Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Mini vs. the Cube

T

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
Not sure if this thread is already out there but I want opinion on whats a better compact machine. I think the mini has a good future on crazy customizable macs. Now if they only figure how to throw in a G5 in there. Ohh side note, anyone know if the mini uses a 3.5 or 2.5 internal ATA drive?

Tyler
 
I don't think it will be customizable as the cube.

One reason everything is soldered on to the logic board, so you can't upgrade the cpu you have to upgrade the entire logic board
 
What I'm really curious about is: what affect will this have on used Mac prices. Seems ridiculous to consider paying close to $500 for a cube when you can get this.
 
From a customization perspective, I think that you can probably upgrade HD, DVD/CDRW and RAM. (Even though all of these will probably void the warranty.)
There is a picture on Apple's website with an opened Mac mini. From the dimensions I would guess that the HD is a 2.5 inch.
 
mactropy said:
From a customization perspective, I think that you can probably upgrade HD, DVD/CDRW and RAM. (Even though all of these will probably void the warranty.)
There is a picture on Apple's website with an opened Mac mini. From the dimensions I would guess that the HD is a 2.5 inch.
Click to expand...

Looks like they went with the thin CDROM and it's pretty obvious everything is a tight fit. But, I think it's possible they went with a full size HD. Honestly, if the PS is outside the unit, they don't have to fit all that much stuff in there. Just the logic board (which I'm assuming has the video built in), HD, CDROM.

If they went with a laptop HD, that's a fair bit of costs. Seems like they could have made it just a bit bigger then and fit everything in. I mean, there's no magic reason to go for 6.5" right? Other than keeping the thing as small as possible.
 
tsk said:
Looks like they went with the thin CDROM and it's pretty obvious everything is a tight fit. But, I think it's possible they went with a full size HD. Honestly, if the PS is outside the unit, they don't have to fit all that much stuff in there. Just the logic board (which I'm assuming has the video built in), HD, CDROM.

If they went with a laptop HD, that's a fair bit of costs. Seems like they could have made it just a bit bigger then and fit everything in. I mean, there's no magic reason to go for 6.5" right? Other than keeping the thing as small as possible.
Click to expand...

well its definately a slim combo or superdrive, just like ibooks, powerbooks and the new imac. thats why it only burns at 4x although 8x slim drives are starting to come out for PCs. I would tsk is right and that the hard drive is a 3.5. A 2.5 makes sense for saving more internal space but an 80GB 2.5 cost much much more than an 80GB single platter 3.5. So I will say its definately a 3.5 since the jump to a 1.42 and double the hard drive is only $100. It seems Apple only charges $50 extra to double the hard drive space, that only makes sense with 3.5s. In notebooks going from a 60GB to an 80GB at 5400 cost $125. Speaking of that, I wonder how fast the drives spin. Im going to go with 7200RPM (since i think they are 3.5s) and I wonder how hard they are to upgrade and will they support drives over 137GB. A nice 400GB seagate would do just fine inside there.

Tyler
 
Someone on cubeowner.com pointed out that low-profile 3.5" drive spinning at 5400 are used for the emacs and top out at 80GB. I'd guess these are the same drives. So not as good as a normal 3.5 and not as bad as a 2.5.
 
panphage said:
Someone on cubeowner.com pointed out that low-profile 3.5" drive spinning at 5200 are used for the emacs and top out at 80GB. I'd guess these are the same drives. So not as good as a normal 3.5 and not as bad as a 2.5.
Click to expand...

One has to point out that since they considered to place a notebook optical drive that they also opted for a notebook HDD. Why would they cut cost in one dept and not the other.

I believe its a 2.5" HDD for space reasons.

If you reconfigure the iBook you will get this minus the battery, lcd, speakers, keyboard, trackpad and mic. :)
 
m a y a said:
One has to point out that since they considered to place a notebook optical drive that they also opted for a notebook HDD. Why would they cut cost in one dept and not the other.

I believe its a 2.5" HDD for space reasons.
Click to expand...

The G5 iMac has a notebook optical drive but uses 3.5 SATA hard drive used in Power Macs.

Tyler
 
m a y a said:
I they made a 2.5" SATA we would have seen that in the iMac G5. However that is not so. :)
Click to expand...

the iMac G5 didnt have to be SATA, powerbooks arent, Apple choose to go with that. So you can have slim optical and desktop hard drives. Wasn't the cube slim optical and a 3.5 hard disk? besides I've never heard of a drive spinning at 5200RPM, theres 3600, 4200, 5400, 7200, 10000, 15000. And the emac can go up 160GB. So are you telling me that there are 160GB slim 3.5 drives that spin at 5200 RPM?

Tyler
 
TyleRomeo said:
the iMac G5 didnt have to be SATA, powerbooks arent, Apple choose to go with that. So you can have slim optical and desktop hard drives. Wasn't the cube slim optical and a 3.5 hard disk? besides I've never heard of a drive spinning at 5200RPM, theres 3600, 4200, 5400, 7200, 10000, 15000. And the emac can go up 160GB. So are you telling me that there are 160GB slim 3.5 drives that spin at 5200 RPM?

