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

iPod Nano, Mac Mini Announcements This Month?

Which product do you think Apple will update first?

  • Mac Mini

    Votes: 298 68.7%

  • iPod Nano

    Votes: 36 8.3%

  • iPod HiFi

    Votes: 17 3.9%

  • MacBook

    Votes: 9 2.1%

  • MacBook Pro

    Votes: 31 7.1%

  • iMac

    Votes: 43 9.9%
  • Total voters
    434
  • Poll closed .
illegalprelude said:
i dont wish to turn this into an AppleTV thread but I agree with others with wtf apple was thinking with 720p support and not 1080i atleast or really, 1080p
Click to expand...

Easy answer: the iPod. iPods don't support movies at very high bit rates and are just not large enough in capacity to hold a decent amount of them. If iTunes movies were offered in HD, which was always within their capacity to begin with (QT HD trailers), they would've essentially cut the iPod right out of the loop. The movie would have to be copied and downscaled in order to play on an iPod, but because the video file is a protected format, it may prove difficult to impossible for lots of people.
 
Maccus Aurelius said:
To the people that call the Mini weak. Have you actually USED a mini? For all intents and purposes they run rather well, in fact run very quickly, especially the last updated models. Provided the apps running are all universal binary, one shouldn't have any issues with the mini.
Click to expand...

While the mini can get the job done, it's definitely behind the times with things like CPU speed, ram, wifi, graphics chip. And the (bad) decision to go with a laptop drive puts them at a big HD disadvantage.

With more and more emphasis on things like audio and video, you can never have too much speed or space. It has been fairly competitive when first released (and the upgrade helped a little) but Apple just needs to keep speed bumping all machines on a more regular basis. Otherwise, it only makes sense to buy a machine in the window after a machine is relased or updated.
 
dmelgar said:
The Mini isn't really that weak. I'm not sure what Apple should do for a midrange desktop system.
Click to expand...

It's not that strong either. Considering that I expect a computer I buy today to last 5-7 years. 1.8GHz, even in a dual core, doesn't seem to leave much room for tomorrow's apps. I also do a lot of digital dark room stuff and just don't trust "vampire video".

As for what a mid range tower or expanded mini should have:

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB graphics (with an option to upgrade to 256)
4 RAM slots (that are easily accessed for down the road upgrades)
Space for at least two 3.5 inch HDs
2.16GHz C2D available up to 3GHz

I really don't understand the sentiment that the mini must be less than the iMac (both in terms of quality and price). Why can’t a top end mini cost more and be more powerful than a bottom end iMac? Vista is making a lot of PC users (myself included) take a fresh look at Mac and this is the kind of box we're used to buying.
 
Maccus Aurelius said:
What you just described would be a great apple mid-tower, but would shut the mini out completely.
Click to expand...

And would that be a bad thing?

What is ironic is that the machine proposed could probably cost the same as a mini if not less.
 
iDave said:
That, and bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Bandwidth is reasonable for even a 1080p encoded using h.264.

I don't think they're protecting HD-DVD or Bluray by limiting to 720p any more than they try to protect DVD sales. I think they limited it to 720p because it takes more horsepower to support 1080p and they were trying to make the Apple TV cheap. My Macbook plays 1080p fine, but the CPU is close to maxed out. Hard to imagine playing it on something less than a Mini unless they include some hardware decoder chip.
 
PNW said:
It's not that strong either. Considering that I expect a computer I buy today to last 5-7 years. 1.8GHz, even in a dual core, doesn't seem to leave much room for tomorrow's apps. I also do a lot of digital dark room stuff and just don't trust "vampire video".

As for what a mid range tower or expanded mini should have:

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 128MB graphics (with an option to upgrade to 256)
4 RAM slots (that are easily accessed for down the road upgrades)
Space for at least two 3.5 inch HDs
2.16GHz C2D available up to 3GHz

I really don't understand the sentiment that the mini must be less than the iMac (both in terms of quality and price). Why can’t a top end mini cost more and be more powerful than a bottom end iMac? Vista is making a lot of PC users (myself included) take a fresh look at Mac and this is the kind of box we're used to buying.
Click to expand...
I agree a powerful graphics adapter would be a big help.

But otherwise... do you really think changing from a 1.83ghz to a 2.16ghz is going to mean the difference between obsolescence and 7 year life? Thats less than 20%. I doubt anyone would ever seriously notice that. If you were talking double the speed, that would be substantial.

Memory has been limited to 2gig on most systems so far, Mini included. Would be nice to support 4gig or more but the current chipset doesn't support it.

