Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mac mini

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Mac mini

#241

Post by izietto »

omnimus wrote: post #240
izietto wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that the MacBook shape is more thermally efficient than the MacMini shape? Why don't they do MacMinis with the MacBook shape?

I am not sure what you don't understand. There is no way you can cram desktop grade cpu and gpu in such a small space. You could put laptop line of cpus + gpus there which are slower and probably shouldn't be run 24/7 (apples usecase is NAS). Or you put just desktop cpu which has ok integrated graphics already.

Can't you use a laptop GPU with a desktop CPU? Logically I'd say "yes", but I'm not an hardware expert, just asking

Re: Mac mini

#242

Post by hugi »

nine_k wrote: post #236
hugi wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IntelliJ is unusable on my Mac Mini hardware.

I'm afraid it's partly the problem of macOS and the Java implementation for it. That's what I meant speaking about "other" software.

But Eclipse and all other java software is amazingly fast. It's just IntelliJ that's really slow. I can't see how that can be blamed on "the java implementation"?

But is it a fact that the macOS Java implementation is bad? Do you have benchmarks or something else to support that?

Re: Mac mini

#243

Post by joosters »

joshmn wrote: post #118
joosters wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using a 4k display on a mac mini, but I've got it set halfway between the 'larger text' (1080p x2) and 'more space' (4k with no pixel doubling). This doesn't mean I'm running it at a lower resolution - behind the scenes, the mac is actually rendering the display at 6016x3384 and then smoothly scaling it down to the native 4k of 3840x2160. Because it's having to draw everything at a higher resolution than the actu…

Mac Mini user here also: What display are you using?

It's a BenQ EW3270U, 4k @ 60hz, connected via USB-C. It's been working just fine, I'd recommend it.

I have a second monitor which is not high-DPI but 2560x1440, connected with a USB-C => displayport cable. Surprisingly, the mix of high-DPI and normal DPI monitors works really well, with no problems, even when moving windows from one display to the other.

Re: Mac mini

#244

Post by FpUser »

hugi wrote: post #209
FpUser wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IntelliJ tools always felt like molasses to me. Maybe has something to do with them being done in Java. Most of my dev tools are native and the feeling is totally different.

Well, my two primary tools are Xcode and Eclipse. Xcode is native but Eclipse is much, much faster. I doubt appliction performance has much to do with the language they're written in.

Not the language but what it compiles to and of course some sorcery that few people possess.

Anyways I had actually used Eclipse and did not find it particularly responsive. Been a while so maybe it is faster now.

Re: Mac mini

#245

Post by klodolph »

silviogutierrez wrote: post #183
klodolph wrote: post #2

ECC would be cool for using these for remote builds. Don't know if that's ever going to happen.

Curious, why does ECC matter for remote builds? Any explanation is appreciated!

If there is a bit flipped in your build, you then propagate the bad bit to potentially millions of machines. Bit flips in non-ECC memory are common enough that this is a concern in practice.

Re: Mac mini

#246

Post by gowld »

olyjohn wrote: post #224
askafriend wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole premise of the Mac Mini. It's the only non-Pro designated Mac that has four Thunderbolt 3 ports. I don't think you'd find this level of I/O in any other machine in this price range. That incredibly powerful I/O makes for tons of expansion possibilities. Storage, GPU, etc. (Edited to say "non-Pro designated")

Not all Thunderbolt 3 ports are the same. Good chance that two ports are sharing a single PCIe 3.0 4x controller. Since PCIe 3.0 is good for ~7.8Gb/sec/lane, you're looking at two 40Gb/sec Thunderbolt ports sharing about 31Gb/sec of bandwidth on the PCIe bus. Okay, probably not that big of a deal really. The point being that a "Pro" system might have 4 individual Thunderbolt controllers, each getting their own 4x PCI…

4K 60Hz is 8Gbps at 8bit/channel 4:2:0 color. If you go to 16bits and 4:4:4, teach of those double the data rate.

Re: Mac mini

#247

Post by gowld »

_ph_ wrote: post #195
stephenr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. It also includes a screen, and a keyboard and trackpad. It's called.. a laptop.

Putting the cpu/gpu of the 16" MB Pro would enhance the mini greatly. The thermals would be be much better than in a laptop resulting in better performance. Yet, you wouldn't have to pay for an unused screen/battery. Also, while you can use the MP Pro in clamshell mode, it is making the thermals even worse. So why should one get a laptop, if one wants a compact desktop?

Apple's hardware business model is driving margins by bundling unnecessary features in the "trim levels". They don't want you picking and choosing only the parts you need.

Re: Mac mini

#248

Post by _ph_ »

whalesalad wrote: post #201
_ph_ wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iMac display is great, I am using it right now :). But I don't get why it is still locked at 27". Apple once used to make 30" cinema displays. Not only is the iMac overdue for a redesign, it better should have an option for a larger display. Also, it is absolutely offensive, that the iMac as a desktop is glued together, preventing even the simplest maintenance like fan cleaning.

Is it glued together? The glass is no longer removable with suction cups?

Yes, it is glued together, suction cups are no longer sufficient to remove the display. To service the current gen iMacs, you have to cut away the glue and afterwards re-glue the machine. My dealer charged me about $300 labor cost for a HD replacement due to this.

Re: Mac mini

#249

Post by _ph_ »

gowld wrote: post #247
_ph_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting the cpu/gpu of the 16" MB Pro would enhance the mini greatly. The thermals would be be much better than in a laptop resulting in better performance. Yet, you wouldn't have to pay for an unused screen/battery. Also, while you can use the MP Pro in clamshell mode, it is making the thermals even worse. So why should one get a laptop, if one wants a compact desktop?

Apple's hardware business model is driving margins by bundling unnecessary features in the "trim levels". They don't want you picking and choosing only the parts you need.

Well we are talking about the Mini vs. a laptop, so entirely different devices. There is no trim level of the Mini with a reasonable graphics chip.

Re: Mac mini

#250

Post by [deleted] »

vetinari wrote: post #113
CrazyStat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problem most people have I think is that they buy much larger displays and then want to use a higher rendered resolution I'm not going to buy a 4k screen with the intention of running it at 1080p. There are plenty of large 1080p screens out there. If I buy a 4k screen it's because I want to run it at 4k.

> I'm not going to buy a 4k screen with the intention of running it at 1080p. He is not talking about not running 4k. He is talking about running more than 4k framebuffer scaled down to 4k (the "more space" option in Display control panel).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN