Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2007 22:13 UTC
Apple "Even while at the top of its game, Apple Inc. can seemingly find faults with just about anything, including a bit of itself. The Mac maker is constantly evaluating the market segments in which it wishes to participate and those which it does not. It's an application of love-hate methodology that inevitably produces its share of casualties." AppleInsider says it has learned from 'reliable' sources that the end is nigh for the Mini. "Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mini is dead."
Order by: Score:
Sukru
by sukru on Fri 25th May 2007 22:44 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

I guess the who idea was making a "more affordable mac" that can go to every household.

However they were not actually sincere with this product. Because at the same time mac mini were a competitor for higher end mac computers (especially iMac).

They made it so that it was just "not buyable" for average person. (A little lower price or a little higher configuration would have made it a more interesting offering).

Edited 2007-05-25 22:46

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sukru
by kaiwai on Sat 26th May 2007 04:01 UTC in reply to "Sukru"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They made it so that it was just "not buyable" for average person. (A little lower price or a little higher configuration would have made it a more interesting offering).


True. I remember when the Mac mini first came out and the numerous tweaking sites that popped up to address the deficiences. When the Intel version came out, again, like the PowerPC version, it was tweaked to address some of the issues.

A better hard disk (minimum of 5400rpm), more memory and a better graphics card - something along the lines of a Nvidia go 7300 would do the trick. Heck, why not sell consumer line LCD's - sell them as a 'kit'.

My mind spins in confusion over the lack of imagination by Apple to be able to extract more cash out of customers.

Reply Score: 2

Seems like a mistake to me...
by Dave_K on Fri 25th May 2007 22:48 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

From what I'd heard the Mac Mini wasn't a bad seller, I've certainly seen a fair few of them around. It doesn't surprise me that they have a significantly smaller profit margin than high-end Macs, but I had assumed that they were still quite profitable?

If so it doesn't seem very sensible to get rid of them, not unless they have a replacement product.

I can see why a company like Apple would want to focus on more profitable luxury computers, but market share is important for the long term success of a platform. If they lost some of their home user market due to the lack of cheaper computers, it's likely that they'd also lose some software and hardware support. At least when it comes to entertainment software and consumer hardware.

There are enough complaints about the price of Macs without them losing their only really low-end product. Especially when the Mac Mini is such a nice little computer for most tasks.

My fingers are crossed hoping that this rumour is inaccurate, and that instead Apple are working on a major upgrade/replacement for the Mini.

Reply Score: 5

i don't buy it
by godawful on Fri 25th May 2007 22:49 UTC
godawful
Member since:
2005-06-29

At least not in the sense that everyone is making it out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if it is replced with another form factor and maybe gets a different name. But the Apple TV is hrdly a mini replcement.. and that would also make the cheapest headless mac 2500 bucks.

On top of that, some anicdotal evidence, I know 5 people whom bought Mini's as their first mace, heck, I've had 2. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: i don't buy it
by butters on Sat 26th May 2007 02:15 UTC in reply to "i don't buy it"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

But the Apple TV is hrdly a mini replcement.

It's a 1GHz Pentium-M with 256MB RAM, 256MB GeForce 7300 Go, 40GB HDD, HD audio, 802.11a/b/g/n, 10/100 LAN, USB, and HDMI. It could use a bit more memory. Otherwise, with a USB hub, optical drive, and peripherals, it's capable enough for the vast majority of casual desktop users. Too bad its software makes it work more like a 1080p iPod than a tiny and near-silent desktop computer. Well, that's why we have the hacker community to bring OSX and Linux to the AppleTV.

I'd hazard a guess that Apple is working on a STB design to compete for the living room PC market. That's the logical evolution of the Mac Mini. The toaster oven or tissue box design was cute, I guess, but the next $400-600 Apple PC will be a milky-white eyesore in your collection of black and silver AV equipment.

Reply Score: 3

Hope they're wrong ...
by MacTO on Fri 25th May 2007 22:54 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

It is a rumour site after all!

That being said, the last Mac I bought was a mini. I like the machine. It was inexpensive (by Apple's terms), it uses my existing peripherals, and it is portable. If it wasn't there, I probably wouldn't have gone back to Apple. Laptops are too delicate in my opinion, particularly Apple's style above substance laptops. The towers are way beyond my price range (by two orders of magnitude, in binary). And the iMacs, well, been there and done that. In other words, without the mini they wouldn't have gotten me back.

Then again, it should be two or three years until I need another machine so Apple has time to change their mind.

Reply Score: 2

Mixed feelings
by Wondercool on Fri 25th May 2007 22:55 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

When the Mini came out, I remember thinking WOW, this looks good. 500 dollars for a nice and small computer.

But soon reports said it was underpowered and it was better to buy the 700 dollars version.

Then Apple switched to Intel, and suddenly the Mini was 100 bucks more. And the Mini that everyone recommended is actually 800 jojo's. Well here in Europe even more (800 Euro's ;) )

All in all I think Apple was unlucky with the hardware switch (not from a technical point but why buy a Mini if you know the next gen will be on Intel?) and made some pricing mistakes, as usual it's too high.

And yes, including an ipod station in the Mini would be a killer I think.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Mixed feelings
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th May 2007 12:45 UTC in reply to "Mixed feelings"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"But soon reports said it was underpowered and it was better to buy the 700 dollars version."

This is business as usual. If something is introduced to the market, it's usually underpowered and you can get better ones for some more money. And, of course, it is outdated when you leave the shop with it. :-)

"Then Apple switched to Intel, and suddenly the Mini was 100 bucks more. And the Mini that everyone recommended is actually 800 jojo's. Well here in Europe even more (800 Euro's ;) )"

In Germany, Mac Minis are sold at Saturn for ca. 400 - 500 Euro (the lower spec ones), I think they still do. The better versions have higher prices, 700 Euro nd more. There are customers for both of them, usual home users, such as my boss is, who I recommended to buy one as long as this is possible, would be completely happy with the "low end" Mac Mini.

"All in all I think Apple was unlucky with the hardware switch (not from a technical point but why buy a Mini if you know the next gen will be on Intel?) and made some pricing mistakes, as usual it's too high."

This seems to be usual at Apple. I think this is one reason why they are still not represented as strong in the market as they could be...

"And yes, including an ipod station in the Mini would be a killer I think."

If they included a keyboard and a mouse (to complete the system to instant usability) along with the iPod station, yes, they would go away like warm buns (in german: weggehen wie warme Semmeln).

Reply Score: 2

better upgradable headless mac?
by jcgf on Fri 25th May 2007 23:24 UTC
jcgf
Member since:
2005-11-14

Maybe they are going to come out with a single headless unit that can be upgraded a bit. That would impress that guy who always laments the lack of one on apple threads.

Reply Score: 2

Perhaps it's not needed anymore
by openwookie on Fri 25th May 2007 23:30 UTC
openwookie
Member since:
2006-04-25

The mini was my first Apple computer. I didn't want to spend very much on a Mac at the time due to the g4 processor, which basically limited me to OS X (sure there's linux, but it still works 'better' on x86 hardware). You really can't get enough of a feel for how much you'll like an OS until you start using it full time.

