Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It would be foolish to discontinue the Mac Mini, to do so would just open up a gap in Apple's line-up. They just need to update it! It would be cool if it had the mini-display connection (with adaptor for those with DVI etc.) to gear it towards the new LCD screen for the MacBooks.
 
If your USB devices are slower, this is due to communication overhead, polling, and how every piece of data has to go through the CPU to get where it's going.

I've found that my USB/Firewire hard drive enclosure gives slightly worse performance and noticeably higher CPU usage when on USB. Oh, and there's also the annoyance of it taking up two USB ports that way (one for data, one for power), whereas it can power itself entirely from the single Firewire cable.

Communication overhead? I don't know a lot about Firewire, but USB has several transmission methods, and when using stream pipes, the data is raw. That means your driver controls how often the host needs to poll, and if the USB device has a sophisticated chipset, it can throw data at the host however it wants. USB clients don't HAVE to be naive "here's a memory address, now give me that block of data" drones, they just often are because of the popularity of the cheap generic chips.

USB is again open with power. Often front ports on PCs are quite limited because their power is sourced from a rather distant part of the motherboard, but your standard full USB port should support up to 1.5A these days. While it is true that FireWire can support various voltages and up to 45W, for most consumer devices this is ridiculous overkill and a costly addition to the power supply of any portable computer that supports it. This type of thing shows that Apple really is saving money by ditching FireWire, and if you have hardcore devices that need that type of power without taking the easy option and having a power adapter, you should probably have a MacBook Pro.

Not quite. To replicate Target Disk Mote, you'd have to add support for TCP/IP, DHCP, probably Bonjour, oh, and some sort of filesharing protocol into EFI. (Some of this is already present in the MacBook Air.)

But wait, there's more! Target Disk Mode makes the entire drive accessible to the host machine; that is, it appears as an HFS+ block device. You can reformat it, repartition it, whatever; you're directly accessing the hard drive.

For a theoretical Ethernet Disk Mode to work and to be as fully-featured, you'd need to have a special network block device driver of some sort; sharing over AFP/SMB wouldn't cut it. Oh, and the concurrency issues of having multiple people connected would be fun, too.

This Ethernet alternative is mostly just speculation and rumour, but with an EFI update it's completely plausible if considered necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't put in support already, since the Air has that ability. If thats not the case:

- For retrieving data from a machine that will not boot
The hard drives in the new machines are very easy to remove, and SATA to USB converters are easy to get.

- For entering the drive to perform commands or reformat/partition etc
Network boot, or boot a Linux Live CD. The latter is what I've always done with Windows machines, and there's no reason why it needs to be any different for Macs. It's not quite as nice as just a block device, but if you care that much, get that SATA to USB.

If you don't want to do either of these things, you can probably boot into OSX and use a standard network share. Not as fast, but I can't say I've ever heard Target Disk Mode being praised for its speed. It is useful in an emergency, and there are alternatives for that.
 
Shows they can always make a low-end desktop.

No matter what anyone says, I just found the bottom line:

"Blue Ocean Strategy"

discussed here:

Isn't that what i was implying though? :). Apple doesn't want to compete in the desktop gray box market. But to make a headless Mac Mini, they need a gray box to handle the heat output of better components... make sense now?
 
Isn't that what i was implying though? :). Apple doesn't want to compete in the desktop gray box market. But to make a headless Mac Mini, they need a gray box to handle the heat output of better components... make sense now?

Apple can make a low-end desktop if they want to. They have in the past. The new "Blue Ocean Strategy" makes it so they don't have to - not an Engineering issue, but a Business one...
 
The glass screens are paving the way for touchscreen on all apple computers...
Oh yeah, right. So we can really see all of the fingerprints. :rolleyes:

Steve Jobs pronounced recently that touch screen Macs "haven't made a lot of sense to us." They don't make any sense to me either. My shoulders hurt just thinking about it.

Sorry, back on topic now...
 
Apple can make a low-end desktop if they want to. They have in the past. The new "Blue Ocean Strategy" makes it so they don't have to - not an Engineering issue, but a Business one...

But it's the same thing. The Mac Mini was cool on release because of it's tiny size - just the fact that it was so small and compact made it part of Apple's so called "Blue Ocean" strategy as you say - it was a completely unique form factor in a sea of ATX cases.
 
The Mini plus Plex makes for a super-easy living room media center. The mini handles 720p playback no problem (although it tends to choke on 1080p).

Like a lot of other people I got started with OSX via the mini. 4 years later and my house contains 3 minis, 1 MB, a MBP, a Mac Pro, and countless iPods. It'll be a shame to see the Mini go if it's discontinued.
 
But it's the same thing. The Mac Mini was cool on release because of it's tiny size - just the fact that it was so small and compact made it part of Apple's so called "Blue Ocean" strategy as you say - it was a completely unique form factor in a sea of ATX cases.

At the time. Now, Apple sees it as no longer needed, as with FW on the Macbooks.

Apple's calling the shots from here on out on its "Blue Ocean", not customers who want a certain model or port (ha, ha, pun....).
 
true that. the atom-based machines and the minis are in entirely different classes. the atom is a MID-class (mobile internet device, as per intel's marketing) cpu, to which even the entry G4 in the original mini comes way faster, despite a lower clock (seriously-super-scalar, out-of-order execution, high-speed caches, etc). the atom competes with the top of the arm lineup, not the laptop/desktop bunch.

The Mini G4 1.25 GHz Geek Bench score = 565
The Mini G4 1.42 GHz Geek Bench score = 816
The Atom 1.6 GHz Geek Bench score = 965
 
I can't imagine a world without at least one competitively priced Apple desktop computer. There are lots of people who don't want their monitor built-in.
 
