I thought the $799 mini came with 2.26 CPU

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by panzer06, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. panzer06 macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #1
    The U.S. store has it at 2.0 with 2.26 as an option. I can't imagine that bigger hard drive and 1 GB additional ram is worth $200. Was it always like that? I though 2.26 was the default for the $799 model. I never considered that model but I really thought it came with the faster CPU.

    Cheers,
     
  2. panzer06 thread starter macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #3
  3. ij3ffy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    I can understand not getting the faster proc as a cto option cause it isn't much faster, but considering how often (sarcastic) they update it, I spent the money and went for it.
     
  4. michael.lauden macrumors 68020

    michael.lauden

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #5
    i'd almost rather have my mini (with a slower bus speed, gfx, and DDR2 RAM) instead of the newer one.

    i can always upgrade the processor and still be pretty up to par. and i'm sure the extra .33GHz i can drop in will keep me inline with the faster bus and different RAM right? ;)
     
  5. panzer06 thread starter macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #6
    With the ability to upgrade the CPU, the old mini was a good machine with one exception. I just could not live with the Intel GPU. Other than that, it was a nice little machine.

    Cheers,
     
  6. michael.lauden macrumors 68020

    michael.lauden

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #7
    one question - are the new mini's not socketed?
     
  7. panzer06 thread starter macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #8
    Unfortunately no, soldered to the logic board. :mad:

    Cheers,
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9

    More like a wet dream. :D
     
  9. michael.lauden macrumors 68020

    michael.lauden

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #10
    aw darn. atleast the old mini's still have a selling point! haha
     
  10. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
  11. panzer06 thread starter macrumors 68030

    panzer06

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kilrath
    #12
    Seems like a lot of folks did what we did. Buy the base, upgrade to 4GB and a 320 or 500GB HDD.

    Almost feel like the 2.0 4GB 320GB config should be the $599 model since the cost difference to Apple is probably $75 or so. Maybe the $799 could have had a 2.53 with 500GB and a dedicated GPU.

    :D Sorry I guess I'm still asleep!
     
  12. OldMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #13

    I was surprised that they did this also. What really surprises me is that the $799 configuration does not come with 4GB Ram standard. I would have also have liked to seen a 7200 RPM drive instead of 5400 rpm, or the 2.26 instead of the 2.0. Even with these options, I would think Apple would still make a healthy profit on upgrades considering what their cost must be.

    For the extra $200 (1/3 the base price of the mini) I'm just really surprised that Apple didn't make the upgraded model come, well, more upgraded...

    I think we are seeing many more mini owners upgrading their own machines instead of purchasing the higher end model from Apple. For what they buy the hardware for, I would imagine Apple is losing out on upgrade sales because of their pricing model. I know if the upgraded model came standard with 4GB Ram, I would be more tempted to purchase it, where as now I will just buy the base model and give my upgrade money to NewEgg or OWC!
     
  13. Richard8655 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    #14
    Agree that the Mini refresh is an infrequent event. I also spent the extra $ and went with 2.26, 4gb RAM, and 320hd all from Apple. Well worth it in my opinion.
     
  14. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    I think they've just given themselves a bit of breathing room. In 6-9 months they'll probably do an 'update' on the Mac Mini line that makes the 2.26GHz CPU standard on top end model. They wouldn't want to do it now because it'd be getting a bit too close to iMac specs. Right now the only obvious difference for most consumers between the top spec Mac Mini and base iMac is that the iMac's processor is 33% faster and it has a built in screen. Yes I realise the hard drive is faster but a lot of consumers won't even realise hard drives come in different speeds.
     
  15. OneMike macrumors 601

    OneMike

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    #16
    To each their own but to me definitely not worth it. I can see the 2.26, but with the simplicity of changing the ram/hd on your own and fact you can get for way less seems just like giving apple an extra $200+ before taxes for no reason.
     
  16. Richard8655 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    #17
    I can somewhat see that point of view. But then a few considerations on self upgrade. Although not likely, you can damage the components and case. I also didn't think it was worth risking warranty repair coverage in case of future service. Apple is good on fixing their hardware even when out of warranty, and they may not be willing to do so on a Mini opened by the user with OEM parts installed.

