Mac Mini End Of Life?

[gregorsamsa]

for 1500 euro i expect more than "good enough" .. for that much money i expect at least a 8800gt (which is cheap btw) .. and it's still a AIO

apple is charging a premium price for close to the bottom components which is something i simply can't accept


oh and i will be buying something else if apple doesn't release something between the mac mini (which forced me to keep a PC around anyway) and the mac pro (server chipset in a desktop, no thank you) and it's not gonna be a imac ... ever

edit: i simply have my requirements and know what i want and need in a PC .. for such customers apple has nothing

You can certainly get a gaming PC with decent video card for less than an iMac, but then objectively check out all the extras that the iMac offers the consumer compared to the typical PC you'll get for the money you mention (with some slight variables here & there).

If you don't mind doing without OS X, iLife, Front Row, BT, wireless networking, etc., then fair enough. With my new iMac I've got all of that + an excellent gaming computer to boot for most games out there.

 

[Clive At Five]

Yes, yes, today's iMac will play 90% of "graphicsy" games out there... but next year, it'll play 60% of the new games and the year following, 30%. The exact same thing was true of my 2002 iMac.

The GPU Apple puts in there is just good enough for Apple to say, "Hey, look! We can play 90% of the games out there!" An 8800GT (which Takao reminds us is quite cheap these days) will play 99% of graphicsy games this year, 95% next year and 80% the year after that.

For people like me who like to keep their computers for 6 years, I can handle a $200 upgrade once half-way through. It's much cheaper than throwing away the entire computer, which is what one would have to do with an iMac.

Anyone care to take a guess at how many games a 6-year-old iMac can run?

-Clive

 

[saltyzoo]

Anyone care to take a guess at how many games a 6-year-old iMac can run?

-Clive

This argument doesn't really hold water. I can't remember the last time I even saw a functional 6-year-old windows machine. The fact that your computer is still functional says a lot.

PS> I agree with you in general, but not on this point.

 

[Eidorian]

This argument doesn't really hold water. I can't remember the last time I even saw a functional 6-year-old windows machine. The fact that your computer is still functional says a lot.

There are plenty of working 6 year old Windows computers. I know of a few personal machines that have hit 8 years old.

 

[saltyzoo]

There are plenty of working 6 year old Windows computers. I know of a few personal machines that have hit 8 years old.

I'll bet they aren't used by gamers either are they? And I'm certain the percentage of windows boxes over 5 years is much lower than mac machines.

 

[Eidorian]

I'll bet they aren't used by gamers either are they?

If you're talking about gamers I know plenty of Socket 939 friends now sporting a Athlon X2 and one generation old PCI-E video cards. Most of those machines are hitting 4.5 years old.

 

[saltyzoo]

If you're talking about gamers I know plenty of Socket 939 friends now sporting a Athlon X2 and one generation old PCI-E video cards. Most of those machines are hitting 4.5 years old.

Well then obviously everyone in the world that games runs 8 year old windows machines just fine and you have to have a brand new mac to even read email.

My point is made, those that don't try to find one example just to prove me wrong can see the point.

Very few windows machines last more than 2 years. That is far more accurate than the couple of examples you've thought up.

 

[Eidorian]

Well then obviously everyone in the world that games runs 8 year old windows machines just fine and you have to have a brand new mac to even read email.

My point is made, those that don't try to find one example just to prove me wrong can see the point.

Very few windows machines last more than 2 years. That is far more accurate than the couple of examples you've thought up.

How are you quantifying the useful life of a computer?

What makes a Windows machine have a shorter life then a Mac? Or vice versa...

I can run up a list of Power Mac G4s that we still use around here and they're hitting 5-6 years old.

 

[saltyzoo]

How are you quantifying the useful life of a computer?

When it is no longer used.

What makes a Windows machine have a shorter life then a Mac? Or vice versa...

