Support NeoGAF

[Deku Tree]

It's not that much of a hassle to buy a keyboard mouse and monitor. Just get a keyboard and mouse from Apple with your computer. I'd get the Magic Trackpad. Then get a cell Monitor that you like. And get a mini-display port cable. Done.

Otherwise your 21.5 seems fine. Not sure about music production. Make sure to get enough ram because you cant add more later.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

It's so difficult for me to recommend a non-Retina Apple device these days. That's where I'm left at.

Anyways, a friend of mine who is a film director will be getting a maxed out 5K iMac and 12TB Thunderbay storage array this Wednesday, which I'll be helping to configure for 2.5K RAW/ProRes production work this weekend. I can't wait. We built it with the idea that it'll kick ass at 2.5K, but with an upgrade to RAID/SSD storage in the Thunderbay, be ready for variants of 4K.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Thinking about getting a 21.5 2.7ghz model iMac, with only a fusion drive as an upgrade. It's either that, or get the high tier 21.5 inch and forgo the fusion drive.

What do you guys think? I'm mainly planning to use it for music production and not gaming. I looked into the minis, but it's just too much of a hassle for me to buy a monitor and a nice keyboard/mouse to go with it in the end.

My only real recommendation for your consideration is getting pure flash over the fusion drive. It's more money for less space, but you'll get far more consistently fast performance, and you don't have to worry about the spinning drive failing and taking down your entire computer with it. Then again, the prices to BTO are still pretty high, so I can see where it's not worth the money for some people.

 

[Blackhead]

BTO is not worth the money and Apple are assholes for making manually upgrading their new generation of consumer desktops so impractical/impossible. I'd suggest waiting for a 4K 21" iMac (fingers crossed for later this year) or going with a mac mini today so you can upgrade the monitor later. Retina is going to be the norm for Macs very soon and you don't want to be on the wrong side of that imo

 

[jts]

You're asking if you can move hard drives between bays with no ill effects? If so the answer is yes.

Yeah it was that, thank you!

 

[MadraptorMan]

My only real recommendation for your consideration is getting pure flash over the fusion drive. It's more money for less space, but you'll get far more consistently fast performance, and you don't have to worry about the spinning drive failing and taking down your entire computer with it. Then again, the prices to BTO are still pretty high, so I can see where it's not worth the money for some people.

I would consider it, but I want more space and I don't want to add on the extra cost of getting another external HDD for storage.

I haven't made my purchase yet, now I'm kinda wondering if a Mini is in fact my best option...it's just that after purchasing all the necessary peripherals I feel like the price is close enough that I should just go for the iMac.

 

[tr4656]

I would consider it, but I want more space and I don't want to add on the extra cost of getting another external HDD for storage.

I haven't made my purchase yet, now I'm kinda wondering if a Mini is in fact my best option...it's just that after purchasing all the necessary peripherals I feel like the price is close enough that I should just go for the iMac.

But the thing is the 21.5" iMac is not that great in terms of hardware for what it is.

 

[MadraptorMan]

But the thing is the 21.5" iMac is not that great in terms of hardware for what it is.

The mid-range iMac is quite a step up from the mid-range Mini, isn't it? Considering the CPU?

I've been looking into a good monitor to pair with the Mini if I go that route, does anyone have any good recommendations?

 

[tr4656]

The mid-range iMac is quite a step up from the mid-range Mini, isn't it? Considering the CPU?

I've been looking into a good monitor to pair with the Mini if I go that route, does anyone have any good recommendations?

Yeah, the mid range one is a step up but theres the price difference. The thing is you could do a whole lot better w it the monitor.

Whats your budget for the monitor? Theres really a lot of choices.

 

[MadraptorMan]

If I was buying a monitor separately, I wouldn't go over $200 otherwise it wouldn't be worth it to go with the Mini, in my opinion.

 

[tr4656]

If I was buying a monitor separately, I wouldn't go over $200 otherwise it wouldn't be worth it to go with the Mini, in my opinion.

