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
Where can I start an AppleTV EOL rumour?
Already talking about it here...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/364839/
That's great!
Everybody, don't forget it's a QUIET computer too. For a PC desktop to be quiet, it's at least a few hundred in the cooling system alone...
I have a theory that everyone loves the Mac mini, but they don't have the same interest is actually buying it. I feel the same way. It's a sweet concept that you can imagine being extremely useful, but in reality, most people don't end up actually buying it. They need to lower the price by at least $200. Then it would have more of its own demographic instead of just catching the fringe of customers who are too poor to buy an iMac (another one of my theories).
this is the exact truth. the mini is a good idea, but when you actually make it a functioning computer you may as well have bought a MB. they need to take the mini in the direction of the ipod. a mobile storage unit for the "iLife" that can be displayed and deployed without the need of tech savyness. ie an ipod macro that you can bring your "collection" with you to entertain and enlighten. just having a small computer is not good enough a marketing ploy to bring this system to the public, it needs the apple flash and innovation.
Yeah, I wasn't going to buy it. Then I thought, hey, I can put together a PC that's twice the power for the same price.
It worked, until I tried to actually use the PC for something as "trivial" as capturing and editing a video and burning a DVD..
Well, after several different upgrades, capture cards, many different software, and over $1,100 instead of the $599, the PC *still* wouldn't work properly.
I went and got a Mini ($579 educator's discount). At least the last two things I bought were a FW video capture unit and a FW external DVD burner which work fine on a Mac...
So, the cheaper Mini, yes is "weaker", but at least does what I tried to do with a more expensive PC...
To me, the fact that it lacks a built-in monitor is it's strongest selling point.
The lack of an Apple monitor being built-in, is the only thing I really like about the mini (well, it's a fine machine, just a poor price for what it is).
Once you've been through as many iMac screen issues as I have, you learn to avoid the iMac like the plague. The iMac would be an ideal machine for me if it did not include a built-in monitor (given my history with them).
I've had enough iMac screens die (which negatively affects the machine's value and negates it's all-in-one purpose), to know that a built-in monitor is really a weakness.
So, when I was in the market for a new machine, I looked only at two models. The Mac Pro and the Mac Mini.
The mini was over-priced for being a lower-spec entry level machine. The Pro was over-priced for my needs (being much more computer than I needed).
But, given only the two options without a built-in monitor, I went with the Pro.
If the mini had a dedicated GPU and a 7200 R.P.M. hard drive, I would have purchased the mini.
Really, even with it's lower specs, the mini is a better machine from my perspective than the iMac simply because the mini lets me supply my own "good" monitor.
And, if the monitor I have dies, I just get another one. I am not stuck paying Apple's premium for an out of warranty monitor repair (assuming they have some available), and the lack of a monitor doesn't affect either the Mini's or the Pro's value (since they are expected to be without a monitor).
I was fortunate that all my dead and defective monitors were covered by Apple's warranty. But, if I had run past the warranty period, it would have been a very costly repair (about $900 for each replacement screen).
The benefit of an external monitor, is that if it dies, you just replace it for a low price between $50 and $200. Much better than $900.
And, as an added bonus, you don't lose the use of your machine. For example, if I had an external monitor and a mini, I could just replace the screen same day (with a new one). Or, if it were under warranty and needed to wait for repair, I could use either a loaner or a cheap $5 thrift-store monitor to keep using my machine while I waited for the replacement monitor to arrive.
In the case of the iMac, I was without a computer at all for the couple weeks that I had to wait for Apple to come up with a replacement panel. Since they had the whole computer, all I could do was wait until they got it back to me.
But, if it had been a two piece unit, my downtime would have been eliminated.
It's kind of like the television with a built-in DVD player. When you take the DVD player to the repair shop, you lose the television as well.