Many things. Not the least of which is crappy component choices by the manufacturer, or builder. Other causes are trojan horses and viruses, as well as bloated system registries etc, these could be mitigated, but sometimes are not. Often times a complete re-install of windows from scratch will get a computer running well again, but many people don't realize that or are unwilling to go to that kind of hassle just to use their machine. And finally, windows machines are cheap enough to be a commodity. It's not worth the time to make it work when you can buy a new one that will for pennies.

I can run up a list of Power Mac G4s that we still use around here and they're hitting 5 years old.

Not sure what the point of this is, unless you are agreeing with me but don't want to actually say it. ???

 

[Eidorian]

When it is no longer used.

Then this applies to all computers.

Many things. Not the least of which is crappy component choices by the manufacturer, or builder. Other causes are trojan horses and viruses, as well as bloated system registries etc, these could be mitigated, but sometimes are not. Often times a complete re-install of windows from scratch will get a computer running well again, but many people don't realize that or are unwilling to go to that kind of hassle just to use their machine. And finally, windows machines are cheap enough to be a commodity. It's not worth the time to make it work when you can buy a new one that will for pennies.

I guess that you've never had to reinstall OS X and Apple doesn't aim for the cheapest components either? Windows machines are some how always of lower quality due to their operating system and vendors?

Not sure what the point of this is, unless you are agreeing with me but don't want to actually say it. ???

Amusing but a computer's lifespan doesn't depend on its operating system or its hardware maker.

 

[Cave Man]

oh and i will be buying something else if apple doesn't release something between the mac mini (which forced me to keep a PC around anyway) and the mac pro (server chipset in a desktop, no thank you) and it's not gonna be a imac ... ever.

I finally gave up on Apple and a few weeks ago I build a hackintosh with the following:

Asus p5k-e mobo (6 USB2, 3 eSATA, 6 SATA, digital optical and coaxial out)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.2 gHz/4 mb cache
4 gb 800 mHz RAM
MSI NVidia 8600GT/256 mb dual-link DVI card (will drive two 30" displays)
Two Samsung 750 gb 3 gbps SATA drives (one boot, one for Time Machine)
Samsung 20x DVD burner
Sonata 500 III mid-tower (nice and quiet - quieter than my Mini/Ministack II)
Copper cpu cooler
Retail copy of Leopard 10.5.2

All for about US$1,000. It's not as elegant as a Mac Pro, but beats the quad core with Geekbench and Xbench by about 15%. It does a two-pass Handbrake encode of a 2 hour movie with H.264/2500 bitrate/AAC and AC-3 5.1 DD in about 55 minutes. All four cores take about 320% of the cpu horsepower. On my Mini, that's a 4 hour transcode.

The only thing that doesn't work is firewire, unless I boot with the device (only one per boot) connected and on. But I have 3 eSATA ports, so I only need FW for my video camera (which I use rarely). I think the most surprising thing is how quiet it is. The Sonata enclosure with the copper cooler are barely noticeable.

 

[saltyzoo]

I finally gave up on Apple and a few weeks ago I build a hackintosh with the following:

Asus p5k-e mobo (6 USB2, 3 eSATA, 6 SATA, digital optical and coaxial out)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.2 gHz/4 mb cache
4 gb 800 mHz RAM
MSI NVidia 8600GT/256 mb dual-link DVI card (will drive two 30" displays)
Two Samsung 750 gb 3 gbps SATA drives (one boot, one for Time Machine)
Samsung 20x DVD burner
Sonata 500 III mid-tower (nice and quiet - quieter than my Mini/Ministack II)
Copper cpu cooler
Retail copy of Leopard 10.5.2

All for about US$1,000. It's not as elegant as a Mac Pro, but beats the quad core with Geekbench and Xbench by about 15%. It does a two-pass Handbrake encode of a 2 hour movie with H.264/2500 bitrate/AAC and AC-3 5.1 DD in about 55 minutes. All four cores take about 320% of the cpu horsepower. On my Mini, that's a 4 hour transcode.

The only thing that doesn't work is firewire, unless I boot with the device (only one per boot) connected and on. But I have 3 eSATA ports, so I only need FW for my video camera (which I use rarely). I think the most surprising thing is how quiet it is. The Sonata enclosure with the copper cooler are barely noticeable.

