Mac Mini End Of Life?

[macintouch]

If your thinking about returning it why did you purchase it?

Well, I had no knowledge of this thread therefore, how was I to know?

The only logic I can think you might be following with this is that you will be able to get one cheaper on closeout if they are officially EOL'ed...and that's far from a sure thing. Unless the Mini is not what you want for some other reason, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to open it up and check it out.

People have been hyping the mini's death for a long time, and speculating about a new headless Mac with better specs for even longer...IMO neither of these things are likely enough to wait for. And since you already bought one, it obviously isn't the price that's keeping you away .

Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

I do kind of want to crack this thing open and up the RAM and HDD. Since I just bought the base model the specs are pretty basic. I'm thinking it'd be fun to pop a 160 gigger and 2 gigs of ram in there. That way I can wipe my homebrew box clean and save it for linux/XP Gaming.

At first my idea was just to buy the parts and build one of those little microATX or mini ITX machines. But then I thought, well, the Mini looks alot better, comes with the OSX, support if necessary, it's prebuilt, no cooling issues, etc. etc.

I used to use these all the time at work (used to work at an Apple store) and even with all the applications and garbage on those machines, and with people beating on them and such, they still ran pretty great.

I think I'm gonna keep it. I don't see any real reason to get rid of it unless a refresh is very close around the corner. The only thing I'd want is an upgraded GPU, but it's just that...a want. Not a need.

Thanks for the help guys.

 

[MacPanda]

my mac mini

You know when i was in school i really hated pcs and got my first mac - the emac - and it was the only mac that i could afford being a kid and not having a lot of money - i used it all the way to secondary school and then it was time for me to go to uni - i couldn't afford an apple laptop back then let alone one of the g4 lamp style imacs or even a g5 imac when they came out. So i decided to get the mini.
It is the best machine that i have ever seen in my life, it is speedy, it is small so when term finishes i can simply just take it home with me in a bag, i sleep in the same room as my mac as a student and it is silent unlike that disgusting windtunnel emac that was so loud the neighbours complained on the otherside of the wall and i can plug it into any screen i want. The emac was the worst computer i had ever had, it was loud, had screen issues and the disc drive failed on me over 10 times meaning i had to take a few buses with the emac in a cooler bag to the edge of london (before apple opened stores here) to the "nearest" mac repair center.

I am a loyal mac user, but if apple took away the mini and didn't replace it with something of the same price, i couldn't afford to be a mac user anymore, not all students have a lot of money and my mac mini runs photoshop, all the major apps and even does cinema 4d renderings. I am looking to update in the new year to a new one and get rid of the crt that i have too and it is one of the very first g4 models with bluetooth and airport built in and i want to run leopard and other stuff. They should put a decent card in the mini.

peace, love & lava,

macpanda

 

[chillywilly]

As I've posted before, my mini G4 1.42ghz is great. And it's perfect for any computer room, especially where reducing fan noise is concerned.

Granted, if you are doing a lot of disk activity, the fan can kick in, but it's not all the time... only at certain times. Very easy to deal with.

The current mini is now my fiance's main computer (gave her iMac 500Mhz Indigo to my 16 yr old daughter to use) and I wouldn't mind getting another mini some day to upgrade this one and follow the donation path of giving the mini G4 to my daughter when she outgrows the iMac.

The new line of Core2Duos are nice and they have a lot of power for such a small machine.

 

[milo]

Go ahead and laugh but the cheapest price Windows box is still just that, a plain old Windows box still running the age old boring Windows. Buy a Mac Mini or any other Mac and you get a computer with the best OS in the world!

What good is a great OS on subpar hardware? Oops, can't burn a dvd. Oops, my hard drive is full. Oops, doesn't run well because I can't add more ram.

I don't think apple has to beat PC's on price, but the mini just falls way behind on functionality. Apple's easiest way to fix this would be to just dump the mini in favor of a box that's a little bigger that uses desktop parts instead of laptop ones.

 

[GTiPhone]

What good is a great OS on subpar hardware? Oops, can't burn a dvd. Oops, my hard drive is full. Oops, doesn't run well because I can't add more ram.

