Mac Mini End Of Life?

[juxtaposer]

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

It depends on how you view it. The way I see it, the Mini is made by a reliable company with great customer support. The Mini also runs every aspect of OS X and it's applications fantastically well. The Mini is also a great Media Centre (with Front Row & remote included) and to top it all, it's remarkably quiet - almost silent in fact. The only desktop PC's that I have seen around the same price margin here in the UK are either horrific Dell boxes that I could never trust with my apps, or an equally ugly HP desktop. And without FireWire, the audio latency problems caused by USB are definitely not worth my time or money. So all in all, people buying a Mini get a decent package at a decent price. The "bang for my buck" that you talk of pales into insignificance, when in the months that I've had my machine, my friend (who bought a PC about a week after I got the Mini) has encountered problem after problem with Vista and compatibility issues with some of her hardware. I, on the other hand, have had no such problems and am still enjoying every aspect of owning an affordable - and reliable - Mac Mini.

 

[milo]

It depends on how you view it. The way I see it, the Mini is made by a reliable company with great customer support. The Mini also runs every aspect of OS X and it's applications fantastically well. The Mini is also a great Media Centre (with Front Row & remote included) and to top it all, it's remarkably quiet - almost silent in fact. The only desktop PC's that I have seen around the same price margin here in the UK are either horrific Dell boxes that I could never trust with my apps, or an equally ugly HP desktop. And without FireWire, the audio latency problems caused by USB are definitely not worth my time or money. So all in all, people buying a Mini get a decent package at a decent price. The "bang for my buck" that you talk of pales into insignificance, when in the months that I've had my machine, my friend (who bought a PC about a week after I got the Mini) has encountered problem after problem with Vista and compatibility issues with some of her hardware. I, on the other hand, have had no such problems and am still enjoying every aspect of owning an affordable - and reliable - Mac Mini.

You're really just changing the subject.

I'm saying the mini doesn't compare well to the hardware specs of PC's that are the same price or cheaper. Even firewire can be added for dirt cheap to a budget tower (you can even add multiple independent FW busses, making it even better than the mini).

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.

 

[sananda]

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.

does he have to dispute every point you made. can't he make his own points? can't he have his own set of priorities which allow him to say that he can, unlike you. make a case for the mini?

 

[juxtaposer]

You're really just changing the subject.

I'm saying the mini doesn't compare well to the hardware specs of PC's that are the same price or cheaper. Even firewire can be added for dirt cheap to a budget tower (you can even add multiple independent FW busses, making it even better than the mini).

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.

I think if you read my post correctly, you would notice that I concurred with you that you could get a PC desktop with better specs for the same price or cheaper. I wasn't trying to dispute a single thing that you'd said. I was simply stating the fact that with a Mac you are not only paying for the specs but also for OS X, reliability, and if something does go wrong, great customer support.
It is 'Good for me', in fact it is great for me. As it means I can use my Mini for audio work with Logic while I'm at home (and then take my external HDD and mess with it at the studio), or use it as a media centre with my LCD TV when I'm feeling bored. I firmly believe that the Mini is amazingly well priced considering all of the factors and not just the specs.
Juxtaposer

 

[milo]

does he have to dispute every point you made. can't he make his own points? can't he have his own set of priorities which allow him to say that he can, unlike you. make a case for the mini?

Of course he can make whatever points he wants. I'm just pointing out that his points don't dispute the fact that the mini offers worse specs for the price, which he has claimed isn't true. The fact is, it is true.

I think if you read my post correctly, you would notice that I concurred with you that you could get a PC desktop with better specs for the same price or cheaper. I wasn't trying to dispute a single thing that you'd said.

Glad to hear you say that, I'm not sure why you said earlier that it's not true that you can get a cheaper PC with better specs.

 

[juxtaposer]

Glad to hear you say that, I'm not sure why you said earlier that it's not true that you can get a cheaper PC with better specs.

Sorry, no, even in my first reply I agreed with you that you can definitely get a PC with better specs than the Mini. The only problem being that I am not a fan of HP or Dell at all (just my own personal preference), and I wouldn't want to spend what I spent on the Mini without feeling reassured in my purchase. I agree that the Mini has got a hefty price on it's head, but for me (personal preference yet again), it was worth it for the reassurance of Apple's customer care. And also, it allowed me to discover Mac OS X without spending an arm and a leg on an iMac (and when I bought the Mini, the low-end iMacs still had poor specs i.e GMA 950), and then discovering it wasn't right for me.
Juxtaposer

 

[flyinmac]

I was simply stating the fact that with a Mac you are not only paying for the specs but also for OS X, reliability, and if something does go wrong, great customer support.

