Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2005 12:20 UTC
Apple Apple has updated its line of Mac Mini computers. The new models have slightly faster processors, with the cheapest Mini now featuring a 1.33Ghz G4 (previously a 1.24Ghz) and the expensive models receiving a speed bump from a 1.42Ghz G4 to a 1.5Ghz G4. The higher-end models also recieve dual-layer DVD burning and improved Bluetooh and Airport Extreme. Graphics-wise, the Mini sees a doubling of RAM. And the harddrives are (finally) upgraded to normal 5400rpm models, instead of the rather sloppy 4200rpm models.
Order by: Score:
v Trouble for mini?
by Yogurth on Wed 28th Sep 2005 12:36 UTC
RE: Trouble for mini?
by Sparrowhawk on Wed 28th Sep 2005 12:41 UTC in reply to "Trouble for mini?"
Sparrowhawk Member since:
2005-07-11

Hardly. Apple knows that you must always keep offering more to keep the momentum moving forward.

The Mini, like every other product, evolves. It keeps the product offering fresh, keeps Apple in the proactive camp, offers those who were not going to consider switching a more compelling argument to do so.

Or are you suggesting that Apple has not sold enough iPods? Laptops? ;)

Reply Score: 1

v Underpowered ppc junk
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 12:45 UTC
Re: OSNews post & PPC reference
by QuadSix50 on Wed 28th Sep 2005 12:56 UTC
QuadSix50
Member since:
2005-07-07

Now this is from Think Secret, but I see no mention of the new Mac minis on Apple's website. Wouldn't it be better to post this information once Apple has made it official?? Right now, it's just word of mouth.

And as for the "underpowered PPC junk," My iMac G5 is hardly that, and I've used the mini and considering the lowly hardware, it still performs quite well FOR IT'S INTENDED USE (not as a gaming machine, server machine, or any other machine that usually handles intensive apps...just as an everyday computer for web and office use and maybe some multimedia). And if I were you, I wouldn't even bother with the first gen x86 Macs until they've established themselves. At least PPC is an established CPU for Mac OS X. Don't forget the days of the 68K->PPC transition.

Reply Score: 3

FOR IT'S INTENDED USE
by PipoDeClown on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:33 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

wouldnt it be nice _if_ you could run just a game now and then?
but well, since iam typing this on an old Ibm laptop 300MHz running windows2003 and iam quite happy with performance i notice i dont need even that much, but it would be nice...

Reply Score: 1

RE: FOR IT'S INTENDED USE
by QuadSix50 on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:53 UTC in reply to "FOR IT'S INTENDED USE"
QuadSix50 Member since:
2005-07-07

People that are looking to buy the Mac mini are not concerned with games. And if they are, we're not talking about UT2004 gamers or Q3A gamers even (which should run fine on the mini also).

Excluding people that might want to hack this machine, the Mac mini will be used by people that are attracted to the Mac and find the mini to be a value for them. These are the people who use the web for e-mail and IM, as well as some light gaming here and there (of which there are hundreds of shareware and commercial games to choose from on the Mac side. Check out http://versiontracker.com/macosx to see what's available). They don't care about FPS or lag times on multiplayer sessions. They just want to do their thing and casually game from time to time.

My only gripe with the mini was the lackluster video memory. EVEN STILL, I was quite impressed with it's performance. Now with the CPU, hard drive, and video enhancements, things should look better for the mini for those users described above.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FOR IT'S INTENDED USE
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:10 UTC in reply to "FOR IT'S INTENDED USE"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No, I could care less if I can't run a game on m Mini. I Haven't run a game on any PC hardware for years. Who cares? I bought my Mini because it does exactly what I need a computer to do. Why should I be concerned if it is a sluggard at doing things I won't do?

Reply Score: 0

RE: FOR IT'S INTENDED USE
by kadymae on Wed 28th Sep 2005 15:52 UTC in reply to "FOR IT'S INTENDED USE"
kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

wouldnt it be nice _if_ you could run just a game now and then?

Other than the latest and greatest need a videocard with more computing power than what's on the entire space shuttle, what games can't the mini run?

I mean, I'm fine and happy with Emperor's Mahjong, Myst, and Sim City on my iMac G3 600.

