So I wonder why they dont just introduce a new Intel Cube with a cooling system and desktop parts ? oh well happy holidays everyone
That would be nice
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.
Mac Mini End Of Life?
- Thread starter Dont Hurt Me
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
That would be nice
Sorry if I have upset the Mac upper elite that run this site I should be beaten in the town square for using such fowl and derogatory language against Mac users
So reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either? I'm not the one calling people nerds for thinking the mini isn't the perfect solution or ranting that a topic should be shut because I don't agree with it. The nice thing about message boards is you only have to read the topics you are interested in, so why bother coming in to this topic and ranting at anyone who disagrees with you? And I can hardly be called the "upper elite that run this site" when you have far more post than I do.
So my question still stands, in the future if you bother to post could you have a point?
Get over it! Im sure the regular posters and members of this site have seen and heard it all before, clearly no else even cared about my post but for some reason you are still dwelling on it. Let it go! its one stupid post move on with life no one here cares.
I think the best thing apple could do is beef up the Mini with a better graphics card, and make it a consumer Mac Pro.
If the mini had the guts of the iMac [basically a real video card and maybe a 2.0 and 2.4GHz processor options, with up to 3 or 4GB RAM] it would fit nicely between the iMac and the Mac Pro
Want the power of the iMac without a screen? get a Mini. want the performance of the Mac Pro but dont need 2TB of storage, 8GB of RAM, or a graphics card that can handle 4 monitors? get a Mini.
If the Mac Mini had a dedicated GFX card and was $1,000 or under, I would buy it in a second. A second.
If the mini had the guts of the iMac [basically a real video card and maybe a 2.0 and 2.4GHz processor options, with up to 3 or 4GB RAM] it would fit nicely between the iMac and the Mac Pro
Want the power of the iMac without a screen? get a Mini. want the performance of the Mac Pro but dont need 2TB of storage, 8GB of RAM, or a graphics card that can handle 4 monitors? get a Mini.
If the Mac Mini had a dedicated GFX card and was $1,000 or under, I would buy it in a second. A second.
I'd be happy with Santa Rosa chipset, x3100 video, wireless N and a 3.5" drive bay. Keep the DVI and optical ports and add and HDMI for those want/need them.
Waiting on Macworld
That'd pretty much do it for me... although I'll buy a headless Mac after Macworld either way. SODIMMs are standard enough these days that upgrades are cheap and I can live with laptop CPU/MB.
As for the folks speculating the Mini will get smaller, i.e. the Nano /wo optical drive, I doubt it unless Apple plans to turn it into a device which doesn't run out-of-the-box Leopard. Hard (not impossible) to bring Leopard to the masses /wo an optical drive. If the Mini went to a custom OS, the Mini and Apple TV would need to be combined into a single device since there'd be too much overlap and there'd be a huge gap in the line for a headless box... which of course could be filled with an xMac... but that'd be giving people exactly what they want and Apple prefers to tell people what they want... with impressive success.
That'd pretty much do it for me... although I'll buy a headless Mac after Macworld either way. SODIMMs are standard enough these days that upgrades are cheap and I can live with laptop CPU/MB.
As for the folks speculating the Mini will get smaller, i.e. the Nano /wo optical drive, I doubt it unless Apple plans to turn it into a device which doesn't run out-of-the-box Leopard. Hard (not impossible) to bring Leopard to the masses /wo an optical drive. If the Mini went to a custom OS, the Mini and Apple TV would need to be combined into a single device since there'd be too much overlap and there'd be a huge gap in the line for a headless box... which of course could be filled with an xMac... but that'd be giving people exactly what they want and Apple prefers to tell people what they want... with impressive success.
I'd agree with your upgrades but I would wish they could at least put something better than an integrated video card like they did for the original Mac Mini.
And, as of two minutes ago, the Mini is the second best-selling Mac desktop on amazon.com, after the 20" iMac, and is the 4th best selling desktop computer period.
