ebmyszkow said:
Thanks for letting me know .... I'm on my way to exchange my 930b for a 730b (want the better pixel pitch) and order a Mac mini.
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.
Apple Releases New Mac Mini
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for letting me know .... I'm on my way to exchange my 930b for a 730b (want the better pixel pitch) and order a Mac mini.
Part 2.MarcelV said:
No one was expecting dual G5s in the Mini to bring it up to the power of a PowerMac. With the iBook and the eMac both now sporting Q2DE capable GPUs (Radeon 9550 and 9600, respectively) is there ANY good reason for the Mini not to, also? What possible logic could apply that would indicate that the iBook should move from a R9200 to a R9550 yesterday but not the Mini?
Pure price point. Nothing less, nothing more. Apple will do whatever it takes to keep their 20-28% profit margin on any product. It means that on a $499 machine they will have to make a choice between a lower margin (not happening) or less capabilities. You have much less playfield than on a $999 machine.MudLake said:
But I think we can keep this discussion going on for a long time. I see business reasons Apple did what they did, you probably see those too, but don't agree with it. And that's the fun of those forums
MarkCollette said:
Function following form my friend.
I'm guessing heads rolled at apple due to the mac mini design and implementation. The mac mini is a flop.
Apple is not willing to spend more R&D money in real upgrades to this product. Hence the weak product "update." If it was such a success, why would they be dropping the allready low price? Think about it.
Believe me, they are just trying to recover as much of the development $$ as possible before this debacle is discontinued.
Well maybe it will go down as the Mac Cube's little brother, but if that's the case - can something be born that's a headless (or at least not a built-in monitor) mac that is more powerful then a iBook or eMac (oddly enough the Mac Mini is now LESS powerful then both the iBook and eMac, such wasn't the case when it was first released, but since the eMac updates a couple months ago or whatever and these recent iBook updates along with weak mac mini updates (if you can even call it that), it now trails behind both the iBook and eMac. So if there giving up and throwing out the mac mini altogether, then at least offer up something better then there consumer notebook and education desktop (aka iBook and eMac) but not as powerful as their power user line (or if its a desktop I guess it could be on par with its portable power user line). Or worse come to worse (or best come to best IMO), a true headless iMac. How much do you think throwing out the included display, keyboard, and mouse from the iMac would decrease the overall cost? The low end model is around 1300, middle end model 1499, and high end 1799. Okay, so throw the monitor, keyboard, and mouse out of the low end model and sell it for 999 (300 dollars for the monitor, keyboard and mouse sounds about right if not even less then what they are altogether worth). The middle/high end model (which would be the same when not including the screen) sell for 1199. And that right there would be a real winner in my book. Although it may take away from sales of the eMac, good riddance in my book - I'd sacrifice the eMac in a heartbeat for that machine, I'll buy a screen that's better then a 17" (16" viewable) CRT for a computer that should/would be lighter then 50+ pounds! I know I'm whining, complaining, etc. etc. etc. but I also know that I can't possibly be the only one who thinks this is an AWESOME idea and would purchase such a computer in a second if it was offered. Would it take sales away from the iMac though? Maybe... So I guess that could be of worry to Stevie J, but maybe if it doesn't look as good visually people who buy just for looks will go for the iMac. Or maybe people will be like "only 300 dollars more for the display, keyboard, mouse version, better deal considoring how nice of a display it is and buying those featuers from apple would no doubt cost more then 300 dollars anyways." But for those of us already with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse looking for iMac performance without the unecessary monitor, keyboard, and mouse but not wanting to spend as much (or need the amount of performance for that matter) from the PowerMac would have something, and that something would be hundred-times better then what Apple's Rolling Heads have given us with the Mac Mini and eMac... Combined!
P.S. I guess they could also have a trade-in deal. Although this would never happen and I know it, they could go the whole "give us a monitor and we'll subtract a 200 dollars off your iMac, give us a keyboard and we'll subtract another 50 dollars off your iMac purchase, give us a mouse and 50 more dollars will be subtracted off. Total, a possible 300 dollars off your new iMac for trading in your monitor, keyboard and mouse!" Kind of like cell phone carriers sometimes do with "we'll give you 50-100 dollars off any of our new phones if you give us your old one!" Although that would really be the day pigs would fly outta my butt and frogs grow wings so they don't hit their butt everytime they jump. Zang!
P.S. I guess they could also have a trade-in deal. Although this would never happen and I know it, they could go the whole "give us a monitor and we'll subtract a 200 dollars off your iMac, give us a keyboard and we'll subtract another 50 dollars off your iMac purchase, give us a mouse and 50 more dollars will be subtracted off. Total, a possible 300 dollars off your new iMac for trading in your monitor, keyboard and mouse!" Kind of like cell phone carriers sometimes do with "we'll give you 50-100 dollars off any of our new phones if you give us your old one!" Although that would really be the day pigs would fly outta my butt and frogs grow wings so they don't hit their butt everytime they jump. Zang!
