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

Those Were Mac Mini and White MacBook Part Numbers, Not Mac Pros

This makes sense. The MacBook, MacBook Air, and Mac Mini have long used the same internal components. I guess this means Apple still wants a "budget" notebook for now and isn't ready to give up the base MacBook.
 
The Mac Mini Server isn't as good as a deal now without the $500 Server OS. I can see Apple dumping the DVD drive this year for all Mac Minis. It would be nice if it opened without any tools to have access to the 2 Drive bays and of course memory slots.
 
shompa said:
Yep. And later you will regret it.
Faster is fun, but how many full read/write do you have on the SSD? Ok, you can start applications 0.5 sec faster then a "slow" SSD.

16GB ram? What are you going to do? 2000000x2000000 images in Photoshop?
Click to expand...

A modern SSD has plenty of read/write cycles to ensure it stands a good chance of lasting the useful lifetime of a machine, and it would easily pay itself back over the course of 3 years. Mechanical disks also fail -- luckily I don't rely on any of my hardware being perfect.

16GB RAM would also be a massive boon, I would use every last MB, especially if I'm virtualizing different environments at the same time. Mostly I do database and server-side software development.

I like the idea of a MacMini because they're silent and compact. I don't like big, bulky, noisy PCs. I also like iMacs, but I don't like the price of Apple SSDs and I don't like removing the screen to change the disk.
 
blakespot said:
This saddens me. I was poised to grab the new Mac Pro on Thursday.

I've got the original Mac Pro (2x dual-core Xeon, Core2Duo tech) and it's feeling sluggish in more and more instances these days. It is five years old, after all.

So there are no viable Sandy Bridge CPUs to fit the config? The current pro is, I believe, 1x quad, 2x quad, 2x six-core. We've got quad SB i7's now, right? They're used in the iMac, etc. if I'm not mistaken. So no six-core, is that where we are?



bp
Click to expand...

Buy a Radeon 5770 (yes it works), put 4-8GB ram, maybe make a raid 0 with 2 normal 7200rpm HD and your Mac Pro will fly!!!

Even the first Mac pro can still be a wonderfull machine. Upgrade and update OS to Snow or Lion and you will have a brand, fast, new machine.
 
Truth be told - I think it's actually easier to change the HD on my iMac, than it was on my unibody Mini. :eek:
 
blakespot said:
So there are no viable Sandy Bridge CPUs to fit the config? The current pro is, I believe, 1x quad, 2x quad, 2x six-core. We've got quad SB i7's now, right? They're used in the iMac, etc. if I'm not mistaken. So no six-core, is that where we are?
Click to expand...

Yes, the best SB atm is Xeon E3-1290, which is a 3.6GHz quad core. There won't be six cores until Sandy Bridge-E is released, which will happen in Q1 2012 according to the latest reports.

The lack of cores isn't the only issue because CPUs for LGA 1155 socket do not support dual-CPU setups. That means 3.6GHz quad core Mac Pro would be the high-end Mac Pro. Using Xeon E3 would also be a downgrade in terms of memory (dual-channel vs triple-channel) and PCIe support (16 lanes vs 36 lanes).
 
iDisk said:
I agree with Hellhammer about the Mac Pros .... but am I the only one shocked that Apple is still hanging on to the white macbook? Considering they can just nix it with the Airs ... Unless they give the white macbooks the specs of the Air (ie: Higher resolution screen ) I wouldn't get to excited.
Click to expand...

The White MacBook has better battery life, faster CPU, more RAM, bigger hard drive, and it is cheaper. So how is the MacBook Air a replacement?
 
Hellhammer said:
Yes, the best SB atm is Xeon E3-1290, which is a 3.6GHz quad core. There won't be six cores until Sandy Bridge-E is released, which will happen in Q1 2012 according to the latest reports.

The lack of cores isn't the only issue because CPUs for LGA 1155 socket do not support dual-CPU setups. That means 3.6GHz quad core Mac Pro would be the high-end Mac Pro. Using Xeon E3 would also be a downgrade in terms of memory (dual-channel vs triple-channel) and PCIe support (16 lanes vs 36 lanes).
Click to expand...

Hellhammer, how does this chip compare to the i7 2600 in the iMac BTO speed wise?
 
345135448.png

If only...
 
Lone Deranger said:
It does sound a bit awkward indeed. However, I find the habit of Capitalizing Every New Word In A Single Sentence Much More Annoying. Seriously, what's up with that?
Click to expand...

It's called Title Case. Every word is Capitalised apart from a small subset of words that change from country to country.

This Is A Title.
This isn't a title.
 
Last edited:
I would very much appreciate if they brought back the Mini to its original status of $499 Mac. Even $599 would be cool though. And the white Macbook should follow the $300 step in the Pro line, so it would have to cost $899. Even with an i3 or something like that.
 
mrklaw said:
on the one hand, I'm happy to see the mini back in the frame. On the other hand, not so happy to see it alongside model numbers for the macbook. Does that make it more likely that the mini specs will align with the macbook rather than the MBP?
Click to expand...

Early Intel Mac Mini models (to mid 2007) were the same architecture as older MacBook models (or worse than the first MacBook).

Early 2006 Mac Mini = Mid 2006 MacBook (with much slower CPUs)
Late 2006 Mac Mini = Mid 2006 MacBook (with slower CPUs)
Mid 2007 Mac Mini = Late 2006 MacBook

From Early 2009, the Mac Mini has been closest to the architecture of a similar age 13" MacBook Pro.

Early 2009 Mac Mini = Mid 2009 13" MacBook Pro (with slower CPUs)
Late 2009 Mac Mini = Mid 2009 13" MacBook Pro (with one faster CPU)
Mid 2010 Mac Mini = Mid 2010 13" MacBook Pro

On that basis, the mid 2011 Mac Mini should be similar to the early 2011 13" MacBook Pro, possibly with slightly faster CPUs if Intel's prices have dropped enough. That would mean Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt.

The MacBook would be Core i3 or possibly up to 2.3 GHz Core i5 (same as entry level 13" MacBook Pro). It might miss out on Thunderbolt and just have Mini DisplayPort. No Firewire, of course.
 
I'm hoping they'll move to desktop 3.5" hard drives in the Mini.

I know I'll be disappointed, but I'll still hope.
 
topcomer said:
my gf asked me why men buy the mb pro, she thinks the white mb is much cuter..
Click to expand...

probably because men want the better hardware in the pro's. I'm a man and think the white plastic mb looks much cooler, more futuristic than the aluminium machines.
 
excellent.

This is excellent news.

I have been holding out for months now and barely getting by on my Powerbook G4.

I was starting to look at the base model Macbook Airs as an alternative to the Mini as there had been no news of a refresh.

Can't wait to see the configs in them.
 
Wormald said:
It's called Title Case, used to make things sounds more important. I agree, just normal sentence case is preferable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles
Click to expand...

MorphingDragon said:
It's called Title Case.

This Is A Title.
This isn't a title.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I had a quick Google to read up about it. It must be a relatively new thing. My old typography teachers in art college would have failed us on the spot if their students tried anything like that.
In the case of the Mac Rumors front page, a bold white font encased in a Burgundy filled title bar makes a more than adequate title. No need for silly typographical solecisms in my humble opinion. But hey... it's Arn's choice of course. :D
 
This surprises me, I thought the white Macbook was as good as dead. I see no reason to get the Macbook with the entry level air starting at the same price. If they dropped the price I might actually consider the white Macbook.
 
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