Tyler
Click to expand...

Only reason Apple choose SATA was for performance reason. Have you tried installing OS X.3 on a system with a G5. I takes forever and I learnt this the hard way. :p

The Optical drive on the iMac G5 is slow when performing installs.

The only reason why I see that Apple used the SATA was for performance nothing more, since it was the system to be had and not much luster for a G5 with a ATA-133 HDD.

And I don't think Apple will use the 10,000 and 15,000 rpm drives, the cost alone will increase the price tag. Though the performance would be great. :)

The cube was expandable, unlike the Mac mini. The Mac mini flexible that is its advantage. :)
 
m a y a said:
Only reason Apple choose SATA was for performance reason. Have you tried installing OS X.3 on a system with a G5. I takes forever and I learnt this the hard way. :p

The Optical drive on the iMac G5 is slow when performing installs.

The only reason why I see that Apple used the SATA was for performance nothing more, since it was the system to be had and not much luster for a G5 with a ATA-133 HDD.

And I don't think Apple will use the 10,000 and 15,000 rpm drives, the cost alone will increase the price tag. Though the performance would be great. :)

The cube was expandable, unlike the Mac mini. The Mac mini flexible that is its advantage. :)
Click to expand...

OK SATA only benefits for isolated bandwidth reasons, when you have multiple drives sharing an ATA-66, 100 or 133 bus. In an iMac with one internal 3.5 drive this is irrelavent. No SATA drive can even top ATA-100 peak let alone SATA 150. You want faster drive performance take out the seagates from the iMac and throw in a Raptor.

I have no issue with SATA in the iMac G5. But it is still mixing a 3.5 and slim optical drive, so the Mac Mini is the same way. Thats all im saying.

and I was simply listing hard drive speeds since maybe you weren't aware of the various speeds that exist. I don't see any evidence of 5200RPM eMac anywhere.

Tyler
 
TyleRomeo said:
OK SATA only benefits for isolated bandwidth reasons, when you have multiple drives sharing an ATA-66, 100 or 133 bus. In an iMac with one internal 3.5 drive this is irrelavent. No SATA drive can even top ATA-100 peak let alone SATA 150. You want faster drive performance take out the seagates from the iMac and throw in a Raptor.

I have no issue with SATA in the iMac G5. But it is still mixing a 3.5 and slim optical drive, so the Mac Mini is the same way. Thats all im saying.

and I was simply listing hard drive speeds since maybe you weren't aware of the various speeds that exist. I don't see any evidence of 5200RPM eMac anywhere.

Tyler
Click to expand...

I believe you are right since I just has a look at the QTVR and there is no way even with a DVI to have a PSU of that size.

Its a 3.5" HDD same as the eMac. Since if it was a smaller HDD there is no need to have a PSU of that size and might have been able to incorporate it inside the case.

Its a stripped down eMac and iBook = Mac mini. :)
 
m a y a said:
I believe its a 2.5" HDD for space reasons.

If you reconfigure the iBook you will get this minus the battery, lcd, speakers, keyboard, trackpad and mic. :)
Click to expand...

if the mac mini is much like the ibook then why does it cost $75 to up a 60GB 4200 drive to 80GB 4200 and $150 to go from a 30Gb to an 80GB? Doesn't the mac mini only cost $50 to go from a 40GB to an 80GB drive. How can this be if it's an 2.5 drive. Seems like Apple is really giving a great deal on the hard drive update.

Tyler :)
 
TyleRomeo said:
if the mac mini is much like the ibook then why does it cost $75 to up a 60GB 4200 drive to 80GB 4200 and $150 to go from a 30Gb to an 80GB? Doesn't the mac mini only cost $50 to go from a 40GB to an 80GB drive. How can this be if it's an 2.5 drive. Seems like Apple is really giving a great deal on the hard drive update.

Tyler :)
Click to expand...

Refer to my previous post. :)

I didn't have a close look at the PSU. :)

The entire internal image is at a horrid angle to hide what is important, however looking at the PSU it is a 3.5" eMac HDD. :)
 
m a y a said:
Refer to my previous post. :)

I didn't have a close look at the PSU. :)

The entire internal image is at a horrid angle to hide what is important, however looking at the PSU it is a 3.5" eMac HDD. :)
Click to expand...

its a 3.5 inch hard drive. it's not going to have an eMac logo on it. Any 3.5 drive will do. Unless Apple states that they only want a single platter drive. Which would limit it to 80GB right now. But the eMac has a 160GB option which can not be achieved today by any drive using a single platter.

Tyler
 
TyleRomeo said:
its a 3.5 inch hard drive. it's not going to have an eMac logo on it. Any 3.5 drive will do. Unless Apple states that they only want a single platter drive. Which would limit it to 80GB right now. But the eMac has a 160GB option which can not be achieved today by any drive using a single platter.