You'll be able to get a 300GB hard drive in the Mini. Can get terabytes externally attached via USB or firewire.
 
dmelgar said:
do you really think changing from a 1.83ghz to a 2.16ghz is going to mean the difference between obsolescence and 7 year life? Thats less than 20%. I doubt anyone would ever seriously notice that. If you were talking double the speed, that would be substantial.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'm talking about moving from a top-end of 1.8 to a bottom-end of 2.16.
Personally, I'd shell out for the 2.6 or 3.0.
 
dmelgar said:
Memory has been limited to 2gig on most systems so far, Mini included. Would be nice to support 4gig or more but the current chipset doesn't support it.

You'll be able to get a 300GB hard drive in the Mini. Can get terabytes externally attached via USB or firewire.
Click to expand...

The iMacs and laptops all support 3 gig max, isn't the mini the ONLY one left that still is stuck at 2?

A 300 drive is still way smaller than 500 or 700, and all laptop drives are way more expensive than the same sized desktop drive. A second bay would be great as well and add very little to the cost.

And let's not forget N wifi versus G.
 
milo said:
The iMacs and laptops all support 3 gig max, isn't the mini the ONLY one left that still is stuck at 2?
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to find out. ASAIK, the Macbook is limited to 2gig but I thought it was a firmware issue, not sure.

A 300 drive is still way smaller than 500 or 700, and all laptop drives are way more expensive than the same sized desktop drive. A second bay would be great as well and add very little to the cost.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Hitachi has announced a 1TB (1000GB) 3.5" drive retailing for $399 available this quarter. Thats some serious storage.

And let's not forget N wifi versus G.
Click to expand...
True. I'm assuming that the Mini will be upgraded to C2D and 802.11n like the rest of the Macs.
 
dmelgar said:
But otherwise... do you really think changing from a 1.83ghz to a 2.16ghz is going to mean the difference between obsolescence and 7 year life? Thats less than 20%. I doubt anyone would ever seriously notice that. If you were talking double the speed, that would be substantial.
Click to expand...

A faster clock on a newer 64-bit architecture, you meant to say.

20% faster clock rate - that's 120% (of the original speed).

A Merom (Core 2 Duo) is about 20% faster in 32-bit mode than a Yonah at the same clock, so 120% + 20% = 144% (of the original speed).

Due to the architectural improvements in the 64-bit ISA, many programs run faster in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode. One test at BareFeats showed an average of about 20% speedup for a 64-bit program vs. the identical program in 32-bit. So 144% + 20% = 170% (of the original speed).

So, we're looking at an upgrade that's 40% to 70% faster - with the added ability to run 64-bit programs (see various recent threads for people agonizing about whether 32-bit support will be available for new professional apps).

I wouldn't predict 7 years, but I'd feel confident in saying that you're more likely to get a couple of years more life out of an upgrade to a Merom!


dmelgar said:
Memory has been limited to 2gig on most systems so far, Mini included. Would be nice to support 4gig or more but the current chipset doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

Right, but they could support 3.4 GiB or so with the current chipset.


dmelgar said:
IYou'll be able to get a 300GB hard drive in the Mini.
Click to expand...

The 300 GB Fujitsu drive (which by the way hasn't started shipping in quantity) is 12.5mm high - not the usual 9.5mm for laptop drives. Does anyone know if the MiniMac can fit a drive that's 30% taller than the current one?


dmelgar said:
Can get terabytes externally attached via USB or firewire.
Click to expand...
Yes, connected with a rat's nest of cables and power bricks to a bunch of randomly designed external drives. I'm amazed at how messy so many MiniMac installations are....

A mini-tower with a couple of internal 3.5" slots would be so much more elegant.
 
AidenShaw said:
A faster clock on a newer 64-bit architecture, you meant to say.

20% faster clock rate - that's 120%.
Click to expand...
When folks say things like 20% FASTER, that means its 120% of the first speed or 1.2 x the original speed. Saying its 120% FASTER is incorrect. That implies that its 120+100=220% * the original speed.

Assuming its just semantics, 20% faster (or 120% of the original speed) isn't much a difference. 40-70% maybe somewhat better but there were lots of ifs to get there.
 
Maccus Aurelius said:
To the people that call the Mini weak. Have you actually USED a mini? For all intents and purposes they run rather well, in fact run very quickly, especially the last updated models. Provided the apps running are all universal binary, one shouldn't have any issues with the mini.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am - without exception - getting a 'Wow' response from people who see the home entertainment set up. Pop into Front Row, play 'em some tunes (giving them a moment to admire the Harmon Kardon speakers), a couple of TV shows and a DVD. Show 'em the movies you've bluetoothed from your phone, a slideshow of the photos you've bluetoothed.

Then you show 'em the standard TV playback and do the whole pause/ rewind/ timeslip thing. At this point, everyone I've shown it to is asking me how much it cost. I tell them that there was change from £1200 including the LCD TV.

