I believe the EULA states that the OS can be installed on an apple labeled computer, which is why I am going to stick an apple sticker on it, problem solved
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
I believe the EULA states that the OS can be installed on an apple labeled computer, which is why I am going to stick an apple sticker on it, problem solved
Well, it's no long Apple Computer Inc. So a four model lineup doesn't shock me. It is sad, though.
Woz is going to invent a wheelless transporter, and it will have a nifty remote control too.
Jobs won't like it because it isn't thin enough.
Happy anniversary, Mini update.
I've been holding on to my Apple gift cards since last December specifically for a Mini update. This is discouraging...
I've been holding on to my Apple gift cards since last December specifically for a Mini update. This is discouraging...
Is it really that easy? I wanted a mini for a low power server(http, music, etc.) I have a laptop but if it's this easy to make a hackintosh then I might just go that route instead.
I think Apple will replace the Mac Mini with a new model. Apple has a huge gap in the desktop market between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro lines. They really need like a Mac Tower or something that is basically the Mac Pro case except a quarter or half the size (Mini-esque), priced at around $700-800 it would be a instant hit if Apple was able to supply decent performance figures.
The iMac does fit in the role, but I think theres a huge market for a mini-tower type of product under the Apple name.
The iMac does fit in the role, but I think theres a huge market for a mini-tower type of product under the Apple name.
I would like to see a Mac midrange tower as much as anyone, but I really see no prospect of Apple making this product. Jobs has always favored closed, contained systems over open, expandable ones. A midrange tower would cut into sales of higher priced iMac and Mac Pro models. And a computer to which you could add third-party PCI/PCIe cards would be more of a support headache.
Apple has dropped the "Computer" from its name and moved in the direction of consumer commodity products. I believe that an expandable midrange computer has no appeal for them.
Apple has dropped the "Computer" from its name and moved in the direction of consumer commodity products. I believe that an expandable midrange computer has no appeal for them.
Apple hasn't made a mid-range tower since Steve regained control of the company, so why would he do so now?
The PowerMac G3, G4 and G5 were just like the current Mac Pro - one size case with different processor speeds and counts at different price levels.
I imagine part of the problem is IBM and Motorola only had a single family of PowerPC chips in each generation vs. the five Intel offers (Xeon, Core2 Extreme, Core2, PentiumD and CeleronD), but the fact is that Apple could have made a smaller case for the single CPU G4 and G5 models and chose not to.
Why that was not seen as a "bad thing" then, but somehow is a "bad thing" now escapes me other then people evidently believe that since Apple now uses "commodity" hardware, it should have a "commodity" price.
The PowerMac G3, G4 and G5 were just like the current Mac Pro - one size case with different processor speeds and counts at different price levels.
I imagine part of the problem is IBM and Motorola only had a single family of PowerPC chips in each generation vs. the five Intel offers (Xeon, Core2 Extreme, Core2, PentiumD and CeleronD), but the fact is that Apple could have made a smaller case for the single CPU G4 and G5 models and chose not to.
Why that was not seen as a "bad thing" then, but somehow is a "bad thing" now escapes me other then people evidently believe that since Apple now uses "commodity" hardware, it should have a "commodity" price.
Yes , he has. Notably the very first Mac, which was compact, but ran slow because due to Job's insistence on minimalism it had barely enough memory to run the GUI. That was corrected later.
The NeXT cube. He insisted on the dimensions even though it limited the logicboard design. And a machined magnesium case; expensive, needless overkill. A proprietary optical disc storage system. Total sales in the tens of thousands.
The G4 Cube. An idea ahead of it's time, and another low seller when slotted Macs were available for nearly the same price.
This Cube was somewhat upgradeable however, and IMHO would be a perfect fit in todays market. Notice it was never officially canceled as a product line, just suspended.
I know this is difficult for some of you to deal with, but Steve Jobs is not perfect.
Gasp!!!
iMac probably, Mac Pro no. Mid or mini tower buyers aren't going to buy Mac Pros. However it would cut into sales of mid-range PCs in a big, maybe even huge way.
