Just thinking about how the graphics choice will affect Snow Leopard.
Why aren't people waiting for Snow Leopard? It's only a few months away and Grand Central is supposed to be the best thing out of OS X since Cheetah.
s.
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.
Unboxing and Disassembly Photos of the New Mac Mini
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just thinking about how the graphics choice will affect Snow Leopard.
Why aren't people waiting for Snow Leopard? It's only a few months away and Grand Central is supposed to be the best thing out of OS X since Cheetah.
s.
Well, an unnecessary move...
"Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 128MB for 1GB configuration and 256MB for 2GB configuration."
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html
Meaning: if you put 2 GB or more in the mini you'll have 256 MB shared memory.
But I WANT to buy one - but not at this price and not with these specifications. Why is that hard to understand? The price is HIGH, the specifications are LOW and this is an ENTRYLEVEL Apple? No keyboard, no mouse, no monitor all for the low, low price of $599? Really? Way to go Apple! Keep this up and Apple will falter like the early 90's.
If you add a keyboard, mouse and monitor (like I would need to do as I have only MBP's) and the cost is higher than even the highest-end PC's from Dell sans the XPS series. How is that justifiable on the part of Apple? Is the OS really worth a premium of over $300 compared to a PC? I guess it is time for X86 as with the cost of hardware these days I can buy a system that will rival that of any Apple desktop at nearly half the price. No need for server CPU's as they really do nothing more than the standard CPU except add to the cost and allow Apple to charge more for the product.
Stick with the iPhone, Apple - it is under powered and over priced compared to other phones. They do not even allow for GPS turn by turn applications with VOICE like ANY OTHER GPS enabled smart-phone - and then there is ATT and the wonderful service - oh, not really. The service sucks - but that is OK as Apple signed an extension with ATT for more craptacular service time without any regard for the customer. I have an iPhone and MBP but ATT SUCKS and when my service contract is up I will unlock the phone and use T-Mobile - not greatly better, but anything other than ATT would be welcome.
I would be very upset it Apple only allowed for a subscription based GPS voice system as other companies allow for phone-side software without the subscription fees and frankly better software.
Why do people have issues with someone when they raise a VALID argument over price, performance and outdated hardware? Yes it has the new nVidia chipset but 1GB RAM and 120GB HD with no BR? What a slap in the face!
Make no mistake about this - I am a fan of Apple and own only Apple products but for an OS X netbook but I am very disappointed in Apple lately.
D
It's not because it depends on RAM only!
"Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 128MB for 1GB configuration and 256MB for 2GB configuration."
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html
Also confirmed here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7206231
Shared RAM will have nothing to do with SL. You get 256 MB of shared memory if you have 2 GB or more in your machine. No difference in graphics hardware here.
"Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 128MB for 1GB configuration and 256MB for 2GB configuration."
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html
too bad the CPU is soldered on now, given the damn weak cpu (weaker than a laptop 2 years ago 
) one can't even upgrade it anymore...
I really want to buy this machine, but given the cpu specs, I can't justify not spending the same money on a hackintosh many times more powerful....
Apple has decided badly for this desktop not even to be as powerful as a macbook! Bad judgement!
) one can't even upgrade it anymore...I really want to buy this machine, but given the cpu specs, I can't justify not spending the same money on a hackintosh many times more powerful....
Apple has decided badly for this desktop not even to be as powerful as a macbook! Bad judgement!
too bad the CPU is soldered on now, given the damn weak cpu (weaker than a laptop 2 years ago
I really want to buy this machine, but given the cpu specs, I can't justify not spending the same money on a hackintosh many times more powerful....
Why do people keep saying that ? It's the same CPU used in the current Macbook.
You say Apple never reduces the price and then go on to give an example of them reducing the price.
The ram is a little rediculous and the HD should be a 160, but go to dell.com and configure a Studio Hybrid. Make one change to the stock model and give it a Core 2, 2Ghz. Price: $549. Yes, it has 2GB and 160GB HD, but when I order my mini I'm going to live with that for a while and then rip the thing open and put in my own drive and ram and it's going to have 4GB and 0.5 TB HD, so what do I care how it comes? I briefly thought about going 2GB right away as it's not that much more, but why? I'd just wind up tossing the 2x1GB sticks out.
very good post.
and the new iMacs are also selling $100 to $300 (in US) less depending on the configuration. Is it something new in apple (allowing other retailers sell below Maximum retail price)?
i hardly see price go low than MRP in other countries; i remember waiting for thanksgiving day in singapore ... (so the prices will go down $100)
Well, that kinda sucks. I guess I could have just gotten the low-end one and either added RAM myself or had it configured by Apple.
Well, I guess I got double the hard drive and an added GB of RAM and didn't have to open that "bag of hurt" opening up the Mini and upgrading myself.
Pardon the interruption, but I'm glad Apple kept FireWire on the new mini. We musicians really appreciate it. That's enough for me to save up some more money and get the mini rather than the 
tv I was considering.
This concludes this worthless special report. We now return you to your normally scheduled b***hfest.
tv I was considering.This concludes this worthless special report. We now return you to your normally scheduled b***hfest.
Exchange rates will make the new Mini an underdog
It's nice, but outside USA its quite more expensive than before due to exchange rates. So unless Apple updates prices when the circus that exchange rates have become in this crisis, it is not going to sell much abroad.
It's nice, but outside USA its quite more expensive than before due to exchange rates. So unless Apple updates prices when the circus that exchange rates have become in this crisis, it is not going to sell much abroad.
