The most overrated Apple

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by jrasero23, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. jrasero23 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    #1
    I just got rid of my 2010 Mac Mini for a 2011 21.5" iMac and it got me thinking what Mac presents the worst value?

    Macbook Pro
    iMac
    Mac Mini
    Macbook Air
    Macbook


    While I loved the mini for is cool design and for holding the title of Apple's lowest price point, I found the hardware price combo to be the least justifiable. Now with the Sandy Bridge processors out the MM seems to be ancient. Even with a refresh nearing, I don't think an i5 Macbook Pro processor could really convince me again to buy one. If the MM stays at $700 most people still will want/need the $70 mouse, $70 keyboard, speakers which will cost at least $20, and a monitor for at least $200. That comes to $1060, which is only $140 shy of a iMac 21.5" entry or a Macbook Pro 13" entry.

    Some will argue the Mac Pro is the worst value
     
  2. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #2
    Really? Another Apple bashing thread on this site?

    The only "worst value" is an ill informed consumer who bought the wrong product for their needs.
     
  3. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #3
    The 2010 mac mini was a poor machine. no ram upgrade no hdd upgrade and no cpu upgrade. I consider it the worst value mac mini in the last 5 years.

    The mouse the keyboard and the screen are a pile on and if this were NFL football you would get penalized for doing so. Only a moron or fool buys a mac mini if they need a keyboard a mouse and a screen.

    To evaluate the mac pro deep into its cycle is another waste of effort.

    The day the 2010 mac mini came into production it was a bad deal and it is a hands down winner as overpriced gear.
     
  4. mrklaw macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    #4

    what kind of retrofitted rationalisation is that?

    Most people need a mouse/keyboard do they? Fact is that? I'd guess (I'm slightly more humble than you, I don't presume to know) that most people probably have an old keyboard/mouse lying around from their previous computers. And many will already have monitors from previous computers too. Or a TV they can hook up to.

    Yes, if you are buying from a blank slate, with no previous accessories available, and you want a machine that will go in a designated spot in a room, then an imac is a great choice.

    But if you want something to hook up to a TV, that 21.5" or 27" monitor just gets in the way a bit.

    Or maybe you want to connect up to a monitor but want other things to also connect up to the monitor. Maybe a bluray player, or your cable box.

    There are lots of reasons people don't want an all in one.
     
  5. talmy macrumors 601

    talmy

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    I bought a 2009 mini when the 2010's came out to save money. The 2010 Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server is a good buy.

    I've got a total of 3 2009 minis, only one has a monitor, and none of them have keyboards or mice.

    Worst buy is one that doesn't the the job you purchased it for.
     
  6. saulinpa macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    #7
    Why do people keep looking at hardware first when it is the application that drives everything? That is why Apple sells more than one type of machine. I guess the OP just needed to justify to himself spending money on a new toy.

    If I have a small home theater an iMac has zero value as it is too big.

    If I need to drive more than two monitors at decent speed then nothing but a Mac Pro will do.
     
  7. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #8
    If you don't need portability then a $2200 MBP is a the worst value when you can get the same or more power in a $1200 iMac with a bigger screen.
     
  8. mchalebk, Jun 3, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2011

    mchalebk macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #9
    Excuse me? What right do you have to call me a moron or fool?

    There are many situations where it can make sense to buy a Mini along with a keyboard, mouse and monitor. In my case, it was either a $2000+ 17" MacbookPro or a less than $1000 Mac Mini setup.

    Let's see, less than $1000 or more than $2000? Those were the choices. The iMac would not work for our situation and anything less than than a 17" screen would be too small.

    Be careful about making such strongly worded generalizations. The key with the Mac Mini is not that you already have a display, keyboard and mouse, but that you don't want a laptop, an all-in-one or a MacPro.
     
  9. MrNomNoms macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    #10
    Even so, if you're going from a PC to a Mac mini after owning a computer for 4 years then the screen is going to be crap (especially if it is one of those bundled el-cheapo bargain basement one) and kiss good bye any idea that maybe your keyboard is really going to last the distance. Quite frankly the Mac mini is better off being sold as a headless server than a desktop computer.

    As for people not wanting an all in one - I've heard it all before, and everyone of the excuses is pathetic and lame to say the very least. It either boils down to superstition, macho posturing or some pathetic inbred idea that it feels more of a 'real computer' by having multiple components than if it is all in one.
     
  10. nefan65 macrumors 65816

    nefan65

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    #11
    Wow...lots of these threads lately. All "Newbies". Guess some of other sites/forums have some overflow?

    Anywho...I agree with one other that posted here; it's a bad value only if it doesn't do the job you bought it for. That can be said for anything. "This hammer is terrible. It doesn't cut would well at all" Well...get a saw!?

    In the end it's really the fault of the consumer(s), not the device(s).
     
  11. sumone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    #12
    chrono1081 - They still haven't changed it back to Altoona, eh?
     
  12. blueroom macrumors 603

    blueroom

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #13
    +1 this is true. Apple (being the sole supplier) has a very thought out product line. Each product type has a fit somewhere much like an automaker. I can't think of any current product that wouldn't fit a someones needs and budget somewhere.
     
  13. mchalebk macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #14
    This is an amazingly pompous and arrogant statement...