You are aware even slotted Macs generally run only certain cards, right?
This could very well be their thinking, alas.
It's like Cadillac dressing up a Chevy, calling it a Cimarron, and charging a premium. Insulting, if nothing else.
Apple hadn't made an mp3 player until the iPod. So I guess it was a stupid idea to start making iPods?
That argument makes no sense in any way.
Things change. Both external and internal factors change over time. So saying that since it hasn't been done yet it isn't going to be done, doesn't make sense. Not responding to change is about the only way a huge company can fail. I'm not saying Apple will fail if they don't create a mid-tower. I'm just saying that if they take the attitude you did in your post (that they shouldn't do anything they haven't done before) they will fail eventually.
We're aware of that. The general public isn't.
In fact I didn't even know that PowerMacs/Mac Pros didn't use generic graphic cards until a few years ago.
So imagine the thousands of potential switchers buying this "mini tower" and trying to stick random, 99$, PC-only graphics cards into their mini tower Mac. When it doesn't boot, Apple tech support gets overloaded, people go back to their "Macs are dumb" mentality, ask for a refund and make negative word-of-mouth about Macs.
Since the Mac Pros are so expensive it's not really a problem because the general public doesn't buy them.
If only the Mac mini was a bit bigger, with a 3.5" hard drive, max of 4GB RAM and at least the option of a better GPU/VRAM... (i.e. the high-end model could have a mobile ATI or nVidia GPU and the lower-end model an intel x3100 or x4500), then a lot of people would be more than happy with the Mac mini specs.
Things have gotten worse because:
a) The mac pro uses server-class processors which require expensive server-class RAM, whereas the G4/G5s pared up more to AMD's desktop-class offerings
b) The pmG5/mac pro is a little bigger and a lot heavier than the powermac g3/g4s were
c) The imac has drifted from being a clever return to the all-in-one design to more of a lifestyle computer as its dimensions have gotten closer to those of an LCD tv. Accordingly, compromises have been made, ie glossy screens make dvds look better, only mobile variants on processors can be accommodated, thinner enclosures limit gfx card options even on mobile variants
d) The shift to intel processors has meant that integrated gfx dominates the consumer product lines, which puts off a whole host of switchers who aren't used to being told that dedicated VRAM is a pro option; and so the gap between the current mini and MP is a lot wider than it was before the switch
I could think of tons more reasons why the gap has gotten wider, but then there are so many other reasons that would suggest apple just isn't going to fix the problem the way i'd hope: the introduction of the 24-inch imac, the rumour that the mac mini's actually going to get smaller (altho i suppose that would only make the gap larger and for that reason, i don't really believe that rumour unless it comes with a midrange tower).
Well said. This is the point all the fervent anti-xMaccers don't get. Just as ppl who said the iPod touch would never happen didn't understand that 1% of the phone market will mean f&*^-all if your rivals in the mp3 market start trying to cut into your 85% marketshare with the very same features you yourself introduced, but kept off the ipod just to try and upsell consumers into buying a phone that only worked on a certain network. The stats you read about apple's marketshare are always grossly inflated (omitting computers less than $1000 in price, only counting home sales and not business etc.) and although macs reportedly last longer, the sheer number of wintel boxes still in use puts mac marketshare at less than 5% of what's actually out there, even if sales from recent years will eventually push that figure higher as PCs from years when apple's sales weren't so great start dying off.
It's not just about the mac fans who want a gaming mac, a media centre mac or a prosumer mac; it's about giving the 95% of users who still aren't using apple computers an offering that relates to the kind of computer they're most familiar with: the midrange tower/shuttle. If ppl really think the lack of such an offering isn't stunting mac growth far more than it would "cannibalise imac sales...", they really need to spend a little less time in front of their steve shrine justifying the gaps in the product line.
Just 3 models: $1200-1800. Core 2 Quad at the top end. The margins would be better than those on the imac anyways, provided some of the components were desktop class.