The exchange rate makes it so everything else is more expensive too. Don't worry about us abroad, we know what a weak currency does, and we're quite used to it by now (except the Brits it seems).
in the lowend macbook yeah, but my 2 year old MBP has a 2.4GHz cpu and that is a mobile computer. We're talking about a desktop machine here! NOTHING can excuse not putting at least a mid-range (2.66GHz, more cache) cpu in there, if not giving the option for the "highend" cpu out of the fastest iMac.
its kind of laughable. I don't need another display sitting on my desk because I have 2 and a MBP. A MacPro is absolute overkill, an iMac is just another display that can't even be driven by another computer but the MacMini is slower/not faster, than my MBP from 2 years ago.
Apple simply wants to cripple this market for people with laptops and screens looking for a second Mac (desktop)!!! I'd give the money to them gladly, even with their insane margin of 30%+!
I totally agree.
Talk of the "Apple tax" has always bored me in the past as it's generally over exaggerated. Sure, Apple stuff is traditionally more expensive that the opposition but, prior to this update, I've always found the extra outlay more than worthwhile. The new Mini, though, crikey...it's laughably underspecced for the price, there can be no argument on that. Nice piece of kit for certain activities, but c'mon, not at that price.
I bought a 15" MBP in January to replace my trusty 2 y/o C2D 2.16ghz Macbook, very happy with it. My original plan was to sell the MB and buy an updated Mini to use with my 24" monitor, purely for torrents and browsing. I am soooo glad I didn't get around to selling my old MB though, it's now going to be permanently tethered to my monitor and assume the role that, originally, was planned for a Mini. Not as elegant certainly, but it performs the same task.
Someone earlier said what little difference there is between his 2 y/o MB and the new Mini. The big difference is clearly the cache, 9400m and dual monitor....but the difference isn't THAT great given the timespan between the two releases. 2 years is an eternity in computing, you wouldn't think so going off these specs. Yes yes, I know the mini is a completely different line to the MB but still...
Just ordered the low-end mini for 520 EUR including my university discount. Noticed that a basic mini-DVI-to-DVI is included already. That mini G4 will finally be replaced.
Later I will add a larger drive and 4 GB of RAM. Perfect for me so far. Let's hope delivers fast!
Later I will add a larger drive and 4 GB of RAM. Perfect for me so far. Let's hope
delivers fast!
Your 2 year old 2.4 GHZ CPU is not the current Mac Mini CPU, nor the current Macbook CPU. These new CPUs function on a 1066 MHZ FSB and are made on a 45nm process. These are in fact new CPUs, don't be fooled by just the clock speed of the chips.
Also, no, they can't use the desktop CPUs in the Mac mini because of heat issues probably. The mobile components have lower heat dissipation, which becomes important when you factor in the form factor of the mini or the Dell Studio Hybrid.
Again, you guys are failing to see what the Mac Mini is. It's a small form factor, low power computer. It's not a desktop and it's not in the market to be one.
And if their margin is insane, so is Dell's on the Studio Hybrid. This comparison to huge desktops with cheap components has got to stop.
Get used to it. The way they are printing out money, hyper-inflation is right around the corner
.
This was my point. People complain without considering what they are getting. Additionally ... anyone who buys a Mac "knows" (since the facts have been there forever), that Apple computers ARE simply sold at a higher price than PC's. But ... they won't ever have the problems the cheap PCs have with Windows. If the potential buyer does not want to pay an Apple Premium ... then buy a PC. Simple.
If the poster was referring to almost $1,000 Canadian (which he wasn't ... he was referring to a mini with upgrades at $949), he should have mentioned this fact in his post with his "almost a thousand bucks" comment. As for your $1,000 of computing ... buy a low-end MacBook and you'll get some computing power with a screen and mobility.
The Mini IS NOT a MacBook Pro. My guess is that in Canada a MacBook Pro is well over C$1000. You should expect to get more in the MacBook Pro than in the Mini. Just because 2.93 GHz chips and 9600M discreet graphics chips are available, Apple should not be expected to use them in the Mini. What would then differentiate the Mini from the MacBook Pro and the US$1000-$2000 price difference in computing power.
Then buy a "fantastic PC" with your C$1000 ... Its a simple solution. Please understand ... I do not justify Apple charging more for similarly equipped PCs simply because of their OS, nor do I justify them using the older options than some PCs. However, this is Apple's business plan and the only way people can get them to change is to stop buying their incredibly well-designed, well-running, dependable computer. Up until this point, Apple's marketshare is growing, not shrinking, so apparently it is not as big of an issue as people vent it to be out here in these forums.
Excellent decision! See my previous section. If enough potential buyers do that, Apple will get your point!
As stated in my posts, Apple is not trying to complete with the "value" players. They are trying to offer the user a dependable, easy-to-use computing experience through their OS (the root of Apple). Then they are adding to it well-designed, fun to use computers. Their history has always been to charge a premium for this dependability and design, and they have always said that anyone who does not want to pay that premium should stick with PCs and Windows problems. I don't always agree with Apple's policies, but I fully respect their business model. Why? Because it is working for them (recognize the $28 billion in the bank).
Would you have paid the premium ? With all the bitching on the price staying the same, you'd think the last thing people would want is yet another more expensive option.
It's not just well over C$1000, it's just over C$2000. Compared to the C$729 Mac Mini, that's a big price differential.
Also, with the heat issues of the 9600M, you'd think people would realise why Apple couldn't stuff it into the Mac Mini's casing...
Technically, yes, but they're based on the same general architecture and as such will provide similar performance.
The problem is, the cheapest computer Apple produce is now £499 (in UK prices). The cheapest computer Dell produces (with extremely similar specs) is £279, not much over half the price. Yes, the form factor costs a bit, as does the low power requirements. But not double. No way.
It seems to be a fact of life that Apple's prices are increasing while the specs are pretty much stagnating. The MacBook update in November was disappointing in terms of value, this has followed that trend. Guess I'll have to keep breaking the EULA for my desktop machine.