4 times the performance for not quite twice as much money, it "mostly" works, with no support, and many hours of fooling around to get / keep it working, but much more expandability. It's intriguing, but not enough so to hook me quite yet. I'm still hoping Apple fills the gap someday so I don't have to go that route.....

 

[Cave Man]

4 times the performance for not quite twice as much money,

I think it's much more than 4x. My current mini (1.66 CD) gets an Xbench score of 75 or some such. Its SATA bus is 1.5 gpbs (vs. 3) and can only take 2 gb of RAM. Plus, the DVD burner no longer burns. In addition, I can buy cheaper 3.5" hard drives that have substantially more capacity. A 320 gig drive for the Mini goes for about $120. A 720 gig 3.5" drive goes for $130. In addition, Xbench still only evaluates one core (regardless how many cores are in the computer), so it's probably more like 10x more performance in total.

it "mostly" works,

It does all that I need except for FW. My Mini does all that I need, but at a snail's pace (relatively speaking). An iMac is out of the question for me. Without a doubt, the hackintosh is the best computer I've ever owned (I still have a 24" iMac Core 2 Duo in my office).

with no support,

Yeah, that could be a tough one. If a part fails, I have to diagnosis and do the repair myself. This is not something for someone who doesn't feel comfortable opening up a computer.

and many hours of fooling around to get / keep it working,

It took me 3 hours to assemble the thing. But I could do it now in about 45 min as I'm familiar with the assembly. It took two installs to get it working right (about 20 min per install), plus I had to do Migration Assistant to move all our files from our MiniStack II boot drive (took overnight), but you'd have to do that with any new Mac. I have to say, though, that my time in front of Aperture and Photoshop CS3 (which I spend a lot of time with) has been cut substantially. On my Mini, Aperture renders my Canon DSLR raw files in about 2 to 2.5 seconds, and scrolling takes about half a second for each image. On the hackintosh, rendering is done just about instantaneously and scolling images looks like I'm watching a movie - it is lightning fast. I think over time, the speed gains will greatly outweigh the assembly/install time.

It's intriguing, but not enough so to hook me quite yet. I'm still hoping Apple fills the gap someday so I don't have to go that route.....

It's certainly not for everyone. I was really quite nervous when I decided to go with it. After all, if I couldn't get it up to speed, I'd be stuck with a really nice PC (which I would have sold with XP installed). Apple has lost business from me for the first time since 1996. I've bought 8 Macs, 3 iPods, an iPhone, an Apple TV, and Airport Extreme Base Stations (g and n versions).

I suspect now that I've gone through all this, Apple will release the "Mac Midi" next week at WWDC. That's how my luck runs...

 

[Clive At Five]

This argument doesn't really hold water. I can't remember the last time I even saw a functional 6-year-old windows machine. The fact that your computer is still functional says a lot.

I also have a PC which I built from a 1-year old CPU & motherboard. I put $300 into it, including a year-old GPU (which still pulls its weight pretty well). Four years later, the only upgrade I've performed was adding a Hard Drive. The setup, therefore, is about 5 years old and just now is starting to need component replacement.

I maintain my computers very well, but even still, I have to admit that I'm impressed with how well that PC has held up. I was expecting more out of my iMac though...

-Clive

 

[grannyjones]

Same here, Cave Man. My wishlist is similar -- the Q6600 seems to be first on everyone's Hackintosh list. June 10th is check-out day, from the Apple Store or the parts store.

Having read this thread for a while, I think there is one thing people are often missing: software. While it can be agreed that Apple owes you nothing, zero and zilch, in terms og decent and functional hardware not sold as silly fashion statements, they really should take into account that many Mac users have invested big bucks in software to run on the Mac. Look up the prices at Adobe and you'll see what I mean.

