Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Quietly Updates Mac Minis

Evangelion said:
I too swore for upgradeability not too long ago. But then I realized something: I never really took advantage of it. Yes, I had added a hard-drive or two to my PC's, but that's about it. Vid-cards? By the time I wanted to upgrade, I had to get a new motherboard since connectors had moved on. CPU's? They went and changed the sockets, so I would have had to get a new motherboard. Same thing with RAM. In essence: when I upgraded, I practically got a new computer. It never made much sense to me to upgrade just one component, so I went ahead and upgraded everything.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with this viewpoint on the upgradability issue. I remember when everything was supposedly "future-proof" (classic marketing term, now pretty much dead) and you could gain a lot from having the same machine and upgrading bits and bobs along the way - and everything was designed for this, because components were so expensive. Fond memories of upgrading from 4MB to 8MB to run Doom, and it cost a fortune to do so!

Last PC I had, I upgraded the graphics card eventually because I skimped at purchase time and it was only a year later. It's just coming up to 4 years old and pretty much everything in it is obsolete - AGP instead of PCI-X, old style PSU, original SATA, quite an old P4 socket etc. It'd be pointless to try and upgrade it.

Latest PC, I've already had it for 1.5 years and not really been inside it, and don't envisage doing so for its lifetime either. They're just so cheap now I guess, that it makes more sense to get a whole new one each time.

The funny thing with this is, if you get a new one every say 3-4 years, you end up with a build-up of the damn things and don't know what to do with them! No point in selling because they'd be worth peanuts, no desire to waste etc. This is where Macs are better for long-term economics as they can have a useful life of 6+ years at least and still sell for reasonable amounts second-hand.

I can see where people are coming from with the Mac graphics cards though. With a PC there's no need to upgrade anything *IF* you pick the correct components to start off with. The same applies to Macs - it's just that Apple haven't offered a suitable choice for those who want more beefy graphics.
 
commander.data said:
Going with the GMA X3100 would have also forced Apple to use 800MHz FSB CPUs since the GM965 chipset doesn't support 667MHz FSB Meroms. Apple probably wanted to maintain wider product separation.
Click to expand...

Then they should have dropped the prices to $499 and $699 and swooped the market.

$599 and $799 would only be justified with better graphics and 802.11n along with the C2D upgrade IMO.

iW00t said:
Apart from the MacBook Pro with its better than expected GPU and LCD update this has been a pretty crappy year for the Mac so far.
Click to expand...

That's going a little too far. This latest (probably the last) Mac mini "SUCKDATE" (it's so bad that I actually came up with a more appropriate word for it than "update") may have BLOWN MAJOR CHUNKS (are you listening, Apple?) but this iMac revision is DAMN GOOD (are you listening, Apple?) on top of the Mac Pro having gone 8 core.

What's left? MacBook needs SR. We'll see that as early as this month in time for back to school or at the latest near the release of Leopard in a couple of months.

I personally think we'll see the MacBook updated to SR in October which will at the same time signal the demise of the Mac mini (face it people, these next 2 months are just Apple cleaning house and getting rid of old technology through the MacBook and Mac mini) while at the that same time ushering in Leopard and... dare I say it?.... I dare!.... the BRAND NEW Mac Pro mini towers!!!

:eek::p:D
 
I'm assuming that not upgrading the graphics to the x3100 means they didn't have to update the motherboard, so that this update was pretty much just putting existing pieces of hardware together and testing them.... does that sound right?

Of course, they could have done that 6 months ago, but if they're mini decisions are based on inventory forecasts, then they may have decided to wait until they had enough spare parts to make it worthwhile. I'll also go ahead and assume that by updating the mini as much as they did, it's now ready to run Leopard... so a minimal update to get their low-end machine ready for the new OS.