I see the logic...but the fact that the little guy has sold so freakin' well kind of ruins the argument. Don't forget, Apple is in business to make money, and the mini has made them lots and lots of it. No way they will just abandon this corner of the market that they helped create and that they do very well in.
Not so much.
I bought the original Mini as soon as I knew it would come with 10.4.
I will SERIOUSLY consider buying a new Mini if they rev it again. I don't need a new one, since this one still works perfectly. But a little quicker, and the ability to switch over to / run Windows on it means I can relegate my main PC to a footrest.
The lack of screen let's me use my current 24" LCD through a KVM. This 24" replaced the 20" and 18" before it. I don't need Mac Pro power, so the Mini is absolutely perfect for me.
So, as to your theory in at least one case, Apple has sold one unit, and probably two so far by creating a silent and small computer that I can use my other gear with.
I bought the original Mini as soon as I knew it would come with 10.4.
I will SERIOUSLY consider buying a new Mini if they rev it again. I don't need a new one, since this one still works perfectly. But a little quicker, and the ability to switch over to / run Windows on it means I can relegate my main PC to a footrest.
The lack of screen let's me use my current 24" LCD through a KVM. This 24" replaced the 20" and 18" before it. I don't need Mac Pro power, so the Mini is absolutely perfect for me.
So, as to your theory in at least one case, Apple has sold one unit, and probably two so far by creating a silent and small computer that I can use my other gear with.
I have a G4 Mini. But, as mentioned in my previous post, when it came time to chose a new (more powerful) system, I went with the Mac Pro. My experience with the iMac's taught me to avoid them.
But, the new Mini just wasn't a compelling upgrade from my G4 mini (especially for the price they want out of them).
A mini would be my first choice between an iMac and a Mini. If the iMac were the only option, then I'd probably get a PC.
I feel that the mini is a good choice for first-time mac purchasers who don't particularly want a notebook that isn't a macbook pro and don't want to drop $2k on their first mac or need a computer with another monitor.
I fit into this category, so I'll be buying a mini when the opportunity presents itself. I intend to use it as a living room computer and I can't think of a better machine to suit that purpose.. it is small, quiet, powerful processor, bluetooth, wifi and an Apple remote + front row.. can't think of anything better than that for the purpose.
I ordered my wireless keyboard and mouse today.. the mini itself is next on the list.
I fit into this category, so I'll be buying a mini when the opportunity presents itself. I intend to use it as a living room computer and I can't think of a better machine to suit that purpose.. it is small, quiet, powerful processor, bluetooth, wifi and an Apple remote + front row.. can't think of anything better than that for the purpose.
I ordered my wireless keyboard and mouse today.. the mini itself is next on the list.
Yes, the mini is a great choice for those reasons.
Myself, I looked at from another perspective. I looked at it's features and component design, and it really is over-priced for that feature set.
The majority of it's value is solely that it is a Mac. Which counts for a lot. It's just that the machine's design by itself doesn't warrant the price tag.
I combined that with the factor of whether it was a compelling upgrade / significant update to my Mac Mini G4. And, in that instance, it was a minor update in some areas and a small downgrade in another. So, when I combined that with the price tag, I just couldn't do it.
But, yes, if I was looking to test the waters as cheaply as possible, the mini would be ideal.
I actually got my mini got about $375 at the time I got it (it was only a couple of months old). So, comparing the machine I got for $375 (with warranty and all - just not brand new), I had a hard time looking at $600 to $800 for something that was only a small improvement overall. Especially after the old ones (which still compare favorably) sold for $499 and $599.
Where they tend to lose value to me, is when I compare how close they get to an iMac in price (once configured with a monitor and similar specs), but how far they are behind in performance items.
For example, if I configured a mini around a total price comparable to an entry level iMac, you'd get a Mini with a much slower hard drive (which is also much smaller), and a huge step down in terms of graphical performance.
But, in the Mini's favor, it lacks a built-in monitor.
It's just hard to look at spending as much as an iMac, and getting much less.