You have plenty of good monitors in that budget. Dell S2340M would work pretty well and have good colors since its a solid IPS panel.

 

[thenexus6]

Finally got my retina macbook replacement. The screen very much welcomed back!!

Edit: Push bullet finally out for safari and OS X!

 

[threetri333]

Come on Apple, release your Broadwell Macbooks!

It takes 10 minutes to load Android Studio on my 2003 Desktop Windows 7.

 

[Deku Tree]

OMG 10.10.2 broke my Magic Trackpad on my original rMBP. The Magic Trackpad just stopped connecting the moment that I installed 10.10.2. Full batteries too.

Horrible...

EDIT: NVM batteries made it work now... phew!

 

[Fuchsdh]

Well damn. I went looking up 4K displays again, as I am oft to do, and I noticed Dell replaced their UP2414Q with the UP2415Q, which is $300 cheaper and according to Amazon's top reviewer properly acts as a retina display in OS X.

If I can find it for under $500 I might just pull the trigger and buy it... being unable to watch Groundhog Day due to HDCP on my 20" ACD reminded me that it's a bit long in the tooth now

Supposedly the Radeon 7950 can handle this + another display so I should be set still.

 

[tr4656]

Well damn. I went looking up 4K displays again, as I am oft to do, and I noticed Dell replaced their UP2414Q with the UP2415Q, which is $300 cheaper and according to Amazon's top reviewer properly acts as a retina display in OS X.

If I can find it for under $500 I might just pull the trigger and buy it... being unable to watch Groundhog Day due to HDCP on my 20" ACD reminded me that it's a bit long in the tooth now

Supposedly the Radeon 7950 can handle this + another display so I should be set still.

Why a 24" and not a 27"?

 

[Fuchsdh]

Why a 24" and not a 27"?

I want to use the monitor as a retina display, and 1080p on a 27 incher incher seems like a waste. I also just don't have the room on my desk.

Hmm. So 4K monitor seems like a cost I can hold on. But I was looking for a new portable since I've been feeling the pain of not having a laptop to work in bed or somewhere away from my Mac Pro, looking at a MBP 13" since it could replace my SO's old 2008 Macbook down the line (the aberrant unibody model.) Initially I was thinking I'd get a non-retina 2012 off eBay and pack in 8 or 16GB of RAM and an SSD, but pricing it out the cost for a model in good condition off eBay plus those upgrades still comes to around $900-950—at that point I might as well get a current model refurb for around $100 more and upgrade the PCIe down the line. Having bought my current Mac Pro and Mac mini off eBay I'm amazed at how resilient used Mac prices are, but how stupidly resilient laptop prices are. I guess it's a great market for pennywise, pound-foolish people...

 

[EmiPrime]

My MBA trackpad (doesn't occur with external peripherals) is interrupting single clicks as double clicks. I've tried it with tap to click on and off, still the same. Any ideas?

 

[Fuchsdh]

My MBA trackpad (doesn't occur with external peripherals) is interrupting single clicks as double clicks. I've tried it with tap to click on and off, still the same. Any ideas?

Have you tried changing the frequency for double click interpretation (I'm not sure if that's an option in the default pref pane or I'm just imagining it/thinking of a utility.)

 

[serversurfer]

Okay, I'm looking to get a used MBP, and I haven't 100% decided whether to get the Mid-2012 or the Early 2013, but I'm leaning towards the former.

While I'm sure the Retina display is lovely, it's still effectively the same real estate, so it's not that much of an advantage to me. To its advantage, the older model is $200 cheaper, the RAM is upgradable, and so is the storage. The 2013 has 8GB and 256GB flash, but both are soldered. I can bump the 2012 to 16GB for $120, and later replace the optical drive with a 250GB 850 Pro to create a Fusion Drive with the 500GB HDD, which I can then swap out for a 2TB HDD down the road, giving me a rather speedy 2.25TB Fusion Drive when it's all said and done.

