[kscherer]

Let's talk about this.

The Mini hasn't seen any significant update since what, 2012? It's definitely been a long time, and I suspect that this is due to not just some processor bump, but a major overhaul to the machine's form factor.

Here is what I see happening:

Form factor: I suspect Apple is trying to cram the mini into a size not far removed from the current Airport Express/Apple TV. Power supply will be tiny and built in.

HDD: Going away in favor of PCI-E flash storage. Base model will ship with 128, and there will be 256 and 512 options.

RAM: Soldered in (yes, that soldered in). No more do-it-yourself upgrades. RAM sockets take too much space.

GPU: Headed for Intel Extreme business ( ) but it is what it is.

I/O: I suspect HDMI, USB and TB for I/O, with an aux jack for audio out.

Price: Hard to call, but I think the price will stay the same.

Base config will look like this: 2.0 dual i5 / 4GB RAM / 128GB SSD. Option for 1.7 quad i7, up to 8GB RAM, up to 512GB SSD. Will ship alongside Yosemite.

What I would like to see: A mini in the Airport Extreme form factor. Room for two PCI-E SSD modules, 16GB RAM and a quad i7. However, knowing Apple did not go this route with the Pro, I can pretty much guarantee they won't with the Mini. I am convinced the 2014 Mini will mirror what I called out above, although my form factor prediction is probably a bit small.

Thoughts?

[PB PM]

I think it might be hard to make the Mac Mini that size. The physical size of the CPU, and even the SSD would be enough to prevent it. The only way to make the mini that small would be to switch to an Arm processor.

[thegeriatric]

Smaller version of the Mac Pro casework, and 8 GB RAM minimum. Definitely not user upgradeable!!

[Robo]

Intel's "NUC" platform is four inches square, only slightly bigger than the Apple TV.

Intel integrated graphics aren't the drawback they used to be. I imagine the hold-up is SSD prices. Apple doesn't want to design a new computer around spinning disks, but flash is still prohibitively expensive to shove much in there. I doubt they'll want to take the entry level model down to just 64GB, like the MacBook Air.

That, or Apple just doesn't care about the mini that much. But IIRC there was a super long wait with the last model of the old white design too. So there's precedent for this, and I'd wager that when we do see a new Mac mini it'll be redesigned in some way. I mean, the current enclosure was originally designed to house an optical drive, so it can get smaller.

[kscherer]

I don't think any design issues are hanging Apple up at all. I think they have already settled on it at this point.

Yes, the Airport Express is a bit small for an Intel CPU, but I still think they're aiming for *small*! A true Mini, even borderline Mac Nano! Still, the PCI-E SSD boards Apple is using are about an inch and a quarter by five, so that seems to be the telling factor in length of the box. The current Mini's logic board is pretty darned small, so I don't think that's holding up the show. Perhaps the big hang up is deciding whether or not there will be a Server model with dual drives? That's a huge factor for us. We install Mini servers all the time, and that second drive is big! We usually mirror them for onboard failover/redundancy. Lacking that, the server market for Apple gets even more silly.

[psmith2.0]

As much as I love the iMac, my "heavy lifting" days are mostly behind me - I've purchased my last product from Adobe, and I'm slowly easing out of that whole thing (design, illustration, etc.) - and I'd have a tough time justifying another $1,299+ purchase again at this point.

If I could get a mini like kscherer describes, that would probably do me just fine. Anything coming out today is "fast and powerful"...certainly more so than this six-year-old iMac I'm on. So I wouldn't even sweat all the specs and details like I might've at one time. If it can run the core, built-in OS X stuff + the iLife and iWork titles well, that's really all I need anymore.

My next Mac (if I don't chuck it altogether and just go to an iOS-only existence...see end of previous paragraph) will likely be a mini or the 11" MacBook Air (barring a lottery win or a dead uncle leaving me an unexpected pile of money...at which point I'll be a total hypocrite/bullshitter and BTO the most obnoxiously over-the-top/over-spec'd iMac that has ever been).

