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 Not Dead Yet?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many people of course can't afford Mac Pros, but I agree that the iMac's HD 2600 PRO is certainly good enough for most people (me included, if only iMacs had a matt screen option), but the HD 2400 is way down the benchmarks & I think it's a fairly poor option for some people worried about reasonable future-proofability on a non-upgradeable AIO. But stick that inside the Mini & you'd probably pacify most of the complainers.
But whatever updates the Mini gets (& a mid-range graphics card, as much as I'd love one, almost certainly won't happen
) I'm buying as soon as they're out. I've been relying on a Mac laptop for all my work for far too long. My only concern now is the timescale of these updates. Previously, I guess most of us have been thinking within the next 4 weeks. Now it looks more like it could be within the next 4 months, which would be a bummer.
Yes I know - thats with the current model and I tried it already on a 30". It doesn't look great but it is useable.
Question is - next model ?
Many people of course can't afford Mac Pros, but I agree that the iMac's HD 2600 PRO is certainly good enough for most people (me included, if only iMacs had a matt screen option), but the HD 2400 is way down the benchmarks & I think it's a fairly poor option for some people worried about reasonable future-proofability on a non-upgradeable AIO. But stick that inside the Mini & you'd probably pacify most of the complainers.
But whatever updates the Mini gets (& a mid-range graphics card, as much as I'd love one, almost certainly won't happen
I am in full agreement with regard to the HD 2400, and having perused the ATI / AMD (and Nvidia) list of graphics cards, I can only see a total replacement for both the 2400 and the 2600 (rather than an increase in VRAM).
Interestingly enough, I think having a 2400 inside the mini would drive me NUTS, since then the decision to upgrade to the iMac would be that much harder (since the line between the two models would start to blur).
I am all set for purchase as soon as the update comes around, but I think I will go for the iMac, because the x3100 inside the mini will be just *infuriating*, and even if they could put the not yet released GMA X4500 inside, it will probably still pale in comparison to the HD 2400. I simply can't bring myself to splash out £399 - £499 ($599 - $799) on a Mac that might only barely match my four year old Geforce 5200 128 MB in my (fathers) 7 year old PC. Even the iBook I am typing on now has dedicated graphics
In addition, the possibility that this might all take 4 months is really sad, since I am not waiting for the sake of waiting. I just think when buying a £799 ($1199) computer, it should have a graphics card that gives you solid (and relative future proof) performance, even if it is the bottom of the iMac range. I still have a niggling feeling the iMac might get updated tomorrow or the week after, even if the mini is stuck for the next few months in engineering at Apple.
Peace and God Bless!
FCP2 and Motion work fine, if slowly on GMA950 (old Macbook), I've done it.. I wouldn't recommend it though, hehe.
I'd like to see something nicer graphics-wise in the mini, and I supsect we'll get that. I dont mind integrated, as long as its always improving.
I agree. The Mini as it stands is really only competitive to the SFF crowd. Unless we're trying to covert the ten or so people buying SFF machines from ASUS or Aopen, having a third the hard drive space as the competition is not going to cut it.
The Mini in its current form factor is a perfect example of a) Ive & co. going a step or two too far to a point where it effects the future usability of the design and b) Apple's willingness to move forward with a badly flawed design rather than admit that either it is a flawed design or technology has made that design obsolete. Desktop hard drive sizes have skyrocketed since the Mini was introduced, ironically enough partially thanks to the digital media revolution. Apple's own low end computer has proven to be the design least able to cope with those changes.
I have to disagree with this. The mini is beautifully designed, and lack of a dedicated graphics card does not make it badly flawed. Hard drive size is only an issue for a small minority of people, and those buying the mini rarely fit into that category.
However, the mini does mean those wishing to go for a Mac that can be an all-round computer (speed, graphics, and future proof) have to step up to the iMac. This is not a flaw, at least for Apple, although those on a shoestring budget will certainly voice their complaints (normally teenage boys).
A slightly larger mini with solid graphics and desktop hard drives would definitely appeal to many in the computer industry, giving great design and lowering component costs, but it would draw a significant majority of consumers who would otherwise choose the iMac or Mac Pro.
Moreover, diversification nearly destroyed Apple. As it stands, consumers have a normal desktop and a pro desktop, a normal laptop and a pro laptop. In addition there is the iMac, which gives consumers everything in a very neat package.
The Apple 'thrust' centers around usability, not upgradability, which is why seeing the mini as being badly flawed just shows that it doesn't appeal to you, but I can verily assure you, that many people who are not so 'clued up' on technology will appreciate the low entry price the mini offers to the Mac platform.