Spec-wise, they're just about identical, both using the same CPU, with the 2013 clocked 0.1GHz higher. Same Ivy board, RAM, etc. They both have Intel 4000 in addition to a GT650M, but that's where a possibly significant difference comes up, but I'm not sure how significant it really is.

The 650M in the 2013 is 1GB while the 2012 is only 512MB. Of course, the former is Retina, so it's 4x the resolution, but "only" double the VRAM, so I'm not really sure what the performance implications are there, both for general use and for gaming. Anyone have any idea? lol

 

[Zombie James]

Okay, I'm looking to get a used MBP, and I haven't 100% decided whether to get the Mid-2012 or the Early 2013, but I'm leaning towards the former.

While I'm sure the Retina display is lovely, it's still effectively the same real estate, so it's not that much of an advantage to me.

There are scaling options on the rMBP. The 13" model can scale to an effective workspace of 1680x1050 (iirc) while the 15" model can scale to 1920x1200, and you still get the pixel density benefits. There are also apps the can allow other resolutions including full native, though that's pretty unusable.

 

[Granadier]

Okay, I'm looking to get a used MBP, and I haven't 100% decided whether to get the Mid-2012 or the Early 2013, but I'm leaning towards the former.

While I'm sure the Retina display is lovely, it's still effectively the same real estate, so it's not that much of an advantage to me. To its advantage, the older model is $200 cheaper, the RAM is upgradable, and so is the storage. The 2013 has 8GB and 256GB flash, but both are soldered. I can bump the 2012 to 16GB for $120, and later replace the optical drive with a 250GB 850 Pro to create a Fusion Drive with the 500GB HDD, which I can then swap out for a 2TB HDD down the road, giving me a rather speedy 2.25TB Fusion Drive when it's all said and done.

Spec-wise, they're just about identical, both using the same CPU, with the 2013 clocked 0.1GHz higher. Same Ivy board, RAM, etc. They both have Intel 4000 in addition to a GT650M, but that's where a possibly significant difference comes up, but I'm not sure how significant it really is.

The 650M in the 2013 is 1GB while the 2012 is only 512MB. Of course, the former is Retina, so it's 4x the resolution, but "only" double the VRAM, so I'm not really sure what the performance implications are there, both for general use and for gaming. Anyone have any idea? lol

PM me if you're seriously considering. Have a 2012 15" and have been considering downsizing to a 13" for college.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Okay, I'm looking to get a used MBP, and I haven't 100% decided whether to get the Mid-2012 or the Early 2013, but I'm leaning towards the former.

While I'm sure the Retina display is lovely, it's still effectively the same real estate, so it's not that much of an advantage to me. To its advantage, the older model is $200 cheaper, the RAM is upgradable, and so is the storage. The 2013 has 8GB and 256GB flash, but both are soldered. I can bump the 2012 to 16GB for $120, and later replace the optical drive with a 250GB 850 Pro to create a Fusion Drive with the 500GB HDD, which I can then swap out for a 2TB HDD down the road, giving me a rather speedy 2.25TB Fusion Drive when it's all said and done.

Spec-wise, they're just about identical, both using the same CPU, with the 2013 clocked 0.1GHz higher. Same Ivy board, RAM, etc. They both have Intel 4000 in addition to a GT650M, but that's where a possibly significant difference comes up, but I'm not sure how significant it really is.

The 650M in the 2013 is 1GB while the 2012 is only 512MB. Of course, the former is Retina, so it's 4x the resolution, but "only" double the VRAM, so I'm not really sure what the performance implications are there, both for general use and for gaming. Anyone have any idea? lol

One note—the SSD is user-serviceable on retina Macbook Pro models. So you can always upgrade it later on if you want (Other World Computing sells compatible PCIe flash modules, and they offer a kit that includes the pentalobe screws you need to open the case, plus a USB3 enclosure for the supplied SSD to turn it into a speedy external.) The RAM is soldered as you say and non-upgradeable. Technically the 2012 models are only supposed to be outfitted with up to 8GB anyhow (you can fit 16GB at the possible cost of more frequent kernel panics.)