So, in otherwords, I call bullshit on you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FOR IT'S INTENDED USE
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: FOR IT'S INTENDED USE"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Myst and Sim City!! Classic games that run on classic hardware ;)

Todays's market of games almost always have some 3D and the Mac mini seems not to perform as well in that regard. So that leaves you with sprite based and prerendered games that run nicely. Don't get me wrong I love sprites and rendered scenes as I grew up on them and have a special place for them. However today's generation have had 3D rammed down down their throats! Kinda reminds me of how early on in the web everyone was doing drop shadows and emboss on web text elements!!

Anyways 5400 RPM is great is an improvement and upgrades to video and processor are welcomed. I have used a Mac Mini on several occasions and think they are fine machines for simple tasks and even more complex ones - iMovie and iDVD. Perhaps the next versin will be slightly large and make space for 3.5 drives. Anyways thats my 2 cents!

Reply Score: 0

still slow hard drives
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Upgraded to 5400rpm hard drives? That's still sloppy! Need to be 7200rpm. Anything less is painfull to use.

Reply Score: 0

RE: still slow hard drives
by JonO on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:58 UTC in reply to "still slow hard drives"
JonO Member since:
2005-09-23

A 7200rpm harddrive would make too much noise, generate too much heat, and consume too much power for the intended usage of the Mac Mini.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: still slow hard drives
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE: still slow hard drives"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Nonsense, the Hitachi 7K60 works fine in a Mini. Heat, noise and power consumption are not the issues. Price is.

Reply Score: 1

v welcome to 2002
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:42 UTC
Small bump...
by BWhaler on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:42 UTC
BWhaler
Member since:
2005-07-06

As a current mini owner, I think the bump is mild, and not enough to upgrade to.

My wife uses the mini in our household--her first Mac--and complains about the speed continually. I think Apple was penny wise, pound foolish in the initial specs since it builds a bad brand impression.

Now, don't get me wrong. It was a 600 computer, so I wasn't expecting the world.

But, Apple still needs a better memory card which is at least Tiger compatible (truly) for the mini to be upgrade worthy. A 7,200 RPM drive and user upgradeable memory is also pretty important.

I will probably wait for the next bump before upgrading.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Small bump...
by Who is That on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:04 UTC in reply to "Small bump..."
Who is That Member since:
2005-07-02

umm, it is user upgradable. you just have to remove the case and pull the memory. it is not like it is soldered on.

you could upgrade the memory and your wife will be very happy. it supports a gig, just buy a good quality stick from crucial and replace the 256 that is in there and you will not complain about speed any longer.

a mini is faster (clock wise) than my laptop, but I cannot tell the difference between my Power Mac (1 GHz) and my laptop for usage because the laptop has 512 MBs of memory in it. (the minimum)

sure, I can see a diff when rendering a movie, but that is CPU bound which makes sense for the desktop machine to outperform my slower laptop.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Small bump...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 08:18 UTC in reply to "Small bump..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

The memoery is indeed user upgradable and a GB of RAM will do your Mini wonders. As for "memory card" I presume you mean "graphics chip". A Quartz Extreme compatible chip would indeed be nice to have. An ATI Radeon 9600 with 64+ MB of RAM would be a good pick.

Reply Score: 0

Finally (5400RPM hard drives)
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 28th Sep 2005 13:47 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I know someone who has his heart set on using a few minis as servers. At least they're a bit more suitable for that kind of thing, now that Apple is no longer scraping the bottom of the laptop harddrive barrel / using the mini as a convenient way to get rid of surplus iBook components.

Reply Score: 1

macmini is sub-optimal
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If Apple honestly wanted to offer a "optimal value for the price"-computer the macmini would have a standard 3,5" HD (allows way more space and is a lot cheaper per MB than 2,5" drives) plus a standard 5,25" Optical Drive Bay. Those slimline optical drives are way more expensive than the slimline-drives.
And maybe a case that can be opened with 2 Fingers would be handy.
The only downside of these different drive dimensions would be a slightly bigger case - so what? ... But Apple is Apple, and Coolness-Factor is everything. Tech comes last. <sigh>

btw, i AM a macuser.

