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
Fantastic news!
I love the mini, despite the size, and the integrated graphics, it would do the job nicely for me. max out the RAM, and it would be a great little machine for 'mobile' recording with logic. just hope they will upgrade the firewire ports to a FW 800 and I'd be very happy.
My trusty old G4 mini is still going strong, and makes a lovely little machine for the family for everyday tasks
I love the mini, despite the size, and the integrated graphics, it would do the job nicely for me. max out the RAM, and it would be a great little machine for 'mobile' recording with logic. just hope they will upgrade the firewire ports to a FW 800 and I'd be very happy.
My trusty old G4 mini is still going strong, and makes a lovely little machine for the family for everyday tasks
No. If your that concerned, you might want to just crack 'er open and get yourself some compressed air to spray it out.
Or you could just not.. My Dell looks like the inside of a 30 year old vacuum cleaner bag and it runs just fine.. maybe a bit loud but i'm not really in a production environment where it would matter.
The problem about it, that I am seeing is that the iMac has always been considered the "consumer" desktop (all-in-one) machine that Apple sells. If your needs involve having more internal drives or more than 4GB of RAM, or a video card that can drive dual monitors or a 30" display, then you MUST buy a Mac Pro, their super Professional-grade Mac tower, that starts well over $2000 for the CPU.
The Mac Mini does not fill in the gap in between, IN FACT, the mini is a lower powered system than the iMac even, with less RAM upgrability, slower internal HD, and a much lowlier video card.
It just doesn't make sense, Apple.
The Mac Mini does not fill in the gap in between, IN FACT, the mini is a lower powered system than the iMac even, with less RAM upgrability, slower internal HD, and a much lowlier video card.
It just doesn't make sense, Apple.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!
The macmini comes back to us now at the turn of the tide
Funny quote to use, but the only problem is that when Gandalf returned, he was vastly more powerful.
Yep, they NEED to put a small, cool running mobile card on it. It would be great if they got a new low power Nvidia Geforce mobile card from the 9 series. The new 9 series cards (Geforce go 9300M, 9500, 9650M, etc) from Nvidia have their "Purevideo HD" engine which offloads H264/VC-1 decoding for video files and Blu-ray disc playback. In addition it offers video enhancement / de-interlacing / inverse cosine, etc etc for better quality playback, and not too mention some basic 3D graphics acceleration that would blow an integrated Intel out of the water while staying small and very cool running. Even a last generation geforce 8400M with Purevideo v1 that they have laying around from the Macbook pros would be great.
ANYTHING but integrated Intel crap. Not even the next centrino "Montevina" has video decoding offload. Macbooks have to wait until Q2 2010 for centrino "Capella" just to get playback of H264/VC-1 and Blu-ray without sucking all the power and maxing out the processor.
By the way, does anyone know what they stuck in the AppleTV for H264 decoding? It's a coprocessor DSP of some kind, right? Obviously if they have it in the AppleTV, they could put it in the macbook, right? Why haven't they?
It'd be nice if Apple actually used those decoding features. Not to mention UVD vs. PureVideoHD.
The GMA X4500HD has features you want.
The GeForce Go 7300 is in the AppleTV but I doubt it's used for decoding as well.
Your opinions would change if you did some research.
It would also mean the possibility of a 3.5" drive (which is bigger, faster, cheaper), since TC has one built-in. We only need a case that's perhaps a bit taller to include everything else, but otherwise I'd be happy with that form-factor too.
It would instantly turn the Mini from a machine that is severely bottlenecked by a tiny laptop hard drive back into a very competitive machine.
Preaching to the choir, brother.
Conceptually, I have no problem with the Mini. I certainly has its place in Apple's line-up, but I don't understand why it has to be so signficantly underpowered and overpriced when compared to the iMac. Apple really needs to make a larger "Mini" that is essentially everything in an iMac but without the monitor while pushing the prices of the existing Minis down... way down. That's a @#$%& no-brainer at this point, and the more Windows switchers who migrate to the platform, the more Apple is going to feel the demand for hardware configurations those folks are more accustomed to.
I suspect Apple may have underestimated the rate at which Windows users would move over to OS X because this feels like something they should have had on the market last year. You know, hook them with the inexpensive Mini and then reel them in with a midrange tower. I know so many Windows users right now who are curious about OS X but have no interest in Apple's hardware because the Mini is underpowered/overpriced and the Mac Pro is out of their budget and the iMac is just too limited for what they're accustomed to.
Of all the odd decisions Apple has made, this omission at this point in their history is one of the most puzzling. They've got momentum and people are checking them out because of the iPhone and the iPod and they've got a pathetic line-up of machines.
Meanwhile, you have long-time Mac users like me who are considering switching to a PC because (IMO) the new iMacs suck, especially the displays.
A few points...
- A 12.7mm Blu-Ray drive that would fit in a Mini would cost more then the Mini itself. The readers that I can find are about $400 (and they are all tray-based, to boot) and the writers are about $1000 (though at least they are slot-load).
- The Blu-Ray Mac Mini would also require HDCP output (be it over DVI or HDMI) and since the Apple Cinema Displays do not support HDCP, you would have to use a third-party display and I don't see your local Apple Store stocking, say, the Dell FP2408.
- And I don't see the Mini having a video card (8600M GT) that significantly outguns the iMac (if I am reading this correctly).
I'd think it would have to do the H.264 decoding, considering the rather anemic cpu in the ATV.
Yea, so all they need to do is make the Mac Mini ALSO have the functionality of Time Capsule, then I would be extremely happy! ;-)
So make Blu-Ray BTO then. aka give the consumer what THEY want! ;-)
I don't like the Mac Pro cases -- they're LONG overdue for a redesign!
I don't like the Mac Pro cases -- they're LONG overdue for a redesign!
NO, FireWire 3200 is due any day now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#FireWire_S3200_.28name_not_yet_set.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#FireWire_S3200_.28name_not_yet_set.29
Awesome
My 1.66 Core Duo is the best Mac i have ever owned. If you don't do a lot of video compiling and and just want a processor upgrade this is the way to go. 96/24 sound, DVD playback, runs Aperture and the other semi-pro apps. Can't wait to have this new version. Two silent powerhouses driving my A/V needs. Think I'll add a HDHomeRun as well.
My 1.66 Core Duo is the best Mac i have ever owned. If you don't do a lot of video compiling and and just want a processor upgrade this is the way to go. 96/24 sound, DVD playback, runs Aperture and the other semi-pro apps. Can't wait to have this new version. Two silent powerhouses driving my A/V needs. Think I'll add a HDHomeRun as well.
While it's true that it will do all the tasks you mentioned with ease, PCs in a comparable price range will do them significantly faster.
I'll believe it when I see it. I stopped by the Sonystyle store today and they had a photo/movie appliance for $399. I saw a USB port and various memory card ports, but I didn't see a FireWire port despite the fact that most DSLRs and camcorders have them. A lot of PCs don't have FireWire ports either, and in the few cases they do they usually only have FW400, not FW800. FireWire isn't exactly expensive to implement nowadays. FireWire is looking in pretty bad shape despite its obvious superiority to USB. If you can't get mass adoption of FW800, how will you get it for FW3200?