I don't get why everyone is saying today's update is so bad. If Apple had even slightly changed the design of the iMac / Mac Mini, yet the updated specs were the same, I have a feeling people would be saying how good this update is. Thoughts?
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.
whats up with everyone?
- Thread starter jpk32092
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see why they had to put integrated graphics on the iMac.
Addendum: Without just having a 9400M+9600M combo.
Because THAT would have been acceptable.
well looks like i wont be getting the new MM, too expensive for the badness that it is. i was really going to get one but i dont think so now.
nah not really, how about they put something acceptable in the mini...
What I expect the iMac to have is a midrange mobile GPU (9600M/HD4670). It has an integrated one now. Don't get me started on processors.
Dual cores are a joke today unless you're spending less than $500 on the computer.
oh i wont you could go all day
apple claims to be the best at graphics etcetc, but if they are going to put ****** GPU's in (that arent even dedicated!), not have any actual top performing GPUs in the MP (like the quadro) and leave the mini/low-end mac with underperforming intergrated......i just dont know whats going to happen.
yeah i agree with the dual core thing. if only apple would put desktop parts in the imac. that would be very nice. cheaper to make and everything! im sure we could sacrifice a little bit of space for it!!
I would of also thought that people would be excited, but like alphaod said, "It's a forum, people complain."
Expectations were high...
I can understand the disappointment. After reading through threads here last night about the new release - I was anxious to see what would really be released. I guess I was expecting for there to be some sort of surprise vs what everyone else was speculating. When I first saw what the update was - I was pretty disappointed. I don't think the disappointed was entirely due to this update - but maybe towards Apple (formerly Apple COMPUTER) as a whole.
Personally, I haven't owned a Mac for a few years now. Way back I had an old Mac SE/30 and of more recent times a couple Power Macs. I sold the last one, a G5, with the intention of replacing it with an intel Mac desktop at some point.
I think I have been waiting all of this time for that tower desktop that Apple refuses to make. I am a software developer by trade, and with the exception of light development work in Java on Solaris, most of my work is done in C# on Windows. So the purchase of a Mac is somewhat frivolous - and has been put on the back burner until Apple released something that I was looking for.
I have to admit that after over 20 years in the IT industry (80% of which has been on Windows), I am starting to get bored and looking for something new. I started out working on Mainframes and AS/400s, went to Solaris/Unix briefly, but have been stuck in the Windows world for quite a while. I'm interested in Mac, not for the style or because of it being the 'in' thing - but purely from a technical perspective - OS X is the UNIX that no one has ever been able to do before. I'm ready to make the switch to OS X professionally, but I just don't think Apple wants people like me interested in it.
In the professional realm, I can't imagine OS X gaining any ground with only having 1 choice of server. I am frustrated that OS X is not being aggressively pushed in the Unix/Linux server market. For a long time, I hoped that Apple would partner with a server hardware company that has a good reputation in the market, and good customer base (like Sun for instance) and let them build and sell the licensed server hardware. With ZFS and some other cooperation between Sun and Apple, I would think this would work out well... But instead I feel that professionally I need to disregard OS X and concentrate on 'Enterprise' systems like Solaris, which really disappoints me because I think that OS X is among the best Unix out there. The only thing that would have been better is if OS X was built on top of something like Solaris instead of BSD, then in my mind it would be unbeatable, unstoppable and Microsoft would not even have a chance... In the server market, an OS needs to be able to be run on many different levels of hardware - and trying to dictate the hardware choices (um, I mean hardware choice - as in one), is a surefire way of guaranteeing a superior OS never sees the light of day.
So Apple has frustrated me professionally for some time. But for recreation, I was still waiting for the right desktop, which I also found frustrating. I would go Mac Pro - but just cannot justify spending well over $2K on a workstation when I can get really nice server hardware for the same price (which I do actually need). Realizing that an upgradeable sub $1K apple mini tower was just not going to happen, I turned my attention to the Mac Mini (the iMacs are nice, but I have an aversion to all in one's - I usually keep my monitors far longer than my computers).