If Apple continues to dumb down more of its product line for the "consumer" and sell things with the Intel GMA 950 (anno 2006) into 2009 at full price, there is only one answer for those in need of an OK computer to run updated version of their software in some style -- a hackintosh.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Yes, yes, today's iMac will play 90% of "graphicsy" games out there... but next year, it'll play 60% of the new games and the year following, 30%. The exact same thing was true of my 2002 iMac.

The GPU Apple puts in there is just good enough for Apple to say, "Hey, look! We can play 90% of the games out there!" An 8800GT (which Takao reminds us is quite cheap these days) will play 99% of graphicsy games this year, 95% next year and 80% the year after that.

For people like me who like to keep their computers for 6 years, I can handle a $200 upgrade once half-way through. It's much cheaper than throwing away the entire computer, which is what one would have to do with an iMac.

Anyone care to take a guess at how many games a 6-year-old iMac can run?

-Clive

First point, PC game developers will have taken note of disappointing sales of "Crysis" - only about 1 million worldwide compared to over 10 million for decent console titles, not because it was an average game, but because most PCs couldn't run it. So don't expect profit-conscious games developers to be pushing average computer specs without a significant gaming market to go for. That's why the eagerly anticipated "Empire: Total War" is expected to run happily on older DirectX 9 technology.

Secondly, if you wanted to maintain a more than decent gaming rig, after factoring in the price of just a cutting-edge video card & a copy of Vista Premium (anything less really wouldn't do in the context of your argument), you've already added hundreds of dollars expense to your otherwise ageing PC.

Thirdly, I'll bet that 6 year old iMac would fetch more money in the 2nd hand market than your 6 year old PC would, despite the few hundred dollars of upgrades the PC may have seen over that period.

BTW, I expect my HD 2600 PRO iMac (with Apple yet to further improve the drivers) to run well over 60% of (new*) games out there well after next year. Seriously! Later on (circa 2011 or so), like I said before, I'll buy a new Mac, maybe selling the current one for a significant return.

Once you do all the above sums (then add OS X, etc.), there are still many compelling reasons to continue buying Mac. When Windows 7 arrives (or whatever it'll be called) & if it's a much better accomplishment than Vista, I may feel otherwise; in which case (whilst keeping my Mac laptop) I'd buy a desktop PC without too many qualms... well, maybe one or two. But seeing will be believing re Windows 7. For (me) now & the next few years at least, Mac, + Bootcamping it when I need, is the only way to go.

 

[CWallace]

Having read this thread for a while, I think there is one thing people are often missing: software. While it can be agreed that Apple owes you nothing, zero and zilch, in terms og decent and functional hardware not sold as silly fashion statements, they really should take into account that many Mac users have invested big bucks in software to run on the Mac. Look up the prices at Adobe and you'll see what I mean.

And yet that software often is superior to what "the other platforms" are running so it doesn't need every last CPU cycle to make it work effectively.

I've been running Windows for two decades and the Mac for twelve months. There are two applications I still boot Windows for because I find the Mac platform equivalents to be inferior - MP3 tagging (I love Tag&Rename) and photo cataloging (ACDSee - and even there, I do have 1.6.9). Everything else I have moved to the Mac because it is more elegant and the codebase is superior.

 

[netherfred]

I finally gave up on Apple and a few weeks ago I build a hackintosh with the following:

Asus p5k-e mobo (6 USB2, 3 eSATA, 6 SATA, digital optical and coaxial out)
Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.2 gHz/4 mb cache
4 gb 800 mHz RAM
MSI NVidia 8600GT/256 mb dual-link DVI card (will drive two 30" displays)
Two Samsung 750 gb 3 gbps SATA drives (one boot, one for Time Machine)
Samsung 20x DVD burner
Sonata 500 III mid-tower (nice and quiet - quieter than my Mini/Ministack II)
Copper cpu cooler
Retail copy of Leopard 10.5.2

All for about US$1,000. It's not as elegant as a Mac Pro, but beats the quad core with Geekbench and Xbench by about 15%. It does a two-pass Handbrake encode of a 2 hour movie with H.264/2500 bitrate/AAC and AC-3 5.1 DD in about 55 minutes. All four cores take about 320% of the cpu horsepower. On my Mini, that's a 4 hour transcode.