And then I minimize the EyeTV window to the Dock and show 'em the Mini running as a computer. Shopping on the internet from your sofa. Editing your recorded TV content. Creating and burning a proper DVD with iDVD. Maybe let them have a few minutes dropping loops into Garageband, or shuffling stuff around with iMovie.

At this point, they're looking at me like I've travelled back in time from the future. "OK," they ask, "how much extra did you pay for all the software?"

"Oh," I say innocently,"nothing. It ships with this stuff."

Apple should be paying me a commission. If they weren't sold by the home entertainment stuff, I swear, the moment that live TV window genies down into the dock (and keeps playing in miniature) you see a little light go on behind their eyes that says "I gotta get me one of these."

Cheers!

Jim
 
Would love to see a mini update to at least a Core 2 Duo and a 100gb hard drive (there are 2.5 SATA's out there). My G4 1.42 mini is still going strong, but would always take something faster. Besides the fact that my daughter is wanting me to pass down one of my Macs to replace her older WinXP box.

AidenShaw, your avatar looks just like one of my cats.
 
dmelgar said:
Saying its 120% FASTER is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Thanks for noticing that - I corrected it. It was one of those silly mistakes like using "its" when "it's" is correct. ;)


dmelgar said:
Assuming its just semantics, 20% faster (or 120% of the original speed) isn't much a difference. 40-70% maybe somewhat better but there were lots of ifs to get there.
Click to expand...
Better, and the ability run 64-bit applications infinitely faster than a Yonah is good too.
 
AidenShaw said:
The 300 GB Fujitsu drive (which by the way hasn't started shipping in quantity) is 12.5mm high - not the usual 9.5mm for laptop drives. Does anyone know if the MiniMac can fit a drive that's 30% taller than the current one?

Yes, connected with a rat's nest of cables and power bricks to a bunch of randomly designed external drives. I'm amazed at how messy so many MiniMac installations are....

A mini-tower with a couple of internal 3.5" slots would be so much more elegant.
Click to expand...

I think that people who actually require lots of gigs of storage, more power and and more flexible hardware would probably not consider a mini anyway. Once you start spending money on pricey peripherals to supplement the hardware's limits you may find yourself spending enough money overall to simply buy a more powerful system. If I was looking for power and high capacity storage within a single form, I'd simply buy a powermac or mac pro, despite being substantially pricier. For people that can live with 160GB and 2GB RAM and 1.83GHz maximum very comfortably for a number of years, which is actually quite a few people, the mini is a very good buy, and I'm willing to bet these people will not have a rat's nest of cables, unless you count a printer cable or something like that.

However a good in-between would be great, and I'd probably buy that instead. In my opinion, an inbetween superior to the mini with some of the flexibility of the mac pro would probably supplant the mini altogether, as the larger form factor and possibly desktop only internals would make it cheaper for the performance. Think headless iMac power and say s'long mini.
 
localoid said:
Those who view the mini as being 'hopelessly out of date' and 'overpriced' should check out the mini's competition... Aopen just 'updated' its miniPC line in Feb of '07, btw... :p

(Apple's mini is still the best deal.)
Click to expand...

So the mini only has to compete with other small computers? I don't think so. Maybe if it wasn't the only Mac in that price range...since it is, it has to compete with all $599 (and less) pc's.

Maccus Aurelius said:
I think that people who actually require lots of gigs of storage, more power and and more flexible hardware would probably not consider a mini anyway.
Click to expand...

With iTunes audio and video, everyone will want lots of gigs of storage. Or at least more than the 60-80 gigs that come standard, and $200-250 to upgrade to 160 gigs. These days, 60 gigs is pretty sad, especially when Apple is shipping iPods that have more capacity than that!
 
milo said:
The iMacs and laptops all support 3 gig max, isn't the mini the ONLY one left that still is stuck at 2?


And let's not forget N wifi versus G.
Click to expand...

only the MacBook Pro and higher end iMacs support 3 gig...Macbook and entry iMacs are also at 2.

It would be interesting to know how many of those with Macs that support over 2 gig, actually HAVE over 2 gig?

As for space and 'rat's nest' of cables, I did end up getting external storage in the form of 2 HDs with another 600gb to deal with photo and videos...but it still takes up substantially less space than a MacPro, is virtually silent and even w/ the PPC is pretty fast.

I'm just tired of waiting for the update (though now, even if it comes out, I would wait until I was assured of getting Leopard)! Bring it on!!!
 
Regardless of the purpose of the mini, it is still a computer in their product line. It will get updated almost if not as frequently as the rest of the computer line. The mini has taken the longest for updates, with the exception of the MacPro. But people say NAB if not WWDC for MacPro updates.

-=|Mgkwho
 
penguy said:
only the MacBook Pro and higher end iMacs support 3 gig...Macbook and entry iMacs are also at 2.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, all C2D Apples support 3gig. The original Macbook only supports 2gig, but the C2D update supports 3gig.
 
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