I understand why the $499 mini would retain the Radeon 9200 to keep the margins up, but that still does not eliminate the 9550 to either be included on the 699 configuration, or appear as a BTO option. Apple pulled the same trick with not even including the SuperDrive as a BTO option on the 12-inch iBook (again), as well as in not allowing a BTO 64mb 9550. Strange to me. When in doubt about the margins, Apple, don't eliminate things completely, make them BTO!
Plecky said:
Reading this brought something else to mind. Who's brilliant idea at Apple, Marketing/R&D or whatever, decided it was a good idea to bring out a "sub $500" computer without an acceptable display solution?
And now, a 20" $1000 (or whatever it was selling for at the time) cinema display is not an acceptable or logical display solution. Even at $799, the 20" display costs MORE then any mac mini!
This sounds more like management incompetence then anything I have ever heard of.
Think about it:
For example:
Customer: I have an imac g3, (or no computer at all, or old 5 year old winows CRT that's due for replacement) and am looking to upgrade. I see you have the mac mini. I like the price. Can I use my iMac as a display?
Apple: No.
Customer: Well what are my options?
Apple: We have a beautiful 20" Cinema display. Best Monitor Available anywhere. Matches the aluminum Mac Mini.
Customer: Great. How much?
Apple: New reduced low price. Only $799.00.
Customer:
Exactly remington hill. Take this to bed with you as well: The iMac 20" costs 1800 bucks, the 20" Apple Cinema Display (which is the same as the iMacs I believe...) cost 800 bucks. Nearly half the price (900 would be a even half) of that iMac is the display? Okay, so simular configured 17" iMac costs 1500 dollars, is that to say a 17" monitor should be about 670ish dollars (750 would be about half, minus the percentage less). Okay okay, so if Apple did release a 17" cinema display, that would still be a quite a chunk of change for a 17" ACD! Now to the point I'm trying to make, they had the single 1.8 GHZ Powermac for a while, how much was it? According to the calculations saying the displays are actually worth these 600-800 dollar values, shouldn't it have costed about 900-1100 bucks? How much was it though? Oh yeah, WAY MORE! This makes no sense, either apple overprices their monitors - overprices there desktop hardware parts etc. or is overpricing something... The single 1.8 G5 powermac didn't even come with a keyboard or mouse as I recall like the iMacs do. Something is terribly wrong here... Can somebody tell me whats up? Why are the monitors suddenly cheap when they built into the iMacs but when put into a aluminum shell with a couple firewire/usb 2.0 ports it bumps the price up hundreds of dollars? Or if that's not the case, why is the hardware behind the 1.8 GHZ G5 iMac when removing the display make it cost close to the same (or maybe even more, I'm not positive) when put into a aluminum PowerMac casing? It's ludacris to me, either too expensive displays or too expensive powermacs and I need one of those (if not both) to have more affordable alternatives other then the all-in-one "solution" that is the freaking iMac!! Sorry, I am going to whine, complain, and rant about that because to me - that is where Apple is not innovating anything when they should be! Although they seem to have no problem gaining sales, market share, etc. they'd gain it a whole lot faster if they expanded there options a bit to offer something middle of the road that isn't a eMac or iMac!!
Okay lets put a way anybody could understand now. Let's say someone comes up to me asking about advice on buying a new Mac. They say I've got about 1000-1500 dollars. I don't really want a notebook, but I'd like a nice new G5 desktop since I've been hearing so much about this G5 chip with 64-bit tiger and core image and macs are now becomming good enough for gaming etc. etc. etc.. I've already got a widescreen dell 24" HD display (or for the sake of appleheads, a 23" Apple Cinema Display HD). I've also got a wireless bluetooth keyboard and 2 button optical mouse with scroll wheel (I'm transitioning from the PC and just don't want to use a 1-button mouse, want to stick with something with 2 buttons and a scroll wheel) so I don't need a mouse or keyboard. What kind of mac should I buy? I don't think you could reccomend "oh, save 500+ bucks and get a Mac Mini which is not the desktop you're probably looking for due to lack of a G5 or it using Tigers 64-bit capibilities to the fullest or gaming much either. Nor could you reccomend them spending 500+ more dollars to get a dual-G5 PowerMac. What option is left? Oh yeah, the iMac... What do you say "how about a 17" 1500 2 Ghz G5 iMac with a smaller monitor, wired keyboard, and 1-button mouse you don't need and probably don't really want either?" or "how about a 17" 1300 1.8 Ghz G5 iMac also with a smaller monitor, wired keyboard, and 1 button mouse you don't need or maybe even want." "or you can upgrade your mouse and keyboard to bluetooth ones even though you don't need them for 80-90 bucks more!" This market is completely left out in the cold by Apple it seems. Not to mention the 1300 iMac does not have a superdrive or BTO option for it. While the 1500 iMac does it still has a not-needed/wanted monitor, keyboard, and mouse. So what is there for the 1000-1500 dollar price range people who want to byodkm (or whatever the slogan is)? Please help me anybody, even you MacCultists try to answer this one!