The only thing that doesn't work is firewire, unless I boot with the device (only one per boot) connected and on. But I have 3 eSATA ports, so I only need FW for my video camera (which I use rarely). I think the most surprising thing is how quiet it is. The Sonata enclosure with the copper cooler are barely noticeable.

That set-up would cost about €1000 here in the Netherlands, which is $1500, so would it then still be worth it? Building a computer from parts doesn't scare me, but how much hassle do you get yourself into with installing Leopard and keeping it updated? The fact that you couldn't get firewire running is a big no-no for me, since I want to hook up my DV-camera regularly. But maybe you can solve that by installing a seperate card with a chipset that is natively supported by Apple, like NEC?

Besides, a well-known Apple reseller here has EOL'd the Mac Mini and the stock of those has been low to very low for some time. My bet is they will release a new Mini quite soon (or discontinue it altogether of course).

 

[Maxime]

4 times the performance for not quite twice as much money, it "mostly" works, with no support, and many hours of fooling around to get / keep it working, but much more expandability. It's intriguing, but not enough so to hook me quite yet. I'm still hoping Apple fills the gap someday so I don't have to go that route.....

Not to mention about 20x bigger then a Mac Mini.

 

[shikimo]

That set-up would cost about €1000 here in the Netherlands, which is $1500, so would it then still be worth it? Building a computer from parts doesn't scare me, but how much hassle do you get yourself into with installing Leopard and keeping it updated? The fact that you couldn't get firewire running is a big no-no for me, since I want to hook up my DV-camera regularly. But maybe you can solve that by installing a seperate card with a chipset that is natively supported by Apple, like NEC?

Just a couple of observations:

1) Currency exchange is problematic as a meaningful way of comparing prices for products sold in different markets; if this setup is 1k USD in the states and 1k EUR here, we might as well call that roughly the same price from the internal market perspective. Currency exchange rates, besides being variables that rarely change proportionately to internal purchasing power, are only relevant to people who change currency, at least at the individual consumer level. To balance the equation we have to say "yeah but salaries are lower here, but then health care is more there, but gas is more here, but strawberries are absurdly expensive in America," etc., and that leads nowhere.

2) Don't you think that people who build hackintoshes revel a bit in the problem-solving aspect of their choice? It's nice to say you saved a bit of cash, but I really think these folks (of which I am decidedly not one) LIKE to deal with the tweaky little problems that come up when you jerry-rig a system that wasn't designed to be put together that way. I could be wrong, but most of the time people post about their hackintosh experiences I sense a little twinge of pride that goes beyond saving money...pride that I completely respect, incidentally. One day when I have a lot of spare time maybe...

Besides, a well-known Apple reseller here has EOL'd the Mac Mini and the stock of those has been low to very low for some time. My bet is they will release a new Mini quite soon (or discontinue it altogether of course).

You might be right, but a look back through this thread will reveal several reports such as this over the past 8 months, and even more during the months before the last update in August 2007 (I know, it's not a good thing when we have to append a year to identify a hardware update ).

 

[Cave Man]

That set-up would cost about €1000 here in the Netherlands, which is $1500, so would it then still be worth it?

Everything is relative. How much are 20" and 24" iMacs? How about the single cpu, quad-core Mac Pro?

Building a computer from parts doesn't scare me, but how much hassle do you get yourself into with installing Leopard and keeping it updated?

It took me less than 12 hours to assemble and tweak the initial install of 10.5.2. Since then, I've done no maintenance of the computer. I've not installed 10.5.3 yet, as I'm waiting for a few more reports on what it does to compromise hackintoshes. So far, it's been well worth the time and money spend. I have what is effectively a Mac Pro quad core (but faster) for less than half price.

The fact that you couldn't get firewire running is a big no-no for me, since I want to hook up my DV-camera regularly. But maybe you can solve that by installing a seperate card with a chipset that is natively supported by Apple, like NEC?