I know that those with a down on the Mini have a tendency to say that Amazon best seller lists aren't a reliable indicator of sales but, in the absence of any concrete info from Apple, this is about all that we have. Plus, I have to point out that the Mini consistently sits near the top of Apple's product range in the Amazon desktop rankings - it must have something going for it.
Cheers!
Jim
I know that those with a down on the Mini have a tendency to say that Amazon best seller lists aren't a reliable indicator of sales but, in the absence of any concrete info from Apple, this is about all that we have. Plus, I have to point out that the Mini consistently sits near the top of Apple's product range in the Amazon desktop rankings - it must have something going for it.
Cheers!
Jim
I am on my second Mini and I am planning to buy two more in the up coming year. My current unit is a 1.66 mhz speed with 1gb of ram. It is much faster than the iMac G5 that I owned and better than the brand new HP PC that I also own. I for one hope Apple has enough sense to keep the Mini around indefinitely. It's a great little computer for the money and it more than adequately handles any task I throw at it. As long as you are not doing any gaming, the Intel Mini is a fine machine.
Integrated video wouldn't have been so bad had Apple used Nvidia or ATI chips. In the past, the 6150 and 1150 had made a piñata out of Intel GMA950. In the current lineup, 7150 and 1250 yet again mock the X3100, despite Intel's naming and their claims. For starters HL2 still hiccups throughout the game, and Intel more or less admits to the chip's lameness on their compatibility page. "May experience choppy play due to low frame rates." Well guess what. HL2 purrs on integrated Nvidia 6150 one generation ago, without any hiccup too.
I think we are all in agreement that Apple needs to put in a real graphics card to the Mini! Hear that Apple, Inc., the internet is telling you what we want! Now listen!
Well, considering the segment the Mac mini is intended to fill in the market, that's not exactly likely. I mean, it's little more than a *slightly* beefed up MacBook. After all, everything inside are just notebook parts in a custom sub-micro-ATX-class case.
What we should be doing is not banging on about the Mac mini's deficiencies (which is a joke -- Apple deliberately configured the unit as they have, and again it's targeted towards a certain, specific market range), but rather we should be putting forth effort for a "consumer-grade" tower with C2Ds instead of Xeon CPUs. I really don't see why we, the Mac community, doesn't get it's crap together and inundate Apple with proper requests for a certain spec'd Mac, instead of just harping and carping about what Apple has put out.
C'mon, people, get a clue about how this sort of stuff works!
What we should be doing is not banging on about the Mac mini's deficiencies (which is a joke -- Apple deliberately configured the unit as they have, and again it's targeted towards a certain, specific market range), but rather we should be putting forth effort for a "consumer-grade" tower with C2Ds instead of Xeon CPUs. I really don't see why we, the Mac community, doesn't get it's crap together and inundate Apple with proper requests for a certain spec'd Mac, instead of just harping and carping about what Apple has put out.
C'mon, people, get a clue about how this sort of stuff works!
You need to give a little bit of detail about what you mean about "how this sort of stuff works".
I would do the same thing...but I HATE, utterly HATE the glossy screen they use. I want matte goddamnit!
I agree, it is made for the PC switchers and people that are just going to use iLife and be done with it. I think that instead of just limiting themselves to that market they could reposition it to work for more people.
Right now I consider the desktop line up to be the Mac Mini | iMac | Mac Pro.
If they made the Mini a headless iMac, then the order could be iMac | Mac Mini | Mac Pro. Let the Mini cater to the same Switching/iLife crowd as it is right now, but for like $200 more than it currently is for the top model you can get something that does not have integrated screen etc. and you can edit with Final Cut Pro and play video games.
Just Got My New 1.83 Mini!!!