I don't think apple has to beat PC's on price, but the mini just falls way behind on functionality. Apple's easiest way to fix this would be to just dump the mini in favor of a box that's a little bigger that uses desktop parts instead of laptop ones.

While I agree that this is great idea, the problem is they already have one....its called the Mac Pro

However there is a big jump in price from the Mini to the Pro, so obviously you could draw the line somewhere in between.

But the attractive part of the Mini IS price, even though they try to sell it on size, its the price tag that really matters. If a Mini got to within $200 of the price of an iMac, it would never sell. Unless you ALREADY HAVE a monitor, the Mini is not too attractive. Yet plenty of people buy the Mini and the Apple 20" display together (I can't imagine a bigger waste of money).

The Mini was designed as the "cross over Mac". It's perfect for people switching over from Windows, as many of them have the standard mouse, keyboard, and 15-19" LCD that shipped with their Dell in the last 6 years. It's also appropriately priced so it's only a "little" more than what they originally paid for a Dell box.

If they replace the mini with something a little bigger, a little faster, and more expensive, it will be a failure of large proportions.

 

[saltyzoo]

While I agree that this is great idea, the problem is they already have one....its called the Mac Pro

Not even close. He said "a little bigger" not 25 times bigger. And his statement suggests performance close to the mini not the performance of the pro. Making the mini a little bigger would lower it's price and keep roughly the same performance. I'd like to see it.

However there is a big jump in price from the Mini to the Pro, so obviously you could draw the line somewhere in between.

Ya think?

But the attractive part of the Mini IS price, even though they try to sell it on size, its the price tag that really matters.

Yeah, that supports his point.

If a Mini got to within $200 of the price of an iMac, it would never sell. Unless you ALREADY HAVE a monitor, the Mini is not too attractive.

yeah, only 50 or 60 million people in the US have monitors already. Wouldn't want those landfills to remain empty or anything.

Yet plenty of people buy the Mini and the Apple 20" display together (I can't imagine a bigger waste of money).

I can. It's called an integrated monitor.

The Mini was designed as the "cross over Mac". It's perfect for people switching over from Windows, as many of them have the standard mouse, keyboard, and 15-19" LCD that shipped with their Dell in the last 6 years. It's also appropriately priced so it's only a "little" more than what they originally paid for a Dell box.

But it's a bit too pricey, and a little limited in performance. In one argument you say they don't want to eat into iMac's sales, in the next you say nobody would buy the mini if the performance approached the iMac. It doesn't work both ways. Give me an iMac in as small a case as feasible without the idiotic integrated monitor and I'm a happy camper - and MANY people that want to cross over could then justify it where they can't today.

If they replace the mini with something a little bigger, a little faster, and more expensive, it will be a failure of large proportions.

It would be cheaper not more expensive. For the same performance it would be cheaper. For slightly improved performance it would be about the same. The tiny design increases the price substantially.

 

[flyinmac]

I have two Mini's and plan to buy a third! Its a Mac! forget the word "Mini" regardless of the price you are buiying a computer that will run the best OS in the world!

Have you ever looked inside of a PowerMac G5 ? half of the box is completely empty! a huge box might look impressive to all your friends but a huge massive box doesnt always mean its better.

The size of the PowerMac G5 is dictated by the cooling requirements of the G5 processors.

Otherwise, the remaining space is for additional drives, add-on cards, and so on.

But, if the extra space wasn't there, the CPU's would over-heat and die.

You can't just cram that stuff in there, give it no airspace, and then expect it to survive.

Now, if you have cooler laptop components, then yes you can get away with it. But, if you have server class components, you need to space to cool them down.

It has nothing to do with just being bigger.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

The size of the PowerMac G5 is dictated by the cooling requirements of the G5 processors.

Otherwise, the remaining space is for additional drives, add-on cards, and so on.

But, if the extra space wasn't there, the CPU's would over-heat and die.

You can't just cram that stuff in there, give it no airspace, and then expect it to survive.

Now, if you have cooler laptop components, then yes you can get away with it. But, if you have server class components, you need to space to cool them down.