Oh yeah, right. So we can really see all of the fingerprints. :rolleyes:

Steve Jobs pronounced recently that touch screen Macs "haven't made a lot of sense to us." They don't make any sense to me either. My shoulders hurt just thinking about it.

Sorry, back on topic now...

I agree totally! What does the OP suggest next? Add a windshield wiper to the screen for all those lovely fingerprints? :rolleyes:
 
At the time. Now, Apple sees it as no longer needed, as with FW on the Macbooks.

Apple's calling the shots from here on out on its "Blue Ocean", not customers who want a certain model or port (ha, ha, pun....).

Heh, i guess you can't get what i'm trying to say. S'okay though!
 
It's the least popular Mac with the smallest upsell potential. No duh they're going to discontinue it.

That's because they were marketing it to the wrong people (the Average Joe consumer, not to be confused with Joe the Plumber:D) whereas they should target the car tuners. Nearly every car tuner's website has some mention of installing a Mini in their ride.
 
What a joke. That's only model for home use that have potential for a green home computer. The iMac can't be environment friendly since they can't be reused. A screen have the lifetime of three or two computers. A put a hole screen in the garbage only because the cpu are a little slow can never be environment friendly. Many have their machines upp and running 7x24 so it's not enviroment friendly not be able to turn off the screen. I really hope that the environment organisations have a look in to this. It's not only about using reusable metals on chassis to make a green computer.
 
That's because they were marketing it to the wrong people (the Average Joe consumer, not to be confused with Joe the Plumber:D) whereas they should target the car tuners. Nearly every car tuner's website has some mention of installing a Mini in their ride.

Not only that, but I know a lot of people using them as various home servers, be that media or web/email servers, and for other quasi-embedded systems. Why buy an xserve, when you can have a mini running all your low cpu/drive use server needs :D
 
Apple just cares about how to get your money out of your pockets POINT That's it !! and that's why they killed the mini !

But no problem, as long as there are enough stupid and blind customers they will continue with nonsense events where they present new products like: the "NEW" Macbook Pro, with a new Power Button...great hm? 3 Months later: the new Macbook Pro with a green Power Button...COOOOOL !!!

Costs ? well with green power button $20.000 and next month, after they release the NEWER one with yellow Power Button it costs $25.000 AND ONE MONTH later you will see the NEEEW Macbook Pro with.....guess what: yellow Power Button....and the customers scream: Yeeeaahhh Yellow Power Button THX APPLE ! THX Mr. Jobs ! what a development
 
Man I really wanted a Mac Mini but after seeing the out-dated specs still and looking at the Dell Studio desktop hybrid.. I may go that route and pay $500 after tax/shipping w/ better specs OTD. My dad works at Boeing/Spirit so the employee discount is substantial. I just want the OS X though =/ Can't win them all I guess. bah.
 
False Alarm

Well Wired is calling it a false alarm:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/10/false-alarm-mac.html

Before Apple's quarterly earnings call, which took place 2 p.m. PDT Tuesday, some were speculating that the company would kill off its Mac mini. However, Apple made no mention of its long-neglected portable desktop during the call.
Gizmodo received the tip this morning from European Apple retailers who said they were told to cease ordering the mini computers. Because Apple didn't announce discontinuing the product, this might indicate the company plans to roll out an upgrade for the device soon.
It's certainly understandable why some would suspect Apple was killing off the Mac mini: The device hasn't seen an upgrade in 441 days; before the stagnation, Apple refreshed the computer after 188 days, according to MacRumors. Many have been predicting the Mac mini's impending doom for months.
We'll look into this further Wednesday and provide an update. Meanwhile, check out Wired.com's coverage of Apple's quarterly earnings call, where Steve Jobs made a rare appearance to announce that Apple has become the third largest handset maker in the world thanks to the iPhone.


I for one would much rather see an update, since i have been holding off buying one for just such a reason. I want a simple home theatre PC and i think this is the best option out there right now, if they would just update it!
.
 
Real information!

Gah! This thread has gotten even worse than the "End of life" thread! Hundreds of wishful thinking posts - when are we going to get some kind of concrete 'rumor' to chew on again? It's been too long!
 
The Mini G4 1.25 GHz Geek Bench score = 565
The Mini G4 1.42 GHz Geek Bench score = 816
The Atom 1.6 GHz Geek Bench score = 965

the difference is due to the memory and string subsystems (and fpu, but on that later).

Code:
     g4@1.42  n270@1.6
int: 1019      849
mem:  569     1211
str:  325     1201

the fp comparison (again, largely in atom's favor) is totally pointless as the multi-issue altivec of the g4 creams atom's sse units, and in most scenarios where fp matters, simd matters too.

an in general (and according to the result browser) all units above are in scalar arithmetics, largely neglecting the potent simd units of the g4.

g4's clear weakness lies in its memory bus (166MHz), which begs the question how efficient were those tests in terms of cache misses (my guess - not very much).

again, architecturally, atom is p5-level tech (dual-issue, in-order pipeline), just with all the later ISA extensions added (important for forward compatibility) and with a much more modern memory bus subsystem, which, of course, helps a lot. especially with poorly-optimised code.
 
This is not a good time to cut the Mac Mini. Customers who use them now and want to buy a replacement will switch back to PCs rather than pay for far more computer than they need or want. If the economy in the USA were better, that might not be a problem. At the moment, and probably for the next few years, at least, it is very much a problem, a problem more cheaply solved with a PC with a FireWire port, a copy of Windows, Photoshop and a web browser. Oh, and a backup app. Each backs up to a portable FireWire drive.

I support a few home-office users who use Minis now, quite happily. One of the benefits is quick replacement. If there's no Mac Mini to buy, none of them will pay for an iMac or MacBook, since there are no apps in their workflows that aren't also available on PC.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.