I finally bought my Mac Mini 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo! I bought it brand new from The Apple Store on Christmas Eve $599 along with a 8GB iPod Touch (very cool!). The Mini had Leopard 10.5 pre-installed, no "Drop-In" disc. Hooked it to a Samsung 22" Wide Ratio 225BW. Works perfect!!!! I did two software updates total. Now running 10.5.1 This Mini rocks! I highly recommend before it's "End of Life" happens. It's very fast, runs cool (125F) average, very quiet, pushes 1680 X 1050 resolution perfectly, memory usage works well with stock 1GB RAM!! Leopard 10.5 is really awesome, better than I expected!!
I finally bought my Mac Mini 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo! I bought it brand new from The Apple Store on Christmas Eve $599 along with a 8GB iPod Touch (very cool!). The Mini had Leopard 10.5 pre-installed, no "Drop-In" disc. Hooked it to a Samsung 22" Wide Ratio 225BW. Works perfect!!!! I did two software updates total. Now running 10.5.1 This Mini rocks! I highly recommend before it's "End of Life" happens. It's very fast, runs cool (125F) average, very quiet, pushes 1680 X 1050 resolution perfectly, memory usage works well with stock 1GB RAM!! Leopard 10.5 is really awesome, better than I expected!!
Attachments
iCube, welcome to the club of happy mini owners. I don't think I've read any posts about anyone who bought a mini and was disappointed in it, although there are loads of posts about people who seemingly wouldn't own one if it was given to them. Enjoy your new machine and you'll need to change your signature.
Actually, it's less than a MacBook (Santa Rosa chipset). The machine I described above is the new MacBook in a Mini's enclosure, sans display.
Perhaps that was Apple's intent, but the reality is, the Mini is a great little machine. I run Aperture and Photoshop CS3 concurrently on mine (1.66) and have no performance issues (relative to my white 2.1 24" iMac). My 30D raw files render in about 1.5" compared to just over 1" on my iMac - and Aperture relies heavily on the gpu! Photomerge is also nearly as fast (cpu-intensive). I think Apple went to the glossy-screened iMacs, in part, because the matte iMacs were canabalizing Mac Pro sales.
I love my mini too. After my PB burned through it's third drive, I decided that an iPhne and a mini were a better combo that another powerbook. I figured I had a few days to try before trading them back in for a powerbook.
I've never gone back... the iPhone handles email, and the mini handles the rest...
I'm no programmer, just somebody who needs constant contact for my business. The iPhone/Mini combo works great.
Roy:
What I meant is the politics behind getting a company to pay attention to the demands of it's userbase.
When it comes to "solutions product companies" (such as Apple, Sony, Kitchenaid, or the like) instead of "tool product companies" (such as HP, Dell, Ryobi, DeWalt, and so forth), it is necessary for the leader of the company to be a visionary because it's their job to get their company in gear to produce a total package that solves multiples needs that they believe the majority of their actual -- and potential -- userbase has in common. That's fine and wonderful, there's nothing wrong with it, and this really helps to "separate the men from the boys" as it were in which leaders are truly masters of this art (though that's really a subject for a whole different discussion thread).
However, when a given userbase speaks with a relatively unified voice and can tell the company "We, the members of your userbase, want to spend a lot of money with you on a such-and-such product with thus-and-them specifications," a smart company will respond with a product which takes what the users put forth as their ideal, and then (because they are inherently a solutions-oriented company to begin with) add their own touches and refinements to exceed customers' expectations.
The problem as I see it is that we, the Mac user base, are seemingly totally dependent on Apple making all of our decisions for us. And that's, among other things, a symptom of no, oh, for lack of a better word, no solidarity amongst us to tell them "start here". Now, make no mistake, this is certainly not an Apple-specific "problem", but the fact that this is common with companies -- and their customers -- the world over is no excuse for us, as Apple customers, not to try this with them.
Oh I dont doubt that you can and clearly do run programs like photoshop, aperture etc. and I know that they are professional graphics programs, but they arent video, and they are not video games that depend on Frame Rates.
All i'm asking for is a dedicated GPU...and I think that is a good logic step forward.
- Status