Strangely, I just don't see where you get that.

I'm one who at one time was really, really, really into computers. I've literally had multiple hundreds of computers since the early days before most people had ever seen a PC. Actually, some of my former computers even pre-date Apple's entry into the computer market (yes, there were computers before Apple, they were just different).

I've owned and used computers by almost every maker in the world. And, more platforms than I could possibly recount (in the early days there were more platforms than Apple or PC - almost every brand and model was a completely different platform).

And, sadly, I must admit, that the absolute only computers I've ever had fail (out of those hundreds, and hundreds of computers), were made by Apple.

Seriously. I have never had another single brand or type / platform of computer fail on me.

I know that it does happen. I won't deny that other makers have failures. But, seriously, the only failures I've had myself have been Apple products.

And, the customer service actually stinks. The only good service I've gotten on an Apple product has been from independent authorized service centers. Service and support through Apple has always been a series of calling in and getting bounced around through multiple reps, escalating to supervisors, then getting the run around, then getting denied service, and usually getting hung-up on a few times.

If it weren't for local independent shops, I would refuse to buy an Apple product.

My most recent issues were with iMacs. Two in a row (a year apart), that were complete duds and were constantly in the shop. I couldn't get them to work for more than a week or two before another part would fail. Then, I'd have to wait 2 weeks to a month for said part to become available and then wait for it to be installed.

Fortunately, I had a PC around to use (which has always been reliable). But, two machines a year apart and different revisions, and both wouldn't work for more than a week at a time before needing more service? That's hardly reliable.

Fortunately, my Mac Pro, iBook, and Mac Mini have been great. But, with the iMac issues that have seemed to prevail from the first G5 through now, it seems that they do have a hard time getting things right sometimes.

But, while I do love using Apple computers, I would never proclaim them to be of higher quality. And, I would absolutely never claim that Apple provides good service. Their independent service providers do have good service; but that isn't Apple, that's an authorized service center.

And, don't even get me started on the ridiculous run-around I got on the iPod Nano with them (they never did agree to fix it). Many weeks of arguing, and they got what they wanted, I eventually decided to quit wasting my time.

 

[juxtaposer]

As I stated though, I dislike Dell and HP. The main reason being that each time I bought a machine from either of them, I ended up with problems, and my experience was the same as the one you described having with Apple. Being sent from one place to another trying to get an explanation as to what had gone wrong or how I could replace my machine.
I have had no such problems with my Mac - so far. Since I got this little beauty, I have been amazed with how seamlessly everything seems to work together. Hardware and software both working with each other (rather than against each other as was my experience with PCs and Windows). Maybe you had a different experience to myself, but the point I made is still valid and I stand by it. Apple make more reliable products (from my experience) and their customer care was second-to-none (from my experience) as I spent my first day of Mac-ownership on the phone to their support line, who helped me get to grips with my new machine.
Also, this article might shed some light on why I "mistakenly" believed the Mac to be a reliable machine - Apple No. 1 In Reliability

And so, back to the topic of the Mac Mini I definitely hope that there is an update on it's way rather than just Apple giving up on the machine. This Mini has served me well, but if the MB's are getting an update then surely the Mini will get one to go alongside. An updated GPU as in the rumored new MB's and a speed bump would probably do the trick. As far as merging with the tv is concerned, I personally believe Front Row & the remote do a great job already on the media centre side. Also, a Mini Tower with an integrated GPU etc. wouldn't be too much to ask now would it?
Juxtaposer

 

[flyinmac]

I guess I just compare my experiences with Apple with those of the other companies.

First, having never had another brand computer fail. And some of those in the 80's were only $150 to $400 - different platforms that were cheaper. Remember during the 80's there were new companies and platforms coming and going every day. Some were cheap (like $140), some were expensive (like $10,000). But, none of them ever failed on me.

I have only a few experiences with tech support from other companies. Never from a computer company other than Apple, but rather from companies who's add-on products I've purchased.