In Jesus Christ,
Globetrotter,
It doesn't appeal to my very barebones needs family either. As the hard drive that ships with the Mini would be almost filled with songs. The video is not necessarily an hindrance, but the hard drive space is. The only use I see for the Mini is for use at businesses and school/libraries. Anyone that uses apps higher than office or internet and email is going to have to buy the low end iMac. On the other hand, the cheapest PC best buy sells is a perfectly capable general purpose machine. The only bottleneck is the hard drive. The reason it has to exist in its current form is to basically herd low end buyers up to the iMac. Apple would probably be best off dropping it and replacing it with a GMA imac.
Also, if someone is mentioning the basic Mac Mini and the super workstation Mac Pro as options, there is usually a failure to understand by Apple and its probably going to end up costing them lost revenue.
Also, if someone is mentioning the basic Mac Mini and the super workstation Mac Pro as options, there is usually a failure to understand by Apple and its probably going to end up costing them lost revenue.
Mac Mini as a developer system
I picked up a mini to use for iPhone development and it is a great match for that. Personally, I do not want an "all-in-one" desktop (iMac) and the difference/distance between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro series is huge. So, the choice was easy ... go with the Mini. I got a 22" LCD & 2GB Ram from NewEgg for ~$269 and reused an old PC keyboard and mouse. So my total out-of-pocket was far less then the lowest iMac.
I would like to see something other than chip set video in the next release mainly so that the mini could serve as an Apple TV on steroids if you wanted to go that route.
My home office currently has 2 dell desktops, 2 dell laptops, a Motion Computing tablet, 2 printers and the mac mini ... the mini is quiet and I would strongly consider replacing the dell desktops with minis to lower the noise level!
I picked up a mini to use for iPhone development and it is a great match for that. Personally, I do not want an "all-in-one" desktop (iMac) and the difference/distance between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro series is huge. So, the choice was easy ... go with the Mini. I got a 22" LCD & 2GB Ram from NewEgg for ~$269 and reused an old PC keyboard and mouse. So my total out-of-pocket was far less then the lowest iMac.
I would like to see something other than chip set video in the next release mainly so that the mini could serve as an Apple TV on steroids if you wanted to go that route.
My home office currently has 2 dell desktops, 2 dell laptops, a Motion Computing tablet, 2 printers and the mac mini ... the mini is quiet and I would strongly consider replacing the dell desktops with minis to lower the noise level!
I am in full agreement with regard to the HD 2400, and having perused the ATI / AMD (and Nvidia) list of graphics cards, I can only see a total replacement for both the 2400 and the 2600 (rather than an increase in VRAM).
Interestingly enough, I think having a 2400 inside the mini would drive me NUTS, since then the decision to upgrade to the iMac would be that much harder (since the line between the two models would start to blur).
I am all set for purchase as soon as the update comes around, but I think I will go for the iMac, because the x3100 inside the mini will be just *infuriating*, and even if they could put the not yet released GMA X4500 inside, it will probably still pale in comparison to the HD 2400. I simply can't bring myself to splash out £399 - £499 ($599 - $799) on a Mac that might only barely match my four year old Geforce 5200 128 MB in my (fathers) 7 year old PC. Even the iBook I am typing on now has dedicated graphics
In addition, the possibility that this might all take 4 months is really sad, since I am not waiting for the sake of waiting. I just think when buying a £799 ($1199) computer, it should have a graphics card that gives you solid (and relative future proof) performance, even if it is the bottom of the iMac range. I still have a niggling feeling the iMac might get updated tomorrow or the week after, even if the mini is stuck for the next few months in engineering at Apple.
Peace and God Bless!
One thing they could do to at least help the situation is to actually put some effort into fixing both the graphics drivers and OpenGL. Apple seems to think of the graphics system as little more than the enabler to quartz and core animation.
I am in full agreement with regard to the HD 2400, and having perused the ATI / AMD (and Nvidia) list of graphics cards, I can only see a total replacement for both the 2400 and the 2600 (rather than an increase in VRAM).
Interestingly enough, I think having a 2400 inside the mini would drive me NUTS, since then the decision to upgrade to the iMac would be that much harder (since the line between the two models would start to blur).
I am all set for purchase as soon as the update comes around, but I think I will go for the iMac, because the x3100 inside the mini will be just *infuriating*, and even if they could put the not yet released GMA X4500 inside, it will probably still pale in comparison to the HD 2400. I simply can't bring myself to splash out £399 - £499 ($599 - $799) on a Mac that might only barely match my four year old Geforce 5200 128 MB in my (fathers) 7 year old PC. Even the iBook I am typing on now has dedicated graphics
In addition, the possibility that this might all take 4 months is really sad, since I am not waiting for the sake of waiting. I just think when buying a £799 ($1199) computer, it should have a graphics card that gives you solid (and relative future proof) performance, even if it is the bottom of the iMac range. I still have a niggling feeling the iMac might get updated tomorrow or the week after, even if the mini is stuck for the next few months in engineering at Apple.
