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 Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
B_Gates said:
Getting your OS's confused there. That's a Windows trait not an OS X trait.
I've yet to install a version of Windows that has run FASTER on older hardware then the previous OS that was installed on it.
B_Gates said:
Enlighten me then. You basically said that this system would run slower with Tiger installed and I responded, in a round about way, that OS X has a history of actually running faster with each release.
Windows on the other hand. I have a nice little Dell Latitude with 512MB RAM, upgraded 40GB drive, 500Mhz system. Windows 2000 Pro ran pretty well on it. Upgraded it to XP. It runs OK, but even after service tweaking, and a few other optimizations it still much slower then 2000 Pro. (Boot time is faster but that is relative since I reboot the system once a month.) Hmmm wonder if I will be able to run Longhorn on it.
I fail to see how users will be disappointed with Tiger esp considering it will prob run faster then Panther on that hardware.
SiliconAddict said:Enlighten me then. You basically said that this system would run slower with Tiger installed and I responded that OS X has a history of actually running faster with each release.
Windows on the other hand. I have a nice little Dell Latitude with 512MB RAM, upgraded 40GB drive, 500Mhz system. Windows 2000 Pro ran pretty well on it. Upgraded it to XP. It runs OK, but even after service tweaking, and a few other optimizations it still much slower then 2000 Pro. (Boot time is faster but that is relative since I reboot the system once a month.) Hmmm wonder if I will be able to run Longhorn on it.
I agree with you & I will concede that you are correct. However put yourself in the shoes of a window guy or gal that know nothing of Apple & that person makes buying decisions based on the speed & or size of parts.
Example: My dad just bought a pc, he wanted the fastest processor, the most ram, the biggest video card & all just because he wanted a fast pc, all he does is run money & surf the web & use excel.
Hi all......
I'm new here. I've been with Apple since '84 (I loooove them)
Soooooo,
Aside from percieved beauty.....The Mac Mini IS an EMac with a facelift.....
MacMini is certainly beautiful....I'll buy 1 just for that!!
However....I Do believe it is underpowered......(EMac was rated WORST product of the year by some consumer org, right??)
Thoughts?
SvK
I'm new here. I've been with Apple since '84 (I loooove them)
Soooooo,
Aside from percieved beauty.....The Mac Mini IS an EMac with a facelift.....
MacMini is certainly beautiful....I'll buy 1 just for that!!
However....I Do believe it is underpowered......(EMac was rated WORST product of the year by some consumer org, right??)
Thoughts?
SvK
Interesting...
Just had a reply posted with a response, then posted again... then all 3 disappeared.
Monitored list... sure, but what did I say?
Dick
Just had a reply posted with a response, then posted again... then all 3 disappeared.
Monitored list... sure, but what did I say?
Dick
Should have included the keyboard and mouse for $499 and made it BYOM only. People will have to shell out 100 bucks for a matching Apple keyboard and mouse.
And 256k of RAM? Come ONNNN!!!! We all know that isnt even enough to run OSX. So right there is ANOTHER an automatic upgrade charge.
Also, now that the G5 has been out for a while and is in mass production, I cant see why they couldnt offer it AT LEAST as an upgrade. Hell, some of the new games coming out wont even RUN on less than a G5.
This was a great idea, but when you really think about it... its not. The iMac is a much better value.
And 256k of RAM? Come ONNNN!!!! We all know that isnt even enough to run OSX. So right there is ANOTHER an automatic upgrade charge.
Also, now that the G5 has been out for a while and is in mass production, I cant see why they couldnt offer it AT LEAST as an upgrade. Hell, some of the new games coming out wont even RUN on less than a G5.
This was a great idea, but when you really think about it... its not. The iMac is a much better value.
I wouldn't count on Tiger running better on old hardware.
How long have you been using an Apple?
OS X when it first came out was coded new from the ground up. Even the compiler was new. As OS X matured the code was cleaned up and the compilers became more efficient. The result was a faster overall experience. However OS X did have to leave a few old legacy machines behind as well as legacy software.
When Jaguar first appeared, Apple had to fight off a class action lawsuit from it's user base because it wouldn't fully support quartz with the 1 - 2 year old 16mb graphics cards. Apple did finally get quartz to run crippled on these machines but they certainly didn't run the OS GUI elements faster.
Now Apple is at a cross-roads again, they are moving on to 64bit G5 processors. They want to optimize the code and compilers for the future and not look back. They have a chance to take a commanding lead in this market before Microsoft can get out a good 64 bit OS themselves. Apple wants to add gui elements that need at least 64 mb graphics cards and take the lead in this area as well.
Even if they sell 10 million mac minis, Apple is not going to let the mini define their cutting edge. This mini defines the minimum configuration for the future. It definitely runs panther well, and it will probably run the first release of Tiger at an acceptable level. However It will not run faster and faster with each release.
In fact I wouldn't be surprized if Apple updates the mini with 512mb of ram, and a 64mb GPU about the same time that Tiger is released in 5 months.
How long have you been using an Apple?