[turtle]

I can totally see Apple doing something like this even if not this specifically. They love making things smaller and less to mess with. Hardware upgrades require new hardware. I don't like this personally, but if the price is reasonable I won't complain. Having to make everything be a Thunderbolt add-on would just suck though. It's not a smaller machine foot print if you have to have three extra things connected to make it do what you need.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by turtle It's not a smaller machine foot print if you have to have three extra things connected to make it do what you need.

Which Apple is doing a lot lately, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they did just that.

[Wrao]

I wonder if the next major Mac Mini upgrade will be enough to perform comparably to my 2011 iMac. If so, I'd probably make the swap.

[Bryson]

The SSD wouldn't be an issue. They aren't really the same size as a 2.5" SATA HD..my Sandisk 256GB SSD uses up about a quarter of the footprint and half the height of a 2.5" enclosure - the rest is just plastic spacer.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Robo Intel's "NUC" platform is four inches square, only slightly bigger than the Apple TV. Intel integrated graphics aren't the drawback they used to be. I imagine the hold-up is SSD prices. Apple doesn't want to design a new computer around spinning disks, but flash is still prohibitively expensive to shove much in there. I doubt they'll want to take the entry level model down to just 64GB, like the MacBook Air.

The OEM NUC chassis is 4.59x4.41x1.36in. The AppleTV is 3.9x3.9x0.9in.

Intel's HD graphics are still a drawback for a lot of GPU off-loaded work. That includes things like custom video renderers that we enjoy on the PC side...Don't even try MadVR with any kind of fancy settings turned on. As we're also on the cusp of very high PPI desktop displays being 'normal,' I wish Intel put more attention into its integrated graphics. This is one area where AMD and even ARM partners are forging ahead.

[kscherer]

Whatever design direction Apple takes, it is quite clear the Mac Mini is not being marketed for the "Pro" crowd. The very vast majority of Mini sales fall into one of two camps: Entertainment (couch) computer users, and Dell/Gateway/HP/Whatever replacements for "I use it for business" word processor/email computers.

In it's current form (other than the pokey 2.5" drive) the Mini is overkill for most tasks it is used for. Although I will concede I would like to see a better GPU, the processor is plenty powerful for even the most modern word processor and email client available. And, without the overhead of anti-this-and-that most PC users are accustomed to, the Mini flat out rocks!

Oh, and they run iPhoto and iMovie smashingly as well. So, I can see Apple now focusing on "smaller, thinner, lighter" until the thing is the size of a postage stamp you just lick and slap on your display/tv.

As far as "connecting things" is concerned and the cable mess that goes along with them, I truly believe Apple is feverishly working with partners to eliminate cables (other than power, although that appears to be in the works, too) and headed the all-wireless direction.

Consider:

CD/DVD: On it's way out. I have a drive connected to my Mini but only use it when ripping DVD's. Some people care a lot about these fool things, but I say, "Who gives a rip!" (pun intended). I suspect the "care-ers" are the same folks that whined when the floppy when away.

Printers: Wireless is the new USB

Scanners: Ditto

External HDD's: Apple makes a wireless version (as do others).

Displays: Wireless through TV (not great, yet, but it will get there.)

Flash Drives: Wireless versions are now arriving

Keyboards: Wireless*

Mice: Ditto, again*

Outside of "Pro" stuff, what else is there? Thunderbolt and USB 3 provide plenty of bandwidth for high performance bits, so …

Ultimately, if you want "Pro" get the computer Apple makes for that. Until then, the Mac Mini in its current form is a stout little fella for its intended audience that is held back in general performance only by the sad-sack 2.5", 5400rpm, old-tech, mechanical drive whirring away beneath the hood. Time to replace that hamster-driven turd! *BUT* even that drive is still fast enough for Grandma Grumpy Gills® and her solitaire "I use it for business" computer.

*Wireless KB and mice can suck for video gaming, though. However, most "gamers" don't seem to care.

[Chinney]

Is there any chance that the CPU could be ARM?