1) Seagate: Way back when 10 Megabytes was an extraordinary amount of hard drive space, I purchased one of the latest technology drives (an RLL drive). At that point in time, every single hard drive made had a bunch of known defects. They'd come from the factory with a label indicating where the bad spots were on the drive so you could "map" them and tell the operating system to avoid using them. It was understood that all hard drives were defective, and that new bad spots would crop up from time to time. It was just a technology in it's infancy. But, I used my small Seagate drive (which was physically very large compared to today's drives). And, after a few months, I was just not personally happy with how many spots there were. But, it was well within accepted standards. I called Seagate, explained that the drive was working, but that I was just personally hoping for fewer bad spots. They immediately shipped me a new drive with no questions, and paid all expenses to handle the exchange. I didn't even have to guarantee it with a credit card. They just shipped it, and I sent the old one back after getting the new drive.

2) Some add-on memory I purchased from the back of a magazine in the 80's. A whopping 256 Kilobytes. It was of course IC chips back then. 8 chips to make up a bank of RAM. One chip was bad. I called, a new set of 8 was on the way. I don't think they even asked for the old stuff back (and memory was ridiculously expensive back then). 256 Kilobytes was probably as expensive then as 4 Gigabytes is now. And, that was just a little no-name company who's cheap ad I found in the classified section of a little magazine.

3) MacMice: A few years ago, I purchased a mouse from them. I ordered directly. And, after the warranty expired, I started having second thoughts about it. It worked fine. But, it just didn't seem to fit me anymore (personal issues). I called, and got a full 100% refund including shipping costs (again the warranty was expired).

4) My Compaq computer a few years ago. I ordered it. Then, later found that I could get one of the programs I ordered with it for less than the bundled price. I called Compaq to drop the package from the order (or cancel the order and re-order). They told me that it would cause the shipment of the system to be delayed. So, they offered to leave it in the package, but refunded the cost of that program to make the program free for me.

And, then there's Apple. They've yet to give me a straight answer on anything, or do anything that they promised they'd do to take care of me. All I've ever gotten is the run-around from them. But, fortunately, the local independent store is helpful and has taken care of my issues for me.

Admittedly, that isn't a whole lot of customer service experiences. But, then again, the best service is the one you never need.

Sure, the only computers I've ever had to ask for service on have been Apples. But, then again, it says something that Apple's computers have been the only ones which have ever failed on me.

And, with the prior experiences I've had with add-ons and upgrades that I mentioned above (all purchased separate of a computer), I would have expected much better for the price of a Mac.

If I can have a computer from the late 70's and early 80's last 20 years, why can't many of the Mac's I've owned survive more than a week at a time. Why can't I get service on a $1800 to $2500 computer that compares to the quality of service I can get on a $40 accessory?

I have had a few friendly phone calls with Apple. But, they all involved them selling me something. Calls with issues have all been met with no help.

But, hey, at least when Apple refuses to fix an iPod or a Mac, I can still use my portable CD-Player or PC.

I am glad that a local company is offering service now though. At least someone will keep fixing the things that Apple refuses.

I am glad you've had better luck. Hopefully that will continue if you find something defective. That's when all my issues with them come up. They're great when I don't require them to repair something.

 

[shikimo]

Why? Why the need for a mac that's so small? Most people just want something that's not huge. I'd much rather see the mini replaced with something a little bigger but with better features, it's a waste of money to build a desktop with laptop parts.

For you, perhaps...for me, nothing else would fit in the space that I have.

Has it? How many have they sold? I thought apple didn't break out numbers on specific models, and I've never heard a report of minis selling particularly well.

This is tricky...I did some honest, non-biased research and it seems that one can find an equal number of 'analysts' and 'specialists' who claim that the Mini is and is not selling well recently, so I retract the claim: The only evidence is that they still sell the thing, which seems to indicate that it does OK, but I realize that's not a logically sound argument so I won't make it.

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

Speaking of not logically sound arguments, how can you say that the Mini is more expensive because it has different parts (i.e. laptop parts) and then argue that it is overpriced compared to PCs that use full-size desktop parts? Like it or not, the size is a big selling point for many of us, and there is nothing like the Mini anywhere. You are comparing Apples and oranges, so to speak: if the bottom line concerned nothing but a ratio between price and performance, the retail computer business would look a lot different than it does...

...and then throw in the OSX factor, the (almost) virus-free factor, the user-friendly factor, the not-having-to-deal-with-Microsoft factor: the 'bang-for-the-buck' value comparison between a mini and a low-end beige box becomes a matter of personal preference.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Also, this article might shed some light on why I "mistakenly" believed the Mac to be a reliable machine - Apple No. 1 In Reliability

Though I agree that Apple's reliability is very good, I think you're not seeing the bigger picture here. Regardless of your linked article, AFAIC, it's really a fallacy that Apple's computers are more reliable than similarly-priced PCs. It also places Apple on a pedestal impossible to live up to, so that on those rare occasions when a product-flaw does turn up, we often see a barrage of excessive & unfair criticisms.

