but many. Certainly far more than the iMac Pro does now and probably will in the future. (the point is to have something different than an iMac Pro so the "other" folks have something to buy ).

With the next Mac Pro folks could toss those 2.5" drive add in cards because those were primarily driven by the age of the old Mac Pro, not really direct utility. mainstream SATA is probably not going to get any faster going forward. It is primarily about "cheaper" now, not "fastest". ( there are some very high end SAS 2.5' that are super high capacity. Questionable whether Apple wants to chase that narrow submarket. ). if Apple isn't going to deliver 4 slots then helping folks toss cards would be a good thing.

M.2 slots they should cover for same reason. Folks with current cards with M.2 slots can toss the card and just use the specific slot directly. ( similar issue present in current Mac Pros as much because of age than anything else. ).

In both of those cases tossing the much less expensive card and keeping the $400-800 SSD (priced at time they bought it. sunk cost) device will probably wins lots of fans. However, Apple trying to keep someones $40-80 hard drive in play I don't think they are going to be very pressed about.


The side effect of letting in those 2.5" SSD is that the 2.5 HDD come in also ( especially is allocate 14mm height for them). If Apple had 1-3 M.2 slots that would a substantive amount of collective capacity. Relatively extremely fast if all of it is SSD. Or better than average if pair up the 2.5" HDDs with M.2 SSD for Fusion drives.

What I would not expect that that Apple would sell (or perhaps enable) the system to be singular HDD boot drive system. That's there is some kind of bare bones configuration that only has the lowliest HDD drive Apple sells in it. That's probably gone.

3.5" drive sleds don't have much of an SSD alternative to drive them. Noise isn't a problem if they are optional. ( Apple is primarily doing noise for their standard configurations. ), but if move to a deskside solution, then noise could be dealt with. ( so perhaps just 3 sleds that are easy to adapt to 2.5"). However, if the iMac dumps the 3.5" HDDs then I don't see Apple keeping them just for the Mac Pro. That they made the 3.5' drive disappear in the iMac Pro ( although for space reasons) is an indicator that it isn't very high on the priority list. What they probably want is a path were folks switch to SSD only going forward into the future.


If Apple is trying to peg the Mac Pro into literal desktop then highly likely probably no 3.5" and perhaps one 2.5" drive position. Space/volume would probably come into play. Likewise heat (given the CPU GPU thermal issues) . But with deskside all those things aren't so high to drive them out just on those dimensions.

Thanks for the rather informative response, there are some points that I didn't consider before, or I was generalizing too much to not think of those.

The main catch here is if Apple would share the similar mentality as yours, as to be this accommodating to specific umbrellas of target customers. I just don't see them prioritizing the mMP product (or the whole ecosystem) on embracing as many subsets of storage use cases - given the wild variety of possible configs, and that doing so will compromise the form factor and power budget which is typically scarce in their recent products. If they don't see the mMP as a direct counterpart of the traditional workstations out there, then the form factor and available configs will inevitably be swaying towards serving other ends of the spectrum.

I am going to guess that the new Mini together with the mMP are going to differentiate themselves among 2 distinct roles, in which at least one of the forms will tackle internal storage needs. In the case of the Mini (pro), even if it is just a single 2.5" slot over SATA3 like what it has now, will pass as that with the tcMP having only one PCI SSD. And then if the Mini shift into a smaller Apple TV sized box with just PCI SSD then the mMP has one more reason to have some internal HDD utility.

 

[dazzer21-2]

Currently, extra storage on the Mac Pro has to be external via Thunderbolt. I believe that the new one should have fast, internal, hot-swappable volumes.

 

[Mago]

Currently, extra storage on the Mac Pro has to be external via Thunderbolt. I believe that the new one should have fast, internal, hot-swappable volumes.

Long discussed ago, I think current Mac Pro approach on storage forcedly was clever, having a high-speed main storage (nvme) and external secondary DAS or NAS storage is much more convenient than N fixed internal bays, as you can move all your work from a workstation to another w/o disssasembly your system, also you can store in a safe those sensitive volumes when you are on vacation, no need to freeze the whole workstation (which then could be temporary assigned to an co-worker).

Having all the storage in the same unit, is more the way think a single-member team, than a workgoroup.