By the way, all the comparisons to the Macbook ("if they don't put it in the MacBook why put it in the mini") only make sense to me from an inventory perspective, i.e. why update past the macbook when that means you'd need a greater inventory of parts to manage. There's no reason as a desktop that the mini needs to be held in line with the macbook, they're pretty much different markets.

The mini probably continues to sell pretty well despite all the grievances expressed here, but my guess if they had done a more substantial update or dropped the price they would sell even more and realize a greater overall profit... but that's total conjecture on my part. Just a little more innovation into this particular market gap would probably do wonders.

I'll probably pick one up in a few months any ways, I need something to complement my old 12" PB and there's no way I'm lugging around a big MB or MBP. And since most of the time I run the PB on a Dell LCD (which despite the yammering about Dell here, has been perfect), I can replace it with the mini and still use the PB while moving about.
 
snowfall said:
By the way, all the comparisons to the Macbook ("if they don't put it in the MacBook why put it in the mini") only make sense to me from an inventory perspective, i.e. why update past the macbook when that means you'd need a greater inventory of parts to manage. There's no reason as a desktop that the mini needs to be held in line with the macbook, they're pretty much different markets.
Click to expand...

That may be a single reason, but these days it is a pretty important one. All that business speak about "lean engineering", "just-in-time production", "six-sigma" and all that other stuff. Put the squeeze on, reduce your costs and see your profit margin increase.
 
Evangelion said:
I too swore for upgradeability not too long ago. But then I realized something: I never really took advantage of it. Yes, I had added a hard-drive or two to my PC's, but that's about it. Vid-cards? By the time I wanted to upgrade, I had to get a new motherboard since connectors had moved on. CPU's? They went and changed the sockets, so I would have had to get a new motherboard. Same thing with RAM. In essence: when I upgraded, I practically got a new computer. It never made much sense to me to upgrade just one component, so I went ahead and upgraded everything.
Click to expand...

Ah, so nice to see somebody else overcoming the "PC upgrades" myth.

Yes, your PC can be upgraded, but by the time you are ready for a major upgrade, such as your CPU or your graphics card, you will find that it will not be worth it, because you'll want to upgrade so many other components along with it.

The last time I upgraded a PC, I found myself swapping in a brand new motherboard into the case, which required new memory, new GPU, new CPU, new power supply, oh, and even new hard drives. That's when I finally stopped kidding myself and realized that the best way to get value out of a computer is to buy and set up a complete system which will suit your needs for a few years, then sell it to a poor college kid and buy a new one when the time comes to "upgrade".
 
By the way, I can't help but notice that there are about a half-dozen posts in this forum saying something along the lines of "I wish they advanced it more" or "I wish they made it cheaper" followed by "but I'll probably get one anyway."

Many of those who are wondering why Apple isn't putting more costly parts in or knocking the price down have pretty much answered your own question. If you're willing to buy it anyway, they probably hit the bulls-eye in terms of price and specs.

The product non-portable line in a nutshell:

The mini is a terrific multi-purpose gadget.
The iMac is an outstanding desktop computer.
The Mac Pro is a powerful workstation.
None of them are impressive game machines for the money.

90% of the anti-mac hostility over GPU choices or "upgradability" is coming from gamers. News Flash: PC's are better game machines, and have been for decades. If all you care about is gaming, buy a PC and shut the hell up about Macs. You are not their target market, and won't be any time soon.
 
Tara Davis said:
Ah, so nice to see somebody else overcoming the "PC upgrades" myth.
Click to expand...

This was years ago, but I kept an old Dell PII 450 system current by upgrading the processor with a 1.2Ghz Powerleap and the video card with whatever the latest nVidia card was... breathed new life into the system and let me use it with the then-current software and games, for less than $300. A faster, bigger hard drive would have been easy, as well as adding firewire, bluetooth, USB 2, a video tuner card, and a host of other accessories and upgrades.