Now that Macs run on x86, I think that buyers can switch to Mac with less hesitation over price, since their notebooks are priced rather competitively with other similar x86 notebooks. The fact that one can run windows on the same machine reduces the fear that you'll end up with something useless if OS X doesn't serve your needs.

Reply Score: 1

Mac mini
by Macintosh Sauce on Fri 25th May 2007 23:32 UTC
Macintosh Sauce
Member since:
2007-05-03

I think that Apple should meld the qualitites of the Mac mini with the Apple TV for one kick-ass product. I would buy one in a flash!

Reply Score: 1

I am surprised this made it here.
by Tuishimi on Fri 25th May 2007 23:34 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

This article has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation (unwarranted in my opinion). Yeah, it is fun to speculate but... what's the point? Just wait and see.

Why unwarranted? Hasn't Apple already delayed several projects, even ones you might think should not be delayed, for the sake of the iPhone? If you are going to speculate, why not do so along those lines? If the Mini has been left more or less untouched, perhaps that is because it is not their highest priority at the moment and "it just works."

Reply Score: 4

Daydreaming...
by Dave_K on Fri 25th May 2007 23:37 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I seem to remember that when the Mac Mini was released it was promoted as Apple's answer to cheap PCs. Aimed at existing PC users, with existing peripherals, who were interested in trying a Mac.

It may go against Apple's style to a certain extent, but maybe a more 'PC like' replacement for the Mac Mini would fulfill that role more successfully?

After all, most PC enthusiasts are probably pretty happy with their computer hardware, even if they're unhappy with the Microsoft OS running on it. The number of people wishing for Mac OS to run on generic PC hardware seems to suggest that such people exist.

Rather than a tiny closed box with laptop components, I'm thinking of an easily upgradeable mini-tower (with Apple aesthetics), using low to mid range desktop components (so as not to compete with the Mac Pro), and offering the flexibility that PC users enjoy.

Such a system would certainly be more likely to compete on price with similar spec PCs. I know quite a few people ignored the Mac Mini's design, along with advantages like its low noise and power consumption, and focused on its relatively low speed components. I love the Mini, but it wasn't a machine for people who care about getting maximum performance for their money.

A more conventional system, with space for graphics card upgrades and multiple 3.5" hard drives, might not be anything special or different, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing?

Perhaps then it wouldn't be sneered at by gamers and PC tweakers, who aren't tolerant of onboard graphics and 5400RPM hard drives. I'm sure there are plenty of average users who compare computers by simply looking at the specification on paper, rather than considering the benefits of elegant design.

Maybe I'm not thinking this through, but I think it would open up the Mac platform to a significant number of new users.

I'd certainly love to be able to pick up a Mac with a dual-headed display option, without having to buy a Mac Pro, or a computer with an integrated display. Especially when that's a feature offered by the onboard graphics of budget m-ATX motherboards these days.

It's probably not the kind of system Apple are ever likely to produce, but I can still dream...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Daydreaming...
by griffinme on Sat 26th May 2007 02:22 UTC in reply to "Daydreaming..."
griffinme Member since:
2005-11-09

"It's probably not the kind of system Apple are ever likely to produce, but I can still dream..."


Keep dreaming. I started off with a IIc that I loved. Then they went down the path of $$$ and "you will take our hardware choices and love it" attitudes. I have waited 20 years for them to see the light. Eventually you stop caring and think the Mac nuts are drones.

Would I like a Mac? Sure, some things about it are 'nifty' and I would like to try one out.
Would I lay out $800 to try one out? NO, A)that would pay for several upgrades on my current machine that would run circles around a Mini. I haven't bought a completely new machine since my first PC ten years ago. B) Those features aren't that nifty.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Daydreaming...
by Flatland_Spider on Sat 26th May 2007 06:45 UTC in reply to "Daydreaming..."
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I'm with you. I wanted the Mini to be a thin desktop form factor from day one.

I don't ask much. Two hard drive bays, a DVD-RW, two pci-express slots, and a single socket with a Core 2 in it. Maybe some Nvidia integrated graphics in case anyone does need both pci-e slots free.

I've always felt that the mini was a way for Apple to clear the pipes of surplus G4 parts in order for a new laptop platform to be released. I was thinking G5 at the time, but it turned out to be the Intel transition.

Offering a desktop Mac besides the iMac would make too much sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Daydreaming...
by Phloptical on Mon 28th May 2007 19:15 UTC in reply to "Daydreaming..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Sounds like you're describing the G4 Cube, to me.

If any of this article is true, I personally think it's a huge mistake.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Rumor
by aGNUstic on Sat 26th May 2007 01:47 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

Consider the source of the article. It's a rumor until confirmed.

Reply Score: 1

Maybe the AMD deal fell through
by griffinme on Sat 26th May 2007 02:13 UTC
griffinme
Member since:
2005-11-09

I heard a rumor that Apple was in negotiations with AMD because the Intel onboard graphics are horrific. AMD/ATI was to provide a complete set for the Mini with CPU chipset and graphics to make the Mini more usable. Jobs felt that the current Mini would give new users a poor impression of X.

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I like my mini very much, thank you. ;) I've souped it up a bit, but it isn't a bad machine even as a base model. Just don't game on it (even tho' I play simple games on it, but it DOES even run Civ 4 on its lowest settings).

If Apple were to introduce (or RE introduce) something like the cube, man oh man I'd be all over that like... well use your imagination.

Reply Score: 2

Either way, doesn't matter much
by gfacer on Sat 26th May 2007 02:28 UTC
gfacer
Member since:
2005-11-10

My Mac mini was my first mac, bought to try the platform out and edit some video with. The editing worked well, using the mac at work did not (pre parrellels)

With a external firewire harddrive, it worked well for the task, even without the 2gb ram upgrade I didn't get to install until after all the video work.

So, worse case is that I have a small, nearly silent dual core pc with bluetooth, wireless, and 2gb built in. If the line dies, I still can load up parellels and it will kick my current windows PC's butt, or end up selling it on Ebay, where it will have a niche for years!

Reply Score: 1

My problem
by deathshadow on Sat 26th May 2007 05:11 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

With the mini was it was still pricey for a entry level mac with zero expandability, making it a niche item for goofy form factor instead of a real "everyman's computer".

Apple hasn't 'gotten it right' on the low end in a long time - a simple machine in a classic atx style layout, with these things called 'expansion slots' should NOT be restricted to only their uber-high end machines that start at two and a half grand.

Honestly, if they made the same CPU class (but as socket T/775), in a SECC Micro ATX midtower with PCI and PCIx16 slots, four RAM slots, a desktop factor 7200rpm drive with 8mb cache (instead of the crap 5400RPM 2meg cache laptop drives they've been using) and a normal 18x DVD+/-RW, I'd be willing to consider buying their hardware again... Lord knows I can build one for about that from scratch via the retail channel.

Hey, let's do a buildup.

1.66 core duo - well, can I even build that low in Socket T anymore? Nope. Pentium D 935 is about the same, but let's splurge.

1.86ghz Core 2 Duo E6320 - $165.50
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115015

Mainboard, ok, let's go for the same basic support chips, just in a bigger form factor... of course by doing so we get a PCI x16 slot for future use.

Asus Intel 945G chipset mainboard - $88.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131046

Memory - No point in less than a gig at this point.