    Perhaps some people don't want an all-in-one because it doesn't actually meet their fundamental requirements. I needed to be able to hang the thinnest display possible on a wall. The smaller iMac isn't mountable (except with kludge solutions) and the larger iMac was too large (both screen size and thickness).

    Please refrain from making such ridiculous statements. You have not "heard it all before" and you have no clue what you're talking about.
     
  14. mr.steevo macrumors 65816

    mr.steevo

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    #15
    Not applicable. The Lisa was pre-Macintosh and this thread is about bashing (and defending) the Mac's honor.

    Some would argue the Cube was the worst value as it was about the same price as the PowerMac with less expansion. I loved the Cube.

    My guess is the worst Mac would have been around when the clones were available for less money. Any Apple Macintosh would have had a difficult go during the clone wars.
     
  15. Duluth Baptist macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Location:
    Duluth, MN
    #16
    Any presumption that you can speak for other people's needs and desires is outlandish. The question isn't precisely, "What's the worst value?" but "What's the worst value for me?"

    You may have a garbage screen and a worn down keyboard and a grimy mouse, but if you want the simplicity of OSX and you don't want to spend 4 figures the Mini is the way to go. Personally, the worst value for me is the high-end MBP, which adds $1000 for portability to an iMac with at least equivalent specs and an incredible screen. Why would I want 17" when I could have 27" for less?

    But I can't say that isn't value for other people. Who's to say? Apple doesn't make a computer for every conceivable niche; they fill a few important niches that meet much consumer demand and make profits. There's a reason that the Mac section of Best Buy is a quarter of the size but has the same number of customers as the Windows section.
     
  16. RoelJuun macrumors 6502

    RoelJuun

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #17
    Apple has a very thought out product line to make more money, not to provide everyone with the machine it needs to get things done. Apple has NO machine that does serious gaming. Apple has no machine that is expandable for the common user that needs storage (for movies/music etc). And so on.
     
  17. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #18
    You are quoting me out of context, but I do agree that the sentence I wrote was poorly constructed.
     
  18. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    I went to an Apple store fully prepared to buy my wife a 21.5" iMac. But then reality step in and she decided that at the location that we have our computer, that the glare would be a killer.

    So we ended up with a Mini, a wired keyboard and a mouse. We did reuse our old monitor. Add in AC and a few other things and by the time we were done, it was close to $1K. Yes, an iMac would have been a better deal, but it didn't really fit what she WANTED. She didn't want the iMac with the glossy screen.

    Between her and our daughter, they surf, write some school papers and edit a few photos. Not anything the mini can't handle.

    And if and when the refresh happens, I will upgrade them and they likely won't even know.

    But not all decisions come down to dollars. Some come down to sense and to what works best for the person buying the computer.
     
  19. MTI macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    #20
    Serious gaming . . . that should replace personal computer as the industry oxymoron.

    In nearly twenty years with Apple products, I haven't had much issue with expanding their computers to meet work needs. Whether it was getting another floppy drive and ribbon cable to add to the IIe or a RAID controller for a Pro. As for storage . . . SCSI, Firewire, heck even localtalk file sharing more than met requirements, while PC's were stuck with two IDE channels.
     
  20. blueroom macrumors 603

    blueroom

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #21
    IMHO serious gaming should be something done exclusively on consoles because it puts all the players on a more or less equal footing. For casual gaming ATV2 (wishful thinking?)
    As for expandability for movies and music use a NAS.
     
  21. burnout8488 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Location:
    Endwell, NY
    #22
    I don't think that's what this thread is at all. It's an innocent question and one that sparks a lot of thought as to which Mac really does have the least value for the money spent. Why is everyone being such a d*ck to the thread starter?

    I honestly think the Mac Pro probably does win this, as we've all seen how much the BTO upgrades cost versus what they ACTUALLY cost if you were to install them yourself.
     
  22. lvlarkkoenen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Location:
    Utrecht, NL
    #23
    I'd like to get on the 'what is value?' bandwagon here.
    As I posted somewhere before, one could define value as in highest GeekBench-score divided by it's price. In that case, MBA is the worst value portable Mac out there. Yet some people will want it more than a 13" 2,3GHz MBP (which is 'highest value' among the portables, 2,5x as high) And some people will want the 13" 2,3GHz MBP precisely because it has more bang for buck.
    There's no reason to assume anyone uses 'value'/overratedness in the same sense as you do. For me personally, the Mini has some added value for being a desktop machine, that uses about as little energy as a laptop machine, to provide yet another different angle.
     
  23. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #24
    Because most people come here to read Apple news and are simply sick of the amount of bashing that goes on. I don't think its an innocent question I think its a troll attempt in the guise of an innocent question.

    As for the Mac Pro when they were released they were actually the cheapest of the options available with the specs. Similar systems from Dell and HP were much more money. (This is not including ram since Apple ram is expensive, but even with OWC ram instead the Macs still came in cheaper).
     
  24. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #25
    From a hardware view, I'd have to say the Mac Mini or MacBook as only on price you can get a much faster PC for similar(and less)

    Although if the Mac Mini's form factor is a must it's not as bad of a deal, although I still expect it to have more modern internals.

    And again if you need a decent GPU but are trying to not spend tons, the GPU inside of both the MB and Mini are still decent deals.
     

Share This Page