So, no, I don't think upgradability is a myth, nor is it ineffective on a cost basis for a PC... I just doubt that most people take advantage of it. However, given the Mac's smaller market share, wouldn't most aftermarket upgrades be pretty expensive? I wouldn't see much use in allowing substantial upgradability if price would put it out of most people's reach any ways. And why would Apple want to allow upgrades if it cannibalized new machine sales?

Do I wish I could upgrade my PB with a faster processor, HD, and video card? Of course, but I'd rather have it be well put together than easily taken apart, so to speak. I think this goes for the mini too, at least for my needs.
 
Tara Davis said:
By the way, I can't help but notice that there are about a half-dozen posts in this forum saying something along the lines of "I wish they advanced it more" or "I wish they made it cheaper" followed by "but I'll probably get one anyway."

Many of those who are wondering why Apple isn't putting more costly parts in or knocking the price down have pretty much answered your own question. If you're willing to buy it anyway, they probably hit the bulls-eye in terms of price and specs.
Click to expand...

Given that I might be one of those half-dozen, I'll reply. 6 out of 200 posts does not make overwhelmingly positive statistics. :) And a good portion of those 200 are complaints...

As for me, I'm an existing mac user (and former Apple employee) with a niche need for a small portable machine that I can carry with me easily on international flights. I'm willing to accept average performance because the form factor is more important to me. What everyone else seems to be saying is that Apple could use the mini to convert all those complainers if it added more performance or dropped the price, and therefore grow past the mini past its current niche. I'm sure Apple has thought that through though...

Personally I think dropping the price would be the better move, as PC owners could keep their PCs for gaming and pick up a mini for everything else, but heck I've never run a company as successful as Apple -and it was in the doghouse when I was there- so what do I know? :rolleyes:
 
MacQuest said:
Tell me about it.

Which company has been worth more since early 2006 despite selling far less units?

The Dell bargain bin strategy has, and continues to fail. Why would Apple want to get dragged into a failed business model that it has always known would fail? The Mac mini is an entry level Mac that focus on the most basic user with the understanding that hardcore video editing, gaming, or any other tasks as difficult or more difficult than those require at least the consumer iMac or higher and possibly even other applications like Final Cut Express in the case of video editing, etc.

There are 4 computer markets: bargain, consumer, professional, and information management (IT). Although Dell is well positioned in the highest level, it's not enough to offset the fact that they're at the top of the bottom of that market. That is why they're bleeding, and Apple has no desire to get wounded along with them. Not when Apple is SO damn healthy because it's NOT doing what Dell is.

Get it? Got it? Good.

You won't see Macs in Wal-Mart anytime soon either, but you sure can get a Dell. That speaks volumes about their quality and worth.

I swear, if I have one more Dell switcher (of which I've encountered thousands over the past 5 years) come whining to me about "Dell's Tech Support in India" (I'm not at ALL racist, but enough is enough), they're Piece of Crap (PC) hardware, and ESPECIALLY their general problems that they get because of the lack of seamless integration between junk windows OS and even junkier Dell hardware, I'm gonna personally kick michael "I'm gettin' my a$$ handed to me by Steve Jobs" dell in the nutz.

FIN.
Click to expand...

Some of that I agree with that, but towards the end you start going off the deep end. I don't think that you're going to end up agreeing with me, but you could at least try and understand where I'm coming from. That is: I do not personally identify with Steve Jobs as you do. Yes, I'm sure he's doing what (in his mind) is best for his business. I, on the other hand, do what is best for me. I have no doubt Steve Jobs likes customers who like to spend money. I also have no doubt that when Steve Jobs is a customer himself that he spends as little as possible. Just like me.

And all that ranting about Dell being junky hardware is falling on deaf ears. Apple uses commodity parts just like any other manufacturer, it's no more or less reliable. Having said that, you do want to avoid some of the really cheap stuff that really does use less reliable parts.

Yes, the form factor and OSX and working out of the box have some value. But not enough to make up for ridiculously underspec'ed hardware. For unixy goodness and security I can go to Linux, for mainstream apps and games MS.