Oh and one more thing about that iMac monitor, its really useful after you upgrade your desktop and want to use its display for your new desktop instead... oh wait... you can't! At least the apple Cinema Displays will survive through updated desktops and different ones for that matter. I don't think the same can be said for the iMacs (or eMacs) monitors... Oh well, its not like Monitors last longer then Computers in Moore's law... Oh wait, that's right - they do!
Don't get me wrong though ,there is a place for iMacs - for those people who DO need a new display, keyboard, and mouse (most of all the display though). Or are starting from scratch, don't have anythign and need a simple all in one solution... But not everybody (including myself) needs this and all we can do is be:
Newbie comment on the 'new' Mac Mini
Hello again everyone, I would just like to voice my opinions about this 'update'
Firstly, we musnt forget the intended audience for the Mini - mainly novice users or PC users who are cautious to convert. OR there is of course the media maniacs who want a small entertainment box in their home...
These people DO NOT NEED 1GB of RAM, 512MB is plenty for modest Mac OS X usasge..iv tested it..its fine!
The processor speeds are ample to handle even some of the most demanding applications (Eg Logic and Final Cut etc
The ONLY criticism I would make of this update is the GPU...it should have been a 9550 with 32 Megs of VRAM...that way converters would benefit from the true potential of MAC OS X Core Image...its such a beauty and innovative technology for Mac..why deny newbies this?
The 9550 fits straight onto the 9200 space as wel..so it wouldnt require a major MB update.
Other than that...APPLE whats £359 all about? Please dont do that to us British people..its not fair! If its an update just like the Ibook, prices should remain the same..its only a 512RAM update afterall, realistically.
However, lets not forget the bunch of software provided with every Apple product - an excellent deal if your a newbie! You get the whole lot with the Mini...surely that costs something..
Regards
Hello again everyone, I would just like to voice my opinions about this 'update'
Firstly, we musnt forget the intended audience for the Mini - mainly novice users or PC users who are cautious to convert. OR there is of course the media maniacs who want a small entertainment box in their home...
These people DO NOT NEED 1GB of RAM, 512MB is plenty for modest Mac OS X usasge..iv tested it..its fine!
The processor speeds are ample to handle even some of the most demanding applications (Eg Logic and Final Cut etc
The ONLY criticism I would make of this update is the GPU...it should have been a 9550 with 32 Megs of VRAM...that way converters would benefit from the true potential of MAC OS X Core Image...its such a beauty and innovative technology for Mac..why deny newbies this?
The 9550 fits straight onto the 9200 space as wel..so it wouldnt require a major MB update.
Other than that...APPLE whats £359 all about? Please dont do that to us British people..its not fair! If its an update just like the Ibook, prices should remain the same..its only a 512RAM update afterall, realistically.
However, lets not forget the bunch of software provided with every Apple product - an excellent deal if your a newbie! You get the whole lot with the Mini...surely that costs something..
Regards
Legacy said:
Well I beg to differ! In my 6 weeks + of experience as a switcher I found that 512MB was a lame amount. The beachball popped up all the time and frustrated the life out of the programmes I was running. The thing about the mini is, it may well be aimed at newbies but those people dont stay newbies for long! They usually decide to move up a level and try their hand at something a little more complicated requiring more power! I do not recommend that ontop of a relatively slow CPU and a slow HD that one sticks to a mere 512MB. I found vast improvement going 1 Gig! The amount of time the 1 gig stick saves over its 512MB counterpart justifies the price!
IMO, there is a significant market for a mini amongst Mac users. You can put me into that bucket. But these Mac users want that little bit more from their machines. Faster graphics, fast HD's, more CPU power, etc. We (me) don't need a G5. A decent G4 is enough. But we need more than what the mini currently offers. I want a machine that supports Core Image.Legacy said:
As for RAM. I think 512 is enough. Any sluggishness after upagrading to 512 may be due to the slow disk drive in the mini.
