I really want a highend mini. But I NEED at least 64mb VRAM and 2gb RAM as optional would be nice, not necessary, but nice. Another need is the 4200rpm drives need to go and have 5200 or faster drives. Also before I buy I really need to see speeds of at least 1.7/1.8 ghz. 1.42ghz just isn't going to make it for me right now. I told myself I'd wait for at least double what my PB has before buying anything.
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 update?
- Thread starter amac4me
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
joecool85 said:
Don't think they have a G4 that will do 1.7ghz... could be wrong. I suspect it will be 1.33ghz and 1.5ghz with a 64mb GPU. Either a 5200ultra/go based GPU or if we are lucky a 9600mobility.
5400rpm drives are likely, with the capacity staying the same. Also, there is no way we will get dual displays on the mini... the iMac can't do it (officially) so I doubt that the mini ever will.
That said, I have seen a cable that takes a DVI input and puts out 2 VGA signals. The computer sees it as one wide display, or sometimes as two distinct monitors. Under Windows XP using a 5200ultra it picks up as two analog monitors. Never tried on one a Mac, but I will if I can bum the cable of a former co-worker of mine (we used them for some systems at a place I used to work).
I agree with MrGreen on this one, 1.33 and 1.5 sounds about right, but I still hold my own that the iBooks should get a bump before the mini. Although probably less likely, should be higher on Apple's priorities. The hard thing I guess for Apple is determining if they want the mac mini to be close in power to the eMac or the iBooks close in power to the Powerbooks. I think the ibooks should be bumped up first, followed by a mac mini bump, followed shortly by a powerbook bump, and then the other systems somewhere following. Just my opinion though, who knows what apple has up its sleeves this next year until it begins transitioning towards intel macs. But in that year or two, I think seeing new bumps in all their machines is possible and likely. But iBooks should be first, followed by the Mac Mini, etc. I guess what I'm saying is I'm kind of expecting a iBook update first, or at least not a Rev. B Mac Mini until we get a update on the iBook line. But that may be just me... And that's my thoughts currently, which are always changing. Who knows what I'll be thinking come a month, week, day, or even an hour from now 
NYToon said:
Seriously, dual monitor capability...where the hell are they gonna shove another port? Have you seen how crammed the back of the mini actually is? Once you get a DVI port, two firewire and two USB ports plus the power cable all plugged in, there's no room for anything.
Again, no room for RAM or hard drives. sure, you can get expandable, external drives, but what about RAM? There's no way you could fit 8 gigs of RAM into that thing, or a G5 chip with everything inside it either. No enough space for efficient cooling, even with liquid.
And G4 is where it's at? Ugh. The G5 is a Superior Chip. That's like saying the Intel Celeron is better than the AMD Athalon processor. Fool-hardy.
Onizuka said:
Apple could simply provide a dual-dvi port. Same sized port that you can connect a Y adapter to allowing for two displays.
I say simply in a matter of addressing the outer port limitation you've pointed out. Putting in video card that supports dual-dvi is another story - then we're hitting cards that need a lot more memory, cooling and add a significant price tag to the Mac mini.
fox2005 said:
I don't think anyone except Apple themselves know!
I'd still expect the iBook to be a priority for updating as it's been out so long people (not just Apple rumor junkies..!) may well start holding off buying one. Whereas the mini has been out a while, but still appears sufficiently "new" due to it being a completely new model.
impierced said:
exactly. how can anyone expect dual monitor support on apples cheapest computer? one guy earlier even said "why not 128mb vram?" come on.. no offence but what the hell is wrong with people that think like this? its apples lowest system so the less expectations you have of it the happier you'll be.
if you want that power buy a G5 tower or an imac.
zen.state said:
I agree with this, peoples expectations of this little machine are getting way too high....
SHadOW
cardiac dave said:Spoke with a nice girl on the help line this afternoon... she had no info beyond what the website was already stating... est. ship 7/12...
I pressed about the wait and asked about cancelling my order and she bumped it up to express shipping (if and when it finally ships).
I politely asked if, on the slim chance that I get a delay email instead of a shipping confirmation in the next 24 hours, it would be alright if I cancel my order and start looking at a G5 instead. It sounds like they're willing to work with me if it comes down to that.
Keep on waiting... another 18 hours at least...
Argggg. Quick update for anyone following my saga...