So you say Apple has no desire to "get wounded"? True. But it's a rough world out there; "red in tooth and claw". Apple, on the other hand, has the RDF and customers like you. When and if they decide to step out of that bubble and offer something worth buying, I'm there.
 
ironring2006 said:
That may be a single reason, but these days it is a pretty important one. All that business speak about "lean engineering", "just-in-time production", "six-sigma" and all that other stuff. Put the squeeze on, reduce your costs and see your profit margin increase.
Click to expand...

Which, by the way, most companies do horribly. I think the people who have made the most money from the six-sigma "revolution" are the six-sigma consultants!

Bottom-line savings only get you so far though, you need to innovate to keep creating top-line revenue growth. For example, Dell's low cost focus and lack of innovation investment is a good pointer to its current challenges. However, I don't think anyone can claim that Apple isn't innovating, nor that they're not growing revenues. The debate seems to be more around whether or not they're innovating "enough" on their bread-and-butter platform, the Mac. I think Leopard will probably a great answer to that debate, at least I hope it will! Steve did say this would be a great year for the mac, didn't he?

Whether or not their using yesterday's hardware, I think the Mac has come a long way in the last couple of years... I just haven't bought a new one in that time frame myself.
 
I see people are still throwing around the rumour that it's soon to be discontinued.

Having thought about this carefully, I disagree - going by how much of the forum talk yesterday revolved around "please don't drop the Mini" and how much excitement there was when it survived, I'd say there's still one heck of a market for them. And as someone pointed out earlier, it's priced just right so that anyone thinking of one who has space for another screen (or is considering replacing their screen) would be very tempted on the iMac even if they weren't originally, because you get much more bang for not many more bucks.

Apple are not enthusiastic about the Mini, of course. They'd rather sell the bigger and more expensive machines, that's where the direct profit lies and where all their efforts are being pumped. That's why they don't update it every 5 minutes or make big exciting presentations about it when they do.

It's bound to be a less profitable item (directly, even though it helps grab 'switchers' and generate more long-term profits) so it makes no business sense to spend as much time/money/effort keeping it up to date or hyping it up. At the same time, even though it makes sense not to put too much effort into the Mini, it's definitely worth keeping, for the sake of switchers looking for a "cheap" Mac and then eventually seeing the light and upgrading. And the occasional geek like me who just wants a really small quiet Mac for numerous reasons.
 
MacQuest said:
...I'm gonna personally kick michael "I'm gettin' my a$$ handed to me by Steve Jobs" dell in the nutz.

FIN.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I was under the impression that Dell was getting beat up by the rest of the PC industry, not Apple specifically. Most particularly HP, Sony, and Toshiba are really eating into Dell's market share... though for many of the reasons you illustrated in your post: low quality, lack of innovation, service, etc. I have to say though, my experience with Apple's quality and service haven't been all wonderful, I've had Apple HDs and logic boards fail on me a number of times in the same machine, and their customer rep's response was "Buy a new mac" even though the machine was only 2 years old and still covered under Apple Care.

Any ways, I'm still curious why Apple doesn't offer a more mid-range headless mac. Sure it could eat into iMac sales but it could grow overall sales too. Unless of course the mid-range is the most cut throat market of all, and sticking to the niches of tiny minis and all-in-one iMacs are easier markets to stand out in.
 
I think the Mac defenders don't understand a simple fact -- we attackers all really like the Mac, and are upset they won't build more form-factors or at a cost that isn't so much more than a PC from HP/Dell/Whatever...

So yes, we can go take our business elsewhere, and we are not Apple's target market, AND Macs aren't for games (funny how all the Mac people got soooo excited that EA was coming back to the Mac) -- you miss the point of our bitching -- we want to be in Apple's market as we like the software. And, it would take very little effort on Apple's part to include us in the Mac experience.

Do 2 things:

1) Lower cost of the mini by at least $100 on both models.