 

[deconstruct60]

T
.....
The main catch here is if Apple would share the similar mentality as yours, as to be this accommodating to specific umbrellas of target customers. I just don't see them prioritizing the mMP product (or the whole ecosystem) on embracing as many subsets of storage use cases - given the wild variety of possible configs,

Apple does try to target (be accommodating to) specific customers. Lots of folks rant about how they are not under the umbrella, but that does not means Apple is wandering aimlessly. When Apple is looking to do a new Mac Pro they will probably spend some time looking at what the folks who currently have them do with the current ones. However, that is probably more as a function than as looking for specific forms.

The whole Mac ecosystem is heading toward singular storage drives internally. That's a bit too OCD for the entire product line ( the mainstream iMac has two and Mini but that may not last on next iteration. The laptops are all certainly down to just one. ). The Mac Pro being able to have 3+ drives would actually be something that balances out the ecosystem.


Apple rolled out a single SSD drive focused APFS over last two years. That was fine for most of the ecosystem. However, it also wasn't complete to cover the workloads that a significant chunk of their user base needs to do. A year later Apple is now going to add in better support for HDDs and their Fusion Drive configuration. At some point they'll need to add better volume-to-volume change backups then they have now ( ZFS didn't have that for a while either after it first rolled out). The macOS space needs that because it has $/GB and/or max capacity issues that the iOS devices don't have.

The macOS ecosystem is broader than the iOS one. Same is true for the Mac product space. Apple may aggressively choose to provision a function with a different form (e.g., M.2 slots instead of 3.5" drives ), but the function of dealing with local storage larger than a single drive is something the Mac Pro's classically done. The MP 2013 didn't, but Apple has the iMac Pro to substantively cover that subset now with a literal desktop solution.

and that doing so will compromise the form factor and power budget which is typically scarce in their recent products. If they don't see the mMP as a direct counterpart of the traditional workstations out there, then the form factor and available configs will inevitably be swaying towards serving other ends of the spectrum.

I don't think it is primarily form. One of the primary drivers of the MP 2013 was probably some folks at Apple laying down some hard requirement that it be a literal desktop solution. Something along the lines of "it sit onto top of a typical work desk and here are the constraints of a Mac Mini footprint and iMac footprint that have done well. " A secondary driver is going to be some general price range. The "mini" is on a budget since a major aspect of the target market is limited budget range. Some part options won't make a mini because just cost too much to hit the range target. Same with Mac Pro some stuff they won't use because the budget is higher, but not unlimited ( e.g., throw out Core i3 options along with $26+K options. )

The strange mentality Apple could be still locked in is why they would still be holding on to that after finishing the iMac Pro. They don't need another Mac literal desktop system with the same power constraints as the iMac Pro. They could go back to the older Mac Pro budget of ~900W and deskside and then see what they can do without dogma pre-committing to some a wide set of specific forms. High parallel compute capability , up to two GPUs ( not form factor just GPU functionality) , user access to RAM and relatively high RAM capacity , etc. Function requirements not form ones. "High compute" is a function. 3.5" drives is a form; it isn't a functional requirement.

I am going to guess that the new Mini together with the mMP are going to differentiate themselves among 2 distinct roles, in which at least one of the forms will tackle internal storage needs. In the case of the Mini (pro), even if it is just a single 2.5" slot over SATA3 like what it has now, will pass as that with the tcMP having only one PCI SSD.

The current Mini has two drives. Going to a single SATA connector is exremely unlikely. Now there is a PCI-e and a SATA connector. Apple will likely either keep those two or if only one SATA and the PCI-e connection will be soldered (e.g., T2 laptop style).

And then if the Mini shift into a smaller Apple TV sized box with just PCI SSD then the mMP has one more reason to have some internal HDD utility.

AppleTV box isn't an option. Even if they dropped the 2.5" drive completely the Mini still probably would have functional requirements to have multiple USB connectors, two (or more TB) connectors, and probably still the HDMI and Ethernet ports. The CPU+GPU have TDP requirement that are not aligned with an AppleTV box.

Most likely the Mac Mini will look pretty much like the current one. If Apple did any "revolutionary" more with the Mini it would be to turn it vertical. (e.g., in how the AirPort when vertical and how the Mac Pro went vertical in cooling. )

If anything, the Mini is the edge of being too small already, smaller still isn't going to help. ( Lots of NUC clam to be smaller up until you fold back in the volume/dimensions of the power supply which in many cases is just kicked outside to grow. )
[doublepost=1535121437][/doublepost]

Currently, extra storage on the Mac Pro has to be external via Thunderbolt. I believe that the new one should have fast, internal, hot-swappable volumes.

The older Mac Pro's didn't have hot-swappable drives. Native support for hot-swappable drives is not there in either HFS+ or the new APFS. So probably not.

Hot-swappable implies have sort of hot-failover support present either in hardware, software , or some combo of both. RAID 1 , 5 , 6 , 10 , etc. Next Mac Pro nominally configured for RAID out of the box extremely likely isn't going to happen. The throughput performance levels that the 2006-2009 Mac Pros got by 'short stroking' , striping, 3-4 250-500GB 3.5" HDD drives hooked to a "real RAID card" can be done by a single top of the line x4 PCI-e v3 SSD drive now.

Apple has deprecated their RAID disk format that Apple software RAID uses and Software does a variant of. Maybe Apple will add RAID like capabilities into APFS in the future but that is unlikely. That isn't to say you won't be able to do RAID set ups with a new Mac Pro. It is indicative though of what Apple is going to nominally support in their configurations sold. Apple's "go to" solution for storage performance is SSDs at this point. As the $/GB of SSDs come down over time, they only get more emphatic about that. They are betting on a train that is coming.

That said the next Mac Pro should have more than one SSD. SSDs get performance, but are more slowly coming down the tracks in affordable capacity. It is getting better, but not as fast as the hype from several years ago about SSDs catching HDDs in a couple of years.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

sata has had hot swap for some time. We do not need file system level raid. We need block level raid Does not mac os not have mdraid?? (does not need to be boot disk)
Also don't force people into bios fake raid

also why not have e-sata??? it's free with the chipset and does not tie up the TB / USB bus. (other then the DMI bus)

 

[fuchsdh]

sata has had hot swap for some time. We do not need file system level raid. We need block level raid Does not mac os not have mdraid?? (does not need to be boot disk)
Also don't force people into bios fake raid

also why not have e-sata??? it's free with the chipset and does not tie up the TB / USB bus. (other then the DMI bus)

In this thread: people say Thunderbolt is a "solution in search of a problem", but hold onto eSATA, which has always been far more niche than Firewire and TB.

 

[deconstruct60]

One has to assume the decision to beef up the Mini's specs is a result of their positioning the new Air to be the entry level Mac.

That is a rather dubious assumption. The current Mac Mini starts out at $499. Apple might backslide on that to $599 but it is highly unlikely that they will backslide to $799 ( $300 ). In countries where the dollar conversion is high, that is practically suicidal.

Meanwhile the current MacBook Air lists at $999. Apple may push that back to $899 or possibly $799 ( although with a bump up to Retina screen that is a bit dubious). The notion though that Apple is going to fall all the way back to $599 with the MBA is grossly unjustified. Even the chopped down MBA 11" was in the $799 range. Falling below that mark is going to be extremely hard for Apple if they keep the current quality levels. On top of that, falling down to almost completely overlap the iPad Pro.... that is pretty wishful thinking. Most likely it won't happen.

The Mac Mini doesn't have a screen , camera, keyboard, trackpad, and battery. All of the BOM cost chucked and the MBA is going to limbo under the Mac Mini on price. Please. Whatever processor the MBA uses to hit it "rock bottom" price the Mac Mini can just use the same one. Match the MBA on RAM and SSD and where is the price gap going to come from for the MBA? No where. If Apple uses the same strategy they have now they will slap that low end MBA processor into both the minimal Mini and minimal iMac. All the economies of scale savings the MBA collects will be driving into those other two options (and vice versa. ).

What the recent article was saying was that the BTO options for the Minii were perhaps going to go up over what the MBA zone is. Well, that is actually true right now, so it is nothing new. ( $1549 Air : $1,999 mini )

It makes sense in that everyone nowadays who needs a cheap low end computer at all for non-pro use (as opposed to just a smart device) would rather it be a portable all-in-one than a desktop.

Cheap comes from the same trick that the Mini has classicaly used. The buyers already own a keyboard and monitor from there last desktop. So the Mini doesn't have to incorporate new version of those for that price. That's allow it to limbo in under the MBA in price. As long as it is a "who can chuck the most BOM" contest the Mini wins.

Now for new computer users who are jumping into buying a computer for themselves and don't have a keyboard and monitor already the MBA can be more attractive. But that isn' the cheapest of the cheap option. It is more slow growing than the "fresh new user" market, but it is substantive enough to put a Mini product into. And no Apple doesn't want to put the focus on that for the folks who are more interested in Apple's stock price. Apple is going to point to the higher end BTO options that will help drive up the average Mini selling price out of the "basement" levels those extremely limited budget folks driving the average down to.