So I have been looking forward to seeing the long overdue upgrade to the mini. Secretly I was hoping that we were going to see a quad core mini tower replace the mini. So when I first looked at the updated specs, my jaw dropped. The same Core 2 Duo 2 GHZ processor that has been in these things for so long, really got me irritated. I was hoping for the option of more cores and the ability to utilize 8 GB. That would have made me feel that my waiting was worth it... Instead I felt like Apple was trying to do the unthinkable in the computer industry, repackage the same (years) old tech and try to force it on people at unreasonable prices.
But now I have had time to cool down and reassess what I was originally looking for when I first started looking that the mini.
This update release is not really that bad. And it might just be enough to get me to finally switch back to a Mac. The graphics upgrade, is significant in my mind. The addition of Firewire 800 is a really big deal. I was under the assumption Apple was going to drop Firewire on the Mini, and to see that they put FW 800 on it is great. Now we can hook up an external FW array and get some decent speed (not eSATA speed, but much better than USB 2). The memory limit of 4 GB has me a little concerned, but I am really hoping to read in the next couple of days that the real limit is actually higher.
So, in the morning I was upset about the Mini update, but now after looking at the changes - I might be closer to purchasing one than I have ever been before.
Now if only Apple would let me give them $450 for a licensed copy of OS X that I could run on the hardware of my choice (no support required), then I would feel I had arrived...
I can understand the disappointment. After reading through threads here last night about the new release - I was anxious to see what would really be released. I guess I was expecting for there to be some sort of surprise vs what everyone else was speculating. When I first saw what the update was - I was pretty disappointed. I don't think the disappointed was entirely due to this update - but maybe towards Apple (formerly Apple COMPUTER) as a whole.
Personally, I haven't owned a Mac for a few years now. Way back I had an old Mac SE/30 and of more recent times a couple Power Macs. I sold the last one, a G5, with the intention of replacing it with an intel Mac desktop at some point.
I think I have been waiting all of this time for that tower desktop that Apple refuses to make. I am a software developer by trade, and with the exception of light development work in Java on Solaris, most of my work is done in C# on Windows. So the purchase of a Mac is somewhat frivolous - and has been put on the back burner until Apple released something that I was looking for.
I have to admit that after over 20 years in the IT industry (80% of which has been on Windows), I am starting to get bored and looking for something new. I started out working on Mainframes and AS/400s, went to Solaris/Unix briefly, but have been stuck in the Windows world for quite a while. I'm interested in Mac, not for the style or because of it being the 'in' thing - but purely from a technical perspective - OS X is the UNIX that no one has ever been able to do before. I'm ready to make the switch to OS X professionally, but I just don't think Apple wants people like me interested in it.
In the professional realm, I can't imagine OS X gaining any ground with only having 1 choice of server. I am frustrated that OS X is not being aggressively pushed in the Unix/Linux server market. For a long time, I hoped that Apple would partner with a server hardware company that has a good reputation in the market, and good customer base (like Sun for instance) and let them build and sell the licensed server hardware. With ZFS and some other cooperation between Sun and Apple, I would think this would work out well... But instead I feel that professionally I need to disregard OS X and concentrate on 'Enterprise' systems like Solaris, which really disappoints me because I think that OS X is among the best Unix out there. The only thing that would have been better is if OS X was built on top of something like Solaris instead of BSD, then in my mind it would be unbeatable, unstoppable and Microsoft would not even have a chance... In the server market, an OS needs to be able to be run on many different levels of hardware - and trying to dictate the hardware choices (um, I mean hardware choice - as in one), is a surefire way of guaranteeing a superior OS never sees the light of day.
So Apple has frustrated me professionally for some time. But for recreation, I was still waiting for the right desktop, which I also found frustrating. I would go Mac Pro - but just cannot justify spending well over $2K on a workstation when I can get really nice server hardware for the same price (which I do actually need). Realizing that an upgradeable sub $1K apple mini tower was just not going to happen, I turned my attention to the Mac Mini (the iMacs are nice, but I have an aversion to all in one's - I usually keep my monitors far longer than my computers).