Tyler
Click to expand...


Apple is buying the computer parts form the same vendors for cost and reliability reasons.

I didn't say the HDD had an eMac stamp on it. :) I did however say that its using the same HDD that might have come previously in the eMac and maybe even the current offering of eMac models. Not to say that Apple will offer a 160GB HDD option as of yet, its a new product line and there is a revision cycle to head upon. the 160GB HDD will and might be offered in rev B of the Mac mini. Nothing more or less. :)
 
m a y a said:
Apple is buying the computer parts form the same vendors for cost and reliability reasons.

I didn't say the HDD had an eMac stamp on it. :) I did however say that its using the same HDD that might have come previously in the eMac and maybe even the current offering of eMac models. Not to say that Apple will offer a 160GB HDD option as of yet, its a new product line and there is a revision cycle to head upon. the 160GB HDD will and might be offered in rev B of the Mac mini. Nothing more or less. :)
Click to expand...

alright thats fine maya, macs can or can not a have 160GB version on rev B but that doesn't mean i can't shove a 500GB 7k500 in there. Let's put the hard drive issue to rest and worry about how many watts the mono speaker is? jk. I asked the apple guys at Soho tonight and none of them had an answers about the drive for me. I'll further investigate this and I'm sure other will as well as they want to add larger drives and more RAM that will ooooo...void apples precious 1 year standard warranty. goodnight

Tyler
 
ohh on a side note i picked up 23 ADC cinema and will "give away" my formac 20.1 to the lucky girl who's going to have the mac mini. now going to bed for real.

Tyler
 
tsk said:
Looks like they went with the thin CDROM and it's pretty obvious everything is a tight fit. But, I think it's possible they went with a full size HD. Honestly, if the PS is outside the unit, they don't have to fit all that much stuff in there. Just the logic board (which I'm assuming has the video built in), HD, CDROM.

If they went with a laptop HD, that's a fair bit of costs. Seems like they could have made it just a bit bigger then and fit everything in. I mean, there's no magic reason to go for 6.5" right? Other than keeping the thing as small as possible.
Click to expand...

TyleRomeo said:
well its definately a slim combo or superdrive, just like ibooks, powerbooks and the new imac. thats why it only burns at 4x although 8x slim drives are starting to come out for PCs. I would tsk is right and that the hard drive is a 3.5. A 2.5 makes sense for saving more internal space but an 80GB 2.5 cost much much more than an 80GB single platter 3.5. So I will say its definately a 3.5 since the jump to a 1.42 and double the hard drive is only $100. It seems Apple only charges $50 extra to double the hard drive space, that only makes sense with 3.5s. In notebooks going from a 60GB to an 80GB at 5400 cost $125. Speaking of that, I wonder how fast the drives spin. Im going to go with 7200RPM (since i think they are 3.5s) and I wonder how hard they are to upgrade and will they support drives over 137GB. A nice 400GB seagate would do just fine inside there.

Tyler
Click to expand...

I've tried draw macmini with pen & paper, if 2 inch height is precise figure, it is no way for 3.5 hd fit in that short of height.
 
I think as most people it makes absolutely no sense to put in a 2.5" laptop drive. The increased cost and slower performance make no sense at all. Especially considering the size of the logic board (with graphics chip on board etc.) there really isn't that much to go in there (external PSU and slim optical drive).

It's a shame that desktop optical drives are so tall, that they had to go for a slim one. It would have been nice to be able to buy the mac mini and slap in big hard drive and decent dvd burner for very little money and make a really nice media server/centre.

The cube is going to remain the icon it has always been and will be significantly more powerful (with the current upgrades available) and upgradable but will be a lot more expensive. The cube will probably appeal to a few less people as a real option but as long as decent upgrades are available it will still have its followers.
 
TyleRomeo said:
well its definately a slim combo or superdrive, just like ibooks, powerbooks and the new imac. thats why it only burns at 4x although 8x slim drives are starting to come out for PCs. I would tsk is right and that the hard drive is a 3.5. A 2.5 makes sense for saving more internal space but an 80GB 2.5 cost much much more than an 80GB single platter 3.5. So I will say its definately a 3.5 since the jump to a 1.42 and double the hard drive is only $100. It seems Apple only charges $50 extra to double the hard drive space, that only makes sense with 3.5s. In notebooks going from a 60GB to an 80GB at 5400 cost $125. Speaking of that, I wonder how fast the drives spin. Im going to go with 7200RPM (since i think they are 3.5s) and I wonder how hard they are to upgrade and will they support drives over 137GB. A nice 400GB seagate would do just fine inside there.

Tyler
Click to expand...

Looking at the price jumps is a bit odd. If you look at the Superdrive upgrade, it's only $90 which is in line with desktop drives. Seems like we may not know for sure till someone gets one and pops it open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back