Crucial 1gb DDR2 667 - $35.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146571

Hard drive, let's 'splurge'

Samsung Spinpoint T 400gb - $94.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822152085

Optical, proof that apple are sleazeballs.

Samsung 18x DVD+/-R w/Lightscribe - $32.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16827151145

Keyboard and mouse bundle, something they don't even include

Logitech Cordless Desktop - $29.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16823126174

Case and PSU. Gee, this looks familiar...

Linkworld SECC/SGCC ATX mid tower - $37.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811164060

That's a grand total of $486.44, with $30 shipping, a good hundred bucks under the price of the cheapest mini, which if you figure a hundred bucks for OS puts you at 1:1 pricing... with about 30% faster CPU, 560% larger hard drive that's at LEAST 30% faster, double the RAM, WITH keyboard and mouse (I don't care how art faggy it is, $77 bucks for a keyboard and mouse that better be a Model M and WIRELESS Logitech Trackman Marble) and a better optical drive to boot. I can understand nuetering capabilities for form factor to a point - the mini crossed that point and ran.

You try upping the mini to even approach these specs, and they don't even sell anything approaching those speeds after being limited by the form factor, resulting in a $1100+ junker, an increase in cost big enough to let you tack onto our kitbuild TWO LCD's and a Ge7600GT to drive them. (and use Natit/Titan to make that GT work!)

Seriously, it takes huge brass balls to be asking $250 for two gigs of DDR2 667 in the current market. I can get 4 gigs in 2x2 for less than that! But that's apple's scam, rape you on the add-ons and upgrades - what few of those there actually are.

Nope, I never recommended the mini, and I can't say I'd be surprised to see it axed. As I've said many times before Apple seriously needs to get the hell out of the hardware business, as it's been REPEATEDLY obvious they have no ******* clue what they are doing.

Edited 2007-05-26 05:20

Reply Score: 5

RE: My problem
by Marcellus on Sat 26th May 2007 07:07 UTC in reply to "My problem"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Now turn all that into a complete system that doesn't take more physical space than the Mac Mini and what you say would be more relevant.

Reply Score: 5

RE: My problem
by bluecode77 on Sat 26th May 2007 07:13 UTC in reply to "My problem"
bluecode77 Member since:
2005-07-20

I use Intel Mac Mini 1.66 at home and "24 iMac 2.16 Ghz at work. I love both of them. But somehow I love my mini better. Its no secret that you can build a stronger PC with the same amount of money you can pay for a Mac. But than you have to use crappy Windows ;)

And I can say, Macs feel faster than windows what ever the configurations...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My problem
by Caspian on Mon 28th May 2007 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: My problem"
Caspian Member since:
2006-01-01

Strange, I built an actual core2duo computer, for about 1,200$.

E6300
2gigs of DDR2 667 ram
Nvidia 7600GT
Two 400gig Seagate hard drives
A 500watt power supply
19inch wide screen LCD

And osx86 runs on it just fine. I bought a copy of Tiger just to support apple also. It sits here on my desk in box unopened. But I would rather use osx86. A similar pc from apple would run me well over 2grand, IF they offered what I had. The closest I could come up with was the 20inch Imac. And they don't offer the video card, or the hard drive expandability.


I will stick with osx86 for a while. I can boot into any OS I want, it's rock solid stable, it supports anything a real mac does, and I like my case better.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My problem
by SlackerJack on Sat 26th May 2007 08:52 UTC in reply to "My problem"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Like someone said, You just cannot beat a Mac-mini for space and convenience, a PSU in a PC is bigger than a Mac-mini.

The Mac-mini is there to do a job and provide easy setup (like Mac's do anyway) and small space and power usage. It's not a gaming machine and it will do the job very well for most of the common task we use everyday.

Reply Score: 4

RE: My problem
by senornoodle on Sat 26th May 2007 11:28 UTC in reply to "My problem"
senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

It is almost as if Apple doesn't want the mid-range PC gamer market!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My problem
by miscz on Sat 26th May 2007 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: My problem"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Apple avoids direct comparison IMO. It's embarassing enough comparing MacBooks with other notebooks.

Edited 2007-05-26 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: My problem
by Ford Prefect on Sat 26th May 2007 12:18 UTC in reply to "My problem"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Build this into a lunchbox and you will see how fast prizes rise.

If you are too ignorant to see the benefits of the mini over your setup, it's just fine, but don't conclude too much from your self to others.


I buyed a Mac mini for my father, and he is astouned by this little, lovely machine. He wouldn't like to have a monster PC upon or beside his desk, he wants the computer he uses to be unobstrusive to his working environment. In this case, it even adds design/esthetic value.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: My problem
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th May 2007 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE: My problem"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Build this into a lunchbox and you will see how fast prizes rise."

You don't refer to Sun's lunchbox (a.k.a. SparcStation IPX et al., cf. pizza box, too), do you? :-)

"I buyed a Mac mini for my father, and he is astouned by this little, lovely machine. He wouldn't like to have a monster PC upon or beside his desk, he wants the computer he uses to be unobstrusive to his working environment. In this case, it even adds design/esthetic value."

So, this is what my boss wants for home use, too. I cannot recommend a PC/x86 based solution, and as we all know, Mac OS X won't even run on the newest and most expensive PC hardware. And he wants Mac OS. His son too. So even the "low end" Mac Mini would be his choice. Still.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My problem
by maffoo on Sat 26th May 2007 16:12 UTC in reply to "My problem"
maffoo Member since:
2006-08-19

Nope, I never recommended the mini, and I can't say I'd be surprised to see it axed. As I've said many times before Apple seriously needs to get the hell out of the hardware business, as it's been REPEATEDLY obvious they have no ******* clue what they are doing.

They clearly do know what they're doing, as they make a lot of money doing it!

That said, I would really like to see a "Mac Midi", a small (but bigger than the Mini), quiet Mac with upgradeable hard drive, CPU and graphics card. Why they don't do this is beyond me.

Reply Score: 1

Give us vfm upgradeability
by orfanum on Sat 26th May 2007 08:02 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

When the mac mini came out I thought this is it, I can finally afford a mac and see how os x works for me. But I looked at the specs against the price, read about the underpowered hardware, and I wasn't convinced.

I remained unconvinced for about two years until my vehicle into macland was an old G4 tower for peanuts, which I have steadily (and most importantly, easily) upgraded. The total cost of this has been way cheaper than even the lowest end mini (here in the UK) specced out to achieve the what I have in terms of ram and storage (which is about 2.5 times more expensive).

The new mini does trump mine with the new intel processor (even with a cpu upgrade in mine), but on the other hand I have massively more dedicated video memory.

This reasonable equation for me has been achieved since I could bring my own ram, hard disks and other stuff from my pc days, as well as monitor, keyboard and mouse (an old HP usb one, in fact....)

On top of this, with a cheap second-user copy of VPC I can also run windows, too.

For Apple, the competing mini-itx pc form factor is just too varied and capable, and now that hackintoshes are doable with the switch to intel, the more enterprsing switcher will be taking that route and will still be having a pretty, powerful and low-consumption vfm solution to running OSx to hand (I don't condone this, but hey, this is the real world)

IMHO If apple were wise it would come up with a smallish, headless unit that could be more straightforwardly expanded - but this would mean doing something about the graphics card market for macs, I think, something which hasn't moved in years towards anything like an equitable position for Mac folk, from what little I have understood.