I don't doubt your excellent experience of Mac computers. I've had my iBook for just over 2 years now & I'd say the same. However, I also know a number of people with non-budget PCs who haven't experienced any hardware problems for 7 or 8 years, despite regular use. What tends to drive down most PC companies overall reliability record is all those cheap, 90-day guarantee Dell PCs & the like, which of course Apple doesn't supply.

AFAIC, the only real difference between a Mac's reliability & most similarly-priced PCs is OS X. If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.

 

[flyinmac]

If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.

That's for sure. Given the price difference, I would actually consider HP, Compaq, Sony, or just about any of the better PC's first.

I still wouldn't go with a Dell, Gateway, Acer, or similar. But, I've had some great experiences with $400 to $600 HP and Compaq systems.

 

[saltyzoo]

First, having never had another brand computer fail. And some of those in the 80's were only $150 to $400 - different platforms that were cheaper. Remember during the 80's there were new companies and platforms coming and going every day. Some were cheap (like $140), some were expensive (like $10,000). But, none of them ever failed on me.

I have only a few experiences with tech support from other companies. Never from a computer company other than Apple, but rather from companies who's add-on products I've purchased.

No offense, but this simply isn't believable. I think you're having highly convenient selective memory. I agree with your basic point, but I don't believe the quote above for one second and frankly I find it hard to give you credibility because of it. Your point would stand better without the unrealistic claims.

And yes, I still have my TRS-80 with 48k RAM extension in a box in the attic.

 

[juxtaposer]

AFAIC, the only real difference between a Mac's reliability & most similarly-priced PCs is OS X. If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.

I agree with you that OS X is the main reason that I would buy a Mac over a similarly-priced PC. But not only that. The reason OS X is so stable and reliable (as far as I can tell) is that it has been made to run on Apple's own hardware (without .dll files and other driver software). I too would buy a Sony if a compatible version of OS X was available for it. I have so much Sony equipment in my house and have never had a single problem. But a Sony machine with the same spec as the Mini for the same price? I don't think I've seen a Sony computer for less than £500. A HP? Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole given my past experience with them.
Another benefit with having an Apple Mac (for me) is simply the price of the software that I need to do my job (and hobby I hasten to add) which is audio recording/editing. The price of Logic Studio was more than halved with the release of Logic 8 (Which is far more fitted to my needs than a £2000 copy of Cubase or Pro-Tools). Also, without any dongle of any kind. This (and the extremely low price of OS X compared to most versions of Vista) shows apples current philosophy. "If people pay a little bit more for our hardware, then the profits we make will allow us to reduce the price of our software". I would pay any price for Apple's hardware if it means that I can run their software. So taking this into account, is a Mac Mini overpriced? Personally, I would say no.
My Atari STFM still runs just as well as the day I bought it. But comparing 1980's technology and 2000's technology is not a logical comparison to say the least. It is the same with cars nowadays. The old MG's and Morris's still run today as well as they did in the past. But the technology used to make these machines is far more complex today than it was back then. Given the numerous things that can go wrong with this modern technology all working together, of course the chances are that eventually something will go wrong.
So my initial points still stand. The Mac Mini is worth the money Apple are asking due to:-
a)OS X
b)Reliability (compared to similarly-priced modern machines)
c)Support (as I said the support I recieved from Apple was second-to-none)
and d)Software pricing

Maybe finally this thread can return to the topic of the Mac Mini? A novel idea I know, but hey.

 

[aquajet]

Most people just want something that's not huge.

I'm not willing to make an assertion about what "most people" want because I don't know, and I don't think you know either. What I can say is that "most people" I've observed see a mini for the first time have been tickled and amazed by its size.

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

When we're comparing different computers of similar specs, especially at the bottom of the barrel class, how much extra bang do most people actually experience in reality? I say not much at all, aside from the storage capacity discrepancy between 2.5" and 3.5" hard drives. This is why I believe looking at the numbers alone is a rather shortsighted way of comparing things. At the low-end especially, I think it's more valuable to examine the out of the box functionality and when we see the incredibly well thought-out and executed (IMO of course) software package (iLife) which is included with the mini, it's pretty clear which option is superior.