I just put in an order for a refurb 2014 MBP 13" off Apple.com. I was looking at a non-retina 2012, but considering the costs of adding RAM and an SSD, I decided it was better to get a faster machine, nicer display, thinner body and better battery for essentially $200 more.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

While I'm sure the Retina display is lovely, it's still effectively the same real estate, so it's not that much of an advantage to me.

It's actually effectively a slightly higher resolution, as some things scale by 2x, while other elements are not scaled (for example, photos and videos can be pixel perfect).

 

[serversurfer]

There are scaling options on the rMBP. The 13" model can scale to an effective workspace of 1680x1050 (iirc) while the 15" model can scale to 1920x1200, and you still get the pixel density benefits. There are also apps the can allow other resolutions including full native, though that's pretty unusable.

Oh, so kinda like running a non-Retina app on a newer phone. That makes sense. So the game would still render at 900p, but just on a nicer display, basically. In that case, the extra VRAM would be a pretty straight advantage. What about normal operation? Would the Retina-ness suck up more VRAM, or are most operations handled by the Intel 4000? How do those systems work together anyway?

One note—the SSD is user-serviceable on retina Macbook Pro models. So you can always upgrade it later on if you want (Other World Computing sells compatible PCIe flash modules, and they offer a kit that includes the pentalobe screws you need to open the case, plus a USB3 enclosure for the supplied SSD to turn it into a speedy external.)

Oh, then that's not quite so bad, but I still prefer the idea of a Fusion Drive. It really seems like the best of both worlds. I think Apple should solder like 128GB of flash to the board, and then fuse that with whatever 2.5" drive the user decides to slot. Oh well.

Technically the 2012 models are only supposed to be outfitted with up to 8GB anyhow (you can fit 16GB at the possible cost of more frequent kernel panics.)

Like, is that a real thing? I know you can often install more than the rated amount of RAM in a Mac, but this is the first I've heard about panics.

It's actually effectively a slightly higher resolution, as some things scale by 2x, while other elements are not scaled (for example, photos and videos can be pixel perfect).

Oh, that's a good point i hadn't really considered. I don't really do much of that kind of stuff though. Mostly just screwing around on the web and hopefully doing some coding. That, and some light business duties. I might play stuff like Civ or SimCity if it's up to it, but it's not a big deal if it's not. Like I said, I'm sure the Retina is nice, but the performance and storage of a Fusion Drive just appeals to me more.

 

[Granadier]

GPU's are handled via dynamic switching based on load and power source. You can disable it in the settings to force the discrete to be on always.

You can also get a program called gfxCardStatus that allows control over which GPU is used.

---------

Retinas don't have space for a hard drive, so a fusion drive wouldn't work. The PCIe SSD's are also ~2x the price.

Also, a Fusion Drive is just an SSD + HDD bundled together with some software to automatically move files around. You can achieve the same performance by just putting an SSD in the optical bay.

 

[serversurfer]

GPU's are handled via dynamic switching based on load and power source. You can disable it in the settings to force the discrete to be on always.

You can also get a program called gfxCardStatus that allows control over which GPU is used.

Nice.

Retinas don't have space for a hard drive, so a fusion drive wouldn't work. The PCIe SSD's are also ~2x the price.

Also, a Fusion Drive is just an SSD + HDD bundled together with some software to automatically move files around. You can achieve the same performance by just putting an SSD in the optical bay.

Ouch. Anyway, yeah; the moving stuff around automatically is what makes it awesome. lol Basically, I have a 2.25TB drive with the performance of an SSD because all of my interaction is with that device, and the OS offloads anything rarely or slowly accessed to the HDD. This even happens at the block level, so not only is it automatic, it does a far better job than I could ever hope to do even if I could track the actual usage. If I need more storage, I can just upgrade the cheap HDD, and if I need to make more edge cases fast I can upgrade the SSD. Time Machine makes that process pretty painless no matter which I upgrade.