    For me, it wasn't worth exactly $157 difference in savings. It's a myth that there's this huge savings bonanza on doing self installed OEM parts. I also have peace of mind that if the Mini ever acts up, it wasn't anything I did (unsecure wire reconnection or unnoticed damage). People here have already reported no video signal, no sound, broken connectors to the board, etc., after self upgrades. Also, 2.26 was a must as the Mini is my main and only desktop for a long time.
     
  17. OldMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #18
    What drives me crazy is that Apple sees the need for the mini to be inferior to their other lines. I would pay more if they gave me more. The mini is the only computer Apple sells below $2500 that is not tied to a display. What would be wrong with getting the mini up to top performance, as close to the iMacs as possible and then just giving a small reduction on price due to their being no monitor? It would be cheaper for them to produce without the monitor - so it could be more profitable for them. I mean if the all-in-one concept is so much better, wouldn't the iMac still be the big seller? I know for my uses, I would pay almost as much as an iMac for a mini that would give the same performance...
     
  18. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #19
    CTO, it does come out so that the 2.26 with 2 Gig RAM is also $799...
     
  19. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    Of course it would be cheaper for them to make a mac mini of equal specs to an iMac without the monitor. However, if they did that then people would buy a mac mini and a cheapo third party monitor instead of getting the iMac from Apple. Apple wants to control their market - they used to have loads of machines that crossed different 'product segments' and it didn't work for them. It was only when Steve Jobs came back and gutted the line down to professional / consumer that things started going right for them.
    The iMac is their consumer line. Apple believes consumers should have that kind of quality display and thinks that those specs will suit most consumers. The Mac Pro is their professional line.
    The mac mini was the first extra product line to be introduced for many many years and its primary purpose is to be an entryway into Apple products for switchers. Yes, its placement has evolved somewhat over the years but that is still its primary purpose. They want people with old Dell computers to buy a Mac Mini and connect it to their existing peripherals, realise how much they love OS X and then when they come to upgrade, these people will start to consider an iMac.
    Its obvious that Apple is maintaining its product boundaries, the lines aren't too blurred compared to most manufacturers. The iMac is a good step up from the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro is a good step up from the iMac. The laptop lines are a little more blurred but it still holds.
    Apple doesn't care too much about the gamer market - i.e. the main people bothered that there isn't an 'xMac' and there's no reason why they should. That market is too small. People on here are not an accurate cross-section of mac buyers. This is particularly true in the mac mini world. As an example, people on here have been consistently saying the mac mini was a 'useless' and 'dead' product that would be killed off imminently. However, as I commented back at the end of 2007, the Mac Mini was the second biggest seller in terms of Apple desktops on Amazon.com, following only the 20" base spec iMac at the time. Its a bit different now because of all the new product lines, refurbs being sold etc but chances are it'll stabilise in a similar position in a few months time. It remained at that level for *aaages*. Apple knows that they're right on the money with the mac mini. Of course, that doesn't mean its exactly what we, on this forum want!!
     
  20. minik macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    #21
    I opted for the 2.26Ghz processor upgrade, 4GB RAM, and 250GB HDD from the Apple Store. I understand that the cost of this configuration can almost get myself a white MacBook, but I really enjoy the Mac mini. However, my 11 months old iMac is still my primary Mac.

    It could be better if 2.0Ghz as good, 2.26Ghz as better, and 2.4Ghz as best.
     
  21. OldMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #22
    [WARNING - THIS POST VEERS WAY OFF TOPIC]

    I know your right. But I can't help but to think that switching to Intel hardware and OS X has changed a lot of things. In my opinion OS X has so much to offer but is not given the chance due to the restricted configurations of hardware.