Here's the specs on what I was thinking of building:
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 2.53GHz $119.99
ABIT I-45CV Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $49.99
Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 $42.99
Rosewill R604-P BK ATX Computer Case $43.99
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 80GB 3.5" SATA $39.99
Grand Total: $296.95
All prices are from Newegg. Tack on another $130 for OS X and it's $427. OK, so it's $175 cheaper than the Mini, but is it worth it? On the one hand, I get everything I want for what will essentially be a PVR and web surfer. It's got a 3.5" drive and a faster processor, plus it will probably be quieter when under heavy load.
On the minus side, it's a hack that may not work/require fixing in the future, and it's not as elegant as a Mini. I'll need more storage, but that would cost about the same either way (external drive with 3.5", or internal with bigger 3.5" same diff). Sort of a toss up. I'm in no hurry, so I'll wait for the update and see.
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 2.53GHz $119.99
ABIT I-45CV Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $49.99
Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 $42.99
Rosewill R604-P BK ATX Computer Case $43.99
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 80GB 3.5" SATA $39.99
Grand Total: $296.95
All prices are from Newegg. Tack on another $130 for OS X and it's $427. OK, so it's $175 cheaper than the Mini, but is it worth it? On the one hand, I get everything I want for what will essentially be a PVR and web surfer. It's got a 3.5" drive and a faster processor, plus it will probably be quieter when under heavy load.
On the minus side, it's a hack that may not work/require fixing in the future, and it's not as elegant as a Mini. I'll need more storage, but that would cost about the same either way (external drive with 3.5", or internal with bigger 3.5" same diff). Sort of a toss up. I'm in no hurry, so I'll wait for the update and see.
Good point...and let us not forget the myth of cannibalization at the most fundamental level: given similar margins--and we all know Apple isn't going to come out with a loss-leader consumer tower, right??--a sale is a sale is a sale. Money in the bank. Stock going up. Shareholders don't care if Apple sells iMacs or xMacs or PBJ-MacnCheese...if less iMac sales equal more xMac sales, who's upset? The iMac design department could have its feelings hurt I guess.
I think the lack of a midrange tower has more to do with a global marketing philosophy and a particular (and rather successful) vision of how to make a lot of money as a technology company--as described nicely by Clive about 150 posts ago--and almost nothing to do with a fear of cannibals.
This would be my concern, as the Mac mini is quiet and (most of the time) can handle heavy loads and remain quiet.
It can be extremely easy if you have the right hardware. Since you're going from a laptop, it may be a little more difficult. Just find out what drivers your components use... network, audio, wifi, the like. Do your research and find out if those kexts exist. Insanelymac has a HUGE amount of information in the forums.
-Clive
So now Cadillac uses Opels from Europe, which are built to much higher performance and quality standards.
Apple has now done the same, moving from "desktop class" CPUs in "workstation class" PCs to actual "workstation class" CPUs in "workstation class" PCs.
Steve Jobs - and Apple management, in general - don't strike me as stupid.
Why has it taken years for companies like Psystar to take advantage of Apple's inability to see the obvious if it is supposedly so obvious? And why have those companies only sold thousands of machines in months while Apple sells that a day even though their product line is not the one the plurality of the market is claimed to want?
If a $1299-1499 Mac Mini Tower would raise Apple's annual sales by tens of millions of units as their proponents claim - effectively doubling or even tripling Apple's annual sales - then why have they not done so?
I'll tell you why. Because Apple's margins wouldn't let them sell it for that cheap. It would be more like $1799 to $1999 to meet Apple's margin requirements and then we'd really see wailing and gnashing of teeth. A Mac Pro is cheaper then an equivalent HP or Dell workstation and cannot be compared 1:1 to a Core 2 Extreme desktop. But a Mac Mini Tower could be compared 1:1 to an HP or Dell or home-built system and when that price delta is $500-1000, even the "fanboi's" will stand-up and take notice, just as they do with the MacBook (Pro) comparison to direct competitors from HP and Dell and Sony running Windows or Linux.
As much as people claim a $2299 Mac Pro is driving folks who want to run OS X into the arms of the cloners and the Hackintosh community, a $1999 Mac Mini Tower would do so even harder.
Please. I realise you didn't start it, but no car analogies, please. My point was that its more than just the marketing labels employed by intel that make the gap "seem" bigger, as you implied. High-end consumer desktop PCs do not compare so favourably to Xeon-based machines as they did to G5s and G4s. The price of the mac pro has gone up accordingly and the cheapest config is $2299 when it used to be $1499, but ppl still argue that the mac pros represent better value for money than they ever did before because certain configs are actually cheaper than dell's.
If Steve has a Steve shrine, I would hardly be surprised, but I was obviously referring to ppl who frequent these forums rather than anyone who works for apple. Can't remember the last time Apple made an official statement on why all us xMaccers are morons who don't understand their product strategy.
Because the hackintosh community only gathered force after the intel switch and it took some time for someone to have the nerve to flout the EULA and try and profit from the osX86 project (which was supposed to open source by the way). Because the machines look like junk, and the very idea of a 3rd party midrange tower goes against the "it just works" philosophy that drew us to apple's products in the first place.
Not for the reasons most ppl seem to think here about cannibalising mac sales. More to do with Clive's argument that apple doesn't like competing in markets that are already popular, but would rather make new innovative products and force their customers into figuring out which of the mishapen pigeonholes they can live with best. Planned obsolescence by limiting product flexibility. We all boast about how long macs last, but the fact is that long before they give up the ghost, we buy newer models and simply sell on, give away or relegate the older models to a secondary function. My iMac g5 does not have gig-E, fw800, an n-class wireless card, dvi-out and a host of other features that i could have upgraded myself if i was a windows user, and consequently I will eventually upgrade sooner than i otherwise would have even though it still works fine.
I think its fair to say that you're overstating how much it would cost by as much as most over-enthusiastic xMaccers seem to underbid it. Apple's computers have become much more competitive than they used to be, and ppl will always be willing to pay that extra 30-40% premium for the OS, the "it just works" philosophy and the design.
Take the $1500 iMac, take out the screen, throw in a desktop class processor/gfx card (or both if the design can fit them). Take $300 off the price, and you have a baseline model $1200 xMac, which is exactly 33% more than the lowest end Dell XPS (the ones with dedicated gfx as standard) at $899.
Then at the high end, $1800 for a quad core that doesn't require FB-Dimms, is $500 less than the single processor MP and doesn't take up as much space or use as much electricity. Ppl could moan all they want. I'd buy 1 of each.
Just to clarify, when I run handbrake and the CPU is pegged at 100%, I'm not going to hear running full blast like it does on my MB? (I'm asking a real question here.) I plan on using handbrake a lot and don't want to hear the fan going all the time. Also, is there a way to throttle the performance of the CPU to prevent this? Something in the software, or underclocking perhaps? If not, maybe I do want to build a machine where I can control what kind of fans I'm using.
Maybe some people wouldn't mind a little noise from their Mini. Are they quieter than a MB? Whatever I get is going into a back room, so it's not that critical, but it sort of is. I have good ears and often have nothing in the background making noise. I regularly put my Apple TV to sleep because I don't like the small amount of noise it makes.
If the Apple TV noise bothers you then you will have issue with the mini. ATV doesn't even have a fan. The only thing you could be hearing is the hard drive.
Fair enough. A quad-core desktop 2.8GHz Core2, 2GB of RAM, a 9300GS with 512MB, a DVD (no BR) burner and a 500GB HDD in a mini-tower seems to run about $1599 at Dell and HP. So Apple can't offer the same for $1499. And the margins at $1799 might not be sufficient, which means we could more likely see $1899 to $1999.
At $1899 with a 23" ACD, you're looking at $2699 which is about $500 more then the top-end iMac, so the iMac still has a purpose in Apple's line-up. And it would be $400 less then the single CPU Mac Pro. As such, Apple could probably just kill the single CPU Mac Pro option and just offer dualies only at $2799 (and improve the standard memory, HDD and GPU amounts to help equalize the price differential).
I have an Asus Laptop but have been looking for a desktop. If I build my own, I might as well make one that is mac compatible. I might not do it now because I think I have a job now and they all run mac so I might just get a real one.
- Status