Reply Score: 1

A niche within a niche
by alcibiades on Sat 26th May 2007 08:30 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

Always felt that, except for a few niche applications, the costs (including the non-financial costs) of the form factor were just too great. The AOpen branded version is similarly disadvantaged.

You can drop it in a briefcase or jacket pocket, that's true. But in exchange you get, compared to a smallish form factor mini tower or Shuttle type machine, truly dreadful graphics, a laptop hard drive, a fairly slow processor, limited memory.

You start thinking about who needs this form factor, exactly. It might be a writer who commutes between two houses. He/she gets identical printers, screens, keyboards. The ergonomics are much better than a laptop. Unplug it, drop it in briefcase, take system with you. Of course, there are other ways to do it, but the Mini really does fit this need quite well.

The problem is that this is not who it has sold to. Its sold to people who want a Mac to run OSX, but they did not want an all-in-one, and could not afford a tower Mac. So, as is traditional, they compromised on the hardware to get the OS. Its been a reasonably successful marketing strategy for 20 years now, with a few hiccups, but it does mean that some of its implementations, like the Mini, are a bit difficult to recommend to the ordinary user.

Won't be sorry to see it go. There have been quite a few Windows machines like this - but the only people to really make a success of it have been Apple.

It would be interesting to know how many AOpen is selling. One suspects not many.

Reply Score: 3

RE:
by dmc_dtc on Sat 26th May 2007 09:17 UTC
dmc_dtc
Member since:
2005-07-07

so what??? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Toy computer
by biffuz on Sat 26th May 2007 10:21 UTC
biffuz
Member since:
2006-03-27

From what I see, most people see the Mini as a "toy" computer, not a "serious" computer. And families with childs wants "serious" computers so they can learn to live in this computer world. That's what being a parent means :-)
Apple could easily enter such a market if they really want to, just by making a computer that looks "serious" like the MacPros, just cheaper and smaller. I think that an headless 1000 USD/EUR Mac could become a best seller: put a Core 2 Duo, with a standard optical drive, an hard disk, and a mid-level video card into a stylish minitower cabinet and you will conquer the world (with good profit too).
The question is: do they want this?

Reply Score: 1

I believe that ....
by fithisux on Sat 26th May 2007 10:21 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

T.H.E.Y A.R.E T.A.K.I.N.G D.R.U.G.S

Mac Mini is very good, the only fault is that they did not lower its price.

Reply Score: 1

Lamest thing I've ever seen
by hartvig on Sat 26th May 2007 11:26 UTC
hartvig
Member since:
2007-04-25

My first mac has been a Core Solo mac mini. Its great for what I use it for: Mainly as an audio server / music browser set top box / whatever you want to call it.

The form factor is however awesome, its very tiny, takes up almost no desk space, its almost completely silent (in fact, its more silent than all the laptops I've ever owned) and these things are what makes it great:

Tiny, yet fast, absence of noise, small footprint.

The people saying it doesn't have enough power don't need a mac mini, they need something else. For 90% of the people using a mac I dare say a core duo mac mini with 1 GB of RAM will take care of their needs for years to come.

Upgradeable? Who cares. Yes, I can exchange my parts in my ATX tower, however each 2-3 years I have to go out and buy completely new RAM, CPU and Motherboard due to new cpu sockets, new RAM formats etc. In order to get something that's faster than what I have, I need to spend at least 4-500 USD, which is almost the price of a brand new Mac Mini ;-).

Small form factors and elimination of noise is the future, just look at all the Mac Mini wanna be PCs coming out (I could name a few if I could remember the names of them, but all have been MORE expensive than the Mac Mini with LESS features).

Hopefully Apple has realised this as well and will keep on selling the Mac Mini... they do need to uprade it to Core 2 Duo soon though ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lamest thing I've ever seen
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th May 2007 13:04 UTC in reply to "Lamest thing I've ever seen"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"The people saying it doesn't have enough power don't need a mac mini, they need something else."

I think most of them treat their expensive and new PCs as a better typewriter... :-)

"For 90% of the people using a mac I dare say a core duo mac mini with 1 GB of RAM will take care of their needs for years to come."

Needs change. And evolution in hardware in software makes the equation SPEED = HARDWARE / SOFTWARE staying true for a while. Hardware gets faster, software gets slower.

While Mac users tend to use a nearly constant amount of pieces of software (e. g. web browser, audio applications, office packages), PC users seem to need to install new software every day. I think Mac users don't do much experimentation, while PC users will try out everything that makes them see the dancing elephants. This idea usually affects PC gamers who install new games along with new GPU software and hardware updates.

"Upgradeable? Who cares."

Exactly. It will be cheaper to run a system for some years and then get completely rid of it. No need to upgrade hardware twice or more in a year. Use what you have. Then, if it does not work any longer, get something up to date.

"Small form factors and elimination of noise is the future, just look at all the Mac Mini wanna be PCs coming out (I could name a few if I could remember the names of them, but all have been MORE expensive than the Mac Mini with LESS features)."

Elimination of noise... this is what we had in UNIX workstation world since the 80s... :-) Still I cannot tell if the computer I'm actually using is running or not from just listening to it. With new PCs, this is quite easy. :-)

Form factor can be a neccessary factor for buying decision if you've got not a very high amount of space to put your computer onto. A friend of mine was studying at a famous german university where the students' living "boxes" are expensive and small. A Mac Mini, along with a flat panel screen, have been his choice. A notebook? No thanks, too loud, too hot.

"Hopefully Apple has realised this as well and will keep on selling the Mac Mini... they do need to uprade it to Core 2 Duo soon though ;-)"

No, only Core 4 Quadro and successors will have enough power. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lamest thing I've ever seen
by Dave_K on Sat 26th May 2007 16:25 UTC in reply to "Lamest thing I've ever seen"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

My first mac has been a Core Solo mac mini. Its great for what I use it for: Mainly as an audio server / music browser set top box / whatever you want to call it.


It is great in that kind of role, but not necessarily so good as a general purpose home computer, competing with budget PCs. If Apple do want to target that market then I don't think the Mac Mini is really the ideal product to do it.

The people saying it doesn't have enough power don't need a mac mini, they need something else.


The problem is that Apple don't offer anything else, not in the same price range. For anyone who wants more power/flexibility, without having to pay a lot more money, a PC is the only choice.

If the Mac Mini hasn't been the success that Apple hoped, maybe that indicates that there are more people than you think with requirements that it didn't meet.

Upgradeable? Who cares.


A large number of people care. In particular, I've found that the lack of upgradeable graphics puts off a lot of users, myself included.

Even cheap m-ATX motherboards, in PCs costing half as much as the Mac Mini, are offering much faster onboard graphics; with dual-headed display support, and even HDMI connections for HDTV use. They also have a slot for a faster card if the onboard graphics still don't meet the user's needs.

Limited storage is another thing that raises a lot of complaints. Having to use external drives, or a 2.5" laptop drive, increases cost and limits performance. It makes the Mac Mini a lot less useful as a media centre or file server, where the user might want to store many hours of video/audio.