I've not used one yet, but I have no idea why all systems aren't set up this way. lol

 

[Fuchsdh]

Oh, then that's not quite so bad, but I still prefer the idea of a Fusion Drive. It really seems like the best of both worlds. I think Apple should solder like 128GB of flash to the board, and then fuse that with whatever 2.5" drive the user decides to slot. Oh well.


Like, is that a real thing? I know you can often install more than the rated amount of RAM in a Mac, but this is the first I've heard about panics.

As I've said elsewhere (apparently at the top of this page), while fusion drives are a great marriage of price and performance, given that you're relying on your data integrity across two drives, I really don't recommend homebrew options. At the very least have a good up-to-date backup option.

I don't meant to exaggerate the potential problems you might face, just letting you know it could happen. Like anything, it's unsupported but that doesn't mean you'll ever have an issue (just like an unsupported upgrade to the SSD, et al.) I personally have never had a KP or any issue I could trace to adding more RAM to the two computers I've gone over the limit on; I know one or two people who have. For most people I'd guess the benefits for more RAM to work with far outweighs the issues that it might randomly throw up from time to time.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

I really don't recommend homebrew options.

Why not? As far as the OS is concerned no less legitimate than the shipped versions. It's unsupported (beyond the tools existing) but it's not warranty voiding.

The price per GB of SSD has come down so much, that if I had to redo the Fusion Drive in my partner's MBP, I wouldn't bother. At some point I'm probably going to make one for the Users volume in my Mac Pro, though.

 

[serversurfer]

At the very least have a good up-to-date backup option.

Yeah, my laptops are currently backed up to a 4TB drive hanging off of an old iMac, which is backed up to a separate 2TB drive.

I don't meant to exaggerate the potential problems you might face, just letting you know it could happen. Like anything, it's unsupported but that doesn't mean you'll ever have an issue (just like an unsupported upgrade to the SSD, et al.) I personally have never had a KP or any issue I could trace to adding more RAM to the two computers I've gone over the limit on; I know one or two people who have. For most people I'd guess the benefits for more RAM to work with far outweighs the issues that it might randomly throw up from time to time.

Fair enough, thanks.

Why not? As far as the OS is concerned no less legitimate than the shipped versions. It's unsupported (beyond the tools existing) but it's not warranty voiding.

Yeah, I don't see how it's any more "unsupported" than repartitioning your HDD or replacing it with an SSD, for example. It may take me beyond the scope of the tech support script, but I don't think it's discouraged per se.

The price per GB of SSD has come down so much, that if I had to redo the Fusion Drive in my partner's MBP, I wouldn't bother. At some point I'm probably going to make one for the Users volume in my Mac Pro, though.

meh Yes and no. SSDs keep getting cheaper and larger, but HDDs are still keeping up a pretty good pace, so I see no reason not to use both where best suited. Yes, now you can get a 512GB 850 Pro for $290, but I can get a 256GB 850 Pro for $130* $150, and a 2TB HDD for another $90. That's $50-$70 cheaper, offers basically the same performance, and gives me more than 4x the storage at my fingertips. That seems pretty hard to beat, form factor aside.

*It was $130 when I wish-listed it yesterday. ><

Edit: A 1TB Pro is $550! That's half of what I'm spending on the computer itself.

 

[The Real Abed]

Hard drive for bulk storage. SSD for OS, apps and games. Until the price per GB are equal, this will always be the best way. The load times on video files from a HDD is fine since videos stream. Documents would be small enough to be quick anyway. OS and apps on a SSD is the best idea since speeding up those load times is totally worth it.

It'll probably be a long time before SSD GB prices are anywhere near a HDD GB price. Then you also have to wait for the chip capacities to grow too. Imagine being able to put a 3-6TB SSD in your super thin Retina MBP for ~$200. Ha. For $200 these days you're lucky with 128GB+.

I'm pretty sure the 512GB SSD in my Retina MBP added $500 to the price itself. (But I needed the dGPU and 256GB wasn't an option.)

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

That's $50-$70 cheaper, offers basically the same performance, and gives me more than 4x the storage at my fingertips.