Reply Score: 1

RE: macmini is sub-optimal
by Who is That on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:11 UTC in reply to "macmini is sub-optimal"
Who is That Member since:
2005-07-02

hmm
3.5 inch HS, that sits about 1 inch tall. a 5.25 optical drive sites about 2 inches tall. the mini is only 2 inches tall, so you want to make it 5 inches tall, plus a lot wider because the added girth of the optical drive will need to be taken into account for the air flow connectors, and the mainboard/processor.

you are now looking at a mini tower rather than a tiny silent machine.

Reply Score: 1

RE: macmini is sub-optimal
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:14 UTC in reply to "macmini is sub-optimal"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The only downside of these different drive dimensions would be a slightly bigger case - so what? ... But Apple is Apple, and Coolness-Factor is everything. Tech comes last.

You're right that Coolness-Factor is important when it comes to the design. Anyone looking at buying a mini is not looking for performance, so why should Apple make the changes you want? They want something that is sexy and has lots of appeal, which is why they are using laptop components to cut the size down. Look at the iPod, it isn't the cheapest or has the best features, but it has the Coolness-Factor and that is why it sells.

Reply Score: 0

typo
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>Those slimline optical drives are way more expensive than the slimline-drives.

sorry, i meant: Those slimline optical drives are way more expensive than the 5,25" standard-drives

Reply Score: 0

Clueless people
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

2002 specs? Why do you people even bother to post here? Comparing PPC mhz and x86 mhz is like soooooo clueless.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Clueless people
by Yogurth on Wed 28th Sep 2005 15:25 UTC in reply to "Clueless people"
v RE[2]: Clueless people
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Clueless people"
RE[2]: Clueless people
by QuadSix50 on Wed 28th Sep 2005 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Clueless people"
QuadSix50 Member since:
2005-07-07

What is that place You are coming from? Oh I remember it's called Fantasy World.

Fantasy World? I guess that would put AMD and Intel right there as well since AMD isn't quite up there clock-wise yet gets great performance and Intel has all but scrapped the P4 architecture in favor of the Pentium-M design. What are the clock speeds on those Pentium-Ms again?? WHAT?? YOU MEAN THEY AREN'T AT 3.6 GHZ?!!??!!?

Clock speed has it's factor, but it's not all that. There are many other factors as we all know and have heard ad nauseum.

Windows is also another bottleneck on the system. I've seen Linux run circles in performance on the same systems that were bogged down by Windows. And if the developer reports on Mac OS X for Intel are any indication, we will truly see these x86 CPUs shine on the Intel Macs that will ship on 2006.

Time to step out of the time warp. It's not all about clock speeds.

Reply Score: 1

rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

Seriously, why would any PC-geek buy one of these, unless you buy it for it's small footprint? For the same money, you can get a smoking-fast PC.

Now ... for non-geeks ... the Mini is great. We have one in our office for desktop publishing (Quark, Photoshop, etc.) and it works well. But, it's a first-gen, and I can notice it's slowness compared to my P4 Wintel box.

Noobs would benefit. Others should pass.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Your "smoking fast" PC still runs Windows, a now 4 year old operating system.

You can still get things done faster and more productive on a slower Mac like the mini - because of spotlight, dashboard, and the OS X interface in general.

Reply Score: 0

SwSh Member since:
2005-07-06

noob as in: "doesn't know how to buy a machine that's exactly intended for the work he needs to do"? Then I'll agree.
I seriously do not consider myself as a noob, yet I'm very tempted to get one of these machines.
Why?
- I haven't been using windows for years and I don't want to.
- I want a rock-solid, stable, unix-based/like development machine that'll allow me to do things fast and easy (including multimedia and everyday stuff), yet allow me to dig into the dungeons of unix system internals when I really want/need to.
- I'm getting tired of linux as a desktop machine.
- I really need to upgrade my hardware but don't have the time to assemble a pc from loose components. Been there, done that, now I have better uses for my time.
- I'm a piss-poor student: I'd get an iMac if I could afford one (there's still a possibility, I haven't decided yet) because it gives much more bang for not that much buck. Time will tell.
As of now, I consider the mini as one of my not so many options.

