PDA

View Full Version : Ridiculous Mac Mini Upgrade




MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:15 PM
Unconscionable upgrade for the Mac Minis last week, by the way. I know I'm a little late on commenting, but an upgrade from a 1.66 ghz core duo to a 1.83? No Merom, No 1GB Ram standard, No Video card options? Are you kidding me? The Mac Mini is now an official RIP OFF. It ISN'T running Core 2 Duo, and it's extremely overpriced for the price of its components. You know what, I honestly wouldn't even care if they didn't put the Core 2 in right away. If they had put in the 1.83 Core Duo, bumped the Ram up to 1 GB, and then lowered the price from $799 to $699, I would have jumped on that. Even at $699 THAT pricing would still make Apple a lot of money per unit sold. There isn't a doubt in my mind that everybody would be better off buying a Core 2 Duo lower end iMac. The only problem is, some of us don't want the built in 17" LCD, so we're screwed.



generik
Sep 9, 2006, 08:17 PM
Yes yes yes, Apple cares a lot about what you think. What makes it so much of a rip off? Had they put a C2D in it I would have gotten it in a heartbeat.

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:21 PM
Yes yes yes, Apple cares a lot about what you think. What makes it so much of a rip off? Had they put a C2D in it I would have gotten it in a heartbeat.

What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.

xfiftyfour
Sep 9, 2006, 08:28 PM
What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.
Thanks for the laugh. I especially liked it when you referred to Core Duo as "defunct" and the GMA 950 as "crap".

I'm going to bet you've never actually used the GMA 950, and I'd HARDLY consider the Core Duo to be "no longer functioning" (which is the definition of defunct, if you didn't know).

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:31 PM
Thanks for the laugh. I especially liked it when you referred to Core Duo as "defunct" and the GMA 950 as "crap".

Let me help you out here. When the Core 2 Duo comes out, and supplants the Core (1) Duo, is 64 bit, and is priced EXACTLY THE SAME as the Core 1 Duo was for the same clock speeds when it came out, that pretty much means the Core 1 Duo is "defunct". Do you know why Intel is slashing prices on the Core 1 Duo next month? Could it be because the Core 2 Duo (the Merom version, not Conroe) is it's REPLACEMENT? I don't know your definition of defunct, but when a product's successor is out, it makes that product defunct.

While Intel's GMA is certainly capable of very minor graphics related tasks, are you trying to tell me that a cheap, say ATI X1600, which could easily be placed in the Mini at it's inflated prices wouldn't be 100 times better?

When you decide to "laugh", come with some facts.

clevin
Sep 9, 2006, 08:36 PM
just a small remind, meron is not a desktop cpu, it is a mobile cpu.

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:38 PM
just a small remind, meron is not a desktop cpu, it is a mobile cpu.

They are using Merom in the iMacs and would use them in the Mac Minis as well. Apple is choosing to use the Mobile (Merom) Core 2 Duo chip across the board, it appears. They didn't use Conroe in the iMacs. When the Mac Mini is finally upgraded to Core 2 Duo, it'll use Merom as well, likely the T5500 and T5600 (1.66ghz and 1.83 ghz Core 2 Duo Meroms)

clevin
Sep 9, 2006, 08:41 PM
mmmm,,, first time heard a desktop uses a mobile cpu, don't understand why.
anyway, Apple doesn't really have low end mini, so.... I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy a mac mini at their original price. yeah, I agree with you on mini.

Eidorian
Sep 9, 2006, 08:44 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:45 PM
mmmm,,, first time heard a desktop uses a mobile cpu, don't understand why.
anyway, Apple doesn't really have low end mini, so.... I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy a mac mini at their original price. yeah, I agree with you on mini.

It's a legacy issue for Apple. When they transitioned from PowerPCs to Intel, they transitioned early and ended up using the original Core (1) Duo chip across their line. The Core (1) Duo is also a laptop (mobile) chip, and was only used by PC manufacturers for laptops. Granted, the Core 1 Duo when it was introduced was still light years ahead of the 90 nm Pentium 4 and Pentium D Netburst architecture, so even if it was a mobile chip, it was 65nm technology and better than anything else out there. Also Apple's line of small, efficient computers like the Mac Mini and iMac lend themselves to mobile chips. I don't fault them for using Merom and not Conroe, I do fault them for still using Yonah when they should use Merom!

My thinking of the rationale behind the Mac Mini upgrade is the following: When the iMac line was transitioned over to the Core 2 Duo, it left a glut of 1.83 ghz Core (1) Duo chips left over that weren't being used. The Core Duo 1.83 was the most popular chip on the previous iMac line. So now, they have a glut they have to get rid of before the full transition to Core 2 Duo, so they put them in the Mac Mini. That's all well and good, but leaving the Mac Mini's price the same and leaving the integrated graphics with only 512mb of ram is ridiculous. Should be $699.

Eidorian
Sep 9, 2006, 08:51 PM
It's a legacy issue for Apple. When they transitioned from PowerPCs to Intel, they transitioned early and ended up using the original Core (1) Duo chip across their line. The Core (1) Duo is also a laptop (mobile) chip, and was only used by PC manufacturers for laptops. Granted, the Core 1 Duo when it was introduced was still light years ahead of the 90 nm Pentium 4 and Pentium D Netburst architecture, so even if it was a mobile chip, it was 65nm technology and better than anything else out there. Also Apple's line of small, efficient computers like the Mac Mini and iMac lend themselves to mobile chips. I don't fault them for using Merom and not Conroe, I do fault them for still using Yonah when they should use Merom!Yonah is a terrible chip? Am I right?