    I have spoken to a lot of friends who are IT Directors and managers, and those who have looked at OS X server have been very impressed. A lot of these guys are Microsoft guys, who grudgingly implement Linux - but feel it is archaic. They look at OS X as a time saving tool, that is right on the money for deploying open source technologies. Apple has managed to come up with a platform that is unrivaled in today's market. Unfortunately, though, none of the people I have spoken to have said that they would be willing to commit to the platform for various reasons. Besides single vendor lock-in, one of the factors that hurts Apple is their single server offering - with no other options at all. No blade servers, no virtualization support, and no options for anyone where the Xserve does not fit in. I don't see how Apple will ever be able to infiltrate IT infrastructure unless they commit to their business line or license someone else to go forward. I know it is not Apple's priority - but why not? I know Apple is no longer Apple Computer, Inc. and sees itself more as a gadget company, but I just hate seeing OS X being held hostage on the limited offered platforms. In my opinion Linux is a joke compared to OS X, but Linux is pushed by IBM, Oracle, etc. 10 or so years ago, Linux was under the radar and was not taken seriously by management and CIOs. Once IBM committed to supporting Linux, it became very popular across IT shops - even though Linux is not a great OS. I think their 'product segments' work against OS X tremendously.

    What does this have to do with the Mac Mini? Well, to me, the Mac Mini is the only other available option for a low cost OS X server. It at least provides one alternative to the Xserve, and provides a low power consumption system that can be a viable option for small businesses. So, obviously, I would love to see as powerful a mini as they can make - using it in a fashion that it was not intended for!

    I don't know - I just hate seeing OS X not being able to reach it's true potential, on both the desktop and the datacenter. I have worked with Sun Solaris, Linux and BSD in the past, but I'm basically a refugee from a Microsoft IT world. I've worked on all aspects of the Windows world being an MCSE, MCSD.NET, MCDBA, etc... I do have Linux, Oracle and Sun Java Developer certifications, but they mostly went to waste as I continued being drawn into the Microsoft blackhole - and I'm just sick of it. I would love to switch to OS X for development and system engineering - but will there ever be demand for OS X skills if Apple is content playing in a niche market? I have gone back and forth about pursuing Apple certifications - but I don't see the use if Apple is not serious about their business line.

    And coming back to the Mini and Apple's 'product segments' - with what OS X is, I don't necessarily believe that Apple has been so successful. I mean with the whole Vista debacle, OS X could have completely turned the market upside down - but only 10% of the market wanted either an all-in-one, a somewhat underpowered, non upgradeable small form factor pc, or a $2500+ tower. I know that a lot of people are happy with 10% marketshare, but I would like to see it increase, because if more people use it a home, then more people would want to use it at work and in the data center...

    I'm sorry about veering way off topic - your comment just sparked a flurry of thoughts. It's just that I really love OS X, after playing around with many different platforms - I am just blown away by it as a developers environment, and as a server platform. With full ZFS support around the corner - it even becomes more compelling.

    Hopefully Apple is just letting OS X age like fine wine, and have a grand plan for it. Perhaps it is not enterprise ready, and they are continually improving it so that it becomes bullet-proof and robust for enterprise use, and then they will be ready to make the push into the datacenters.

    In a bizzaro world, I would have loved to have seen OS X based on Solaris instead of BSD. Having an OS X frontend to Solaris would be incredible, and it would have automatically had big play in the enterprise market...

    [BACK ON TOPIC FINALLY]

    As for my Mini purchase - I have been debating exactly what I want. I keep on going back and forth. I will probably end up buying two eventually - and might go for the 2.26 in one of them. Otherwise, I'm also thinking about one mini and one iMac, so that I can have a little more power if I need it. I think a 2.26 mini with an SSD drive would make for a pretty nice small profile performer.
     
  22. Vanilla Thunder macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #23
    So where are all these great processor upgrades for the previous 2GHz mini? I would really like to know.
     
  23. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #24
    I know, I've thought exactly the same things. However, Apple's goals seem to be different. Since Steve Jobs came back and turned things around, Apple has gone from strength to strength and their business model is working big time, they've been making insane profits and have oodles of cash just sitting in the bank so I don't think they'll be changing the way they work any time soon. I agree that I wish they'd open up their product lines just a little bit more. I'm really saddened that they didn't opt to put a socket into the mac mini for one - I would have loved to drop in a 2.53GHz quad core in there. Considering I just discovered a few minutes ago that my 2.53GHz Macbook Pro is running a certain task that my work depends on 30% faster than my 2.66GHz Mac Pro is doing, I'd rather like a quad core mac mini at 2.53GHz!!
     
  24. Richard8655 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago suburbs
    #25
    Good Mac Mini configuration that should stay current for quite a while. I'm just wondering what the need is for a 2nd desktop. Nothing wrong with that, but just curious.
     

Share This Page