 

[gregorsamsa]

But a Sony machine with the same spec as the Mini for the same price? I don't think I've seen a Sony computer for less than £500. A HP? Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole given my past experience with them.

FWIW, a few weeks ago there was a Sony Vaio for £499 on eBuyer. Sure the Mini has OS X, front row, etc., but add on the price of a decent monitor, keyboard, etc. & things begin to look a little different. Basically the Mini is a desktop relying on budget-laptop technology, but without any of the advantages of a laptop. The Mini is also aimed at switchers, but I think more knowledgeable potential switchers are unlikely to be greatly impressed by the combo drive & GMA950.

Obviously your unlucky experience with HP doesn't tally with the majority; something reflected in their generally high sales despite not always providing the cheapest PCs.

I would pay any price for Apple's hardware if it means that I can run their software. So taking this into account, is a Mac Mini overpriced? Personally, I would say no.

So my initial points still stand. The Mac Mini is worth the money Apple are asking due to:-
a)OS X
b)Reliability (compared to similarly-priced modern machines)
c)Support (as I said the support I recieved from Apple was second-to-none)
and d)Software pricing

Maybe finally this thread can return to the topic of the Mac Mini? A novel idea I know, but hey.

Of course, & not least because if you want OS X you really don't have any choice whatsoever but pay Apple's asking price. But seen objectively, though I agree it's still a good computer, I really think it's now time for a significant update to maintain its appeal.

FWIW, I hope they keep it. Perhaps dropping the lower-end Mini, reducing the price of the SD version & adding a new headless Mac with discrete graphics would stimulate greater interest in this part of the Mac market. What doesn't make sense to me is (according to a recent rumour) replacing the current Mini with a Nano version, which is unlikely to be better specced.

 

[juxtaposer]

At the low-end especially, I think it's more valuable to examine the out of the box functionality and when we see the incredibly well thought-out and executed (IMO of course) software package (iLife) which is included with the mini, it's pretty clear which option is superior.

Now there is something I forgot to mention. Just how quick I was from getting the Mini out of the box and being able to explore OS X (about 5 minutes) compared to the horrific install of Windows. Plus the necessity of a FireWire port would've inevitably got me opening my case and installing drivers from the get-go. Not to mention the I.R reciever, Front Row & remote control. Simplicity at it's best I think.
The Mac Mini really is a great package for it's price, and if they decide to keep the line going then there will definitely be updates to the CPU, GPU etc. And keeping the same price range, I don't think I would complain at all.

 

[juxtaposer]

The Mini is also aimed at switchers, but I think more knowledgeable potential switchers are unlikely to be greatly impressed by the combo drive & GMA950.

That obviously depends on what the switcher's needs are. Did I need a better GPU for my audio editing? No. Did I need the Superdrive? No. Although that is included on the higher-end Minis.
I already had a nice Sony TFT Monitor and I payed the little bit extra for the BT Mighty Mouse and Keyboard. So all in all, it didn't cost me anywhere near my closest option (low-end iMac). In fact the price difference was over £200. So for a little over £400 I got a great machine that ran brilliantly straight out-of-the-box. No need for driver installs - same as when I plug in an external device, another great feature of Mac OS.
Once again, I believe that if the Mac Mini line is kept, then there will definitely be an update (it is needed now). That is something to take into account - the fact that the Mini's innards are still in need of an update. But if/when that update comes we could possibly see an end to the GMA950 and ComboDrive as well.
It's nice to have a debate about the future of the Mini, even if Apple will never listen to our own personal list of needs/wants. I think the Mini could be a brilliant tool in the Apple marketing machine. It was what made me decide to switch so apologies if I appear to be viewing my beloved Mini through rose-tinted spectacles.
Juxtaposer

 

[gregorsamsa]

Once again, I believe that if the Mac Mini line is kept, then there will definitely be an update (it is needed now). That is something to take into account - the fact that the Mini's innards are still in need of an update. But if/when that update comes we could possibly see an end to the GMA950 and ComboDrive as well.
It's nice to have a debate about the future of the Mini, even if Apple will never listen to our own personal list of needs/wants. I think the Mini could be a brilliant tool in the Apple marketing machine. It was what made me decide to switch so apologies if I appear to be viewing my beloved Mini through rose-tinted spectacles.
Juxtaposer

Hear, hear! Let's hope they update very soon (if not when Leopard arrives) & thanks for raising some interesting points.