Peace and God Bless!
It wouldn't drive me "NUTS" only because the iMac's glossy screen remains a deal-breaker for me, but I see your point. A basic video card like the HD 2400 in the Mini would just spare me from buying a PC, but then Apple would definitely need to improve the low-end iMac with a HD 2600 PRO to maintain some distinction. But I think that none of this is likely to happen & we'll probably just see the iMacs receive a VRAM increase (ditto processor speed & storage) & see the Minis get the integrated X3100.
As for the timescale, I meant that rather than seeing these updates within 4 weeks (as rumoured in an article over 2 weeks ago now), going by the gist of this recent AI article these updates may take a few weeks longer, which would be a real drag for me as I've been ready to buy for weeks now. Updates tomorrow would be a surprise & some people already seem to be ruling out 1st April because of some current Mac sale lasting until 3rd April, so let's hope no later than 8th April.
This article doesn't get any more interesting every time I look at it. Today must be a slow news day.
I understand what apple is trying to do with the Mini, get an Apple in the door. These machines are made for first time PC owners, Mom and Pop, Young Children etc., and they should continue the MINI I really want one but they should ALSO MAKE an upgraded Mini.
The new Mini should offer a consumer and and Advanced version.
Pro should offer at least a 256mb 3D Card, 300gig HD, and Dual Core 2.8 or 3+ Priced at 799.99
Consumer should have the non 3d card, 100 gig HD, Dual Core 2.1-2.4 Priced at 599.99
Also when redesigning the iMAC put a freaking POWER button on the backside of the monitor for the love of all..
The new Mini should offer a consumer and and Advanced version.
Pro should offer at least a 256mb 3D Card, 300gig HD, and Dual Core 2.8 or 3+ Priced at 799.99
Consumer should have the non 3d card, 100 gig HD, Dual Core 2.1-2.4 Priced at 599.99
Also when redesigning the iMAC put a freaking POWER button on the backside of the monitor for the love of all..
It wouldn't drive me "NUTS" only because the iMac's glossy screen remains a deal-breaker for me, but I see your point. A basic video card like the HD 2400 in the Mini would just spare me from buying a PC, but then Apple would definitely need to improve the low-end iMac with a HD 2600 PRO to maintain some distinction. But I think that none of this is likely to happen & we'll probably just see the iMacs receive a VRAM increase (ditto processor speed & storage) & see the Minis get the integrated X3100.
As for the timescale, I meant that rather than seeing these updates within 4 weeks (as rumoured in an article over 2 weeks ago now), going by the gist of this recent AI article these updates may take a few weeks longer, which would be a real drag for me as I've been ready to buy for weeks now. Updates tomorrow would be a surprise & some people already seem to be ruling out 1st April because of some current Mac sale lasting until 3rd April, so let's hope no later than 8th April.
I don't think the glossy screen would be a problem in my case, but I haven't really used them yet at great length, so it might well be. Essentially it highlights the fact that someone with a standard $699 box and monitor from Dell, that wants to migrate to Mac and have something that will play games with a matte screen is forced to the Mac Pro. In reality, I think Apple should address it by giving a matte screen iMac, even if just as an option, but I suspect recasting the mold for the aluminum has proved to be a hassle they don't want to address at this point in time.
I've also been ready to buy for weeks, but although in principle I argue against waiting just for the sake of getting the newest and best, the HD 2400 was actually a step backwards for the iMac, so the update will be well worth it. I don't think the graphics update will just be a VRAM update considering Apple's recent choices with regard to available graphics cards, and the lower price / performance ratio the 2400 / 2600 will provide. Moreover, VRAM doesn't make much of a difference with regard to gaming performance, which I suspect is the principle use of the graphics card in an iMac.
I'm gonna hold out for a surprise tomorrow or the week after, since if pressure from Intel drove the MB / MBP update, then I can only assume Apple are busting a gut to finish the desktops before processor supply starts to pose a problem.
In Jesus Christ,
GB,
This article doesn't get any more interesting every time I look at it. Today must be a slow news day.
honestly... they should rename this article to "mac mini not dead yet rumor not dead yet?"
consumers choice
Hey guys, this is my first post so be nice to me please I hope my english is good enought to make you understand what I think about the mac mini updates.
I would wish a standard mini configuration for standard consumers:
I also agree with you about a mini pro pro:
Some reasons why I would prefer the mac mini and why I would rather buy the mini than the imac or a pc tower system:
1.) I have some great monitors around here so why should I buy a system with an integrated monitor?
2.) I can take the mini where ever I want to take it with me.
3.) I hate pc towers and even more I hate the sound (noise) they make. The mini I almost don'T hear if I listen to some songs.