Warbrain
Sep 9, 2006, 08:54 PM
It's a legacy issue for Apple. When they transitioned from PowerPCs to Intel, they transitioned early and ended up using the original Core (1) Duo chip across their line. The Core (1) Duo is also a laptop (mobile) chip, and was only used by PC manufacturers for laptops. Granted, the Core 1 Duo when it was introduced was still light years ahead of the 90 nm Pentium 4 and Pentium D Netburst architecture, so even if it was a mobile chip, it was 65nm technology and better than anything else out there. Also Apple's line of small, efficient computers like the Mac Mini and iMac lend themselves to mobile chips. I don't fault them for using Merom and not Conroe, I do fault them for still using Yonah when they should use Merom!

Yes, Considering that the iMac and the Mac mini are, in essence, like a laptop, they use the laptop processors that use less energy and produce less heat. There's nowhere near as much room in an iMac or Mac mini for the processor to cool as there is in a Dell tower.

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 08:57 PM
Yonah is a terrible chip? Am I right?

I don't think Yonah is terrible at all, and I never said it was. It is a 65nm chip and, as I said, lightyears ahead of the Intel's previous Netburst 90 nm architecture (Pentium D, etc). That being said, it is now a chip that has reached the end of it's line. The Core 2 Duo (Merom) is out, it's the same price that the Yonahs were when they came out, AND it's 64 bit, and not 32 bit like Yonah. It's also about 10-20% faster on the exact same clock speed.

Look, I have no problem with Yonah still being in the Mac Minis, but they certainly shouldn't keep the price at $799 when they're using chips that are worth so much less, and who's successor is out.

combatcolin
Sep 9, 2006, 08:58 PM
The next Min should have the 965 built in Graphics, big improvment over the 950.

Still not buying one though.

bousozoku
Sep 9, 2006, 09:11 PM
I feel that the changes to the Mac mini were good but not great. The current mini is tied to the MacBook as the older mini was tied to the iBook. The MacBook hasn't been updated at all and when it is, the mini probably will be updated with Core 2 Duo to match. The iMac is a better deal, but that's always been that way. I'd hate to see what you people would be saying if Apple hadn't updated the mini at all. Oh wait! You probably wouldn't be saying anything.

It's not as if Apple is trying to steal from anyone--you don't have to buy it.

clevin
Sep 9, 2006, 09:13 PM
The next Min should have the 965 built in Graphics, big improvment over the 950.

Still not buying one though.
i doubt 965 can be comparable with mainstream ATi or Nvidia card

clevin
Sep 9, 2006, 09:14 PM
Yes, Considering that the iMac and the Mac mini are, in essence, like a laptop, they use the laptop processors that use less energy and produce less heat. There's nowhere near as much room in an iMac or Mac mini for the processor to cool as there is in a Dell tower.
see, this is weird thing, why imac and mini should be "like a laptop"? it couldn't work without a power cord connected to a wall, whats the point?

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 09:16 PM
see, this is weird thing, why imac and mini should be "like a laptop"? it couldn't work without a power cord connected to a wall, whats the point?

It's not just power management, it's also size related. Both the iMac and Mac Mini are tiny compared to PCs. Heat dissipation, etc are issues. The Merom Core 2 Duos are more energy efficient than the Conroe Core 2 Duos. They run on a 667 mhz FSB while the Conroes are at 1066 mhz. I really have no problem with Apple choosing to go Merom over Conroe. It makes sense, and Merom is very comparable to Conroe and is infact 64 bit just like the Conroe. The days of major differences between mobile chips and desktop chips are over. I don't know how much you know about the new Core architecture from Intel, but the entire thing (Conroe and Merom) is derived from mobile processor technology. Intel figured out the hard way (because of intense competition from AMD) with the failed Netburst Pentium 4 and Pentium Ds that huge power hungry inefficient processors are just cr*p, so they moved back to the Pentium III model and looked to their mobile chips to create the Core 2 Duo.

clevin
Sep 9, 2006, 09:21 PM
It's not just power management, it's also size related. Both the iMac and Mac Mini are tiny compared to PCs. Heat dissipation, etc are issues. The Merom Core 2 Duos are more energy efficient than the Conroe Core 2 Duos. They run on a 667 mhz FSB while the Conroes are at 1066 mhz. I really have no problem with Apple choosing to go Merom over Conroe. It makes sense, and Merom is very comparable to Conroe and is infact 64 bit just like the Conroe. The days of major differences between mobile chips and desktop chips are over. I don't know how much you know about the new Core architecture from Intel, but the entire thing (Conroe and Merom) is derived from mobile processor technology.
well, i just wonder the price difference between them, its on the desk, people don't really care about the heat, compact is nice design, but if there will be large price drop, i assure you most people will tolerate a larger size, LOL

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 09:24 PM
well, i just wonder the price difference between them, its on the desk, people don't really care about the heat, compact is nice design, but if there will be large price drop, i assure you most people will tolerate a larger size, LOL

There isn't a sizable price difference. Infact the 2 lowest price Merom Core 2 Duos are the T5500 and T5600 at $209 and $241 now, about the same price as their Core 1 Duo equivalents at release and not much higher than the 2 low end Conroe Core 2 Duos. It's just that Apple isn't choosing to use those 2 low end Merom chips in their computers yet.

gadgetgirl85
Sep 9, 2006, 09:28 PM
I don't feel so bad now buying the Core Duo Mac Mini 1.66 a couple of months ago seems I didn't miss much on the upgrade at all really. Surprised they didn't put Core 2 Duo in though

Warbrain
Sep 9, 2006, 09:33 PM
see, this is weird thing, why imac and mini should be "like a laptop"? it couldn't work without a power cord connected to a wall, whats the point?

But it's the design that makes it so that they have to be built like a laptop. There's not much room for cooling in either the iMac or the Mac mini, probably as much as in an iBook, Powerbook, or MacBook. Because of this, they used the portable chips which are just as powerful as needed in a desktop. You don't see many other people complaining about the processors they use in the iMacs and Mac minis, do you? For the vast majority of people, speed is speed, regardless of what processor.

generik
Sep 9, 2006, 09:36 PM
It's not just power management, it's also size related. Both the iMac and Mac Mini are tiny compared to PCs. Heat dissipation, etc are issues. The Merom Core 2 Duos are more energy efficient than the Conroe Core 2 Duos. They run on a 667 mhz FSB while the Conroes are at 1066 mhz. I really have no problem with Apple choosing to go Merom over Conroe. It makes sense, and Merom is very comparable to Conroe and is infact 64 bit just like the Conroe. The days of major differences between mobile chips and desktop chips are over. I don't know how much you know about the new Core architecture from Intel, but the entire thing (Conroe and Merom) is derived from mobile processor technology. Intel figured out the hard way (because of intense competition from AMD) with the failed Netburst Pentium 4 and Pentium Ds that huge power hungry inefficient processors are just cr*p, so they moved back to the Pentium III model and looked to their mobile chips to create the Core 2 Duo.

Trouble is...

The conroe chips costs less, the Meroms indirectly contribute to unnecessarily high cost of the imac (and possibly Mini).

The Conroe runs off a new chipset (i965) that is full 64 bit compatible, unlike the current iMac which is still using a 32 bit chipset (napa).

Does the iMac even need to be so small? Same with the Mini.

Would it hurt to make them bigger? Contrary to your belief this will actually score them more sales, so many people are looking for a in-between machine that is not All-In-One and has upgradeable slots, but not as powerful as the Mac Pro.

zap2
Sep 9, 2006, 09:38 PM
Well then I must be screwed..if the 1.83Ghz opinion is crap, and I bought the 1.66Ghz at the 799 price..I must have gotten screwed over big time!! And I only bought it about 3 months ago! Yet shockingly my Core Duo smokes my G5(which if we still have IBM and Mot, I doubt would be in the Mini)

The Mini to today is an amazing Mac, and the Core Duo is still an amazing chip!...if it was PPC based it would be equal to a G5, with 2 cores in a 6.5'' by 6.5'' by 2''..which is amazing.


Also the low end is really a good deal now, if the Core Solo was similar to one G5(which is was) a Mini with a Core Duo 1.66Ghz is bettering many PowerMac G5s...as for the GPU..well people who buy the Mini should'nt need much power from it..I don't. On the RAM end of things a 512Mb stick from Newegg is cheap, get it and upgrade it yourself, and you have 768 which is fine. Or get a 1Gb stick, and you have 256 from inside it for a nice 1.25Gbs of RAM

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 09:46 PM
Well then I must be screwed..if the 1.83Ghz opinion is crap, and I bought the 1.66Ghz at the 799 price..I must have gotten screwed over big time!! And I only bought it about 3 months ago! Yet shockingly my Core Duo smokes my G5(which if we still have IBM and Mot, I doubt would be in the Mini)

The Mini to today is an amazing Mac, and the Core Duo is still an amazing chip!...if it was PPC based it would be equal to a G5, with 2 cores in a 6.5'' by 6.5'' by 2''..which is amazing.


Also the low end is really a good deal now, if the Core Solo was similar to one G5(which is was) a Mini with a Core Duo 1.66Ghz is bettering many PowerMac G5s...as for the GPU..well people who buy the Mini should'nt need much power from it..I don't. On the RAM end of things a 512Mb stick from Newegg is cheap, get it and upgrade it yourself, and you have 768 which is fine. Or get a 1Gb stick, and you have 256 from inside it for a nice 1.25Gbs of RAM


Ok imagine this. As fast as your Core Duo 1.66 is. The Core 2 Duo 1.66 ghz is somewhere between 10-20% faster at the exact same clock speed. Furthermore, the Core 2 Duo 1.66 is available at the same price that the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when it was released. You can tell me about how a "certain amount of power is enough for us" until you're blue in the face, but that chip is now one generation old, 10%-20% slower than the current chip, and being sold at the same price. That's a rip off.

They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

zap2
Sep 9, 2006, 09:48 PM
Trouble is...

The conroe chips costs less, the Meroms indirectly contribute to unnecessarily high cost of the imac (and possibly Mini).

The Conroe runs off a new chipset (i965) that is full 64 bit compatible, unlike the current iMac which is still using a 32 bit chipset (napa).

Does the iMac even need to be so small? Same with the Mini.

Would it hurt to make them bigger? Contrary to your belief this will actually score them more sales, so many people are looking for a in-between machine that is not All-In-One and has upgradeable slots, but not as powerful as the Mac Pro.

The iMac is not overpriced, the 24'' Model is 1999, Apple sells a 23'' screen alone for half of that. Think of it that way..now find a Core 2 based Computer with these specs? For 999 USD

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD±RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote(it can be any old remote)
iSight


Also the 24'' iMac can be upgraded with a Video Card, CPU and RAM and harddrive. Those are some of the biggest upgrades for a computer.


Also were is you source for people wanting a mid-range Mac? Even if all the people on MR said they want it, we are not the average consumer. I would bet the average computer users, never upgrade the GPU(gamers mostly) or the CPU, they buy a new compute. There is a market for one, but Apple is making people who want "Pro" options pay for a "Pro" Mac(aka Mac Pro) Apple might still be afraid of it after the G4 Cube bombed


I'd be all for it honestly, but what is stopping someone from buying a Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz, and selling one chip. That brings the price of a Mac Pro down into iMac land. I personal think Apple should have something with a Conroe in it..there is room, but it might eat up iMac sales, which is Apple main desktop Mac.

skoker
Sep 9, 2006, 09:54 PM
What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.

Read:

Thanks for the laugh.

Ditto.