 

[juxtaposer]

Speaking of an update. This looks like bad news

If they insist on removing the optical drive, things don't look good for the Mini/Nano

 

[flyinmac]

No offense, but this simply isn't believable. I think you're having highly convenient selective memory. I agree with your basic point, but I don't believe the quote above for one second and frankly I find it hard to give you credibility because of it. Your point would stand better without the unrealistic claims.

And yes, I still have my TRS-80 with 48k RAM extension in a box in the attic.

Believe it or not, but yes I have had that many computers. Up until last year, I still had around a hundred of them. I finally decided to dedicate my life to something productive, and sold them off through e-bay, users groups, collectors, and so on.

I had about 1000 square feet occupied by pretty much nothing other than computers (and it was set up rather tightly). And, that was just the stuff I hadn't gotten rid of over the years. And, I was still actively using them and actively developing for them and their various hobbyist's users.

But, as I said, life changes, priorities change, and I decided there were better things in life besides my many machines.

Over the years, I had owned many more than that, and there are many that I let go eventually as my interest in other platforms increased.

But, whether you believe it or not, they were all reliable for me. That includes the ones that I'd owned since they rolled-off the assembly line as well as the ones I purchased used.

I can honestly say that the only computers I've ever had die on me have been Apples.

Sure, as stated previously, I know other brands do have failures. I know people who have had other brands die. But, the vast number I've personally owned and used have all been reliable except for some of the duds that came from Apple.

Now, yes, I have had some Apples that were great. But, that doesn't change the fact that the only ones I've personally had die on me have been Apples.

And, from the large number of machines that I've owned, that says something to me.

 

[saltyzoo]

I believe you owned that many computers. I do not for a second believe you've never had one fail. That's beyond incredible. It's not believable in the least.

 

[juxtaposer]

Sure, as stated previously, I know other brands do have failures. I know people who have had other brands die. But, the vast number I've personally owned and used have all been reliable except for some of the duds that came from Apple.

Now, yes, I have had some Apples that were great. But, that doesn't change the fact that the only ones I've personally had die on me have been Apples.

And, from the large number of machines that I've owned, that says something to me.

It says something to me as well. Those Mac's were in dire need of some TLC J/K
But no, in all seriousness, we know that computers aren't 'supposed' to fail. But sometimes they just do. And from the looks of the latest independent reliability polls, it sounds like you got one of the few 'lemons' that managed to scrape through.
As I said before, my Atari STFM still runs great. And so do most of my machines that I've gathered over the years. But none of the other machines I bought in the same price-bracket as the Mini have been reliable. And so far my Mini has. That says something to me...

 

[flyinmac]

I believe you owned that many computers. I do not for a second believe you've never had one fail. That's beyond incredible. It's not believable in the least.

I did have some fail. But, they were Apples.

Not all Macs. But, all Apples. Some in the II series, others in the Mac series.

Honestly, it surprised me well some of those CP/M machines, and especially how well some of the one-hit-wonders held-up.

The closest thing to a failure that I had with another machine was the TI-99/4A that occasionally required multiple cartridge inserts to get some of the cartridges to make proper contact with the slot. But, that could be due either to the machine or poor cartridge assembly. The machine was great otherwise. My only complaint was the very limited amount of support for it. But, that was typical of the computers back then (they came and went so fast that you had few sources of add-ons and such). But, it was nice to use while the support lasted. Once it was orphaned, it became pretty expensive to get ahold of new items for it.

Otherwise, Atari's, Tandy's / TRS-80's, Amiga's, Amstrad's, Osborne's, Commodore's, Zenith's, and the countless other brands all held-up much better than I would have expected. Some only came with a 90-day warranty (which I originally thought would be an issue). But, 20 years later, that 90-day warranty proved to be more than adequate. They were still going fine all these years later.

When I finally sold them all off, I kept only one (mainly as a novelty calculator). It's the TRS-80 pocket computer. About the size of an old women's checkbook calculator. But, a full computer with a tiny screen. It's nice for simple programs that don't require anything fancy.

I keep a couple of financial calculators programmed into it to use when I'm speaking with banks and lenders to verify the numbers they present. I've got a program that just prompts for numbers and spits out the end result. So, I can quickly double-check their claims and figures. It's handy for that.

Probably a humble use for it. But, I can't justify it for much more these days.

 

[Brianstorm91]

Speaking of an update. This looks like bad news
*image*

Sorry but, isn't that Apple TV?