It has nothing to do with just being bigger.

That is true - but you're all forgetting that Intel offers desktop processors that would fit this niche (a slightly bigger version using desktop components)perfectly. Apple, for whatever reason, chooses not to use them.

 

[flyinmac]

That is true - but you're all forgetting that Intel offers desktop processors that would fit this niche (a slightly bigger version using desktop components)perfectly. Apple, for whatever reason, chooses not to use them.

Yes, the desktop processors would be suited to smaller machines. But, they would still likely require a machine larger than the mini.

A small tower (or desktop) would probably be suitable though.

 

[Kebabselector]

Well, I had no knowledge of this thread therefore, how was I to know?

The mac mini end of line threads have been around almost as long as the mac mini itself. To be honest I doubt it'll get replaced too soon. The last update was only in September.

 

[dwl017]

All the posting members of this forum fail to understand that we do not represent the majority of John and Jane Doe Mac user who could care less about the processor speed, graphics cards etc.

Everyone here talks about performance speed etc. but are there really that many millions of Americans racing home from work at night to do rendering with Final Cut Pro ? I think not! my point is the average John & Jane Doe Mac user are checking email, surfing the web and maybe just maybe doing some light photo editing which any of the current or older Mac Mini's will handle just fine.

"Why does every high end Mac user feel that all Macs should be high end boxes"

Leave the Mini alone its a great! little box that has put smile on many faces all over the world.

 

[milo]

While I agree that this is great idea, the problem is they already have one....its called the Mac Pro

However there is a big jump in price from the Mini to the Pro, so obviously you could draw the line somewhere in between.

But the attractive part of the Mini IS price, even though they try to sell it on size, its the price tag that really matters. If a Mini got to within $200 of the price of an iMac, it would never sell. Unless you ALREADY HAVE a monitor, the Mini is not too attractive. Yet plenty of people buy the Mini and the Apple 20" display together (I can't imagine a bigger waste of money).

The Mini was designed as the "cross over Mac". It's perfect for people switching over from Windows, as many of them have the standard mouse, keyboard, and 15-19" LCD that shipped with their Dell in the last 6 years. It's also appropriately priced so it's only a "little" more than what they originally paid for a Dell box.

If they replace the mini with something a little bigger, a little faster, and more expensive, it will be a failure of large proportions.

As others have already pointed out, making it a little bigger would allow it to be faster, have more expandability, but would NOT be more expensive. Price (and performance per price, or value) is one of the biggest arguments for replacing the mini with something a little bigger.

The biggest reason the mini competes so poorly with PC's in that price range is the laptop components. Switch it to desktop ones and the box gets better for the price and apple can still make the same profit on it - better for consumers, and better for apple since they make the same profit but sell more boxes. Since (as you agree) more people are interested in a mac in that price range than a computer that small, it would seem like a modest increase in size would be a win/win for both the consumer and Apple.

All the posting members of this forum fail to understand that we do not represent the majority of John and Jane Doe Mac user who could care less about the processor speed, graphics cards etc.

Everyone here talks about performance speed etc. but are there really that many millions of Americans racing home from work at night to do rendering with Final Cut Pro ? I think not! my point is the average John & Jane Doe Mac user are checking email, surfing the web and maybe just maybe doing some light photo editing which any of the current or older Mac Mini's will handle just fine.

"Why does every high end Mac user feel that all Macs should be high end boxes"

Leave the Mini alone its a great! little box that has put smile on many faces all over the world.

The John Does of the world who don't care about specs are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find, which is not going to be a mini. And even to someone who doesn't look at things like speed are going to notice that it can't burn DVD's and its harddrive is much smaller than competing machines (they'll notice when it's full, and their friends machine that was cheaper still has plenty of room to spare). On a $599 machine in 2007, the drive size and lack of dvd burning is just shameful.

Who says all macs should be high end boxes, that's just a strawman argument. Saying that it should be at least as good as the cheapest, crappiest PCs is not saying that it should be high end.

And I don't get the whole defensive "leave it alone" attitude. Do you really oppose improving the model at the same price point? Or if you take the attitude that it should be as cheap and basic as possible, do you oppose improving it to a model with the same specs but even cheaper? I don't get it.

