Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2011 Mac Mini - Speculation
- Thread starter Nanker/Phelge
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they put quad cores in the mini without sending the price through the $1000 barrier they're going to kill iMac sales. And they're definitely putting Thunderbolt in because they want to promote it.
No one's going to buy an iMac for $1699 with an i5 if you can get a mini with an i5 (let alone an i7!) for less than $1000.
No one's going to buy an iMac for $1699 with an i5 if you can get a mini with an i5 (let alone an i7!) for less than $1000.
Considering that 27" 2560x1440 display costs $1000, the CPU is much faster (significantly higher clock speed) and you get a dedicated GPU, I would say a $999 quad-core Mac Mini wouldn't kill iMac sales.
I agree - the CPU won't kill sales on its own. I'm sure the GPU will be significantly gimped in the Mini.
Does anyone actually buy a monitor for $1000 or is that just a number Apple puts out to make the iMac look like a better value?
In any case, no way the base mini is going to be $999. You'd have to be bonkers to get an iMac if the mini is quad core and half the price.
In any case, no way the base mini is going to be $999. You'd have to be bonkers to get an iMac if the mini is quad core and half the price.
"the lacie will come out in aug don't know about the sonnet. i can't find any good photos of the sonnet. I have a feeling it will be really expensive. My guess for the lacie is 800 the sonnet is 1000 just a guess "
I've heard these estimates before. Why in the hell will the TB periphs be so damned expensive? How is Apple going to establish a new standard at $1,000 a pop? I'd drag my feet at $500...
I've heard these estimates before. Why in the hell will the TB periphs be so damned expensive? How is Apple going to establish a new standard at $1,000 a pop? I'd drag my feet at $500...
Yeah, and folks used to ask how in the hell a Texas Instruments digital calculator was ever going to see any use from the general public at $100+ a pop. And I'm not talking scientific calculator either, lol.
Remember when a 42" 720p plasma cost $3,000? I guess not...
For the record all Sandy Bridge mobile processors have the HD3000 GPU core on them. The HD2000 is only used on non-K sku's desktop processors.
now remember those have ssd's in them.
t-bolt will be good when you get empty raid 0 cases for 100 to 150
owc has an empty two bay esata /fw800/usb2 case for 84 bucks
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/MEQMH0GBK/ put 2 small ssd's in this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003Z6Q8XY/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
if this was t-bolt it would be faster then a sata III ssd and easy to install cost under 300. stack it on your mac mini at home and you are set or use two of these in a t-bolt like the owc esata
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152291&Tpk=samsung 1tb 2.5 inch
your cost is under 300 and you added 2tb as an osx quicker then any normal hdd
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Your argument falls apart pretty fast when you consider that there are much cheaper solutions. You can get a Firewire 800 setup for less than a $100 and it will be fast enough for most applications. Your point about the TI calculator is moot because there really wasn't much else out there at the time and people wanted it. Most of the average public doesn't even know what the hell Thunderbolt is, or even have a need for it. Apple should have went with USB 3.0 for the consumer devices instead. I love the idea of Thunderbolt, but I can't stomach the price you have to pay to use it.
Usb3 is a dead end t-bolt as is ;is faster and in under 3 years will be faster yet. the real problem apple did was to never give esata . that was a complete nasty move. the imac was a cripple due to lack of an external esata jack. they could have had one since 2009 with great ease on an iMac and the problem of a dead internal drive would have been a bogus fear instead of a real problem for many. If they gave the easy access esata jack usb3 may have never got off the ground. just think if your imac or mac mini had this with 2 small ssds or large 2.5 inch hdds inside of it:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/EliteALmini/RAID/eSATA_FW800_FW400_USB
the entire industry could have pushed for esata externals. but no this was held back only diy guys use it for mac minis or imacs.
here is a listing of an external I built and sold on ebay at a small profit
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...61101&ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT#ht_1081wt_1398
I made about 25-30 bucks on this.
(( note to mods : I am not selling this it was sold about a week ago. I have no more to sell and in no way am I advertising to sell them in the future.))
this external tech was available to mac minis and imacs years before usb3 but no it was held back. Now you will get a better version then above it will be 600MB/s vs 300Mb/s it is t-bolt and it will be
maybe 800 plus 50 for a cable. while the unit above was 350 and 0 for many cables. the esata jack was accessible in the 2009 mini I built many esata hacks with 2009 mini's it was accessible in the 2009 iMac but we got a big screw you. personally USB3 ticked me off because it was not needed esata tech was cheap and easy with raid0, raid1, JBOD all easy to do. for years!
Last edited:
i3s are still using the same cores as the i5 and i7. They don't have the extra features to boost them further but they're still fast.
Cause the SSDs in those things are around $2/GB alone. Like for 250GB you're looking at around $500 for the drives themselves before LaCie/Sonnet gouge you for their enclosure.
Apple isn't going to bother with eSATA now since both TB and USB3* are fast enough to handle it and can do more than just attach HDs. It's a waste of space for them.
*not that they'll bother until Ivy Bridge where they get it for free.
Its funny you never know with Apple but they buy these chips& drives in such massive qty and they like proven tech. My guess is look at low end iMac for a hint.
Luv my MacMini. Lets hope the new one has a rubber base this go around.
Luv my MacMini. Lets hope the new one has a rubber base this go around.
Its funny you never know with Apple but they buy these chips& drives in such massive qty and they like proven tech. My guess is look at low end iMac for a hint.
Don't expect too much. Look at the 13" MBP that was updated ~2 months ago. That's what I expect the Mac Mini to be (add in an hdmi port, and remove the keyboard & screen).
If they could just add 1 inch to the height of the Mac Mini. You could model it after the 15" MBP.
that is true the boat has long since sailed for that upgrade path.
now that t-bolt will make them a fortune from speed freak buyers and in a short while usb3 will be the cheap interface they will go that route.
The updated 13" MBP happened on February 24th, ~5 months ago, according to my receipt.
The current mini already has an HDMI port:
Last edited by a moderator:
isn't that from the same source who said there will also be a macbook air update?
No, my argument is solid. New and better technology always sells at a premium regardless of "much cheaper solutions." And over time, after the r+d money is recuped, the price falls and becomes driven by competition between vendors all vying for the consumer's dollars. The average public thought the calculator was an overpriced gadget that was unnecessary and only a novelty at first. Now you probably have three in your home each valued at $4 each.
umm. The 2nd gen i3 will scream in that set up. I had a 1st gen and would get great transfer speeds with esata. That i3 will run circles around the last c2d
Didn't know that, thanks. But will it necessarily have one of the "M" processors? The ones I mentioned have SB architecture and the same power draw of 35 W.
Most likely. Those T processors (at least the ones you mentioned) don't come in a BGA (ball grid array/soldered) package. The chip itself is larger as a result at 37.5mm x 37.5mm vs 31mm x 24mm, and the overall implementation would be larger since you'd need the whole socket setup to mount the chip vs being soldered on.
Still realistically guessing it'll match the 13" MBP, although the multiple tiers (if even true) gives me hope that there'll be more CPU differentiation. Perhaps a lower end i3 version matching a new MacBook then the i5/i7 from the MBP...but ideally a quad at the ultimate gouging price.