The Intel mini's have only been out for 5-6 months, not even close to a whole year making them über-obsolete.

When you decide to "laugh", come with some facts.

I appreciate your opinion, and welcome your to MacRumors, but if you've got something to say or a claim to make like you did we're going to need some better cases than what you've presented.

Demoman
Sep 9, 2006, 09:56 PM
What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.

If you do not like the deal, make a different one. And I seriously doubt you have any clue as to what the actual COGS is for the Mini. So, quit projecting yourself like an informed cost analyst. The forums allow for the expression of personal opinions. But, you will often gain more respect by acting (and writing) like someone who is not trying to vent and start a personal crusade. But, maybe I am reading you all wrong. So, here is manufacturing purchasing 301.

Apple: We need to be competitive with our prices, so we need to spend the same for your processors as Dell does.

Intel: Sure, that makes sense, Steve. However, Dell sells a lot more computers than you do and they purchase our entire product line.

Apple: I understand that, but we still buy a lot of processors. But, we are not going to try and offer every configuration Dell does. As you know, we have a nice line that pretty much covers the market. We figure we have about 80%-85% coverage right now. But, to keep offering the best technology, engineering and service AND still remain profitable we can probably only aspire to 95% coverage until we get up to 12% total market share. But, there is no way we can put a Celeron in a Mac. They would kill me on MacRumors for THAT!

Intel: Right. But, we still need some way to amortize the engineering and fabrication cost AND still make a profit for every processor we make. Do you have any data on your projected usage?

Apple: Yes. I have it with me.

Intel: Thanks. It looks very comprehensive. Let me take it to my analysts and see what kind of an offer we can make.

LATER:

Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.

Apple: The price is great, just what we hoped for. But, I am not happy wanting to buy the same number of processors after obsolesces.

Intel: Steve, we are allowing you to NOT buy over 1/3 of our entire line. We are selling you what are, or will be, our most popular processors. By taking more of these processors, we can get more profit by amortizing the GOGS by increasing total sales. That is how we can make this deal work.

And so the deal was reached.......

Now, this is all fiction. But, it is a very real way business is done in the world of manufacturing. I spent 18 years in manufacturing. Over that period of time, 15%-20% of my time was IT and the rest was in operations. I was in charge of production control and strategic planning/implemention. I was there for the rise and proliferation of the modern Fixed-term/Fixed-price B2B contracts. I would be beyond shocked if Apple and Intel do not have some contractual, purchasing statement of work with Intel. It is only 9 months since 'the announcement'. Eventually, a good analyst will be able to guess fairly accurately how it is put together.

Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 09:58 PM
The iMac is not overpriced, the 24'' Model is 1999, Apple sells a 23'' screen alone for half of that. Think of it that way..now find a Core 2 based Computer with these specs? For 999 USD

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD±RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote(it can be any old remote)
iSight


Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

aquajet
Sep 9, 2006, 09:58 PM
I don't know your definition of defunct, but when a product's successor is out, it makes that product defunct.

Try looking it up again.

generik
Sep 9, 2006, 10:07 PM
Would this mean Apple will bump the Mini to a Core Duo 2.0Ghz chip before having it have Core 2 Duo?

If you do not like the deal, make a different one. And I seriously doubt you have any clue as to what the actual COGS is for the Mini. So, quit projecting yourself like an informed cost analyst. The forums allow for the expression of personal opinions. But, you will often gain more respect by acting (and writing) like someone who is not trying to vent and start a personal crusade. But, maybe I am reading you all wrong. So, here is manufacturing purchasing 301.

Apple: We need to be competitive with our prices, so we need to spend the same for your processors as Dell does.

Intel: Sure, that makes sense, Steve. However, Dell sells a lot more computers than you do and they purchase our entire product line.

Apple: I understand that, but we still buy a lot of processors. But, we are not going to try and offer every configuration Dell does. As you know, we have a nice line that pretty much covers the market. We figure we have about 80%-85% coverage right now. But, to keep offering the best technology, engineering and service AND still remain profitable we can probably only aspire to 95% coverage until we get up to 12% total market share. But, there is no way we can put a Celeron in a Mac. They would kill me on MacRumors for THAT!

Intel: Right. But, we still need some way to amortize the engineering and fabrication cost AND still make a profit for every processor we make. Do you have any data on your projected usage?

Apple: Yes. I have it with me.

Intel: Thanks. It looks very comprehensive. Let me take it to my analysts and see what kind of an offer we can make.

LATER:

Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.

Apple: The price is great, just what we hoped for. But, I am not happy wanting to buy the same number of processors after obsolesces.

Intel: Steve, we are allowing you to NOT buy over 1/3 of our entire line. We are selling you what are, or will be, our most popular processors. By taking more of these processors, we can get more profit by amortizing the GOGS by increasing total sales. That is how we can make this deal work.

And so the deal was reached.......

Now, this is all fiction. But, it is a very real way business is done in the world of manufacturing. I spent 18 years in manufacturing. Over that period of time, 15%-20% of my time was IT and the rest was in operations. I was in charge of production control and strategic planning/implemention. I was there for the rise and proliferation of the modern Fixed-term/Fixed-price B2B contracts. I would be beyond shocked if Apple and Intel do not have some contractual, purchasing statement of work with Intel. It is only 9 months since 'the announcement'. Eventually, a good analyst will be able to guess fairly accurately how it is put together.

Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.

