Mac Mini End Of Life?

[Clive At Five]

I think a lot of people wish it would die to make room for it's replacement. I think.

That's why I want it to be discontinued. Hopefully, it is replaced by something fantastic.

Ohhhhh. See I never put those two things together. I thought people just wanted the Mini to die.

If the Mini's death coincides with the release of an xMac, sure, perhaps it'd be alright, but I also worry about the low-tier users & switchers who don't need an iMac/display etc.

Yet, it wouldn't be much different than today where I need more than an iMac but less than a MacPro. There's simply a hole there.

I know I've said this before, but if Apple would just make up their mind about the iMac, it would solve a lot of problems. Either give it a desktop-strength processor, or make it more of an entry-level model. Then the MacMini could easily fit beneath it or above it, depending on which direction they went with it.

-Clive

 

[brop52]

It had desktop everything until they decided to go thin and quiet. It's a different strategy and they aren't going back there because of heat. It's pretty simple.

 

[Lord Sam]

Ohhhhh. See I never put those two things together. I thought people just wanted the Mini to die.

If the Mini's death coincides with the release of an xMac, sure, perhaps it'd be alright, but I also worry about the low-tier users & switchers who don't need an iMac/display etc.

Yet, it wouldn't be much different than today where I need more than an iMac but less than a MacPro. There's simply a hole there.

I know I've said this before, but if Apple would just make up their mind about the iMac, it would solve a lot of problems. Either give it a desktop-strength processor, or make it more of an entry-level model. Then the MacMini could easily fit beneath it or above it, depending on which direction they went with it.

-Clive

... xMac, I like it. But I don't think there is that much difference between the top-of-the line 24inch iMac and the low-end MacPro. And if the slim difference is too much for some people, then just use the built-to-order online upgrades.

 

[deathshrub]

I know I've said this before, but if Apple would just make up their mind about the iMac, it would solve a lot of problems. Either give it a desktop-strength processor, or make it more of an entry-level model.

A C2D running at 2.8 GHz is powerful enough for a consumer. If you want a more powerful machine, opt for the Mac Pro with one quad-core processor. If that isn't powerful enough, opt for the 2 processor variant or bump the speeds up to 3.2 GHz. I really don't know what you people want, you can find anything to complain about.

 

[Clive At Five]

A C2D running at 2.8 GHz is powerful enough for a consumer. If you want a more powerful machine, opt for the Mac Pro with one quad-core processor. If that isn't powerful enough, opt for the 2 processor variant or bump the speeds up to 3.2 GHz. I really don't know what you people want, you can find anything to complain about.

Pardon? Please tell me where I can find one of these single-CPU MacPros, because I've watched Apple pretty closely for about 5 years now and haven't seen such a computer.

I'm not a "pro" per se, but I am in a group of individuals who create productions "for fun" and use FCE, iMovie, Logic, Garage Band, and Photoshop extensively... sometimes simultaneously. Trust me. I can easily max out an iMac. But do I need an octo-core server-class Mac Pro? No.

I'd like something with a desktop-class quad-core processor, please. Somewhere out there, between iMac and MacPro, there's a lot of power to be tapped. An uninformed computer-user will believe the there's no gap, but those who exist in the realm between consumer and professional know all too well the difficulty in finding a computer that will work well for them, especially when that computer is a Mac.

So if you can find me a single-CPU variant of the MacPro, I will bow down and crown you a better Apple-follower than I. Then I'll buy one.

-Clive

 

[adm58]

So if you can find me a single-CPU variant of the MacPro, I will bow down and crown you a better Apple-follower than I. Then I'll buy one.

Seriously? Did you not even check the store? Take the standard-config Mac Pro and step down the processor on the customize screen. One quad-core. Subtract $500 for a total of $2299.

 

[Clive At Five]

Seriously? Did you not even check the store? Take the standard-config Mac Pro and step down the processor on the customize screen. One quad-core. Subtract $500 for a total of $2299.

*bows*

Well, I was on my honeymoon the week they released the MacPro...

Still a little pricey though. FB-DRAM is a killer, and Xeons ain't cheap either...

Desktop CPUs please.

-Clive

 

[Jimmery]

*bows*

Well, I was on my honeymoon the week they released the MacPro...

Still a little pricey though. FB-DRAM is a killer, and Xeons ain't cheap either...

Desktop CPUs please.

-Clive

Ummm... So you're not going to buy one?

 

[LorenK]

MacMini or Mac Pro?