Yeah, but: she doesn't need that much space. The OEM 320GB drive was large enough for all her stuff. I appreciate that other people have more stuff (including us&#8212; our media library is spinning on a 2TB disk in my MP).

For $200 these days you're lucky with 128GB+.

Bought a 480GB for $215 CDN a couple months ago. Not the world's fastest SSD, certainly but nevertheless assloads faster than a spinning disk.

 

[CriterionDog]

I haven't tried a new version of OSX in years. I have snow leopard. I believe it's the mid 2007 version. Should I buy Yosemite? It seems this model of mac is the last version supported for Yosemite. Hopefully it runs well if I do buy it.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I haven't tried a new version of OSX in years. I have snow leopard. I believe it's the mid 2007 version. Should I buy Yosemite? It seems this model of mac is the last version supported for Yosemite. Hopefully it runs well if I do buy it.

What are the specs on your Mac? Chances are without upgrades it'll feel slower in some respects, but you'll probably gain better web performance (not to mention security updates...)

 

[infiniteloop]

I haven't tried a new version of OSX in years. I have snow leopard. I believe it's the mid 2007 version. Should I buy Yosemite? It seems this model of mac is the last version supported for Yosemite. Hopefully it runs well if I do buy it.

It's free, you don't have to buy it. Apple doesn't release security updates for Snow Leopard (or Lion) any more.

 

[Deku Tree]

I haven't tried a new version of OSX in years. I have snow leopard. I believe it's the mid 2007 version. Should I buy Yosemite? It seems this model of mac is the last version supported for Yosemite. Hopefully it runs well if I do buy it.

Yes download it for free. It runs great. And re: below. Yeah also security reasons.

It's free, you don't have to buy it. Apple doesn't release security updates for Snow Leopard (or Lion) any more.

 

[Alchemy]

If I'm looking to get a brand new MBPr with an integrated GPU, should I hold out a little bit longer in hopes of a refresh? Looking to get a home office computer, right now I have an 11inch MBA that is a few years old and working on it is kinda a chore. Plus the extra power will be nice for application development.

 

[Deku Tree]

If I'm looking to get a brand new MBPr with an integrated GPU, should I hold out a little bit longer in hopes of a refresh? Looking to get a home office computer, right now I have an 11inch MBA that is a few years old and working on it is kinda a chore. Plus the extra power will be nice for application development.

Best guess is a rMBP refresh in Sept or Oct. question is do you want to wait that long? The currently for sale machine is very good already. My 2012 max spec rMBP is still a beast for my needs.

 

[Granadier]

I agree with Deku. What would a refresh even include that would warrant waiting at least seven months?

Only improvements I can think of would be an 860m and a Broadwell chip if that's ever finished.

Not really worth it in my opinion if you're looking to pick a rMBP up.

 

[Alchemy]

Best guess is a rMBP refresh in Sept or Oct. question is do you want to wait that long? The currently for sale machine is very good already. My 2012 max spec rMBP is still a beast for my needs.

Geez, I thought the yearly refreshes were usually closer to late Spring or early Summer for the computers. I dunno if I want to wait that long, but I do really like to get tech closer to launch... hmmm.

 

[tr4656]

Geez, I thought the yearly refreshes were usually closer to late Spring or early Summer for the computers. I dunno if I want to wait that long, but I do really like to get tech closer to launch... hmmm.

There might be one but it would probably just be a broadwell upgrade to the CPU. Performance would be similar for somewhat better battery life. Whether it's worth it is up to you.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I agree with Deku. What would a refresh even include that would warrant waiting at least seven months?

Only improvements I can think of would be an 860m and a Broadwell chip if that's ever finished.

Not really worth it in my opinion if you're looking to pick a rMBP up.

I dunno, I'd think if nothing else the integrated graphics boost via HD6000 would be worth waiting. At this point even with Broadwell delays you've got less than a year to wait, with the smart money being around 5-8 months.