FW works, you just have to have your camera plugged in and on when you boot the hackintosh. I only reboot when I have to - I don't shut down my computer. If you use your camera regularly, then it shouldn't be a serious issue - especially considering how much you'd save over an iMac or Mac Pro. I'll look into the NEC card - it would be nice to have hot pluggable FW ports.

Not to mention about 20x bigger then a Mac Mini.

You get what you pay for. The question is, is $400 more a fair price for a computer that has, perhaps, 10x the performance? I'd say yes. If you need the small form factor (and limited hard drive space), then the Mini is for you. My home theater Mini is suffering from seriously small hard drive capacity, and I see Samsung's 500 gb drive in its near future.

Don't you think that people who build hackintoshes revel a bit in the problem-solving aspect of their choice? It's nice to say you saved a bit of cash, but I really think these folks (of which I am decidedly not one) LIKE to deal with the tweaky little problems that come up when you jerry-rig a system that wasn't designed to be put together that way. I could be wrong, but most of the time people post about their hackintosh experiences I sense a little twinge of pride that goes beyond saving money...pride that I completely respect, incidentally. One day when I have a lot of spare time maybe...

I confess; you're right. Perhaps that's why I ended up as a scientist. You should check out what I've done to my Apple TV. It's really nice having a 500 gig eSATA drive connected to it. It is now lightning fast with no stutter at all, even when ff at 3x speeds.

 

[takao]

offtopic

First point, PC game developers will have taken note of disappointing sales of "Crysis" - only about 1 million worldwide compared to over 10 million for decent console titles, not because it was an average game, but because most PCs couldn't run it.

they have noted the "disappointing sales" and just announced a sequel/spin off ....

Hence why the developers of Crysis are changing their focus.

.. and exclusive for the PC:

http://kotaku.com/5013404/crysis-warhead-revealed


looks like sales were bad
(BTW 10 million doesn't happen that often in console sales... even 1 million is something hard to achieve unless it's a triple AAA title)

 

[gregorsamsa]

offtopic



they have noted the "disappointing sales" and just announced a sequel/spin off ....



.. and exclusive for the PC:

http://kotaku.com/5013404/crysis-warhead-revealed


looks like sales were bad
(BTW 10 million doesn't happen that often in console sales... even 1 million is something hard to achieve unless it's a triple AAA title)

It'll be interesting to see if it still remains a PC-exclusive after a few months of sales.

You may well wink, but just so you know I wasn't bulling about citing their original intention to stop making PC-exclusives (see 2nd paragraph, 4 or 5 lines down) :

Crytek linky.

 

[richardhunt]

Very few windows machines last more than 2 years. That is far more accurate than the couple of examples you've thought up.

Where do you get your data from?

I've been working in corporate environments for the last 20 years and on average PC's are depreciated over a 4 year span both MAC and Windows, so the OS manufacturer has nothing to do with it from a corporate standpoint. Laptops are usually retired after 3 years, and they are REALLY beat up at that point, both MAC AND Windows. After the machines are fully depreciated, they are either destroyed as per corporate policy or sold out to IT "rebuilders". But the machines are in perfect working order. It's not really accurate to say that "few windows machines last more than 2 years" that statement is absolutely incorrect. Most people I know who have PC's and are not "enthusiasts" keep their PC's for around 5 years. My parent's PC is now 4 years old, they surf the web and check their e-mail.

Gamers are a whole other breed, and in that case I would agree with the 2 year lifecycle, but that is only because they need/want the fastest hardware, not because there's something inherently inferior in the components or the OS they choose. I personally gave a Mac to wife to use and she's happy with it. My daily PC is an Athlon XP that is now 5 years old, and no I have not re-installed os on it.

 

[takao]

You may well wink, but just so you know I wasn't bulling about citing their original intention to stop making PC-exclusives (see 2nd paragraph, 4 or 5 lines down) :

Crytek linky.

true but that statement was a few weeks ago and now they announce another PC exclusive game ... guess what speak more ... actions or words