I am one of those users who needed a more flexible computer than what the iMac line offers. I just received my new Mac Pro over the weekend and hooked it up to my Vizio 32" widescreen. Yow!. Besides the awesome picture, the computer is a screamer (and that's with the single quad core and one 2gb RAM). But anyone who thinks that the Mac Pro, even the low end, is an appropriate substitute for the MacMini hasn't seen a Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro is humongous. I have a standard computer cart and was hoping to fit it in there, so I could put the printer and a couple external drives on top. Not a chance. You can look at measurements and not be prepared for how truly massive the Mac Pro is. That is not to say it is not a great machine on the short exposure that I have to it (I added to 500 gbs SATA drives with no problem, the connections are all easy, set up was easy), but to say that the Mac Pro can be a reasonable substitute for the MacMini is just not practical.

The MacMini has a wonderful form, small, relatively unobtrusive. If you want to expand the storage, there are external drives that have the same foot print. Strange, but I just saw the external optical drive for the MacBook Air, and it has the same form. AppleTV, TimeMachine also have the same footprint. The MacMini fits that footprint and is due for a refresh, and not just a processor upgrade, but a change to give it more value than it'd dated architecture currently provides.

Like I said I love my new Mac Pro, but it is a beast, not just as a data processing machine, but in size as well. Apple would serve itself well by continuing in the same direction it already appears to be going in and offering a MacMini that combines with the other units having the same form factor, but offering more flexibility to the home user. I'm just saying.

 

[Clive At Five]

Apple would serve itself well by continuing in the same direction it already appears to be going in and offering a MacMini that combines with the other units having the same form factor, but offering more flexibility to the home user. I'm just saying.

Welcome to the xMac camp.

...but I don't see Apple updating the Mini to make it more flexible. I don't even see Apple updating the CPU. Maybe a chipset update to Santa Rosa, as Apple hates the Mini. They'll probably never put a dedicated GPU (even a weak one) in it, and they'll always keep it on par with their weakest computer, which was formerly the MacBook. They use it as a sink-hole to drain remaining inventory of their low-end hardware, upgrading it, only when that inventory is exhausted. A cruel fate betides the Mini.

Upon more thought on this issue, Apple should keep the Mini as their "entry-level" headless hardware sink-hole (which they should charge at the FAIR price of no more than $499 & $699 (USD). Then the iMac should start at the $899 range, going up to, at most $1699. Why? Because people who want the simplicity of an AIO, have simpler needs, and typically don't need the accompanying power that comes with a high price-tag. Then give advanced users/prosumers/gamers a mid-tower with 2HDD bays, user-replacable GPU, DDR3 RAM slots, and most importantly: DESKTOP-CLASS CPUS. No need for Fully-Buffered (FB) DRAM. No need for server-class Xeon processors. No unneeded frills. Just a simple machine for people who want to customize their own Mac for what they use it for, and nothing else. Price this baby between $1499 and $2199 and gold has been struck. Then, of course, top it off with the all-out Mac Pro. This would be a perfect line-up, and will finally bring over the switchers who want a Mac that suits them, performance-wise, and the simplicity and security of OS X. Is that so much to ask?

-Clive

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Then give advanced users/prosumers/gamers a mid-tower with 2HDD bays, user-replacable GPU, DDR3 RAM slots, and most importantly: DESKTOP-CLASS CPUS. No need for Fully-Buffered (FB) DRAM. No need for server-class Xeon processors. No unneeded frills. Just a simple machine for people who want to customize their own Mac for what they use it for, and nothing else. Price this baby between $1499 and $2199 and gold has been struck. Then, of course, top it off with the all-out Mac Pro. This would be a perfect line-up, and will finally bring over the switchers who want a Mac that suits them, performance-wise, and the simplicity and security of OS X. Is that so much to ask?

-Clive

I do believe that such a computer is coming from Apple.

 

[gkarris]

Then give advanced users/prosumers/gamers a mid-tower with 2HDD bays, user-replacable GPU, DDR3 RAM slots, and most importantly: DESKTOP-CLASS CPUS....

Is that so much to ask?

-Clive

Yes, it's widely known that Steve DOES NOT LIKE open, upgradeable computers, with the exception of the top of the line Pro system. This goes way back to the Mac II. Yes, the LC, IIsi, etc., had one slot (even the Bondi Blue iMac), but no one really utilized it.

It is the same today and will always be...

Maybe at most a headless iMac, in a "cube-like" formfactor, but won't at all easily upgradable.