Reply Score: 1

chuck97224 Member since:
2005-08-27

- I haven't been using windows for years and I don't want to.
- I'm getting tired of linux as a desktop machine.


I got an iMac G-5 for those reasons. I've had it for a couple of weeks and I'm more than impressed. I like it so much that I'm starting to hate using XP at work. Unfortunately, I'm a windows developer so I'm stuck with that.

Yes, the game support is pretty weak in mac (for the games I like to play). But that has turned out to be a good thing. I'm getting to bed at a reasonable time time. :-)

Reply Score: 1

Who is That Member since:
2005-07-02

Rockwell, you are the noob. the mac mini would keep its pace with the "smoking fast" PC.

but what ever, one day you will grow up and realize that all the MHz crap is just that, crap. and one day you will not care about the specs of the machine as long as it runs acceptably and has the tools you NEED.

Reply Score: 1

Many users would benefit from Mac Mini
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 14:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I run my own computer repair business. I have noticed that about 90% of my clients use their computers for email, typing letters and surfing the Internet. Marketers have them convinced they need a big, powerful system, but the truth is; you don't need a lot of power to check your email and surf the web.

I think most home users would benifit from buying a Mac Mini. It has pleanty of power for everyday use.

As for gaming; you're not going to find a good gaming machine - PC or Mac - for $600.

Reply Score: 0

Nice
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have no idea what a "sloppy" 4200 rpm drive means. Rather I think its sloppy writing. Anyway this third iteration of the Mac mini bring it into a good price point for the features it offers. Excellent choice for college students without alot of $$ or for mom and pop computer users. Havng said that, G5 based Macs are much faster in general.

Reply Score: 0

v I call BS
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:14 UTC
Nope
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Seriously, why would any PC-geek buy one of these, unless you buy it for it's small footprint? For the same money, you can get a smoking-fast PC."

You can get a POS Dell.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Nope
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:38 UTC in reply to "Nope"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Qualify the fact Dell makes POS? I own a mac and white box. I work many days on Dell desktop and servers and they are adequate for the price. They are not POS on occasion they have had their share of bad drives ie. maxtors

Now what they ship Windows HE or Pro they can be a POS! ;) The actuall hardware is fine IMHO.

-MJB

Reply Score: 0

Re: 7200 rpm HDs
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Have to remember the mini uses laptop HDs. Not sure if they make 7200rpm laptop drives or not yet. If they do they are probably expensive, hot, loud and use a lot of power.

Reply Score: 0

rumor site?
by rightWingNutJob on Wed 28th Sep 2005 17:54 UTC
rightWingNutJob
Member since:
2005-07-07

Great, now osnews is a rumor site. Apple has clearly *not* updated it's Mac mini line, otherwise it would say so on their website. A total of *one* person has reported this, and there is no way to verify it's authenticity. The screenshots could be fake, or it could have been a freak accident that the processor was clocked incorrectly. What is this crap?

Reply Score: 1

RE: rumor site?
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:15 UTC in reply to "rumor site?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No way, huh? Scroll down to the mini on the KB article:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25517

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: rumor site?
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: rumor site?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's true the Update Mini-Jobs (er Mac) is coming but still I've been told Steve Jobs smells funny by all the young women I've spoken too.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: rumor site?
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rumor site?"
RE[2]: rumor site?
by rightWingNutJob on Wed 28th Sep 2005 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: rumor site?"
rightWingNutJob Member since:
2005-07-07

The fact remains that Apple has not updated their Mac mini line. That might change in the very near future, but until then, the specs mentioned in this article are a matter of *rumor and speculation*.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: rumor site?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2005 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rumor site?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The fact remains that Apple has not updated their Mac mini line. That might change in the very near future, but until then, the specs mentioned in this article are a matter of *rumor and speculation*.

So, you wanna bet? How much if they are wrong?Look, I've been around for long enough to know when something's a rumor and when something's news. These are the final specs, and within a few days/a week it will be made official.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: rumor site?
by rightWingNutJob on Wed 28th Sep 2005 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rumor site?"
rightWingNutJob Member since:
2005-07-07

How do you "know" other than just having a hunch that the specs mentioned on other sites are correct?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: rumor site?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rumor site?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How do you "know" other than just having a hunch that the specs mentioned on other sites are correct?