MacBoySeattle
Sep 9, 2006, 10:08 PM
Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out. Go look at my Dell Core 2 Duo above and try to ask them how they did that. Don't try to mask Apple's inability to compete in the new constantly upgrading components and systems market with a lot of words. PC manufacturers have been doing it for 10 years. The components Apple is now using are IDENTICAL to those that Dell or HP or 1000 other smaller PC manufacturers are using. From motherboards to processors to graphics cards. When they are using a previous generation chip and charging the same price when the next generation is out at the same price, that's a rip off. By your logic, the resellers of Panasonic plasmas would have to charge the same $4000 today that they charged for a 50 inch plasma 2 months ago even tho prices have fallen by about $1000 in the last 2 months. I'm calling BS.

freebooter
Sep 9, 2006, 10:20 PM
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

What kind of software comes with that PC? The iMac comes with hundreds of dollars ($5-600?) of smoothly integrated software.

Even if you get XP, I would consider the cost of maintaing that o.s. a tremendous additional burden in money (anti-virus ware), time (un-crashing, extra maintainance and de-virusing) and aggravation (Windows is still a fragile, unpleasant operating system) which ought to be factored into the final tally. It's easy to just look at a few spec.s on paper, but it's day to day use that really matters, to the mind and the wallet.

I'm sure, though, you all know that. ;)

Anyhoo, I think the post which mentions the excess left-over CD chips may be onto something, although couldn't Apple just sell them?

I agree with those who say a price drop was in order.

But, if they are just using up the old CD chips, then they will have another upgrade, to C2D, fairly soon. They would then have to raise the price again. i think Apple likes to keep their prices fairly stable.

aquajet
Sep 9, 2006, 10:35 PM
What kind of software comes with that PC? The iMac comes with hundreds of dollars ($5-600?) of smoothly integrated software.

Something that is all too often overlooked by those who are obsessed with comparing every little hardware specification between machines.

Counterfit
Sep 9, 2006, 11:07 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out....I'm calling BS.
There's no need to be an ass just because someone disagrees with you, and actually has something to back it up. Get a damn dictionary, read the post, and actually counter it with a real argument. You sound like certain politicians.

Jimmieboy
Sep 9, 2006, 11:10 PM
Woah! Calm down dude!

generik
Sep 9, 2006, 11:20 PM
I agree with those who say a price drop was in order.


A price drop would definitely be welcome, but to those who are making straight comparisons between the Mini and similarly specced PCs, perhaps they forgot one thing, the size. Before the Mini came out VIA used to make these underpowered CPU + mini-ITX mainboard solutions that are priced at the same price the whole mini is going for today.

Fancy paying $600 for a Pentium 3 class processor and a tiny mainboard? I certainly don't. If anything Apple brought pricing down in this area.

thebeephaha
Sep 9, 2006, 11:29 PM
Ok imagine this. As fast as your Core Duo 1.66 is. The Core 2 Duo 1.66 ghz is somewhere between 10-20% faster at the exact same clock speed. Furthermore, the Core 2 Duo 1.66 is available at the same price that the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when it was released. You can tell me about how a "certain amount of power is enough for us" until you're blue in the face, but that chip is now one generation old, 10%-20% slower than the current chip, and being sold at the same price. That's a rip off.

They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

MacBoySeattle, you can keep arguing the Core Duo is now a POS chip all you want but it's not going to phase many people... Just because a new chip comes out doesn't automatically and simultaneously make the old one suck.

Go take a walk outside, breathe, and if you don't like the Mini's dont get one and leave it at that.

Demoman
Sep 9, 2006, 11:30 PM
Would this mean Apple will bump the Mini to a Core Duo 2.0Ghz chip before having it have Core 2 Duo?

This is 100% conjecture and I wrote it based on my actual experience analyzing and negotiating contracts, and what I would anticipate as possible negotiable issues between Apple and Intel. However, there are certainly industry specific issues I not experienced in.

I basically wrote this to show the thread's owner that there are many possible reasons for things being the way they are, but are not part of a conspiracy to "screw him". It was a wasted effort. Way too much anger.

QCassidy352
Sep 9, 2006, 11:43 PM
They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

Gotta agree with this. The mini was a bad deal when it was 1.5/1.66 dual, and it's a bad deal now. It's the one computer in apple's lineup I can't imagine purchasing.

generik
Sep 9, 2006, 11:50 PM
Gotta agree with this. The mini was a bad deal when it was 1.5/1.66 dual, and it's a bad deal now. It's the one computer in apple's lineup I can't imagine purchasing.

It is not that bad a deal, at least the lower model is worth buying now with the core duo processor.

zap2
Sep 10, 2006, 12:05 AM
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

That is a good deal, however it lacks stuff the iMac has..iSight, FrontRow, iLife '06(to get something as good as that in OS X, its more then 79) Duel Layer SuperDrive.., AirPort and Blue-Tooth plus the drop dead sexyness of the iMac! The Dell is better priced, but still the iMac has its extras

risc
Sep 10, 2006, 12:11 AM
Hey OP do you need some cheese to go with your whine? :rolleyes:

You don't like the Mac mini? Don't buy 1.

7on
Sep 10, 2006, 12:18 AM
My roommate just picked up a refurbed 1.66 mini for $649 and is still giddy about it arriving.

generik
Sep 10, 2006, 12:21 AM
That is a good deal, however it lacks stuff the iMac has..iSight, FrontRow, iLife '06(to get something as good as that in OS X, its more then 79) Duel Layer SuperDrive.., AirPort and Blue-Tooth plus the drop dead sexyness of the iMac! The Dell is better priced, but still the iMac has its extras

If you are comparing the "EDU" iMac with that Dell the comparison looks more pathetic. Comparing Macs to PCs on a price proposition is a losing argument to start with.

bousozoku
Sep 10, 2006, 12:28 AM
Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out. Go look at my Dell Core 2 Duo above and try to ask them how they did that. Don't try to mask Apple's inability to compete in the new constantly upgrading components and systems market with a lot of words. PC manufacturers have been doing it for 10 years. The components Apple is now using are IDENTICAL to those that Dell or HP or 1000 other smaller PC manufacturers are using. From motherboards to processors to graphics cards. When they are using a previous generation chip and charging the same price when the next generation is out at the same price, that's a rip off. By your logic, the resellers of Panasonic plasmas would have to charge the same $4000 today that they charged for a 50 inch plasma 2 months ago even tho prices have fallen by about $1000 in the last 2 months. I'm calling BS.