I'd pay iMac price to get iMac specs without the built-in monitor. But, I won't spend iMac price to get a machine with significantly lower specs than the iMac.
So, in my case, I went Mac Pro for only a few hundred dollars more than a configured high-end iMac.
Really, the lack of the built-in monitor is the Mini's strength in my opinion. If it came with iMac specs at iMac price, but without the monitor, it would be a must have machine.
But, yes, I agree from a pure minimal investment in testing the waters perspective, the mini would be the way to go.
*IF* a Mac Mini sized system, with excellent power management were to be released with better specs, I'd buy that for sure. I like the size, I like the silence. But my G4 Mini spins the fans up on YouTube videos.
I really just want a machine that can handle heavy duty work once in a while, but can clock down to a very low speed when I'm just writing a paper.
Yep, a more powerful Mini would be a great system.
In my experience, the absolute only thing I could find that really made me wish I had more power than my Mini G4 had, was when it came to encoding DVD content in iDVD.
It did it. But, it took a while.
Otherwise, if it wasn't for iDVD, I'd have a hard time distinguishing the performance of the Mac Mini G4 from my Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz.
Of course, the Mini had 1 GB of RAM.
For daily stuff, you really can't find a flaw in a G4 Mini.
For video playing, I didn't have any complaints either. It did really well.
But, for encoding DVD content (as in creating your own DVD's), it did slow down a bit. That was the main area that prompted me to get a newer higher-end system. And, the Mini CoreDuo that had been available up until last month (or was it the month before that), just wasn't a compelling step up for the price being asked.
If you already have a G4 Mini, I'd probably still hold-out for a much better Mini than you can get now if you are after a Mini-Type system.
No offense intended, but it sounds like your experience with your PC was due to either a lack of knowledge, or faulty hardware. Windows XP and Windows Vista both come with the software required to do what you specified. And it's easy to use too.
Funny, I do just this. =/ My Mini is hooked up to my TV, where it serves as file server, print server, iTunes master / iPod syncer, media player, DVD player, and occasional video game system (WoW and old system emulators, which a computer + TV system is amazing at).
Okay, I'm not the average consumer. But I'm not nobody either, I swear!
Incidentally, the new tiny Bluetooth keyboard is the element that makes this all work well. Super-light and smart, and fits neatly and unobtrusively on my coffee table.
My thoughts exactly. My mini is just this. It has never even been hooked up to a real monitor, (considering a Sony 42" LCD with every input you can imagine is not a real monitor) And I love it. It is my media center/server. With a 750gig external hooked to it, I think it will go an even longer way. And its a CORE SOLO! I have/had almost every mac in recent history, but for some reason, this is my favorite. I think it is becuase I know it is for relaxation. I am not required to work on it. Even though it is more than capable, despite being the weakest of all the intels.
I would buy one for every room in my house, if I spent more time at home.
I would buy one for every room in my house, if I spent more time at home.
now that would be an awesome house!
I would love a mini, if it had a better graphics card. I don't need or want to spend 1100-1400 on an iMac just so I can play games.
The original Mini had an integrated GPU, an ATI chip. Why doesn't Apple do that again?
The EOL question for either the Apple TV or the Mini is valid, IMHO. Notice that Front Row is now a part of Leopard. It did not used to be on all Macs, ie not the MacPro. Remember beta testing of Leopard showed the Front Row interface and it was THE AppleTv interface, it even said "AppleTv."
End the AppleTv, throw a GPU in the Mini, and I'll take two, and then more when each of my kids needs their own machine.
My $.02
--HG
The original Mini had an integrated GPU, an ATI chip. Why doesn't Apple do that again?
The EOL question for either the Apple TV or the Mini is valid, IMHO. Notice that Front Row is now a part of Leopard. It did not used to be on all Macs, ie not the MacPro. Remember beta testing of Leopard showed the Front Row interface and it was THE AppleTv interface, it even said "AppleTv."