4.) Did you ever sit in a room with many computers and do you know what air a standard tower system generates? The mini also generates heat but not like a pc tower system. Some of our systems here are water cooled but this starts to get a pain in the a** if you ask me.
So that's why I love the mac mini
Hey guys, this is my first post so be nice to me please
I hope my english is good enought to make you understand what I think about the mac mini updates.I would wish a standard mini configuration for standard consumers:
That's a good point !
I also agree with you about a mini pro pro:
If possible it should get a maximum Ram of 4GB and optional a 512 3D Graphic Card.
Some reasons why I would prefer the mac mini and why I would rather buy the mini than the imac or a pc tower system:
1.) I have some great monitors around here so why should I buy a system with an integrated monitor?
2.) I can take the mini where ever I want to take it with me.
3.) I hate pc towers and even more I hate the sound (noise) they make. The mini I almost don'T hear if I listen to some songs.
4.) Did you ever sit in a room with many computers and do you know what air a standard tower system generates? The mini also generates heat but not like a pc tower system. Some of our systems here are water cooled but this starts to get a pain in the a** if you ask me.
So that's why I love the mac mini
slow news day??
personally, i'm glad the mini isn't appearing to be dead. but . . . can we have some new news . . . the easter weekend break didn't give the macnews finders and macnews makers some time to get some stuff out for us . . . ?
personally, i'm glad the mini isn't appearing to be dead. but . . . can we have some new news . . . the easter weekend break didn't give the macnews finders and macnews makers some time to get some stuff out for us . . . ?
For sure, I think one of the biggest obstacles to more migration from PC to Mac is the hardware. But Apple can do so much more here by offering consumers relatively few additions without necessarily stretching themselves into competing for every market. At least a BTO video card option in the Mini would help no end.
I wish I could share your optimism about video card upgrades for iMacs, but I see nothing in Apple's recent history that allows me to believe it'll be anything more than increased VRAM (which you're right about not making that much difference for gaming). Even with the old iMac's X1600 Apple hung on almost to the point of embarrassment, so I'll certainly be surprised if they drop the HD 2400. But I hope I'm wrong.
Though I don't think Apple will allow themselves to be pressured by Intel (or anyone), iMac updates tomorrow or next week are quite possible. Anyway, I hope so for you guys, though I expect to be waiting for updated Minis a little while longer.
I think we'll see the Mini, in it's current form, dissappearing as ATV gains popularity.
I can seeselling a Pro Mini, offering similar specs to the iMac, in a Micro tower form. That's be excellent for other switchers, lime me, who still want to play games that just don't work/appear on consoles.
I disagree...I don't think we'll ever see a "tower". That's just not Apple's model. They value simplicity. The mini, although not exceedingly powerful, is remarkably small and simple. It's a lot more attractive to most customers than a tower is. Go check out the August special event of 07 when Jobs unveiled the new iMac...he clearly said it's an "all-in-one world" and he thinks that the iMac is a better way to have a desktop solution than a "tower". The mini is sort of in between in that it's way smaller than a tower but yet it doesn't require you to ditch your current monitor.
That would essentially negate any reason to buy an iMac because you'd get more performance for less money buying the Mac Mini Advanced with an ACD.
And nobody would buy a non-Advanced iMac when for $200 more you get such a significant boost in performance.
And I am not sure Apple could put together a system with a 320GB 2.5" HDD, 2GB of RAM, a 2.8GHz Core2 Extreme Duo, and a high-end GPU for $800 at component cost, at least with the margins they demand.
How on earth would you @#$%& know this when Apple doesn't offer a tower model? We can't compare sales of the Mini to sales of a model that doesn't exist so how can you say the Mini is a lot more attractive to most customers than a tower would be? And given that the majority of the desktop PC-buying world seem pretty content to buy just such a tower from HP and Dell and countless other PC makers, I'd say your assumption is wrong.
And guess what? Steve Jobs is wrong about that. All you're doing it repeating his marketing-speak about all-in-ones, but as we can plainly see, the majority of consumers out there are not buying all-in-one desktop computers.
And you know what? A Mini attached to a PC monitor is not an all-in-one so your argument is something of a non sequitur.
Good question -- ask:
http://1394ta.org/
S3200 news is here -- looks like it will be FW1600 this Spring, and then FW3200; there are Sharp Aquos BluRay players w/FireWire -- that's new:
http://1394ta.org/Download/Members/Newsletter/1394TA_Jan08Newsletter.pdf
http://1394ta.org/
S3200 news is here -- looks like it will be FW1600 this Spring, and then FW3200; there are Sharp Aquos BluRay players w/FireWire -- that's new:
http://1394ta.org/Download/Members/Newsletter/1394TA_Jan08Newsletter.pdf