I was thinking the same thing about you, unless you're an accountant or inventory specialist at Apple.

You're guessing. You don't know what parts Apple uses exactly. You know that they're using Intel processors and that they use certain standard hardware interfaces. That doesn't mean that they're using the same parts.

Do you have the Bill of Materials for the mini, with the line item costs? Do you have the same for HP and Dell?

aquajet
Sep 10, 2006, 12:42 AM
Fancy paying $600 for a Pentium 3 class processor...

Can we oversimplify this any further?

generik
Sep 10, 2006, 12:47 AM
Can we oversimplify this any further?

There is nothing to simplify? The VIA EPIA at over 1Ghz performs worse than a Pentium II processor at 300Mhz? How hard is it to grasp?

vv-tim
Sep 10, 2006, 12:52 AM
They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

Well, if I remember right... Pentium D 9xx series processors didn't cost that much more than 8xx series processors.

One generation doesn't mean that much sometimes.

Lollypop
Sep 10, 2006, 01:00 AM
Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.



I like your entire arguement, but it bothers me that a manufacturer can contracually enforce a price on someone for a period.. is that completely legal? What will happen to the contractual price if the entire processor lines price drops??

The only things that really bothers me with the mini... the integrated graphics and the dual channel memory, the PPC minis allowed me to upgrade to 2gigs with cheaper memory and without a performance penalty when using unmacthed sizes.

generik
Sep 10, 2006, 01:21 AM
I like your entire arguement, but it bothers me that a manufacturer can contracually enforce a price on someone for a period.. is that completely legal? What will happen to the contractual price if the entire processor lines price drops??

The only things that really bothers me with the mini... the integrated graphics and the dual channel memory, the PPC minis allowed me to upgrade to 2gigs with cheaper memory and without a performance penalty when using unmacthed sizes.

The performance penalty isn't that great. You can upgrade 1 stick and then get the other stick at another time.

Xeem
Sep 10, 2006, 01:41 AM
I think risc said it best here: If you don't like the Mac Mini, don't buy one. I'll agree that the Mini is not quite the deal it could be, but it is still a stylish, not-really-expensive little computer using the still very capable Core processor. The GMA 950 is fine for multimedia use/HD playback, which is the Mac Mini's greatest use to a great number of people. Hopefully the Mini will get cheaper and better relatively soon, but until then I think it stands fine on its own.

Pressure
Sep 10, 2006, 07:18 AM
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

Looks good but then again, this is Conroe and not Merom.

Conroe is cheaper than Merom.

iGary
Sep 10, 2006, 07:49 AM
What is it about "entry-level" that people don't get? :confused:

jsw
Sep 10, 2006, 08:11 AM
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.
Um... it has about four times the volume of the iMac, two separate pieces, and is ugly. Why would I buy it over an iMac? Why would I buy it at all?

nospleen
Sep 10, 2006, 08:40 AM
It is a mac freaking mini, who really cares? A dual processor in a entry level computer is hardly 'defunct'. To me it is like someone buying an entry level car and bitching it doesn't have a sunroof or satellite radio. Now you will have to go up a level and spend more, which must be the auto makers plans, right..

:rolleyes:

furious
Sep 10, 2006, 08:50 AM
lol, the first page of this thread wins the internet for stupid. bring facts, lol.

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 10, 2006, 11:29 AM
Its pretty funny all this bitching about CPU's. Fact is this little Mini's new dual cores can match or better any dual G5 Powermac in cpu performance in its tiny package and we are bitching. Plus who needs more cpu performance when all the new dual core Cpu's from Intel are just kicking every G5 or G4s butt big time? Sure its got a cheapo GMA950 in it and that sucks but come on. Then you look that Airport & bluetooth are now standard plus Apples OS is just way better then windblows. At $599 its a lot of machine in its base configuration.

zap2
Sep 10, 2006, 11:48 AM
wins the internet for stupid.


They won the the internet! So...do they get to tell people who can and can't use it? Or what?

Eidorian
Sep 10, 2006, 11:51 AM
So how cheap is a dual core Dell? And one that can compete with Core Duo.

I get between $636-649 for the lowest Pentium D 805 machine with a monitor. Then you have to add Windows XP Pro ($121) and crank up the CPU ($41-122).

combatcolin
Sep 10, 2006, 12:53 PM
What is it about "entry-level" that people don't get? :confused:

Ulitmate irony about the "entry level" Mac Mini

Your not even allowed to "enter" the actual bloody thing - unless your a pro and known what your doing its a sealed unit.

Demoman
Sep 10, 2006, 02:00 PM
I like your entire argument, but it bothers me that a manufacturer can contracually enforce a price on someone for a period.. is that completely legal? What will happen to the contractual price if the entire processor lines price drops??

The only things that really bothers me with the mini... the integrated graphics and the dual channel memory, the PPC minis allowed me to upgrade to 2gigs with cheaper memory and without a performance penalty when using unmacthed sizes.

The example I wrote was purely conjecture, as I previously stated. But, it is not fantasy. These types of deals are very common nowadays. I will give you an example:

I worked for an aerospace manufacturer. Our customer was Boeing. In 1990, we were the incumbent supplier of over 2000 different parts (3rd largest in the world). We had won all of these jobs through competitive bidding. Boeing came to us with a 'package' of all these parts, at their current price, and wanted us to commit to a five-year contract. We would sell them the entire 'statement of work' at the same price. Otherwise, ALL ~2000 parts would be sent out for rebidding.