 

[chillywilly]

As much as I don't think the mini is too much, I would have preferred it kept the "under $500" price for the entry level model. I understand the additional costs of moving from PPC to Intel, but being able to have something $100 cheaper makes it easier to spend that extra $100 on the upgraded model.

 

[TheScavenger]

I bought my refurbed mini a couple of months ago for $479. At that price it is an awesome bang for the buck.

Josh

 

[shikimo]

All the posting members of this forum fail to understand that we do not represent the majority of John and Jane Doe Mac user who could care less about the processor speed, graphics cards etc.

Everyone here talks about performance speed etc. but are there really that many millions of Americans racing home from work at night to do rendering with Final Cut Pro ? I think not! my point is the average John & Jane Doe Mac user are checking email, surfing the web and maybe just maybe doing some light photo editing which any of the current or older Mac Mini's will handle just fine.

Yeah, I agree: it's fine if experienced and knowledgable users want to talk about how entry-level mac users and switchers are getting ripped off by the Mini 'cuz it doesn't compete price-wise with low-end Windows PCs, but for many people it's just perfect: a little box that takes up no space, looks nice and runs a great OS that doesn't have the same sorts of problems cheap beige boxes tend to have.

The biggest reason the mini competes so poorly with PC's in that price range is the laptop components. Switch it to desktop ones and the box gets better for the price and apple can still make the same profit on it - better for consumers, and better for apple since they make the same profit but sell more boxes. Since more people are interested in a mac in that price range than a computer that small, it would seem like a modest increase in size would be a win/win for both the consumer and Apple.

This is true, especially from the standpoint of performance vs price. However, it would then no longer be mini, which is what allows my Mini to sit on the few square inches of real estate that are available on this little desk, just under the right corner of my monitor, with just enough space for a Creature speaker. A Shuttle wouldn't fit there, even if it did run OSX without a hack, and I imagine the machine you are talking about is about the size of a Shuttle (only much better looking, hopefully ).

The John Does of the world who don't care about specs are just going to buy the cheapest machine they can find, which is not going to be a mini. And even to someone who doesn't look at things like speed are going to notice that it can't burn DVD's and its harddrive is much smaller than competing machines (they'll notice when it's full, and their friends machine that was cheaper still has plenty of room to spare). On a $599 machine in 2007, the drive size and lack of dvd burning is just shameful.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. Many basic, ordinary computer users (a huge and growing category) buy Macs simply because they look cool and run an OS that doesn't (usually) treat them poorly, and a certain percentage of these people can't afford an iMac or already have a screen. For them, the mini is a great thing, even if it costs more than a similarly-equipped Windows machine with desktop parts. And there are many, many people who will never fill up an 80GB hard drive and wouldn't know what to do with a DVD burner who nonetheless spend money on new computers...for example, the other day my mother called me, all concerned that she was going to fill up her Mini hard drive because she had ripped "at least 25 CDs" that day and "might even get some more as time goes by." That hard drive is going to last her a very, very long time...but her money is just as good as ours, and there are many more like her.

And I don't get the whole defensive "leave it alone" attitude. Do you really oppose improving the model at the same price point? Or if you take the attitude that it should be as cheap and basic as possible, do you oppose improving it to a model with the same specs but even cheaper? I don't get it.

Yes, I agree with you that the defensive attitude is useless, and way too common on threads like this. Of course it would be cooler if the mini was either cheaper or spec'd better...the question seems to revolve more around whether or not the changes you suggest would, indeed, be an improvement, globally speaking. I know I'm just one customer, but for me the fact remains that for my needs it's better as it is. For others, your proposed machine might be better...if it existed.

 

[eric55lv]

I just wish that they wont take it off the shelves because im getting one for Christmas and also i want that the have the keybroad and mouse and may be the screen

 

[Yvan256]

To those who keep saying that the Mac mini is only 200$ less than an iMac, let me tell you something. First of all you keep comparing the high-end Mac mini to the low-end iMac and that's just not fair. The low-end Mac mini is 650$ CAD and the low-end iMac is 1300$ CAD. Last time I checked that was twice as much, not "only 200$ more". And to those who say "only 300$ more", well, that's almost half the price of the mini itself. No small change that's for sure. You can get a Nintendo Wii and a Nintendo DS with that 300$.