OS X when it first came out was coded new from the ground up. Even the compiler was new. As OS X matured the code was cleaned up and the compilers became more efficient. The result was a faster overall experience. However OS X did have to leave a few old legacy machines behind as well as legacy software.
When Jaguar first appeared, Apple had to fight off a class action lawsuit from it's user base because it wouldn't fully support quartz with the 1 - 2 year old 16mb graphics cards. Apple did finally get quartz to run crippled on these machines but they certainly didn't run the OS GUI elements faster.
Now Apple is at a cross-roads again, they are moving on to 64bit G5 processors. They want to optimize the code and compilers for the future and not look back. They have a chance to take a commanding lead in this market before Microsoft can get out a good 64 bit OS themselves. Apple wants to add gui elements that need at least 64 mb graphics cards and take the lead in this area as well.
Even if they sell 10 million mac minis, Apple is not going to let the mini define their cutting edge. This mini defines the minimum configuration for the future. It definitely runs panther well, and it will probably run the first release of Tiger at an acceptable level. However It will not run faster and faster with each release.
In fact I wouldn't be surprized if Apple updates the mini with 512mb of ram, and a 64mb GPU about the same time that Tiger is released in 5 months.
I actually like this move.. I feel like a lot of people don't convert from windows because they think they can only use 1 mouse button, this gives them the option to use the keyboard and mouse they are accustomed to. It makes the switch just that much easier.chopper@neo.rr. said:
B_Gates said:
In that regards yes. The mini would not work for him. Anyone is goes into a purchase actively comparing specs, looking for the most clocks, RAM, etc isnt going to get one of these. The mini isnt targeting spec hunters. It is targeting average users who:
1. Are sick of malware.
2. Sick of needing to shell out extra money to secure their system (viral and spyware.)
3. Looking for the basics.
Working in an IT shop, supporting basically my entire neighborhood (Yay for being the alpha geek), relatives, and even employees home computers I can tell you there ARE a lot of people who fall into the above criteria. Hell most of those people wouldnt know a Ghz from a MB if a tech bit em in the butt. Until now the only legit recommendation I could give to these people was go Dell. Its cheap. Its affordable. *shrugs* That was all they were looking for. (In a couple of cases I did steer them to the Apple store because I knew their personality and computing habits.)
Now when people come to me I dont have to steer them away from the Mac simply because they cant cough up that kind of money. I can tell them to at least go in and take a look. Talk to a sales rep.
As has been discussed in other forums there is a magic price point (IMHO its in the $500 range.) where speed and features becomes less of a concern. As long as the system isnt slow as heck people are going to start focusing on other features. Features being ease of use, security, and yes even to a certain extent looks. Like it or not viruses, Trojans, worms, spyware, and adware are all taking a toll on the reputation of Windows. Ive seen some VERY frustrated people come to me. Hell Ive seen some very frustrated people in my office. I cant tell you how many instances of adware are in our office. Just know its a lot. There is nothing more frustrating then having 6 popups show up when you are working on a PowerPoint presentation, and that frustration WILL spill over into mini sales if Apple plays this right.
Add to the fact that there is at least another 2 year wait for Longhorn (With the possibility of XP reloaded which should be some cute wanna-be XP Second Edition sometime this year.) and you have some serious inertia going in Apples favor.
digitalbiker said:How long have you been using an Apple?
OS X when it first came out was coded new from the ground up. Even the compiler was new. As OS X matured the code was cleaned up and the compilers became more efficient. The result was a faster overall experience. However OS X did have to leave a few old legacy machines behind as well as legacy software.
When Jaguar first appeared, Apple had to fight off a class action lawsuit from it's user base because it wouldn't fully support quartz with the 1 - 2 year old 16mb graphics cards. Apple did finally get quartz to run crippled on these machines but they certainly didn't run the OS GUI elements faster.
Now Apple is at a cross-roads again, they are moving on to 64bit G5 processors. They want to optimize the code and compilers for the future and not look back. They have a chance to take a commanding lead in this market before Microsoft can get out a good 64 bit OS themselves. Apple wants to add gui elements that need at least 64 mb graphics cards and take the lead in this area as well.
Even if they sell 10 million mac minis, Apple is not going to let the mini define their cutting edge. This mini defines the minimum configuration for the future. It definitely runs panther well, and it will probably run the first release of Tiger at an acceptable level. However It will not run faster and faster with each release.
In fact I wouldn't be surprized if Apple updates the mini with 512mb of ram, and a 64mb GPU about the same time that Tiger is released in 5 months.
This is totally wrong!
OS X is intelligent enough to run and exploit multiple configurations on different CPUs and GPUs.
The fact that Tiger takes advantage of 64-bit hareware does not mean that it will run worse (than Panther) on 32-bit hardware.
At some future time, when 64-bits are the norm, Apple will likely not support 32-bit on some new release of OS X.
This is not that time!
Tiger runs well on G3s!
BTW, OS 9 runs fine under Tiger.
Goliath said:
Thanks, this reminds me of my second question: can you use an external, third-party DVD burner with iDVD? My brother would like to buy something that's dual-layer (and LightScribe-capable too if possible) and I was also wondering if you'd get the complete iLife suite with combo-drive-only Mac minis.