End the AppleTv, throw a GPU in the Mini, and I'll take two, and then more when each of my kids needs their own machine.
My $.02
--HG
Or you consider a computer to be a tool and not a toy. If you need a computer now to do work, then you need it. The work won't do itself while you wait until January (or February by the time your order arrives).
The Intel Mac mini's fan does not spin up on YouTube videos. YouTube videos take quite a bit of processor time - especially for a G4 - but it's not so taxing for a Core 2 Duo.
But seriously the only real complaint with the Mac mini seems to be the video card - if you are not a hard core gamer, then the Mac mini is just fine for most personal needs.
It could be a number of factors. It could be newer GPUs don't fit (with proper cooling) in the Mac mini. It could be price.
Remember though, that the Intel graphics are faster than the old ATI GPU in the PPC Mac minis.
I'm a bit confused. The onboard graphics on the mini are more than enough for AppleTV features. It's only really 3D games that suffer.
Which is a shame for casual gamers like me. I plan on playing Starcraft 2, but the GPU in the current Mac mini is not good enough according to Blizzard developers.
But yes, aside from the intel GPU and its shared memory, the Mac mini is more than enough for most people, including video editing. The official max RAM is 2GiB although I think it can go as high as 3GB (paired RAM or not) which should be more than enough for regular users.
Well, that's not entirely true.
I've had my G4 mini outperform an Intel Mini in some graphical areas. In others, it generally comes out pretty comparable.
But, the Intel Mini's have had issues with stuttering video and such when playing some H.264 titles (although it's been a while since I read those complaints, so I don't recall which ones).
It's not only 3D games that are going to suffer by using an integrated video chip. It's anything that needs to render graphics (as in not simply playing a video, but actually producing the effect). So, that could be a variety of tasks that are not games (including tasks in iMovie).
But, generally, I would look at the comparison between the integrated graphics in the new mini and the dedicated graphics in the old mini as being somewhat comparable. But, the new mini would still lose out in certain aspects.
Dedicated graphics cards with dedicated graphics memory will generally fare better than even a slightly more capable integrated graphics system with shared memory.
And, of course there's the embarrassing situation of the Mini's integrated graphics system robbing main memory on the Intel systems. If you have a system with 512 MB of RAM (as they were shipping), and you lose 80 MB off the top for graphics and overhead (64 MB video and 16 for overhead), the situation isn't looking so nice.
That gives your system essentially 432 MB of RAM as a starting point. OS X takes some, and your programs take some. It's not a pretty picture unless you upgrade your memory.
But, then people have reported that the cap is not physically set at 80 MB. It's supposed to be (according to the documents I had read previously). But, people were quick to correct me and state that their systems provided more memory to the graphics system as needed. So, where does it end? How much memory do you need to insure that you have enough for your program and your graphical needs?
If you do anything with graphics, then I would personally steer towards a system with dedicated graphics memory and a dedicated graphics processor.
As for fitting, that shouldn't be an issue. They fit one in the smaller MacBook Pro, they fit one in the older Mini, and they fit one in the iMac. All those machines have very cramped spaces for cooling the components. Sure, they are a little wider, but they are also much thinner.
For the price of the mini you could buy a new PS3 if you want a gaming machine. The Mac platform has never been engineered to be a gaming platform and I'll concede the GPU in the Mac Mini isn't powerful enough to support gaming but if I wanted to play games I'd just buy a gaming console. I have a PS2 and an Xbox which just sit in the cabinent gathering dust because I don't find time to play games anymore.
Maybe I am deaf, or have my TV up too loud, but I hardly ever hear my fans spin up on my core solo, even when watching youtube videos. In fact, when I do hear them, I wonder for a second what the noise is. I am going to try it right now.
Oh, come on. It is not even as loud as my harddrive on my G4.
Oh, come on. It is not even as loud as my harddrive on my G4.
- Status