Second, most of you also keep adding the price of an LCD display, a keyboard and a mouse in the price of the Mac mini. But that's not something you can add because the Mac mini is intended for switchers. That means someone who already has a PC, which means someone who already has a display, keyboard and mouse (unless they have a laptop, but they'd probably be looking at the MacBook anyway). Most switchers aren't going to buy these things again, which is why most of us don't like the idea of the iMac in the first place.

So, in the interest of understanding your fellow switchers, let you tell me my switching story. It may be a new insight into how some of us buy our computers and peripherals...

I'm 35 and I've been using computer pretty much all my life. I started with a CoCo 2 (TRS-80), then a PC XT, 286, 386... blah-blah-blah (the usual PC story after that).

Before the Mac mini, my computer was an Athlon XP 2400+ with 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9600XT 128MB. It sure was fast, but it was also huge and noisy. And no Mac OS X either (not that I knew any better at the time).

I did have a Logitech USB mouse (still using it after who knows how many years) and a 15" CRT monitor. Add an Epson printer to that setup, but it's USB, so no worries there.

Around the time Tiger was released, about 2 years ago, I bought a Mac mini G4/1.42GHz. I did have to buy a PS/2-to-USB adapter and a small USB hub, but that was only about 40$ for both parts.

At the time I wasn't sure if I'd keep the little box, because frankly I was used to the "bigger is better" PC mentality. And going from a 3.5" drive to a 2.5" laptop drive and from 2 GHz processor down to 1.42GHz sure didn't help (or so I thought, at least in the case of the CPU).

But you know what? After only two weeks the old PC was turned off, forever. I still have it, but only because it's not worth anything anymore. It's still stored in its box after more than two years.

After a while I had enough money to upgrade the monitor and bought a ViewSonic VP171s LCD monitor.

Then of course I ran out of storage, so I bought one of those Mac mini-shaped external drive and put a 250GB drive in it.

A few months ago I bought that new aluminum Apple keyboard (takes some time to get used to it, but now I can't stand classic keyboards).

Now that Leopard is available I bought myself yet another Mac mini (Core 2 Duo/1.83Ghz) and I'm still using my old Logitech mouse, Apple aluminum keyboard, 250GB external hard drive and of course the ViewSonic VP171s.

The Core 2 Duo is impressive enough (at least with the Handbrake DVD encoding speeds), I can upgrade the computer to 3GB and if I ever need more speed I can even do the external SATA 3.5" HD mod. However, I now find 3.5" drives to be a bit noisy and actually turn off the external drive when not in use. I got used to the silence of the Mac mini, I suppose.

The only detail that bugs me a bit is of course the GMA950. However, given the fast upgrade cycles of Intel and the time it may take Blizzard to finish Starcraft 2, I'll probably have time to change the Mac mini again.

For now, I'm just happy that a mere 650$ CAD gave me a "whole new computer". With the other 650$ CAD that I didn't spend on the low-end iMac, I'll be buying another Mac mini (or hopefully, its replacement) in about 2-3 years.

If I had bought the iMac I would only be able to replace it in 4-6 years. We all know how slow and underpowered a 4-6 years old computer can be (even in the Mac world), so I'd rather upgrade often at a lower cost. In the end, Apple gets the same money from me, but I get two computers instead of one computer with yet another display/keyboard/mouse. Another way to look at it is that I get a free upgrade at mid-cycle.

Is the Mac mini eating away at iMac sales? Probably. But then again it's all about profit margins for Apple, and I would never have bought a 1300$ desktop computer with a built-in screen.

 

[flyinmac]

Well, it may not seem fair at first glance to compare a high-end mini against a low-end iMac. But, in reality that is how purchase decisions are made.

I don't decide which model to purchase based on how far apart the price is on the each product line's entry level machine is.