2) Increase the performance so the Mini is at least competitive with other $800 computers

Share the love. We like Macs too, but just dislike Apple :)
 
MacQuest said:
Tell me about it.

Which company has been worth more since early 2006 despite selling far less units?

The Dell bargain bin strategy has, and continues to fail. Why would Apple want to get dragged into a failed business model that it has always known would fail? The Mac mini is an entry level Mac that focus on the most basic user with the understanding that hardcore video editing, gaming, or any other tasks as difficult or more difficult than those require at least the consumer iMac or higher and possibly even other applications like Final Cut Express in the case of video editing, etc.

There are 4 computer markets: bargain, consumer, professional, and information management (IT). Although Dell is well positioned in the highest level, it's not enough to offset the fact that they're at the top of the bottom of that market. That is why they're bleeding, and Apple has no desire to get wounded along with them. Not when Apple is SO damn healthy because it's NOT doing what Dell is.

Get it? Got it? Good.

You won't see Macs in Wal-Mart anytime soon either, but you sure can get a Dell. That speaks volumes about their quality and worth.

I swear, if I have one more Dell switcher (of which I've encountered thousands over the past 5 years) come whining to me about "Dell's Tech Support in India" (I'm not at ALL racist, but enough is enough), they're Piece of Crap (PC) hardware, and ESPECIALLY their general problems that they get because of the lack of seamless integration between junk windows OS and even junkier Dell hardware, I'm gonna personally kick michael "I'm gettin' my a$$ handed to me by Steve Jobs" dell in the nutz.

FIN.
Click to expand...

A man after my own heart.

http://www.ihatedell.net

Interestingly enough, this guy I know had built one of those uber custom PC's at $2,000 that supposedly is great for audio and video (not a Dell though). He's had a bunch of problems, especially trying to make video and DVDs.

I bought a stock Mini 1.66 (I had a firewire external portable DVD burner to hook up to it) and with a measly 512Meg, am making videos and DVDs without a hitch....

Games? Prefer a console to a computer....
 
Almost Top of the line

I was disappointed to not see the X3000 graphics... after all, the thing does not accept an after market GPU, so you are stuck with what it has.

But on the other hand, Apple did not TOTALLY cheap out. They seem to have adopted the standard Centrino Duo platform, as opposed to the "top of the line" Centrino Core Pro. T5000 vs T7000 chips. Going to SR T7000 chips at this point would have been pretty pricey.

http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/compare.htm

I'm betting this sets up a "speed bump" once Leopard launches. Intel will be running out of Napa chips by then. ;-)
 
While the GMA 950 graphics and combo drive ARE ridiculous in a $600 computer now, I am glad that they kept the mini. If they got rid of the mini, their lowest priced computer would be $1199 (excluding edu discounts or refurb), which would price a lot of people out of the picture.
 
snowfall said:
I'll probably pick one up in a few months any ways, I need something to complement my old 12" PB and there's no way I'm lugging around a big MB or MBP. And since most of the time I run the PB on a Dell LCD (which despite the yammering about Dell here, has been perfect), I can replace it with the mini and still use the PB while moving about.
Click to expand...

Here here! We have about the exact same setup.. Right now I have a 12" PB 1.33 GHz (best Mac laptop ever). While at home it's usually hooked into a Dell 2005FPW 20" widescreen. Isn't it great?

Soon I'll pick up a Mac Mini to compliment the PB. The Mini is attractive for a number of reasons... mainly that i'll finally have a Mac w/ intel and if I wait long enough, it'll come with Leopard and iLife '08. So, the mini fits the bill... tho i did wish it had 802.11n. Then I'd pick up the latest Airport Base station and use Airport Disk. That is a pretty cool feature.

Anyways, my point is that people rag on the mini, but it has it's market.

snowfall said:
Do I wish I could upgrade my PB with a faster processor, HD, and video card? Of course, but I'd rather have it be well put together than easily taken apart, so to speak. I think this goes for the mini too, at least for my needs.
Click to expand...