A desktop, to that kind of 'not really a PC person but I like to check emails, store photos and browse the web' type of user, is just a relic in today's world. They'd rather have an Air they can use on the couch or take on the plane. And fair enough too: that's what I use my Air for.

The problem that Apple has is that their average Mac price point is much higher than the other Windows options. For folks that only have $550 even a $799 MBA is a non option. Spending $799 just to read email and surf the web is a lot for someone with a $500-600 budget.

"That's what I do" is grossly myopic. Lots of people have discretionary spending budgets that are substantially different than yours. That true for just about everybody.

The MBA entry 128GB storage space is also a bit dubious for a "all my photos for all my years" collection. There isa reason why Apple does a trade off of a 500GB HDD with the entry model. It is targeted at folks who are more $/GB sensitive.

TBH I'd even imagined them trying to pass the new Mini off as a home media device that subsumed the Apple TV a bit,

I have a suspicion that home media thing was relatively narrow set of folks willing to pay more than average for a solution. It isn't necessarily to replace Apple TV. AppleTV can be a Plex client to a Mac Mini server. Some folks own a giant pile of TV shows and iTunes audio. Again AppleTV doesn't subsume that.

In streams of media context, the AppleTV is far more a client than a server. (which mode involves streaming context off the AppleTV to some other device via the local network ? You can turn on "Home Sharing" on a Mac to share to the AppleTV but where is the vice versa of that? ) Yes, Apple has a giant 'Cloud' for AppleTV (and other Apple devices ) to stream from, but there is an establish base of folks who have big piles of their own stuff ( who can still subscribe to Apple's service and have access to an even larger pile of stuff while roaming. ). Even AppleTV has a limited local cache ( completely cacheless clients for static data is bad idea when go to hyper large scale. It is just plain grossly inefficient. ) .

considering Apple doesn't even sell in-house monitors anymore (I know they're making one for the modular Mac Pro, but I doubt we'll see that this year).

Probably not completely true. They are extremely likely not just making that monitor solely for the Mac Pro. They are probably going to make another Thunderbolt Display docking station and it will be sold to far more than simply just the Mac Pro group. Apple hasn't introduced a new "just a monitor" in over 14 years. That predates all the Intel based Mac Pro models. That isn't "anymore". It happened over well over a decade ago. It is in the same class as Apple doesn't sell printers anymore either.

Defacto that LG UltraFine series was an "Apple" monitor. It doesn't have an Apple logo on it, but it has all the appearance of being a 'half finished' monitor project that Apple somehow convinced LG to complete. That outsourced but don't put our name on it experiment didn't work all that well.

The smart move would be to have some new home media ecosystem for this age of streaming and smart speakers/TVs that seamlessly includes Macs - low end Macs especially - a lot more than is currently the case.

Why do they need a new one when they have one? iTunes has gotten kind of clunky, but it also has a 100+ million user base too. The only thing Apple really needs is a updated system that checks the local network cache of stuff before trying to stream it out of distant cloud that is more seamless to set up. That is mostly incremental; not new.

Similar to how Apple allows set up of local masOS upgrade servers for more sophisticated corporate/business clients. 10 machines don't all redundantly download the same thing from Apple's servers every time.

 

[pl1984]

USB3.0 HDD enclosures without RAID controller are almost at commodity price right now. And those who currently work with MBPs or iMacs probably are already invested in TB2 tier or above enclosures anyway. So then the remaining sectors who must have SATA slots in the mMP are those who expect to move their workflow and components directly from cMP / generic PC towers / spare parts lying around.

I don't see Apple giving a high priority for the latter group. The mobo circuitry design, heat budget, valuable space, air flow, noise levels... way too much to give up just to make way for. SATA HDDs is one of the few problems Thunderbolt has actually solved, or, has adequately moved out of the chassis with minimum compromise.

It hasn't solved anything. All it has done is move it from inside the case to outside the case. As far as minimum compromise I beg to differ, by moving these externally they've created even more clutter. Instead of a single power supply there are now multiple ones. Instead of a nice, clean interior layout (something the cMP case was praised for) one now has a rats nest of cables (both data and power). The only benefit the lack of SATA hard drive bays has is for those who may not want SATA hard drives.