Ordered 6/15. Expected ship date is now 7/18.
specs: 1.42 mini with 512meg of ram and all the fixins (SD/AP/BT)
cheekyspanky said:
Thats true, and I'm sympathetic, but think of it from Apple's perspective. The Mini is their tool for luring PC users into the Mac world. Like it or not, they're counting on word of mouth from switchers to encourage more switchers. If these ex-PC users are all saying "The OS is kind of nice, but the box runs like a dog and I can't do anything," is that useful to Apple? Apple's at a critical juncture right now where they have the better OS by wide margin (that margin will shrink with Longhorn) and they're readying an agressive strategy to take a chunk out of Microsoft's dominance. The focus has to be on appeasing these new disciples, or their friends will never switch and Apple will go on as the 2.5% market share underdog. If they divert any resources from the Mini to the iBook, they're making a mistake.
I speak as a PC power user who switched 2 months ago to the iMac. I wasn't willing to switch to the Rev. A iMac because it wasn't capable. The Mini was just a joke to me. Specifically, it took the iMac's new Radeon 9600 chip to convince me that Apple was serious. No knowledgeable PC user will switch to the Mini while it still has the 32MB 5200 chip and a 4200 RPM disk (I have no sympathy for people who can't upgrade the RAM themselves and sell the old stick on eBay). Those two specs are a major step back from anything used in modern PCs, and are absolutely not future capable.
Finally, one notable feature that I feel should be included without question - the built in Airport and Bluetooth should be in every Apple base model. They'll lower per unit costs by creating an economy of scale, ease maintenance by making all the systems similar, and create a new world order for all Apple users... something very cool that is standard on every Mac and virtually absent from the PC world. If they really want to get a "one up" on Microsoft, install Salling Clicker on all those Macs so iTunes automatically pauses the first time a switcher's BT phone rings... THAT will start a grapevine frenzy.
Sorry for the long post.
cardiac dave said:
Final note:
Order cancelled this morning, though they offered $50 off if I continued to wait.
Apple also credited my CC for the mouse and keyboard that they shipped a month ago for a computer that I still don't have.
In a way... the delay has been good. I was able to experience buyers remorse before the goods even arrived! So instead of sitting here, thinking - I love the mini but I should have bought a G5... I can go ahead and order the G5 now.
As the iMac is so light on the options, I may just walk right in to the local Apple Store instead of waiting for Fedex.
I have to give kudos to the lovely support people at the online store... if only they could get the same results out of the production side of things...
ejl10 said:
Do you think they would save more than they currently profit selling the Airport and Bluetooth? I'm not so sure an economy of scale will save them up to £50ish (however much AP+BT costs at the moment) per unit.
Airport and Bluetooth probably cost Apple around £5 or so per computer - and lets say on a third of Mac minis the customer orders them as extras, they make £45 profit (assuming the £50 is correct) so thats an extra £35 they make.
It's all about making money - you charge what people will pay and try to maximise profit all the time.
cheekyspanky said:
Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting it as a cost saving initiative, but rather as a differentiating feature on all Apples that would strengthen their position with current users and "knock the socks off" of switchers that wouldn't have the foresight to see value in buying them separately. My microeconomic discussion merely suggested that providing this as a standard feature may have lower per unit costs than we'd initially expect. There is a bigger war to be won than maximizing Mini profit margins in the short run.
ejl10 said:
Here's the problem with that argument.
1) The are more low end users than there are power users. The Mac mini is designed to appeal to the former. 90% of non-gamers don't need a computer more powerful than the mac mini is now, and the gamer crowd wouldn't be wasting their time on a mac mini anyway. If Apple starts doing 64 and 128 VRAM standard, they're basically throwing money away for every user who's only going to be using his computer for e-mail and word processing.
2) Apple increases their marketshare... to what end? Apple isn't in the business of becoming the Walmart of computing. You have them increase their marketshare, and then what? All you have are a bunch of people using a computer with a low profit margin, that ends up cannibalizing into your other product lines. You can argue that it will encourage people to buy the computers that DO have higher profit margins, but I doubt it. Basically, you'll be making the mac mini seem disproportionately more powerful, and the higher end models disproportionately more expensive.
ejl10 said:
Don't modern firms aim for maximum sales/revenue than maximum profit? I read that somewhere in my economics book.. Now which darned economist said this...