 

[adm58]

Every single product Apple brings to market is new or unique. That's why when they entered the low-budget market with the Mac mini, they did it with the unique form factor and simple design.

Apple is NOT going to introduce a mid-range tower that would be just like every other PC currently made. From my experience, the people who want that box are about the narrowest and slimmest buying group I can think of.

If it's that big of a deal, get a refurb Mac Pro for $1999. And RAM is cheap on Newegg.

 

[Eidorian]

Welcome to the xMac camp.

...but I don't see Apple updating the Mini to make it more flexible. I don't even see Apple updating the CPU. Maybe a chipset update to Santa Rosa, as Apple hates the Mini. They'll probably never put a dedicated GPU (even a weak one) in it, and they'll always keep it on par with their weakest computer, which was formerly the MacBook. They use it as a sink-hole to drain remaining inventory of their low-end hardware, upgrading it, only when that inventory is exhausted. A cruel fate betides the Mini.

Upon more thought on this issue, Apple should keep the Mini as their "entry-level" headless hardware sink-hole (which they should charge at the FAIR price of no more than $499 & $699 (USD). Then the iMac should start at the $899 range, going up to, at most $1699. Why? Because people who want the simplicity of an AIO, have simpler needs, and typically don't need the accompanying power that comes with a high price-tag. Then give advanced users/prosumers/gamers a mid-tower with 2HDD bays, user-replacable GPU, DDR3 RAM slots, and most importantly: DESKTOP-CLASS CPUS. No need for Fully-Buffered (FB) DRAM. No need for server-class Xeon processors. No unneeded frills. Just a simple machine for people who want to customize their own Mac for what they use it for, and nothing else. Price this baby between $1499 and $2199 and gold has been struck. Then, of course, top it off with the all-out Mac Pro. This would be a perfect line-up, and will finally bring over the switchers who want a Mac that suits them, performance-wise, and the simplicity and security of OS X. Is that so much to ask?

-Clive

I do believe that such a computer is coming from Apple.

We've been waiting since the loss of the single processor Power Mac G5. I don't think it's coming any time soon. I think we all reminisce too much on the $1,499 - 1,999 Power Mac G5 days.

If it's that big of a deal, get a refurb Mac Pro for $1999. And RAM is cheap on Newegg.

Find me some cheap FB-DIMMs when compared to stock DDR2. I can get 4 GB of DDR2-800 right now for $80.

 

[Clive At Five]

Yes, it's widely known that Steve DOES NOT LIKE open, upgradeable computers...

Steve is not an all-knowing god, though within Apple, he is certainly omnipotent... sometimes to the company's detriment, I feel.

His closed "our way or the highway" stance on EVERYTHING will hurt the company in the long-run. Sure Apple is popular and growing now, but they can only get so big before they have to open up to the prosumer segment. More and more people each day are graduating out of the "idiot user" category and into "advanced user" and "prosumer" ranks, and subsequently need more flexibility than an iMac.

When I got my G4 iMac, I was a high-school grad, and very comfortable with computer. I would've called myself an advanced user. But I very quickly grew out of my iMac and often wished I could've gotten a Mac with more power. At the time, there was the PowerMac G4, which was upgradeable and very affordable... perfect for what I wanted. Nevertheless, I had just gotten a new computer, was in college and broke, so I did not upgrade. Since then, Apple has pushed their pro desktop, higher, performance-wise and price-wise. It is now way beyond what I need, and beyond what I can afford, even with a well-paying job.

I know my needs as a user have increased, however, and I KNOW that I will quickly outgrow another iMac. There is a huuuuge performance gap there and Apple needs to fill it.

Steve Jobs may have the final say, but that does not make him right -- even if he is the omnipotent figure at Apple.

Maybe at most a headless iMac, in a "cube-like" formfactor, but won't at all easily upgradable.

That would be all I need. Cube 2. Just not over-small, and just not over-priced. Don't waste your money on miniturization. Just make a naturally-sized computer out of standard components.

-Clive

 

[deathshrub]

Pardon? Please tell me where I can find one of these single-CPU MacPros, because I've watched Apple pretty closely for about 5 years now and haven't seen such a computer.

So if you can find me a single-CPU variant of the MacPro, I will bow down and crown you a better Apple-follower than I. Then I'll buy one.

-Clive

Ok, great! When are you placing your order?

Well, I was on my honeymoon the week they released the MacPro...

Still a little pricey though. FB-DRAM is a killer, and Xeons ain't cheap either...

Excuses excuses.