Boeing's SOW was terribly incomplete, many prices were totally wrong and their projected purchase quantities were a joke. Also, we had not actually made some of the parts yet. We had our bid amount, but no actual COGS. I was told to re-assign everything I was doing and focus all my time analyzing the 'package'. It took me nearly six months to compile a SOW our company could work with. Boeing was constantly 'rattling their sabers' about this being all or nothing. However, we eventually agreed to a SOW of ~1600. They did rebid the remaining ~400 and we won back the ones we cared about, but at a higher price.

In this example, Boeing was in a stronger negotiating position than us. We had millions of dollars in inventory, programming, tooling, etc. And that is usually the case in B2B contracts; one of the parties have the stronger negotiating position and will get more concessions. However, there is almost always enough benefits for both companies to prosper from the arrangement.

Between 1995 and 2000, I negotiated several contracts with our company's suppliers and service providers. I did not have to resort to arm-twisting like Boeing did.

These contracts and SOW can be written in any way imaginable. However, they will usually involve pricing and order quantities. However, there could be codicils that protect both parties against unusual circumstances, like a major product line price reduction.

brepublican
Sep 10, 2006, 02:10 PM
I like your entire arguement, but it bothers me that a manufacturer can contracually enforce a price on someone for a period.. is that completely legal? What will happen to the contractual price if the entire processor lines price drops??

Intel need a demand in order to produce the chips. Its not like mixing a gin bucket, where if more people show up at the party, you can simply pour in some more stuff. Or like baking brownies (which is not all that easy). I'm not trying to be a douchebag either, there really is a point to all this :p

I think they dont even start producing them til they have greater than a certain order... so if they give you a price, you're basically stuck with it

evilgEEk
Sep 10, 2006, 02:37 PM
Having bought a new Mac mini two days ago, I'm VERY happy with it. Granted I've only used it for about a day, but what I have used of it, it's very fast and doesn't hang on anything. And even though the idea of running Windows on my new Mac is quite nauseating, XP Pro does run well.

But at the same time I don't expect it to keep up with my G5 in an intense environment.

And it's so cool and mini! :D

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 10, 2006, 02:46 PM
A Gpu upgrade would give this machine a 5 star rating in my view, The 950 is what it is but I wish Apple would have put in the next generation Intel graphics chip 965 or so. Still though its a solid little machine and it handled the lightning strike we just had a heck of a lot better then my $2,000 plus Alienware now Paperweight.:o

MacsAttack
Sep 10, 2006, 04:52 PM
Want to see other people's attempt at a Mac Mini...

http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/31/aopens-pandora-mac-mini-clone-opens-box-of-legal-trouble/

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1935125,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

http://news.softpedia.com/news/It-Had-To-Happen-Mac-Mini-Clone-Is-Out-15520.shtml

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/01/02/evesham_mini_pc_plus/1.html

From the AOpen site...

http://minipc.aopen.com/us/

Try configuring a system for price here (emember to chose XP Professional as the OS - the "closest" match to OS X)...

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/myaopen/MINIPC945.html


Looks like the Mac mini has a competative price on hardware alone when stacked up against the only really comparible Wintel box.

mrgreen4242
Sep 10, 2006, 05:22 PM
A Gpu upgrade would give this machine a 5 star rating in my view, The 950 is what it is but I wish Apple would have put in the next generation Intel graphics chip 965 or so. Still though its a solid little machine and it handled the lightning strike we just had a heck of a lot better then my $2,000 plus Alienware now Paperweight.:o

The 965 (which is the chipset not a GPU, but the GPU that goes with it which I can't recall the name of) doesn't exist yet. I'm confident it will be in the mini and MB when it's ready though - it seems like Apple is going to be Intel's show off platform.

Eidorian
Sep 10, 2006, 05:26 PM
The 965 (which is the chipset not a GPU, but the GPU that goes with it which I can't recall the name of) doesn't exist yet. I'm confident it will be in the mini and MB when it's ready though - it seems like Apple is going to be Intel's show off platform.The 965 exists. It just doesn't for laptops, yet.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 10, 2006, 07:52 PM
The 965 (which is the chipset not a GPU, but the GPU that goes with it which I can't recall the name of) doesn't exist yet. I'm confident it will be in the mini and MB when it's ready though - it seems like Apple is going to be Intel's show off platform.
Your right its called the gma 3000 still Mini has a achilles heal and its the gma950. Sours the whole pot if you know what I mean. Otherwise Mini is near perfect.

MacSA
Sep 10, 2006, 08:02 PM
The £529 Mini might have been a more tempting buy if they had put the 2ghz chip in rather than the 1.8.

Counterfit
Sep 10, 2006, 09:40 PM
Ulitmate irony about the "entry level" Mac Mini

Your not even allowed to "enter" the actual bloody thing - unless your a pro and known what your doing its a sealed unit.
How is that ironic? Entry level machines are generally not meant to be upgraded by the user.

decksnap
Sep 10, 2006, 09:59 PM
They won the the internet! So...do they get to tell people who can and can't use it? Or what?

It means it's over. We had a good run. Now we all power down our systems and hit the locker room. :)

suneohair
Sep 10, 2006, 11:56 PM
Apple doesnt lower prices. They sell what they want to sell. I dont think this is an issue. I can see how someone would though.

To the OP, do your homework before you come crying. Apple isnt Dell or any other bargain basement PC seller. Therefore you cant compare.

Eidorian
Sep 11, 2006, 07:49 AM
How is that ironic? Entry level machines are generally not meant to be upgraded by the user.True most Dell's only have PCI slots until you start getting to the higher end machines.

combatcolin
Sep 12, 2006, 02:10 PM
How is that ironic? Entry level machines are generally not meant to be upgraded by the user.