Edit- Oh yeah W.J. Baumol said this...
Edit 2- OOps sorry didn't see the words "short run" there
oober_freak said:Don't modern firms aim for maximum sales/revenue than maximum profit? I read that somewhere in my economics book.. Now which darned economist said this...
I think what that means is that globalization and economies of scale have led to such competition that margins are consistently razor thin - hence the need to maintain high sales and revenue numbers to remain profitable. The only way profit can be maximized is through increased sales (as there's no way to increase margin)
then again.. I barely passed econ101 and 102
Schrodinger said:
Well, I can offer only my own observations regarding Apple's strategic vision. I switched precisely because I saw what I interpreted to be a concerted effort on Apple's part to grow their market share by targeting the mainstream PC power user demographic, offering enhanced functionality and competitive technology. It has worked to some extent, but too many PC users are accustomed to cheap Dells and home built clones. I believe Apple introduced the Mini as a mechanism to attract those price-conscious individuals that don't demand the full power of a PowerMac or the sheer beauty of an iMac. Although they don't need the cutting edge, I would caution against assuming that these "90%" do not appreciate the abilities of their computers or that they do not care to own competitive technology. I find it unimpressive that the new Mini's video system is incapable of supporting features of its own system GUI, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
In my opinion, it is not in Apple's best interest to cater only to those PC users that do not know their computers. Nor should they stay complacent with a mere 2.5% market share. The corporation's behavior has given me the impression that they feel the same way. Perhaps I'm wrong.
ejl10 said:
You may not be alone, but if you polled 100 people who were considering getting a Mac mini, I'm guessing only a small minority would have any idea of what core image actually is. And the ones who did understand it probably wouldn't be in the market for a sub-$1000 anyway.
Unfortunately, when you're dealing with an unprecedented $500 price range for Apple, that's pretty much what you're going to get. Apple has no reason to appeal to high end users at this price model. It just doesn't make any sense for anyone.
Not to mention the fact that comparable machines for wintel at this price range haven't fared much better in any direct comparison.
Following about 3 different "Mac Mini Update" forums, the most common asking of people who post (who are often times already-mac-users but I'm sure possible PC-switchers wouldn't mind either) are first and most importantly (from what I've seen) 512 mb of RAM standard. The next most important than from most users is a bump to 5200/5400 RPM HD for the 80 gig as well as the 40 gig (which many say already has a 5400 rpm HD). Thirdly, comes somewhat of a tie of hundreds of user-posts I've read asking for a bump in processor speed and/or a bump in video card RAM. More specifically, a bump in the G4 similar to the ones we currently see in the 14" iBook and PowerBooks (1.33 ghz, 1.5 ghz, some even say 1.67 ghz found in the high end PowerBooks). As for video card, a update to either the Nvidia 5200 64-bit card found in 12" PowerBooks or the ATI Radeon 9600 currently found in the eMac's. Fourth most important thing for most user-posts on the Mac Mini are Airport and/or Bluetooth standard built in. Following those come very few posts from people asking for aesthetic things such as more USB/Firewire ports, larger HD capacities (up to 100 gigs), improved super drive (8x DVD write speeds and some even comically suggest dual-layer superdrives although I think that's a size issue...), bundled keyboard/mouse etc. etc. etc. After reading hundreds, and possibly over a thousand posts on forum/message-board topics about Mac Mini Rev. B/updates/etc. this is what I've found to be asked for most. Most of these posts though are from Mac-forums such as Applenova, MacRumors: Forum, Apple Insider Members Comments, and so on for the past 2-3 months. That being said, I tend to agree that 512 basic ram and faster HD (at least 5200/5400 rpm or what-have-you for all models) are most important! Update to the video card to 64 bit would be nice, update to processor or processor speed would be nice, standard airport and bluetooth would be nice (and airport is almost to a point where it should come standard in my opinion) but these are are not necessary or needed, just nice or wanted features. At least they are not not necessary or extremly needed by people who would be buying a Mac Mini. Those who like spending 500-600 on a PC would be good and probably expect not all those features. People spending 800 or more on a PC would expect those features maybe, and would get them with other mac desktops such as the eMac ($800-$1000), iMac ($1300-$1800) and PowerMac ($2000-$3000). I know this has all been said before time and time again, and I'm just emphasizing it one more time for those of you trying to get the mac mini up to standards found in high end PowerBooks or the low-end iMacs. Sure maybe it could/should be a headless eMac w/o keyboard and mouse, but maybe sales of the eMac have been low, thus differentiating the Mac Mini and eMac in such a way Apple hopes to boost the eMacs sale with more then just "display, keyboard, and monitor included!... even if its nearly the same as the mac mini." Personally I think that's the case, good sales of mac mini's - not so good of sales with the eMac's - necessary to differentiate in more then just the display, keyboard, mouse approach and mac minis seem to keep selling even if not as heavily, hot, or as many as once were - but thats the same when most things after the launch and fire and died down a bit. Although the eMac's - I didn't hear of any booming sales prior to the update, or even after the update. Maybe this is reason for the Mac Mini revision/update taking so long, more so then just the Intel and other factors. Anyone else agree with this theory?