I base my purchase decision on which machine provides the most for my money.

Therefore, I would compare the high-end mini against the low-end iMac. I would say "the mini gives me this for this amount of money, and the iMac for a few hundred dollars more gives me these additional extras".

That is the way you make decisions. You decide what your budget is. Then, you see what provides you the best package compared to the money invested.

If you only want e-mail and web browsing, then an entry-level Mac Mini is fine. And, it's a cheaper entry point. But, if you want more, and need a DVD Writer, and a larger hard drive, then it starts creeping very close to the price of a low-end iMac. And, well, then you start comparing whether the iMac is a better purchase.

That's just the way things work.

 

[lectro33]

When the mini was introduced (around the time of the big "switch" campaign) it was a great crossover machine for Windows users who wanted to 'ease out' of using Windows. You could just sit the mini on top of your desktop, add a KVM switch, and begin your transition.

Now that Macs can run windows, there's really no reason to have two machines. Just have VMWare Fusion suck the soul out of your Windows machine and imprison it in a window on your Mac. Then you can throw out the big, clunky beige box and still have your Windows. It can live on your Mac for as long as it takes to feel comfortable leaving Windows behind - which is usually about the same amount of time it takes for your drive to get so full that you start eying up the space used by Windows.

That being said, the Mini is still a great little Mac and I hope they keep them around.

 

[Yvan256]

Well, it may not seem fair at first glance to compare a high-end mini against a low-end iMac. But, in reality that is how purchase decisions are made [...]

If that's how you can do your purchase decisions, then fine for you. If you're looking at the high-end Mac mini, then yes I agree that the low-end iMac is a much better decision.

However, most of us go "I have a budget of 300-400$ for a new computer." Yes, we could argue about bundled software and hardware differences between a PC and a Mac, but in the end it's all about how much you get charged at the cash register. Most people don't know better, especially when it comes to technology.

The Mac mini is there for people who want to spend around 300-400$ for a computer. For about a few hundreds more they can get a low-end Mac mini.

Now that I've worked with a Mac for over two years I know the price difference is worth something, but to a potential switcher it doesn't mean anything.

If there is one thing that I agree with, it's the fact that the low-end Mac mini should have a SuperDrive, and that a bit bigger Mac mini with a 3.5" drive and better GPU would be a better switcher machine (faster drive, more storage, better gaming even if it's via Boot Camp).

Still, sometimes I laugh at the fact that a mini-ITX motherboard is even bigger than a Mac mini.

P.S.: yes, my old PC was beige.

 

[MacinDoc]

I suspect it has been EOL'd, because it is overdue for an update/redesign. Maybe MWSF?

 

[archi penko]

I suspect it has been EOL'd, because it is overdue for an update/redesign. Maybe MWSF?

if it has... you can expect a massive buyout of whats left. with me rightupthere in line.

 

[MacSA]

It must be selling fairly well otherwise I think it would have been removed from the line up by now. Look at the iPod HiFi for example - introduced to much fanfare, and gone aleady.

I would like to see it get the same upgrade the MacBook recently received though.

 

[reflex]

if it has... you can expect a massive buyout of whats left. with me rightupthere in line.

I didn't wait and ordered one

 

[Anuba]

I really like the mini's design and hope that Apple keeps some version of it.
That said, I do think Apple needs to come out with a consumer level desktop. Essentially something with iMac components but with a MOBO that can handle some expansion.

I want something with a single Core 2 Duo CPU, a couple gigs of Ram, one decent sized HDD, a higher-end graphics card, and a couple apple displays.

...I'd buy one!

Yeah, they need more prosumer models in their product range. iMac doesn't suit my needs, and every time I try to configure a Mac Pro I start wondering if I'm in the twilight zone or candid camera... first there's the boutique pricing strategy, and on top of that there's the fact that the minimum Mac Pro configuration is quad core. I always end up with something that costs the same as a small car.

Just for fun I tried to max out a Mac Pro config and check all the top of the line options, and it came out to... 189,729 SEK (about $30,000). Bwahahaha... for that you can buy a new Audi or BMW (low end models, but still...)