Oh dear, Americans and Irony.......(ONLY GUESSING!!!!;) )

Almost every entry level computer can be opened up, even the dear old Spectrum from 1982 could be opened up and have connection cards soldered to it..bit easier nowadays though:p

rmhop81
Sep 12, 2006, 10:28 PM
The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out. Go look at my Dell Core 2 Duo above and try to ask them how they did that.
who said apple was jacking up the price? they had core duo's in the imac priced at 1699 for a 20 inch and now they are only charging 1499 with a CORE 2 DUO which in ur mind is just an amazing chip compared to core duo. The core 2 duo they are using is also a DESKTOP processor not a laptop or mobile processor.....so it's cheaper. Perhaps you should take an economics class and learn how companies work. You don't just buy a few processors here and there for say $200 a piece. You buy in huge wholesale lots to make the price cheaper. Say apple for instance bought 500k yonah's for $xx. they only end up using 400k before merom suddenly comes out quicker than expected. do you think apple just returns the supply to intel? no they can't that's no in the contract. THey had a contract with intel to buy so many chips and they did they can't break the contract and just send them back. So what do they do? They continue to use up the current supply before bringing the whole entire inventory over to the new chip....hence why they haven't put merom into the new mini's. It's common sense man and it's the way business works everyday. You buy in bulk up front and risk losing money or not using inventory bc new stuff comes out, it's the way it works. You can't just be like hey i want this right now and when merom comes out i wanna ship back my leftover stock of yonah in trade for the same price of yonah, that's just flat out ridiculous you think a company can run like that. When a clothing store has clearance sales do you think they are just doing that for fun? No, they have a ton of inventory they need to get rid of so they don't care what price they sell it for as long as it makes room for the new stuff. And no, in the computer world that doesn't mean those chips are now on clearance and are $5 a piece

If you check my sig you can see I own a mac mini. I don't really care about the price bc i was willing to pay the $799 pricetag. I don't use it as a main computer so the specs aren't something to whine over like you are doing. You have been whining this whole time. You'd think since you know so much about this stuff that you would know you shouldn't buy a basic entry level machine with these specs as your main machine. You'd think you're a pro user by the way you're talking. Step it up and spend a little cash on a iMac since you aren't happy with mac mini. For the average user the mac mini is an excellent choice bc they don't need the latest and greatest stuff that comes on the imac and they don't need a screen. The problem with doing a price drop is this. Most average users don't know anything about processors. THey look at GIGAHERTZ. So if you go out and buy a mac mini for 799 with a 1.66 core duo you are happy with your machine and 2 weeks later they upgrade it to a 1.66 core 2 duo for $599 or even $699 they are going to be like why did i just get ripped off and pay $799 when it's the same machine? They aren't going to know the difference between core 2 and core 1 duo. They don't care. All they are looking at is the GIGAHERTZ.

Bottom line is....for what comes in the mini right now and the SIZE of the machine it's an excellent little computer. I don't mind paying $799 for what it does for me hooked up to my tv. I can't find a windows computer of this same with these same specs since i do need wireless as well. All i know is if apple did do a price drop and put my exact model as the current base it would of made a lot of people mad bc that's a huge $200 difference in price. They keep the prices the same and don't make drastic changes bc it wouldn't be a good idea bc the customers wouldn't like that. That's one reason dell is having a hard time lately, they are so off and on with their prices. You don't know if u got a good deal from dell or they just ripped you off for all it's worth. So again.....quit whining and don't buy since it doesn't live up to your standards. IT lives up to my standards and plenty of other users standards and i couldn't ask for a better machine at a better price point.

bousozoku
Sep 12, 2006, 11:01 PM
Oh dear, Americans and Irony.......(ONLY GUESSING!!!!;) )

Almost every entry level computer can be opened up, even the dear old Spectrum from 1982 could be opened up and have connection cards soldered to it..bit easier nowadays though:p

The Spectrum came from a company that made do-it-yourself computer kits. :D

FredClausen
Sep 12, 2006, 11:06 PM
I guess I don't understand the desire for people to sit and waste their good time to try and convince a straight up troll that their opinion is wrong.

Just call this chap a whaaaaaaaaaaambulance so he can get over it. BTW, I'm about ready to get out the worlds smallest violin and play it for him.

On a more serious note, I don't see what the problem is with the minor bump. They are actually starting to build a spread into the systems spec wise. Who really thinks a system, designed to be the low end intro-to-a-mac computer, should be exactly the same specs in just about every department as the main desktop mac offering? And oh btw, the Mac Mini, cpu and ram speed wise, was just right in the ballpark of their high end (!) MBP.

Eh WTF?

So now Apple is revving the lines appropriately. The mini will occupy the proper space it did when it was a PPC computer. The iMac is now a better computer than the mini (well, it was always better, but you should get my drift). All we need is a slight MBP bump to C2D, maybe a speed bump for the Macbook to be the fastest C2 chip.

Mac Pro - Xeon 3.0 ghz
iMac - C2D 2.16 ghz
Mac Mini - CD 1.83 ghz

Looks proper to me.

combatcolin
Sep 14, 2006, 08:58 AM
The Spectrum came from a company that made do-it-yourself computer kits. :D

And thats an entire thread altogther!

For an "Entry level" machine the Mini is better than pretty much anything else on the market, and the 965 MB specs will upgrade it even further.

What would be nice, would be to use the upgradeble grpahic card standard that is present in some laptops.

Yes it propirtary (and no i can't spell it:o ) expensive and not readily availible - but at least its an option.

A case that can be opened up would be nice too.

Sdashiki
Sep 14, 2006, 09:24 AM
so when can I get a mac mini for under $500 that is an Intel based machine?

would be quite a boon to the Carputer scene with regards to macs in cars.

a cheap cheap solution using a mac would be nice, so even sub $500 would be sweeter...I can wait.