I saw a reference somewhere to Apple maybe moving in that direction for its non-pro computers. Don't know if it was all just hot air based on what is realistic, but I thought it was an interesting rumour. Could Yosemite be engineered to accommodate that?

[Quagmire]

While the A7 is a beast of a CPU, it's performance still lags even the MBA's processors. The A7 is at the same level of performance as my Early 2008 17" MBP's C2D. Doubt ARM will see use in Macs anytime soon.

[kscherer]

I guarantee Apple is running Mac OS X on ARM back behind the desk next to the water cooler down in the basement!

But performance wise, it isn't there, yet.

Also pretty much guaranteed: As soon as Apple has OS X running on ARM with awesome GPU support, Apple will ditch Intel unless they want to be just another foundry for Apple's custom chips.

I think it's several years away.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kscherer I guarantee Apple is running Mac OS X on ARM back behind the desk next to the water cooler down in the basement!

It's not so hidden, and has no need to be in a basement, it's called iOS, which is OSX. Apple no longer considers desktop and mobile OSX as different things. At the very least the core of the two is the same.

[kscherer]

Sorry for the confusion. What I was getting at is desktop Mac OS. I'm aware of iOS and OS X's shared "core". Nevertheless, the two are different for the end user.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by PB PM It's not so hidden, and has no need to be in a basement, it's called iOS, which is OSX. Apple no longer considers desktop and mobile OSX as different things. At the very least the core of the two is the same.

That is what Apple's marketing department would like you to believe but technically it is simply not true.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by kscherer Sorry for the confusion. What I was getting at is desktop Mac OS. I'm aware of iOS and OS X's shared "core". Nevertheless, the two are different for the end user.

I don't doubt that room where the secret double life OS X running on Intel lived during the PPC days is now the room where the secret life of OS X running on an ARM CPU is.

[wtd]

Also, the NUC uses an external power supply.

[turtle]

The original Mini had a brick too, maybe they would be willing to go back to it. I doubt it but they might.

[Matsu]

The mini is small enough already. If they delete spinning disks and use blade type SSDs, I'd like to see the extra space go to RAM slots. Four of them would make for an interesting Mac Pro Mini.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Matsu The mini is small enough already. If they delete spinning disks and use blade type SSDs, I'd like to see the extra space go to RAM slots. Four of them would make for an interesting Mac Pro Mini.

"Small enough" - or "thin enough", "light enough", etc. - doesn't exist in Apple's vocabulary, it seems.

It's Apple...they'll go with fewer RAM slots - one! - not more (or just solder it in and weld it all shut). Especially it it lets them shave a half-millimeter (and .4 ounces) from the thing. But the way it's going (607 days and counting), the Mac mini may never get updated again.

[chucker]

Yeah, they'll solder the RAM on before they offer four slots.

I'm not convinced the Mac mini is dead, though. It's not the first time an update takes almost two years.

[wtd]

Apple could and likely would use the same form factor SSDs they use in their other products for the Mac Mini, but they could use mSATA or M.2 form factor SSDs, which would be more compact.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by wtd Apple could and likely would use the same form factor SSDs they use in their other products for the Mac Mini, but they could use mSATA or M.2 form factor SSDs, which would be more compact.

They use a proprietary connector in most other products now, which is similar to (but incompatible with) M.2. So, it'll be sufficiently compact.

[Robo]

I guess some Apple support docs have contained a reference to an unreleased "Mac mini (Mid 2014)." So there's hope!

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/29/...ased-mac-mini/

[turtle]

Yay. I've always loved the mini and use all of mine well. I still use my G4 mini to this day!

[Frank777]

I've said for awhile that if Apple is committed to hobbling its upgradability, they should just kill the Mini and replace it with a lower-end iMac.

HP seems to have gone that direction with a new 23-inch AIO that I think makes for a decent Mini replacement machine.

[turtle]

They really shouldn't though. Headless computers are still used heavily out there. They need at least a low/mid range and a high end range headless machine. I know Pro isn't really Apple's focus anymore, but they haven't outright killed all of it yet. Just neutered them.