Desktop CPUs please.

-Clive

You are absolutely full of it.

Find me some cheap FB-DIMMs when compared to stock DDR2. I can get 4 GB of DDR2-800 right now for $80.

If you can't find cheap FB-DIMMS you aren't looking. I got 8GB for $380 bucks, very inexpensive considering the ECC and reliability over DDR. Hence the reason DDR is used in consumer machines, and FB-DIMMS are used in Pro machines.

 

[Clive At Five]

Apple is NOT going to introduce a mid-range tower that would be just like every other PC currently made. From my experience, the people who want that box are about the narrowest and slimmest buying group I can think of.

*chokes*

You're kidding right?

Have you BEEN to a Best Buy? There are no AIOs, there are no little shoe-box "minis". It's towers and laptops. Period. Mid-towers probably make up 90% of the market.

And NO, an Apple-made mid-tower would NOT blend into obscurity. Why is the Mac Pro still iconic and regarded as beautiful? I mean, it's still a tower...! Apple designs their computers with grace and elegance, and a mid-tower from Apple would be no different.

-Clive

 

[adm58]

*chokes*

You're kidding right?

Have you BEEN to a Best Buy? There are no AIOs, there are no little shoe-box "minis". It's towers and laptops. Period. Mid-towers probably make up 90% of the market.

And NO, an Apple-made mid-tower would NOT blend into obscurity. Why is the Mac Pro still iconic and regarded as beautiful? I mean, it's still a tower...! Apple designs their computers with grace and elegance, and a mid-tower from Apple would be no different.

-Clive

That's not what I said. Perhaps I should clarify. I meant that people who aren't satisfied with either a Mac mini, iMac, or Mac Pro are a slim slim slim audience. I sold Macs for two years and never had a problem matching a customer with the right machine. And yes mid-towers are still big on the PC side, of course. Almost every customer I met was GLAD to ditch the tower for the all-in-one iMac.

And I said nothing about Apple blending to obscurity. What I said is they don't make the same stuff Dell, Gateway, etc. make. The iMac is their consumer machine and I don't believe they will clutter their lineup with something that's been done. Since Jobs returned, they've stuck pretty closely to the consumer desktop/laptop and pro desktop/laptop product matrix.

This has been a topic of discussion for years, and it hasn't happened. Regardless of what you want to happen, the trends from Apple on this are pretty clear.

 

[Clive At Five]

...the trends from Apple on this are pretty clear.

Which is why I will probably have to resort to the Hackintosh route. I will never get the hardware that's best-suited for me from Apple.

-Clive

 

[adm58]

Which is why I will probably have to resort to the Hackintosh route. I will never get the hardware that's best-suited for me from Apple.

-Clive

Sometimes I would get the occasional customer (about 1 in 200) who just could not be pleased under any circumstance. To them I would say go get generic hardware and run Linux. You can customize every detail to your heart's content. That is what I would say to you.

 

[saltyzoo]

Sometimes I would get the occasional customer (about 1 in 200) who just could not be pleased under any circumstance. To them I would say go get generic hardware and run Linux. You can customize every detail to your heart's content. That is what I would say to you.

Which would be good business if you weren't talking to someone that represents the largest market for your type of products.

 

[Eidorian]

If you can't find cheap FB-DIMMS you aren't looking. I got 8GB for $380 bucks, very inexpensive considering the ECC and reliability over DDR. Hence the reason DDR is used in consumer machines, and FB-DIMMS are used in Pro machines.

I'm sure we want to pay for FB-DIMMs in a consumer desktop. I know that cheaper FB-DIMMs can be found but they're aimed at the workstation/server market and not said xMac.

Which is why I will probably have to resort to the Hackintosh route. I will never get the hardware that's best-suited for me from Apple.

-Clive

Sad but true for many users. If you're going to use generic Intel hardware and try to match other hardware I don't expect to see the "constant instability" that makes a Hackintosh not viable for a production market. At least the Mac Pro defenders talk that it's not a viable option for production...

 

[pondie84]

Which is why I will probably have to resort to the Hackintosh route. I will never get the hardware that's best-suited for me from Apple.

-Clive

Just do it then. No point waiting! If you want something completely suited to you then the only way to do it is to do it yourself.

 

[stevegmu]

I will never get the hardware that's best-suited for me from Apple.

-Clive

Why are you even on a Mac forum, then?

 

[adm58]

Which would be good business if you weren't talking to someone that represents the largest market for your type of products.

1 in 200 is the largest market?