That being said, I wouldn't mind them updating the mac mini so they could discontinue the eMac. Personally I find it to be quite unattractive and kind of the black sheep of Apple's Computer line currently. With reduced iMac Prices especially, they could probably just make one lower end model of the iMac for the 999 dollar price tag found on the high end eMac currently, update the mac mini without fear of it crippling eMac sales (which I personally think it has when launched and currently still may be even following the update). Beyond that, making a affordable monitor for Mac Mini purchasors, maybe 17" CRTs like found on the eMac for cheap, or just a smaller ACD for under 500 dollars (rather then 700 for the 20", nice price and monitor but still too rich for my blood. I settle with a 17" flatscreen for less than half the price... Not as nice but nice enough, and mac mini's should be the same. Not as nice as iMac's but plenty nice enough!) Now if only apple had a monitor with that mac mini attitude (Apple Cinema Display Mini? 15 or 17" for under 350-400, I'd buy one!). Don't kill me for saying it, but I'd personally like to see a update Mac Mini so they could discontinue the eMac, another lower end lower price iMac for close to 1000 dollars, and if people want a sub-1000 dollar mac they can either get a Mac Mini with a bunch of CTO or a base model low-end iMac. Either way they'd be better then most windows-based PCs right? Right! IMHO, Ryan.
Plecky said:
I was under the impression the eMac was intended for the educational market (hence "e") and therefore is not in competition with the Mini, nor even really a part of Apple's consumer line. I've seen a few people on these boards claiming to have bought an eMac for personal use as a low end all in one (kinda like what the imac used to be, I guess?), but I'm not sure that's what it's supposed to be..
Schrodinger said:
Well add me to that list. Add about a half dozen of my friend who have learned through the grapevine about Core Image, the GPU the Mini uses, and said screw that. I will prob get a mini this summer maybe. I have to get a few things worked out first but just as an FYI I think there are more users then you think that know about the Mini's lackings and like it or not the GPU is one of them. Ive read several posts on MR that state that the Mac Mini is somewhat sluggish at 1920 x 1200 which is what my next LCD will be this summer. Even the Dell Optiplexs in the office I work at can do that kind of resolution without flinching at all and that is with a freaking Intel integrated GPU for god sake! In that case though the GUI isnt doing nearly as much work as OS Xs but that is beside the point. The point is that its a simple GPU upgrade. You dont need something insane like a nvidia 6800 or something. A slight upgrade would solve this problem. And that is the problem with the mini in a nutshell. Minor tweaks here and there could make this a breakout device for Apple. 512MB here, 5400 RPM drive there, 64MB video card there, and as Jobs puts it BAM! You have a system where there is little room for bitching.
SiliconAddict said:
Precisely!
And add me to the list too -- I don't know much about video cards or how OS X's graphics system works; I certainly do not follow these kinds of things like a 'professional' gamer or techie would. I too heard about the core image thing 'through the grapevine' (on messageboards like this) and it bothers me not because I want the best, but because I want something that's at least adequate to run Apple's own software, which is the main reason I want a Mac to begin with. That the upgrades everyone is saying would solve the problem are so minor, and that they have already been applied to most of Apple's other products, only makes it more frustrating that they haven't updated the Mini yet.
And even those who don't know the specifics about the Mini's deficiencies have probably heard the complaints about their effects; sluggishness and poor graphics performance. This is 2005; I don't think trying to deal with these issues would be an unnecessary "appeal to high end users."