Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:15 PM   #1
MacBoySeattle
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Ridiculous Mac Mini Upgrade

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.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:17 PM   #2
generik
Banned
 
generik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minitrue
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.
generik is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:21 PM   #3
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by generik
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 Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same.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.

Last edited by MacBoySeattle; Sep 9, 2006 at 08:26 PM.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:28 PM   #4
xfiftyfour
macrumors 68030
 
xfiftyfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Clemson, SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoySeattle
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).
xfiftyfour is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:31 PM   #5
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by xfiftyfour
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.

Last edited by MacBoySeattle; Sep 9, 2006 at 08:42 PM.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:36 PM   #6
clevin
macrumors G3
 
clevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
just a small remind, meron is not a desktop cpu, it is a mobile cpu.
clevin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:38 PM   #7
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevin
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)
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:41 PM   #8
clevin
macrumors G3
 
clevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
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.
clevin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:44 PM   #9
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
77 Month Old MacBook
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:45 PM   #10
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevin
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.

Last edited by MacBoySeattle; Sep 9, 2006 at 08:53 PM.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:51 PM   #11
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoySeattle
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?
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
77 Month Old MacBook
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:54 PM   #12
Warbrain
macrumors 603
 
Warbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoySeattle
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.
__________________
WARBRAIN
Twitter | Blog
MacBook Pro 15" | iPad 3 32 GB LTE | iPad 2 16 GB | iPhone 4S 16 GB White | iPod touch 4G 64 GB | iPhone 4 16 GB Black
Warbrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:57 PM   #13
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eidorian
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.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 08:58 PM   #14
combatcolin
macrumors 68020
 
combatcolin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northants, UK
The next Min should have the 965 built in Graphics, big improvment over the 950.

Still not buying one though.
__________________
Wanting a new ipod
combatcolin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:11 PM   #15
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
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.
bousozoku is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:13 PM   #16
clevin
macrumors G3
 
clevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by combatcolin
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:14 PM   #17
clevin
macrumors G3
 
clevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbrain
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?
clevin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:16 PM   #18
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevin
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.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:21 PM   #19
clevin
macrumors G3
 
clevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoySeattle
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
clevin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:24 PM   #20
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevin
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.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:28 PM   #21
viccles
macrumors 68040
 
viccles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Send a message via AIM to viccles
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
__________________
Surface Pro |White 16gb iPhone 5 | 2013 13" MBA| Black 16gb S4 Follow me on twitter
My blog
My youtube channel
viccles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:33 PM   #22
Warbrain
macrumors 603
 
Warbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by clevin
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.
__________________
WARBRAIN
Twitter | Blog
MacBook Pro 15" | iPad 3 32 GB LTE | iPad 2 16 GB | iPhone 4S 16 GB White | iPod touch 4G 64 GB | iPhone 4 16 GB Black
Warbrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:36 PM   #23
generik
Banned
 
generik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minitrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoySeattle
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.
generik is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:38 PM   #24
zap2
macrumors 604
 
zap2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington D.C
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
__________________
"We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by." Will Rogers
zap2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 09:46 PM   #25
MacBoySeattle
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by zap2
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.
MacBoySeattle is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac mini

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac Mini vs iMac vs MacBook Pro ranny2 Buying Tips and Advice 7 Aug 2, 2011 02:33 PM
Hacking Mac Mini 2007 :-) ??? Data-Base Mac mini 2 Jul 29, 2011 08:11 AM
Resolved: Making overall improvements in my Mac Mini! alexreich Mac mini 9 Jul 4, 2011 05:56 PM
Will VGA Splitter work for 2 Monitors on mini displayport to VGA on Mac Mini 2010? QuakeProd Mac mini 10 Mar 30, 2011 02:29 AM
upgrade time ShUpAC Mac mini 10 Jan 30, 2011 02:40 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC