Mac Mini Not Dead Yet?

[alabanco]

For some reason, while it'd be nice, I don't think it'll happen...but we could only hope.

Well guys I can tell you that you are already happy ones since people in barbarian countries like my Russia pay way more than in US.


MacMini 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
in US - 600 $
in Russia - 985 $

Apple Cinema 23 inch
in US - 900 $
in Russia - 1450 $

People in the world would be happy enough if the price was close to the one you have in US.

 

[brendaem]

Drop The Integrated GPU!

I would have bought a Mac mini if it had a real GPU. Currently, the Intel Integrated GPUs are utter garbage.

[I'm not even sure they can run Final Cut Pro, at all.]

 

[EagerDragon]

i think you are being quite realistic there. maybe the fw800 is a bit wishful, or shall i say possible but not necessary plausible (as in apple has little reason to do it). another possible but not plausible part would be AMD's E2400 (embedded version of hd2400) for video - the part works fine under tight power envelopes, and easts GMA for breakfast. also it would be in line with the original mini's philosophy of decent-for-its-time video (RV280)

Yea that is why I preceded the FW800 with a maybe.

Besides wishful thinking, why would Apple add an AMD E2400 if they have not yet added that to even the top level MacBook?

For the iLife set and iWork set and Aperture, the current mini seems to do reasonably fine with the current video (I just tried it at the store 2 days ago), besides gaming I do not see a reason for Apple to add anything other than the X3100. The X3100 will give it a little kick just enough to stay in line with the MacBook line.

Obviously I could be wrong, but why would the mini have better specs than the MacBook?

If we were talking about a mini tower with a quad cpu, space for 1 to 2 video cards (full compliment), DVD writer, 2 disk drives and up to 8 Gig of memory, 2 Gigabit Ethernet, 11N, bluetooth, FW800 and FW400, 2 USB in front and 2 USB in back, etc, I would agree that that would be a very hot seller. But the price maybe too close to the Mac Pro single CPU, so it may eat some of the Mac Pro sales.

 

[Cave Man]

I would have bought a Mac mini if it had a real GPU. Currently, the Intel Integrated GPUs are utter garbage.

We'll they're certainly not the best on the market, but I think "garbage" is too strong of word. I'd be happy with hardware H.264 en/decoding. 3D gaming is nice, but not something I'm all that interested it.

[I'm not even sure they can run Final Cut Pro, at all.]

Sure they can. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[EagerDragon]

I would have bought a Mac mini if it had a real GPU. Currently, the Intel Integrated GPUs are utter garbage.

[I'm not even sure they can run Final Cut Pro, at all.]

Like the MacBook Air, the Mini has a particular set of customers in mind, obviously you are not one of those customers. Just like the MacBook does not have a GPU and it sells real well.

Not every Mac is for everyone.

I think a lot of you like the Wintel model of build your own (get a case, buy a power supply (200 to 1000 watts) based on what you need and keep adding motherboard stuff until your budget runs out). This seems what I hear here. However that is not Apple model. For this group a Mac mini tower would do but they will still bitch.

 

[darkblu]

Besides wishful thinking, why would Apple add an AMD E2400 if they have not yet added that to even the top level MacBook?

Obviously I could be wrong, but why would the mini have better specs than the MacBook?

nothing besides wishful thinking ; )

and don't get me wrong, i'm not a GMA bemoaner - the part does acceptably for its power (and more so price) level, i was just pondering what apple could do if they sucked up a little margin there, and followed their original mini philosophy. as originally they had a better CPU/GPU ballance, which was lost in the intel transition when they bumped up the CPU (a lot) and dumbed down the GPU relatively performance-wise.

if we're to be realistic, though, the big two selling points of the GMA series which could always win over any other potential candidate, have been, and likely will remain:

• dirt-cheap cost on the BOM (margins, margins, margins!)
• relatively feature-complete (i.e. more-or-less keeping up with the shader-model jones)

 

[EagerDragon]

nothing besides wishful thinking ; )

and don't get me wrong, i'm not a GMA bemoaner - the part does acceptably for its power (and more so price) level, i was just pondering what apple could do if they sucked up a little margin there, and followed their original mini philosophy. as originally they had a better CPU/GPU ballance, which was lost in the intel transition when they bumped up the CPU (a lot) and dumbed down the GPU relative-performance-wise.

if we're to be realistic, though, the big two selling points of the GMA series which could always win over any other potential candidate, have been, and likely will remain:

• dirt-chip cost on the BOM (margins, margins, margins!)
• relatively feature-complete (i.e. more-or-less keeping up with the shader-model jones)

You maybe surprised but I am seriously considering getting a black MB model and the top level Mini along with a TC. I currently have a PB 15" G4 1.67, PB 12 G4 1.25, PPC iMac 1.25 and even the mini kicks their butt. I am willing to forgo gaming completely for a little more hose power, flexibility and lots of external drives. I would still keep all 3 PPC systems as they can be put to other uses.