 

[Deku Tree]

I wasn't trying to say don't buy now or don't wait... I was just saying depending upon how your doing with what you have now and what your needs are the decision is a judgement call and in both cases you are probably getting a fantastic computer...

...I have waited for years for a Mac Mini update and when it finally came it was like the worst refresh ever...

 

[thenexus6]

I haven't tried a new version of OSX in years. I have snow leopard. I believe it's the mid 2007 version. Should I buy Yosemite? It seems this model of mac is the last version supported for Yosemite. Hopefully it runs well if I do buy it.

Well when I had a 2010 macbook pro 2.4GHz it ran Yosemite amazingly well, however my Dad had the exact same laptop and his does not run it very well at all..

 

[Fuchsdh]

I wasn't trying to say don't buy now or don't wait... I was just saying depending upon how your doing with what you have now and what your needs are the decision is a judgement call and in both cases you are probably getting a fantastic computer...

...I have waited for years for a Mac Mini update and when it finally came it was like the worst refresh ever...

Other than the soldered RAM I can't see any reason to be super-upset about the Mac mini update... the lack of a quad-core i7 seems more about sockets than Apple trying to get rid of that model.

 

[Deku Tree]

Other than the soldered RAM I can't see any reason to be super-upset about the Mac mini update... the lack of a quad-core i7 seems more about sockets than Apple trying to get rid of that model.

I wanted replaceable RAM (although I would probably just max it out right up front and not worry about it again) and i wanted a top spec quad-core i7 that competes somewhat if not completely with the processing power of the 27" iMac. The old Mac Mini's did that "to some extent" and it feels like they made the gap between the power of the 27" iMac and the Mac Mini much larger with the Mini update.

I don't really understand what you mean by "lack of a quad-core i7 seems more about sockets".

 

[Alchemy]

I wasn't trying to say don't buy now or don't wait... I was just saying depending upon how your doing with what you have now and what your needs are the decision is a judgement call and in both cases you are probably getting a fantastic computer...

...I have waited for years for a Mac Mini update and when it finally came it was like the worst refresh ever...

Well I'll be using the computer for a lot of game development stuff, Unity, Photoshop, etc. So any additional horsepower is welcome. I think I might try to tough it out until a refresh, but the rMBP definitely is a sexy machine.

 

[The Real Abed]

The latest Mac mini refresh convinced me to buy a much more expensive iMac instead.

It was worth it.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I wanted replaceable RAM (although I would probably just max it out right up front and not worry about it again) and i wanted a top spec quad-core i7 that competes somewhat if not completely with the processing power of the 27" iMac. The old Mac Mini's did that "to some extent" and it feels like they made the gap between the power of the 27" iMac and the Mac Mini much larger with the Mini update.

I don't really understand what you mean by "lack of a quad-core i7 seems more about sockets".

The dual and quad-core i7's that the mini uses and would use are, under Haswell, two different socket types: FCBGA1168 and FCBGA1364. That means Apple would have needed to create two different logic board configurations. Obviously they didn't think it was worth it, and it's not a break from previous practice&#8212;I know of no other time Apple has shipped different logic boards for the same kit and model year. Sandy and Ivy Bridgew ere obviously the same socket, so I'm not sure if Broadwell will have different socket types again&#8212;if so, it might be Intel that's trying to push the diversification, and it's trickling down to Apple due to them wanting to keep manufacturing simpler.

 

[Deku Tree]

The dual and quad-core i7's that the mini uses and would use are, under Haswell, two different socket types: FCBGA1168 and FCBGA1364. That means Apple would have needed to create two different logic board configurations. Obviously they didn't think it was worth it, and it's not a break from previous practice—I know of no other time Apple has shipped different logic boards for the same kit and model year. Sandy and Ivy Bridgew ere obviously the same socket, so I'm not sure if Broadwell will have different socket types again—if so, it might be Intel that's trying to push the diversification, and it's trickling down to Apple due to them wanting to keep manufacturing simpler.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know that. It makes sense that Apple wouldn't want to make a separate logic board for the high end quad-core if it may not sell as much. Too bad.