Small form factors and elimination of noise is the future


Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's the present, not for the mainstream anyway. The fact is that the vast majority of people aren't buying low-noise SFF computers. They're generally restricted to a small niche market for unobtrusive media centres.

Most of the PC users I know look at you like you're crazy if you bring up the size of the computer or how much noise it makes. People generally care much more about the price and the specification.

Of course if you want a silent computer, you definitely aren't restricted to a small system like the Mac Mini. The reason the Mac Mini is so quiet is that it's using low power laptop components.

If anything it's a lot easier to create a quiet computer when it isn't crammed into a tiny case. It's not hard to make an upgradeable ATX/m-ATX system that's even quieter than the Mini, while offering higher performance at a much lower cost.

Edited 2007-05-26 16:43

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lamest thing I've ever seen
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th May 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Lamest thing I've ever seen"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"It is great in that kind of role [audio server / music browser set top box], but not necessarily so good as a general purpose home computer, competing with budget PCs."

This is correct. Most home users do require an "all purposes device", allthough they only use the "typewriter component". :-)

"If Apple do want to target that market then I don't think the Mac Mini is really the ideal product to do it."

I agree. Apple doesn't (or don't) seem to be interested in the home users "all purpose" segment at the moment.

"The problem is that Apple don't offer anything else, not in the same price range. For anyone who wants more power/flexibility, without having to pay a lot more money, a PC is the only choice."

Formerly, workstations have been this choice, such as Sun and SGI built them. They've been a bit expensive, but offered more power than you could use. :-)

Apples price politics may come from the following idea: They don't sell hardware, or software; they sell "computing experience" which they offer as combined packages that work well because all of the components come from the same manufacturer. Maybe they're expecting this to be the reason for the higher price (compared to generic PC hardware).

"If the Mac Mini hasn't been the success that Apple hoped, maybe that indicates that there are more people than you think with requirements that it didn't meet."

As a sidenote, please care to think about a fine difference: What someone says he needs and what he really needs may be two different things.

If you're talking about HPC, you're right. If you're talking about image processing, you're right. If you're talking about gaming, you're right, too. But about the home users surfing the web and doing some office application stuff? Even the "low end" Mac Mini serves these purposes very well.

"A large number of people care [about upgrading]. In particular, I've found that the lack of upgradeable graphics puts off a lot of users, myself included."

Upgrading the GPU is not neccessary when you use the Mac Mini for the things it seems to be intended. It's just a question why you would need a GPU upgrade. I for myself didn't upgrade the GPU in my PC since I bought it (ATI RV250 Radeon 9000/9000 Pro) in 2003 for ca. 55 Euro, and I don't see any reason for a replacement.

If you're a gamer, upgrading the GPU is not enough; CPU, mainbard and RAM need regular replacements, too.

But I agree that a replacement of the mass storage device is a valid point. I don't know how long the CD/DVD component does operate properly (PC ones last approx. one year), but this could be a point, too.

"Even cheap m-ATX motherboards, in PCs costing half as much as the Mac Mini, are offering much faster onboard graphics; with dual-headed display support, and even HDMI connections for HDTV use."

We had dual head support on our Suns and SGIs in the 80s. That's nothing new. :-)

The PC developing into entertainment systems is a development worth mentioning. Apple's Mac Mini cannot compete here, but I think it's not intended to do so.

"Limited storage is another thing that raises a lot of complaints. Having to use external drives, or a 2.5" laptop drive, increases cost and limits performance."

This is correct, but I may say the following: Many home users use different drives for OS + applications and for data. External mass storage has advantages, but I admit speed is not neccessary one of them.

So your conclusion is correct.

"The fact is that the vast majority of people aren't buying low-noise SFF computers. They're generally restricted to a small niche market for unobtrusive media centres."

Guess why? Because people expect PCs to be loud. They'd assume an error if it wasn't so. Hey, some of them even stuff their cases with fast fans making noise like a dentist's drill and think this would be great. :-)

"Most of the PC users I know look at you like you're crazy if you bring up the size of the computer or how much noise it makes."

For some people, they are valid indicators leading to a buying decision. I admit that the vast majority does not think this way. I mentioned a possible reason for this earlier.

"The reason the Mac Mini is so quiet is that it's using low power laptop components."

And some laptops are loud, but they seem to use the same class of components. Maybe it's not only about the components theirselves, maybe the way they're assembled and the intelligence used to do this does matter, too.

"If anything it's a lot easier to create a quiet computer when it isn't crammed into a tiny case. It's not hard to make an upgradeable ATX/m-ATX system that's even quieter than the Mini, while offering higher performance at a much lower cost. "

It is, but the computer industry does not sell these by default. Usually, enthusiasts build such systems by theirselves, such as I did many years ago. You need to invest time and knowledge. Or money, if you find someone to do it for you.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"You need to invest time and knowledge. Or money, if you find someone to do it for you."

Not any more. You just need to buy a standard off the shelf mini tower. No, they are not silent, but under a desk, noise is no longer a factor. Its largely a question of big slow cooling fans. Quite cheap Asus barebones are an example. Quiet, expandable, and plenty of performance if you put the right processor in. But system suppliers are getting the message too.

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Not any more. You just need to buy [...]"

The mentioned argument "money" applies here.

"[...] a standard off the shelf mini tower. No, they are not silent, [...]"

As I said.

"[...] but under a desk, noise is no longer a factor."

One may think so, but some people hear better than other ones. Even under the desk. And some people put their mini towers onto the table.

"Its largely a question of big slow cooling fans."

Exactly. Or you use many fans. Many big slow cooling fans are ideal. But these are not sold by default.

"Quite cheap Asus barebones are an example. Quiet, expandable, and plenty of performance if you put the right processor in. But system suppliers are getting the message too."

I hope so, just because sometimes I need to buy new equipment. Not now, not soon, but sometimes. I have to admit that a Mac Mini would not be my choice here (just because my requirements do not meet the Mini's strengths).

Reply Score: 3

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

As a sidenote, please care to think about a fine difference: What someone says he needs and what he really needs may be two different things.


When it comes to which computer they decide to buy, what the user thinks they'll need is what really matters.

Upgrading the GPU is not neccessary when you use the Mac Mini for the things it seems to be intended.


The issue is that the Mac Mini seems intended for quite a narrow market. Instead Apple could make a computer in the same price range with fewer limitations, and that might appeal more broadly.

If you're a gamer, upgrading the GPU is not enough; CPU, mainbard and RAM need regular replacements, too.


Maybe if you're talking about hardcore gamers; the kind of people who obsess about a few extra FPS, and insist on having the maximum detail settings in every game.

With my old Athlon XP I upgraded the GPU three times before I was ready to replace the rest of the system. It was a great way of getting acceptable gaming speed for a pretty small cost.

We had dual head support on our Suns and SGIs in the 80s. That's nothing new. :-)


What is quite new is that dual headed display support now appears on very low end hardware.

It makes the lack of this option an annoying omission on the relatively expensive Mac Mini. Personally I miss my second monitor even when web browsing, it's not something I'd want to do without.

Of course most people don't care at all about dual-head, but add all the other Mini limitations, and I think quite a lot of people will look for something else.

Unless they've got a lot of free cash, the Mac Pro isn't going to be what they're looking for either...

Guess why? Because people expect PCs to be loud. They'd assume an error if it wasn't so.


I've mentioned the noise level when using other people's noisy PCs. Generally the response is that they simply haven't noticed it or thought about it. I care about computer noise so it seems strange to me, but it genuinely doesn't bother them, and I doubt they'd pay anything extra for a silent computer.

It is, but the computer industry does not sell these by default. Usually, enthusiasts build such systems by theirselves, such as I did many years ago. You need to invest time and knowledge. Or money, if you find someone to do it for you.


That's true. There are some quiet pre-built PCs available is you look around, but it's a shame that more companies don't offer them.

The Mac Mini or iMac are definitely good choices for anyone looking for quiet computing out of the box, as long as their limitations don't outweigh that advantage...

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"When it comes to which computer they decide to buy, what the user thinks they'll need is what really matters."

While this is correct in reality, it does not seem to be a good clue to educated decisions... but that's the way it is, I know.

"The issue is that the Mac Mini seems intended for quite a narrow market."

People who (1) know what they need and where (2) the Mac Mini fits these needs.

"Instead Apple could make a computer in the same price range with fewer limitations, and that might appeal more broadly."

Apples price politics do not seem to allow this, which is sad. They could also offer a (small, but good) sortiment of extensions a customer could buy, e. g. a GPU module or a CPU module for upgrading if it's really intended.

"Maybe if you're talking about hardcore gamers; the kind of people who obsess about a few extra FPS, and insist on having the maximum detail settings in every game."

While "real gamers" tend to use gaming consoles, PC gamers usually need "Windows" PCs because gaming is not the main playing field of Apple. So gamers would not even thing about buying any Apple computer for gaming... I don't count people playing Solitaire or XSkat to be gamers.

"What is quite new is that dual headed display support now appears on very low end hardware."

You could even get dual headed display configurations using a 640x480x16 / 320x200x256 VGA card along with a 72?x???x2 MDA ("Hercules") card on a 8086 up to 80586. This is veryvery lowlow end hardware. :-)

"It makes the lack of this option an annoying omission on the relatively expensive Mac Mini. Personally I miss my second monitor even when web browsing, it's not something I'd want to do without."

You cannot read on two monitors at the same time. :-) I found dual headed systems excellent for developing work, but for home use, I don't need this configuration. Just because something exists does not imply that everybody wants / needs it.

But I agree, the price of the Mac Mini (the expensive one) could used to add such a feature. Hey, is there something like an USB driven flatpanel second view? :-)

"Unless they've got a lot of free cash, the Mac Pro isn't going to be what they're looking for either..."

Apple users - or those who decide to use Apple computers - seem to thing that a higher amount of money invested once to buy a full featured system (fitting their needs) which runs 5+ years is better than a PC where regular upgrades of hardware components are needed to achieve the same goal, so the costs there are lower, every buying action seen on its own, but are higher in reality, if you add them...

"That's true. There are some quiet pre-built PCs available is you look around, but it's a shame that more companies don't offer them."

I think this is just because only few people request them. As you mentioned before, most people just don't notice the noise.

"The Mac Mini or iMac are definitely good choices for anyone looking for quiet computing out of the box, as long as their limitations don't outweigh that advantage..."

This is my opinion, too. You just have to think carefully if the Mac Mini really is what you need, and if it is, it's a great computer. It's not a "all purposes one size fits all device", but it does not claim to be. That's why it's actually interesting for a niche market only, where Apple can sell some for a higher price (instead of many for a lower price), after all they seem to get their money.

Reply Score: 2

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

While this is correct in reality, it does not seem to be a good clue to educated decisions... but that's the way it is, I know.


When someone buys their computer they can't know for sure what their future needs are going to be.

I know people who've bought a computer as a glorified typewriter, yet ended up using it for photo and video editing. Plenty of people find new uses for their computer as their hobbies change and their experience increases.

I think that's an argument for wanting something with the flexibility to meet different needs.

While "real gamers" tend to use gaming consoles, PC gamers usually need "Windows" PCs because gaming is not the main playing field of Apple. So gamers would not even thing about buying any Apple computer for gaming...


With an Intel Mac you can always dual boot into Windows for gaming. There's also the potential of Windows gaming within Mac OS as virtualisation software develops.

Then there are all the people who just play the odd game, without really being dedicated gamers. Just look at how many copies of games like Sims 2 have been sold to get an idea of the number of casual gamers. Mac OS might well have enough games to satisfy them.

Maybe if Apple had a cheap computer that was more suitable for gamers, more games would be released for the platform...

You could even get dual headed display configurations using a 640x480x16 / 320x200x256 VGA card along with a 72?x???x2 MDA ("Hercules") card on a 8086 up to 80586. This is veryvery lowlow end hardware. :-)


My point was that dual-head graphics capabilities are ubiquitous these days. It's available as standard on very cheap consumer hardware and is trivial to get working. It's no longer anything particularly unusual for someone to use more than one monitor.

You cannot read on two monitors at the same time. :-) I found dual headed systems excellent for developing work, but for home use, I don't need this configuration.


I find that it greatly speeds up window management and makes using a computer much more pleasant. If I want to repeatedly refer back to a document, monitor running downloads, watch the progress of MP3 encoding, etc. being able to place those windows on a secondary monitor saves a lot of window shuffling.

Even for light home use it's not something I'd want to do without. To me it's enough to outweigh the advantages of Mac OS X, and is the main reason why I'm using a PC at home.

Note that I'm not claiming that this is representative of a typical user.

Apple users - or those who decide to use Apple computers - seem to thing that a higher amount of money invested once to buy a full featured system (fitting their needs) which runs 5+ years is better than a PC where regular upgrades of hardware components are needed to achieve the same goal, so the costs there are lower, every buying action seen on its own, but are higher in reality, if you add them...


Over the last 5 years I doubt I've spent more on computer hardware than the cost of a Mac Pro. That's despite buying two desktop PCs, a laptop, and various upgrades. I'm pretty sure that the average PC user spends less than I do.

My current PC cost less than a third the price of the cheapest Mac Pro, and I expect it to last me a good few years.

I know plenty of people who've happily used budget PCs for many years before upgrading or replacing them. For the vast majority of people a very high-end system like the Mac Pro would be a waste of money.

Really my whole complaint is that Apple don't provide a mid-range option. You have a choice between hardware with a number of serious limitations, or hardware that's extremely expensive. It means that there's no acceptable choice for a significant number of people who are interested in running Mac OS.

Reply Score: 3

bummer
by Robocoastie on Sat 26th May 2007 12:36 UTC
Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

bummer, I was thinking of a mac mini in the future because it's now more economical to buy a complete rig than build them as I've been doing. Problem is Apple still wants way too much money for their stuff. Look at the price to increase the base RAM for example - it's off the charts!

Reply Score: 1

I like the mini
by bsharitt on Sat 26th May 2007 12:59 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

I hope these rumors are unfounded. The mini is good for it's slice of the market, though $100 off the price couldn't hurt. I used the have a G4 mini for a while, if I had a decent monitor at the time, I probably would have upgraded it to an Intel mini, but I only had a 17" CRT at the time, so my next upgrade was to a 20" iMac.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Rumor
by aGNUstic on Sat 26th May 2007 13:59 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

Here's my position. It's rumor until it's validated.