 

[QCassidy352]

I would have bought a Mac mini if it had a real GPU. Currently, the Intel Integrated GPUs are utter garbage.

[I'm not even sure they can run Final Cut Pro, at all.]

I would too, and that's exactly why they won't do it. Because by restricting the mini to integrated graphics, they make people like me buy imacs instead. And that's what I'll be doing.

 

[tersono]

Make it a worthwhile machine or put it out of its misery.

The configurations offered have been pathetic for a year or more, it's just sad.

It IS a worthwhile machine - it may not do what you want it to do, but that doesn't make it any the less capable for the average user.

 

[gregorsamsa]

I would too, and that's exactly why they won't do it. Because by restricting the mini to integrated graphics, they make people like me buy imacs instead. And that's what I'll be doing.

But by not doing it they lose potential switchers who already own loads of PC stuff that needs discrete graphics. Also, this attitude won't convince the likes of me into buying an iMac. I'll buy an updated Mini for serious stuff & a PC for gaming instead (unless iMacs come with a matt screen option, which they almost certainly won't).

Just seems a pity that Apple refuses to offer greater support to hard-pressed Mac game-developers by not offering at least one of the Minis with a mid-range graphics option.

 

[liveexpo]

I would have bought a Mac mini if it had a real GPU. Currently, the Intel Integrated GPUs are utter garbage.

[I'm not even sure they can run Final Cut Pro, at all.]

Your post is the garbage mate.

I'm a photographer, working with 150mb+ TIFF files on CS3 day in day out, and my mini does the job very nicely thank you very much.

 

[liveexpo]

I would too, and that's exactly why they won't do it. Because by restricting the mini to integrated graphics, they make people like me buy imacs instead. And that's what I'll be doing.

What is it you do? If its anything visual (2D) then using a iMac with its glossy screen is (for me) a big no-no. An ACD with a maxed Mini is the better option.

 

[oticon6]

My benchmark is as simple as this...

If it plays Guitar Hero 3, I'm buying it, and the PC will be ditched for good. All the other games I play are older and less GPU-intensive.

That means dedicated graphics. Anything else I can work around. Internal storage? I keep a lot of my data shared on my Time Capsule. RAM? 3GB is plenty considering the Mac Mini's market. CPU? The current ones are fine.. not great, but fine. The burner should be standard for both, yes, but forget Blu-Ray. I don't want to waste hundreds extra because I wanted the better model and they decided to add a ridiculously expensive technology that I don't even use.

Come on Apple... if you insist on sucking Intel's manhood... keep it to the lower model, and offer us a higher one with a dedicated graphics card.

 

[nickane]

Sure they can. Why would you think otherwise?

Your post is the garbage mate.

I'm a photographer, working with 150mb+ TIFF files on CS3 day in day out, and my mini does the job very nicely thank you very much.

The mini is definitely capable of a lot more than ppl give it credit for but it cannot fully run FCS2 even if it can run FCP6 (not sure about this) because some of the other programs in the suite require discrete graphics. Same for Aperture and several other apple programs.

Forget the gaming argument, the idea that you either need a workstation or you have to deal with a built-in screen to even meet the minimum requirements some prosumer software apple sells on one of their CURRENT desktops is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Eidorian]

The mini is definitely capable of a lot more than ppl give it credit for but it cannot fully run FCS2 even if it can run FCP6 (not sure about this) because some of the other programs in the suite require discrete graphics. Same for Aperture and several other apple programs.

Forget the gaming argument, the idea that you either need a workstation or you have to deal with a built-in screen to even meet the minimum requirements some prosumer software apple sells on one of their CURRENT desktops is pretty ridiculous.

Aperture was later made more compatible with Intel integrate graphics and it still is.

The only FCS application that would be of concern would be Motion. Encoding and editing is mostly CPU bound otherwise.