Upgrading the HD in the 12" PB isn't too hard. I was forced to when mine gave up the ghost. Now I have 120GB onboard. veery niiiice.
 
Newly updated Mac Mini

Does MacRumors know, (or can you find out) whether the Draft "n" wireless capability can be "unlocked on the higher-spec Mac Mini?
That configuration now matches the lower-spec MacBook which has "n" wireless built in.
I talked to an Apple customer service rep who checked with tech support and received an response saying that version of the Mini has been "unlocked."
But the spec page says only 802.11g.
 
islandgirl45 said:
Does MacRumors know, (or can you find out) whether the Draft "n" wireless capability can be "unlocked on the higher-spec Mac Mini?
That configuration now matches the lower-spec MacBook which has "n" wireless built in.
I talked to an Apple customer service rep who checked with tech support and received an response saying that version of the Mini has been "unlocked."
But the spec page says only 802.11g.
Click to expand...
It might require more than a software "unlock". There's widespread speculation that the Mac Mini's logic board might not have changed at all, but instead there was simply a drop-in replacement of the CPU from Core Duo to the pin-compatible Core 2 Duo. If that's the case, then the wi-fi chipset will not have been replaced, so that the Mac Mini would still only be physically capable of operating at 802.11g.

With the MacBook, on the other hand, there was a change in the wi-fi chipset at the same time as the CPU upgrade. So the potential for draft "n" capability was physically present in the MacBook's hardware right from the beginning of the Core 2 Duo era, but hidden from use by a software limitation.

Verification of which situation is actually true could potentially be done by booting one of the new Mac Minis in Windows XP using Boot Camp -- with appropriate drivers installed, XP was capable of identifying the draft-N chipset in the C2D MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and iMacs, even before Apple had officially released the unlocker.
 
islandgirl45 said:
Does MacRumors know, (or can you find out) whether the Draft "n" wireless capability can be "unlocked on the higher-spec Mac Mini?
That configuration now matches the lower-spec MacBook which has "n" wireless built in.
I talked to an Apple customer service rep who checked with tech support and received an response saying that version of the Mini has been "unlocked."
But the spec page says only 802.11g.
Click to expand...

If it's got 3 antennas inside it's likely to be 802.11n. If there is only 1 antenna it's only 802.11g. At this point apple has little reason to hide 802.11n from the public. QuickerTek does make an 802.11n upgrade for the mini but it costs $179 for those who really need it. Maybe they're shipping some with one spec and the rest with an update. I seem to recall apple doing that with the first update to the mini. In my opinion apple is using the mini to liquidate their older MacBook and pro stock components - i.e. processors, wireless, hard drives, etc. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fantastic computer given it's size - great for the livingroom. Killing the 17" iMac probably saved that price/product segment.
 
A shame about the in built GFX, but i wont be playing games or anything.

I'm using a Dell Dimension 4600, p4 2.8 (about 4 years old!). anyone got any charts to show speed comparisons to the 2.0ghz C2D?

mac mini will be my first mac :apple:
 
gkarris said:
A man after my own heart.

http://www.ihatedell.net

Interestingly enough, this guy I know had built one of those uber custom PC's at $2,000 that supposedly is great for audio and video (not a Dell though). He's had a bunch of problems, especially trying to make video and DVDs.

I bought a stock Mini 1.66 (I had a firewire external portable DVD burner to hook up to it) and with a measly 512Meg, am making videos and DVDs without a hitch....

Games? Prefer a console to a computer....
Click to expand...

I'm making DVDs and videos with my G4 1.43 mini. Rendering is very slow. Other than that I've had no issues. Now it's time for an upgrade. Trying to decide between a new mini or 24" iMac. The deciding factor may be the Glossy screen on the iMac. If I don't like it, I'll get another mini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back