Do I believe it would be a mistake for Apple to remove the Mini from its product line. You betcha.

Here's my situation.

I don't need a monitor, a keyboard or another d@mn3d mouse. I've got plenty of those to fill a small landfill, infact, that's where most of them are.

I just need the Mini. Why?

Several reasons.

First, I'm not a gamer, graphic designer, digital photographer or any of those which need massive processing power to render these types of files. I connect to Oracle, SCT Banner, Linux, Unix, OS X and, as when I must, MickeySoft servers. It's rock-solid stable and easy to use.

Second, the Mini is whisper quiet. I have nothing but contempt, wait it's closer to hate, for equipment fan noise. I get enough of that cr@p in the data center and I don't need a huge system on my desk or eight or more cooling fans blaring like an jet engine testing facility. When I get a call in the middle of the night to work on something I don't need to wake the house or have the neighborhood start an eviction petition because of the sound.

Finally, I am one of those wierd individuals who likes smaller computers and the Mini fills this need perfectly. The smaller equipment footprint allows me to place it anywhere on a desk without bending the particle board it sits on. It also runs cooler than any computer I've ever owned and reduces my fear of a, "Dude, you're getting a Dell! Wait, is that smoke?" type of fear. Seriously, I don't need a burnt Apple while trying to manipulate relational databases.

It would be great if they brought back the Cube and packed it with cooler-running and more recent hardware. The design of the Mini is also great for school systems and the higher education market who need the smaller and its lower overall costs. The reduced cost on the Mini systems may allow some budgets to purchase an Xserver or two.

In any event, I plan to start saving and purchase a new Mini just to have one in reserve.

Reply Score: 3

too bad, but that's fine
by JohnMG on Sat 26th May 2007 17:17 UTC
JohnMG
Member since:
2005-07-06

The bean counters at Apple love the even higher margins of the complete systems, and I doubt they ever liked the idea of selling you a small efficient box that you could plug your own mouse/keyboard/monitor into.

If you asked me last week what I recommended to non-tech-savvy family and friends when they asked what computer to get, I'd have said, "Well, can't have them using MS Windows, so... I guess a Mac Mini.".

But, as of last week, Dell changed that. Now I'll probably tell them to go with an Inspiron E1505 N (comes with Ubuntu GNU/Linux).

Reply Score: 3

Too bad if it's true
by xaoslaad on Sat 26th May 2007 19:58 UTC
xaoslaad
Member since:
2006-03-07

I bought a PPC Mac Mini when they first came out. The fact that it worked so well, and I was able to see first hand the simplicity of Mac OS X had a lot to do with me getting another Mac.

I ended selling the $500 computer with the display, keyboard, and mouse I already had to someone else for that same price on ebay.

I took that money and put it towards a new Macbook Pro last month. I wouldn't doubt it if you heard more stories like that around. It really is an ideal 'switch' computer for people unsure.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Too bad if it's true
by Doc Pain on Sat 26th May 2007 20:11 UTC in reply to "Too bad if it's true"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I ended selling the $500 computer with the display, keyboard, and mouse I already had to someone else for that same price on ebay. "

This is an interesting argument you mentioned. Apple systems do not seem to lose worth as fast as PCs do. If you buy a PC from a shop and you want to sell it the same day, you won't get it sold for the same price. If a PC is more than one year old, it brings half the price payed when it has been purchased. On the other hand, second hand Macs are almost as expensive as new ones...

Reply Score: 1

Busting myths
by Anonymous Penguin on Sat 26th May 2007 21:27 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

The myth is that a Mini is cheap. Maybe, but certainly it isn't good value for money.

Consider the following:

Mac Mini (using Ireland in this example):

Specifications


* 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
* 1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512MB
* 120GB Serial ATA drive
* Mac OS X (Irish)

Eur 999.01

Macbook:

Specifications

* 1GB 667 DDR2 - 2x512MB SO-DIMMs
* 120GB Serial ATA drive (5400rpm)
* Keyboard (English) & Mac OS (English)

* 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* Double-layer SuperDrive
* AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
* Power Adapter
* Battery

Eur 1,249.00

The Macbook costs just 250 more. But consider what a better value for your money you get. Especially the difference between CPUs.

Reply Score: 2

One point of Perfection
by ThunderBug on Sat 26th May 2007 22:41 UTC
ThunderBug
Member since:
2006-03-05

I don't know what to say... I hope the rumor isn't true.

I have three Minis, one running Ubuntu, looking to acquire a fourth. All three are working in my quiet home office and you don't even hear them. (The loudest by far is the company provided Dell laptop.) For me it is a dream finally come true. ...small, quiet, *sufficiently* powerful, and priced appropriately.

But if true, I would hope Apple chooses to replace it. ...but if they retain the noise level, the form factor, the price point, what whould they have but another Mini?

To Apple: The Mini *is* one point of Perfection. Margins may not be as high, but I'll argue your concern is not margins as much as volumes. Please remember, as long as you cover variable costs, you are making money. To the argument that the Mini is taking way from other more lucrative models (and margins), I submit there will be few conversions. Please let this not be another debacle.

Reply Score: 1

RE: One point of Perfection
by alcibiades on Sat 26th May 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "One point of Perfection"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

It will be interesting to see if Aopen carries on making them when and if Apple drops out. If so, you'll still be able to get one to run Ubuntu on, it just will be the Aopen branded version. They are a bit more expensive than the version which Apple sells, which suggests that for Aopen its not a mass market product.

Its available with a core 2 from Evesham in the UK, but its black, and not cheap.

Reply Score: 2

For the NewEggers...
by bubbayank on Sun 27th May 2007 08:10 UTC
bubbayank
Member since:
2005-07-15

I noticed one silly post that just completely missed the point...

Can someone build me a PC from NewEgg bits and pieces that meets or exceeds the mini specs but does not result in a larger case? The only real sticking point is firewire...

I tried with mini-itx stuff and never quite made it. And you can lop off the retail cost of Tiger from the mini to keep things fair.

Reply Score: 1

RE: For the NewEggers...
by alcibiades on Sun 27th May 2007 12:44 UTC in reply to "For the NewEggers..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, I don't think this is possible as stated. You can buy the AOpen barebones, but by the time you get through its going to cost more. Evesham in the UK sells a version, which is more expensive than the Mini, and even AOpen's slightly larger cased barebones on similar lines are ridiculously expensive.

But, if you don't mind getting larger in case size, to a mini tower or shoebox size, you can certainly do better for less - particularly in graphics. And is this not the problem? It is not that you can buy the Mini for less. It is that you can buy a computer with better overall performance and a different form factor for less. So the question becomes, how much is the form factor worth?

Now there are a few people for whom the ability to put it in a jacket pocket or briefcase is worth either a performance or financial tradeoff. But this is not who its being sold to. Its being sold as a general purpose cost effective PC, and it just isn't that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[all] My problem
by deathshadow on Sun 27th May 2007 21:09 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

@ bluecode77
>> But than you have to use crappy Windows ;)
Well, that's not ENTIRELY true if you are familiar with terms like 'JAS' - and if you look at the hardware choices I made in my example, you'll notice that OSX would run just fine on that hardware... It all comes down to how concerned you are with Apple's EULA (at least if you actually legally own a copy of the OS)

@ SenorNoodle
>> It is almost as if Apple doesn't want the mid-range PC gamer
>> market!