 

[EagerDragon]

The mini is definitely capable of a lot more than ppl give it credit for but it cannot fully run FCS2 even if it can run FCP6 (not sure about this) because some of the other programs in the suite require discrete graphics. Same for Aperture and several other apple programs.

Forget the gaming argument, the idea that you either need a workstation or you have to deal with a built-in screen to even meet the minimum requirements some prosumer software apple sells on one of their CURRENT desktops is pretty ridiculous.

So you think that a 600 dollar computer in a tiny box should be able to run all pro software and run it well?
By that argument, Apple should only sell the mini and the MB and get rid of all the other computers. There would be no place for the others as the mini and the equivalent laptop (MB) would be able to do it all for a next to nothing price.

Do you really think that is realistic?

 

[Cave Man]

The mini is definitely capable of a lot more than ppl give it credit for but it cannot fully run FCS2 even if it can run FCP6 (not sure about this) because some of the other programs in the suite require discrete graphics.

But the question was if it could run FCP (it does).

Same for Aperture and several other apple programs.

I've been running Aperture on my Mini since 1.0.2 and it's fine. It renders raw images from my 30D in about 1.5 to 2 sec, compared to about 1 to 1.5 sec with my 2.4 gHz MBP.

 

[darkblu]

You maybe surprised but I am seriously considering getting a black MB model and the top level Mini along with a TC. I currently have a PB 15" G4 1.67, PB 12 G4 1.25, PPC iMac 1.25 and even the mini kicks their butt. I am willing to forgo gaming completely for a little more hose power, flexibility and lots of external drives. I would still keep all 3 PPC systems as they can be put to other uses.

i myself am sitting on the (intel) mini fence: the iphone sdk is a very strong incentive for me to finally do the intel plunge, and yet, i see no reason to retire my current g4 mini which suits my leisure needs more than adequately (including hobby projects); as i'm power-draw-sensitive, i'm waiting for apple to hit their g4-mini power consumption levels.

 

[Kar98]

See this article about notebook drive performance.

You're not using a notebook drive, and unless you've connected your 3.5" SATA drive to your internal SATA bus, I suspect your performance will be less than that of a large capacity 5400 rpm 2.5" drive.
See the link above.

You can point to articles all you want, and suspect whatever you want. Real world experience is, if I accidentally boot into the built-in 80 GB 5,4000 rpm drive, the mini is excruciatingly slow in comparison with the 320 GB 7,200 rpm external drive connected via Firewire 400.

 

[bigwig]

Real world experience is, if I accidentally boot into the built-in 80 GB 5,4000 rpm drive, the mini is excruciatingly slow in comparison with the 320 GB 7,200 rpm external drive connected via Firewire 400.

How often do you reboot? I never reboot except when OSX updates require it.

 

[Silverhawk]

Here's an idea too, how about giving these desktops real desktop components instead of laptop components, then we wouldn't be complaining how underpowered the mini would be.

 

[Badr]

Not into it

I'm don't really like this small guy

the price fits but it's even more expensive here in saudi so i just went with the i tax free woohoo (( got it from america ))

 

[Kar98]

How often do you reboot? I never reboot except when OSX updates require it.

Same here. Why?

 

[Kar98]

Here's an idea too, how about giving these desktops real desktop components instead of laptop components, then we wouldn't be complaining how underpowered the mini would be.

I'm fine with laptop components, but top of the line components please. I think I can expect that for this price range, not bottom of the barrel scrapings.

Let it be noted though I like my mini because it's quiet, runs cool, and doesn't suck a whole lot of juice. It also does pretty much everything I throw at it, if sometimes a tad slowly. But I won't buy a newer one until there's a substantial upgrade. At the very least, a much larger, much faster hard drive.

But of course the way things are going, Apple is probably going to drop it and replace it with the Mac nano, dropping the optical drive ("Who uses DVDs anymore?" Steve Jobs), and replacing the hard drive with a solid state flash disk.

 

[Samdog]

You can point to articles all you want, and suspect whatever you want. Real world experience is, if I accidentally boot into the built-in 80 GB 5,4000 rpm drive, the mini is excruciatingly slow in comparison with the 320 GB 7,200 rpm external drive connected via Firewire 400.

Classic case of YMMV.

I have the same set-up and can't tell the difference. My 320 GB external does test ever-so-slightly faster, but even that difference is so small as to be meaningless.

I concede you might have a better drive and/or bridge, and that your usage might be different than mine, but it's probably not safe to generalize about 2.5" vs. 3.5" drives without considering all these variables.