If Apple had put the 9550 into the new mini, I'd have my order in and be anxiously waiting delivery. As it is, I'm back to waiting for Intel next year.Legacy said:
One very interesting application for the MacMini is a home or small office server. It is fine as is for this. Its low power consumption and small size make it ideal for this. Previously I have used an old PowerBook for this task but now if I was going to buy a machine new I would get a _low_ end MacMini.
MacWeenie said:
Me too, I'm still considering getting one but I just don't think I can justify it.
Oh no, yet another date to wait for. 3 months, MWSF in 6 months, Intel Mini's (maybe) in 11 months... If they can't fit a decent processor, a decent video chip, and a decent hard drive in the Mini can we just ressurect the Cube? I'm pretty sure a 7200rpm 200GB HD and a Radeon 9600 w 128MB of VRam would fit in a Cube's enclosure. If a 5th anniversary (or whatever) G5 Cube was released tomorrow I would buy it. Price it around 999.00 and it would nicely fill the hole in Apple's linup between the Mini and the PowerMac.minimax said:
Then why put WLAN and especially bluetooth as a standard feature? Unless Apple has some secret bluetooth-conspiracy-plan for all of us, there's absolutely no reason for this move. It should be kept BTO for those who need it. PERIOD.
I dont know what its like in America, but I think the Mini has been selling pretty good here in Europe. The 1.25GHz version will soon disappear. Its priced way too high and too inconsistent as it is now. (Just try adding SD og bluetooth/wlan and you shoot way over the pricepoint for the other models. This IMO is a strong indication the 1.25GHz will disappear soon). Maybe the Mini will disappear altogether - it could indeed seem as Apple is trying to move alot of overstocked inventory with this "update".
I still think the Mini is a pretty good deal - however I cant help feel the Mac gaming stage is a pathetic scene right now. Even the $2000 computers feature graphics card PC users had 2-3 years ago. I hardly think this sales strategy from Apple inspire game development for the Mac. And lets face it: The only reason the PC-market is moving forward today, is games. Someone wake Apple up, please.
Any idea that the Mac Mini will disappear (be discontinued) is absurd. All you have to do is look at the mac sales, during the past two quarters, which both beat the Christmas quarter. Sure, some of that is growth that would have happened without the Mac Mini perhaps, but a lot of that is growth because of the Mac Mini. I believe Apple is very happy with the Mac Mini sales.
MacWeenie said:
No, 512 is not enough. It is the minimum to run iMovie. I just had to upgrade my G4 to over 1 gb from 640Mb and the HDs are 7200 rpm.
Why are we discussing about new mac minis? There is nothing new in this revision. Lamest one I have ever seen.....
msb221 said:
Eh... I'm in no way rich. It took me 10 years to purchase that, which basically means 10ks a year (more like 20ks a year, then 5ks two years, etc.). That's all I do. I don't spend money on beer. All my activities with my friends don't really cost anything... I'm in Pen&Paper RPGs, LARPs, Dueling, Martial Arts and my girlfriend (yes I do have one despite the other things previously described). So everything I have, I spend on computer equipment (I have a web company, which I will not name here as publicity does not have its place in a forum like this).
And sorry, but I don't give a d@mn on whether or not I could get better hardware for the money, the fact is that my environment is more productive than any of my business friends' with their PCs, regardless of benchmarks and all that MAC vs PC crap. They are learning it. I know it. They're all switching to Mac one after the other (7 down, still 4 to go) because of this (nowadays more than before, I might add), and they don't care Windows XP is more stable than Windows used to be or that their PC boots faster or that web and text editors are faster on Wintels and WAMDs, they simply noticed Macs offer a better overall experience and that their work is better and gets out faster on Mac. Period.
They like the fact that when (even though it's pretty rare) their mac crashes, they simply reboot and that's it. They're used on 10% of the time having to reformat because of a Windows crash. So Mac is like magic. Even though I advise them not to, they even feel (all but one) that Backups aren't necessary anymore (which they are, but it's just to illustrate my point).
I don't know what your switching experiences are, but once you get them to go beyond that "Mac sucks" stage, they are all (almost) very easy to convert by simple demonstrations (a week with a mac is often sufficient).
Mac Minis are an excellent way to expose potential switchers to the Mac platform: they aren't a big investment, now more than ever with 512 MBs standard, and as long as you warn them it's not a video powerhouse (ouch! that crappy HD) nor a gaming console (ouch! that crappy video "card"), they can enjoy Mac OS X and appreciate what they feared/loathed for so long. Thank you Apple for making Mac Minis a better value!
And I don't think Apple is purposely putting "Crappy" equipment in their macs (low-end to high-end). If they could give us more bang for our buck, they would. But that is IMHO, I could in no way back this up.