It's a matter of experience, a site's track record, their sources, etc, and of course a portion of gut feeling. But you still haven't answered my question... Wanna bet?

Reply Score: 5

Where???
by Ralf. on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:36 UTC
Ralf.
Member since:
2005-08-13

Where did the OSNews folks get the info about the update??
Apple's website and Apple's Store says nothing about it!
Wishful thinking?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Where???
by BigZaphod on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:39 UTC in reply to "Where???"
BigZaphod Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh... I believe they got their info from the site linked in the news article there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Where???
by Ralf. on Wed 28th Sep 2005 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Where???"
Ralf. Member since:
2005-08-13

Think Secret is a rumor site - you can not order the Mini with the specs they point out at Apple Site and even Apple hasn't committet the specs in any press release. So I think it is not good to post this out as official news.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where???
by BigZaphod on Wed 28th Sep 2005 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where???"
BigZaphod Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah. I see where you're coming from. Yeah, it is represented as hard news here when really it shouldn't be. I suspect it's true, though. The reasons stated on the rumors page indicates they aren't advertising it yet because they are using it as a chance to get rid of the old inventory of slower systems mixed in with some lucky folks who get faster ones instead. That makes a lot of sense to me (since the price will eventually be the same anyway). Even so, it hasn't been proven yet and should be treated as a rumor with the news blurb at least mentioning that fact.

Reply Score: 1

Sad
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Sep 2005 21:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"DVD-RAM support is not enabled on the Apple drive, however."

Why not?

Reply Score: 0

only one update for me
by re_re on Thu 29th Sep 2005 02:06 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

The one Mini update that I would like to see more than anything else is not a more powerful video card, but a video card with true dual monitor support, not just cloning.

If it had this feature I would buy one.

This would be immensfully useful to me.

Reply Score: 1

On Intel processor.
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 07:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I am waiting for Mac Mini on Intel processor! ;)
Hope begining next year.

Reply Score: 0

Next upgrade: the CPU!
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 08:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now that I've got your attention...

No, not the x86-64 CPU, the freescale 7448. When it ships it'll be in the top of the range powerbooks, real soon. ;)

90nm vs 130nm
200mhz bus vs 166mhz
1GB L2 cache vs 512MB

Enough of a speed bump for one more update, particularly if they upgrade the video card again.

If they have to stall for intel, expect bluetooth, airport extreme and dvd burning to be in the standard config with 1GB in the high end config. after all, commodity part prices are falling.

Reply Score: 0

All right!
by Johann Chua on Thu 29th Sep 2005 10:49 UTC
Johann Chua
Member since:
2005-07-22

My old Pentium III-750 box's mobo is just about dead, so I decided to get a mini rather than an iBook as my first Mac. Good to know the specs will be upgraded. Apple Center will probably have updated units a month or two after they're released in the U.S.

Reply Score: 1

5400RPM hard drives
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 12:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Having a 5400RPM rather than 7200RPM drive may reduce the Mac Mini's benchmark scores, but how much difference does it make to real world use?

For most tasks I see little speed difference between my media centre PC with a 2.5" 5400RPM drive and my normal desktop with a 3.5" 7200RPM drive.

I chose to have a 2.5" drive in the media centre because it's being used for music and video playback where silence is important. The noise produced by a 3.5" 7200RPM drive is easily audible from a few meters away which is totally unacceptable to me when listening to music.

Even ignoring the size, power consumption and cost issues, I think a 5400 is still the best choice for a system that's intended to be low noise.

Reply Score: 0

looks like time to upgrade
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 12:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If Think Secret is correct and the graphics card is upgraded to be able to use CoreImage I will be getting one of these. The old Blue and White G3 is beginning to show it's age.

Reply Score: 0

RE: looks like time to upgrade
by Anonymous on Thu 29th Sep 2005 14:10 UTC in reply to "looks like time to upgrade"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Think secret didn't say that it was Core Image capable. They said just the opposite, in fact. A Radeon 9600 would be needed for CI compatibility. Throw all the video memory you want at it, but a Radeon 9200 still can't do CI.

Reply Score: 0