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.
Guess the sales have stopped. If things were OK there wouldn’t be any need of updating.
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?
I’m not interested until X86 Macs are shiped, multiable boot OS heaven. until then…
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.
See here:
http://www.tuaw.com/2005/09/27/1-5ghz-mac-mini-in-the-wild/
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…
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.
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?
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.
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!
Upgraded to 5400rpm hard drives? That’s still sloppy! Need to be 7200rpm. Anything less is painfull to use.
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.
Nonsense, the Hitachi 7K60 works fine in a Mini. Heat, noise and power consumption are not the issues. Price is.
I’m glad to see the mini has now reached year 2002 hardware specs. Maybe in another 2 years they will reach 2004 specs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
2002 specs? Why do you people even bother to post here? Comparing PPC mhz and x86 mhz is like soooooo clueless.
“2002 specs? Why do you people even bother to post here? Comparing PPC mhz and x86 mhz is like soooooo clueless.”
……………
What is that place You are coming from? Oh I remember it’s called Fantasy World.
oh seriously dont comment unless you know your times tables…moron.
comparing a risc processor to an x86 is just plane moronic.
If you’d like to share you’re technical brain fart with us in more detail and actually tell us how your “whoopin fast peecee” is so much better than any sparc or power based system of even half of it’s clock speed then go ahead. Until then go and kiss your mother good night, it’s getting a little past your bedtime junior.
all the best
— Ché Kristo
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.
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.
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.
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.
– 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. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
“Apple is Apple, and Coolness-Factor is everything. Tech comes last. <sigh>
btw, i AM a macuser.”
No you aren’t. You are a troll. OS X is the most advanced desktop operating system in the world. I would say that is a highly technical feat. The G5 desktop systems as wellas the iMac G5 are great technical feats as well. They also look great and are a pleasure to use. Form and function are not exclusive traits.
“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.
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
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.
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?
No way, huh? Scroll down to the mini on the KB article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25517
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.
Was that before or after they squat on his face? Makes you wonder, “Gee your face smells familiar.”
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*.
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.
How do you “know” other than just having a hunch that the specs mentioned on other sites are correct?
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?
For the price of Mac mini one can buy a bottom of the line laptop which will be faster than the Mac plus has its own screen because it’s a laptop.
Much better value for the money than the Mac mini.
And looking at the specs of the Man mini it’s obvious it’s for complete clueless newbs who have more money than brains.
Then again, that has always been the main market for Apple.
By next year cell phones will be faster than the Mac mini.
Where did the OSNews folks get the info about the update??
Apple’s website and Apple’s Store says nothing about it!
Wishful thinking?
Uh… I believe they got their info from the site linked in the news article there.
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.
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.
“DVD-RAM support is not enabled on the Apple drive, however.”
Why not?
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.
I am waiting for Mac Mini on Intel processor!
Hope begining next year.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.