Remove the word gamer, add the words 'Low to" before mid and you have what I'm seeing...

@ Marcellus
>> Now turn all that into a complete system that doesn't take more
>> physical space than the Mac Mini and what you say would be more
>> relevant.

Not EVERYONE needs or even wants the art fag form factor, and spending $2500 to get a REAL computer instead of a toy is unreasonable.

@bubbayank
>>Can someone build me a PC from NewEgg bits and pieces that
>> meets or exceeds the mini specs but does not result in a larger
>> case? The only real sticking point is firewire...

Can Apple build me an expandable PC form factor machine for less than two and a half grand? It all comes down to needs, and for some reason art fag form factor seems a stupid reason to have overbloated prices and nuetered expandability if you aren't going to pick it up and take it with you to run on batteries. I've NEVER understood that as a 'need' since if you cannot fit a 6"x14"x14" box someplace convenient, you must be living in a ****ing shoebox... or be so obsessed with placement of layout of hardware you think Feng Shui is actually a science and buy all your furniture from Ikea. (Ikea and Apple - perfect together)

@Doc Pain
>> Mac OS X won't even run on the newest and most expensive PC hardware
BULLSHIT. The only hardware that would be true of is Creative labs sound cards, and that's because Creative basically told Apple what to do with themselves in no uncertain terms. Latest and greatest - you mean like a... Core Quadro? Works... SATA? Works... nVidia and ATI cards... works with Natit. The limiting factor is NOT the OS, or even drivers, but Apple being a bunch of stuck up pricks about running their OS on other hardware.

@ people using the 'quiet' arguement
Not everyone are limp wristed sissies for whom ambient DB noise quieter than daytime in the woods is a problem. These lame assed wussies need to spend some time seated next to a pair of 40 meg bernoulli boxes, a DEC LA-50 printer, a quartet of 8" floppies and a 18" 3 platter removable Winchester. Of course, these are the people who wonder why their hardware dies at the two year mark from overheating, because as said many times before Apple wouldn't know cooling if it stripped naked, painted itself blue and started dancing atop a table singing "Oh look at what a big cooling fan I am." - after all, we're talking about the company that underclocked G3 cpu's 40-50% for the toilet seat ibooks so they could run them without heatsinks instead wrapping all the componants in insulation and three layers of RF shielding, except for the CPU which gets covered by the dialup adapter instead, so eventually the cpu burns a hole clear through said card. (and why if you pull all the insulation, remove the modem card and add a heat sink, you can up-clock the 333 ibooks to over 533 if the RAM can take the timings - it's not an overclock if you don't exceed the installed chips specifications)

Of course, Apple nuts love to poke fun at Dell's hardware woes, ignoring the crap nylon casings on macbooks cracking, that STUPID maglock connector fraying and shorting, and the general piss poor engineering found in Apple's form over function designs. But then, there's a reason Apple runs all their testing through the CSA, as not one piece of thier hardware would EVER pass UL testing and without a OSHA cert, you couldn't give them away. Better to go with an agency that just runs down the componant list and plans instead of bothering to actually TEST anything... RIGHT.

In general a lot of people seem to have missed my point
If I can, with off the shelf parts bought through a RETAIL CHANNEL build a machine that for less money exceeds their specifications at every turn, they as a OEM BUILDER buying large quantities of parts at wholesale have NO EXCUSE for their pricing or bottom of the barrel configurations... You KNOW they are full of shit when they charge $200 to go from a 80gb to 160gb drive (a $80 part in notebook form factor), $75 to go from 512 to 1gb (a $40 or less part), $78 for their CRAP keyboard and even crappier 'mighty mouse', and $200 to jump 0.2ghz, 20 gigs in disk space, and go from a combo to 'superdrive' - a parts difference that shouldn't even cost them more than $50. (that I could do in the retail channel for $70). (do we even want to mention what color costs?) We have companies now offerring Pentium M laptops for less in more impressive (or at least equal) configurations for 'accessories'... and that's with the added overhead of a LCD, keyboard and batteries!

Edited 2007-05-27 21:23

Reply Score: 2

RE[all] My problem
by Dave_K on Mon 28th May 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[all] My problem"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Not everyone are limp wristed sissies for whom ambient DB noise quieter than daytime in the woods is a problem. These lame assed wussies need to spend some time seated next to a pair of 40 meg bernoulli boxes, a DEC LA-50 printer, a quartet of 8" floppies and a 18" 3 platter removable Winchester.


I can't believe you're really turning tolerance for computer noise into some kind of geek penis measuring contest. As if choosing to have a less pleasant computing experience somehow makes you 'hard', rather than simply making you stupid.

Reminds me of the "real men use DOS and only sissies use a GUI" idiots around in the 80s.

It's a bit sad that you're old enough to have used that hardware you mentioned, yet are still so immature...

Reply Score: 2

Oh, BTW.
by deathshadow on Sun 27th May 2007 21:56 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

For the handful of people who just HAVE to have a mini, my advice is to buy the cheapest baseline, then increase the RAM and drive aftermarket... and if ambitious, you CAN do the CPU and HDD as well.

Patriot 2x1gb 184pin PC3200 - $132.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220079

Samsung 160gb Spinpoint M 5400RPM - $99.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152051

Intel Core 2 Duo T5600 Merom 1.83GHz - $244.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819111303
(funny part is, on the open market the T2400 core duo costs $2 more than the T5600 Core 2 in socket M)

and if you are handy with at working plastic you can for about $55 put a REAL optical drive in it instead of that stupid friction feed. (which the friction feeds work great unless a piece of grit ends up on the rollers, resulting in chewing up discs as you insert/remove them until you take the whole blasted thing apart - at which point give me a door) If you HAVE to have a slot drive, I've seen them around $100 (can't find any at the moment - they aren't that popular OUTSIDE of Apples and Cars)

Samsung 8x DVR+/-RW - $56.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151132

Our total? $532.96 over the baseline mini for a whopping 1131.96. Cost to do this from apple? Well, you can't even DO the CPU but we'll choose the highest... and come out to $1,249. Of course, with that $1249 you don't have a spare CPU and RAM to hock on e-fence, or a spare 60gb hard drive to toss in an el-cheapo $20 USB enclosure... and you are still on a Core duo instead of a Core 2. For REAL fun you could spend an extra $50 to go with a 2ghz T7200, or $190 more for the 2.16ghz T7400. After all, socket M is socket M

Hmm, maybe the mini isn't THAT non-upgradeable after all ;)

Reply Score: 1

atari05
Member since:
2006-06-05

Built in non changeable video. I will ALWAYS lament built in video.

Sure it wouldn't be so "mini" if I could but I could care less

Reply Score: 1

? Hope Apple Doesn't
by hylas on Tue 29th May 2007 02:39 UTC
hylas
Member since:
2005-07-10

Because I'd like to try this.
Intel Mac Mini as a Blade Server:

http://www.networkjack.info/blog/2007/03/29/intel-macminis-the-os-x...

hylas

Reply Score: 1