So I have been looking forward to seeing the long overdue upgrade to the mini. Secretly I was hoping that we were going to see a quad core mini tower replace the mini. So when I first looked at the updated specs, my jaw dropped. The same Core 2 Duo 2 GHZ processor that has been in these things for so long, really got me irritated. I was hoping for the option of more cores and the ability to utilize 8 GB. That would have made me feel that my waiting was worth it... Instead I felt like Apple was trying to do the unthinkable in the computer industry, repackage the same (years) old tech and try to force it on people at unreasonable prices.
But now I have had time to cool down and reassess what I was originally looking for when I first started looking that the mini.
This update release is not really that bad. And it might just be enough to get me to finally switch back to a Mac. The graphics upgrade, is significant in my mind. The addition of Firewire 800 is a really big deal. I was under the assumption Apple was going to drop Firewire on the Mini, and to see that they put FW 800 on it is great. Now we can hook up an external FW array and get some decent speed (not eSATA speed, but much better than USB 2). The memory limit of 4 GB has me a little concerned, but I am really hoping to read in the next couple of days that the real limit is actually higher.
So, in the morning I was upset about the Mini update, but now after looking at the changes - I might be closer to purchasing one than I have ever been before.
Now if only Apple would let me give them $450 for a licensed copy of OS X that I could run on the hardware of my choice (no support required), then I would feel I had arrived...
im guessing it would be somewhere around 6GB max... just going off the other apple products.
I think it's more of an insult that the $1,499 model only has the 9400 chip and no upgrade option, you have to pay $1,799 just get a low end dedicated card!
I know these use laptop parts but can't they source out a board that has 4 memory slots on the 24in? The thing is huge. (I know cut into mac pro, have to make proprietary board blah blah)
This update was better than the MacWorld IMO. Overall, I think it was a pretty good update:
Naturally, I'd love the elusive $1000 mid-tower monitor-less Mac, but I know that Apple would completely destroy the competitiveness of the Mac Pro line if something like that were offered. I'm hoping, but not holding my breath.
One disappointment for me is the $2200 iMac not having a quad-core in it. That's a hefty premium over the lower models for not much more hardware. A quad would have made it a no-brainer for someone like me.
Another bummer is the 2.0GHz CPU in the Mini. Yeah, I know it will do what most people need (I have a 2.0GHz previous gen Mini in addition to my 2.6GHz MBP) but I'd like to have seen some bump in speed. I mean, really, the 2.0s have been in the Mini line for how long now? At least take it to 2.4 or 2.5 so it's not so laughably low.
Other than that, I'm pretty happy with this update.
Mike
Naturally, I'd love the elusive $1000 mid-tower monitor-less Mac, but I know that Apple would completely destroy the competitiveness of the Mac Pro line if something like that were offered. I'm hoping, but not holding my breath.
One disappointment for me is the $2200 iMac not having a quad-core in it. That's a hefty premium over the lower models for not much more hardware. A quad would have made it a no-brainer for someone like me.
Another bummer is the 2.0GHz CPU in the Mini. Yeah, I know it will do what most people need (I have a 2.0GHz previous gen Mini in addition to my 2.6GHz MBP) but I'd like to have seen some bump in speed. I mean, really, the 2.0s have been in the Mini line for how long now? At least take it to 2.4 or 2.5 so it's not so laughably low.
Other than that, I'm pretty happy with this update.
Mike
No matter what Apple does, people will complain about it. First comes the wave of "why didn't they add this option" and "why didn't they do this". Then someone has to complain about the price. Then someone has to compare it to PCs. And then my all-time favorite, "I just bought an iMac last week and now I'm pissed."
I think these are great machines and short of a re-design, these are significant updates. I also like the number of upgrade choices that we have. For the 2 upper-end iMacs, you can pretty much build it the way you want it without having to make compromises. And you can now configure the iMac to be a formidable gaming machine.
So allow me to be one of the minority on here and say, "Thank you Apple. I love your work."
Bryan
I think these are great machines and short of a re-design, these are significant updates. I also like the number of upgrade choices that we have. For the 2 upper-end iMacs, you can pretty much build it the way you want it without having to make compromises. And you can now configure the iMac to be a formidable gaming machine.
So allow me to be one of the minority on here and say, "Thank you Apple. I love your work."
Bryan
Not saying I don't appreciate it but be honest with yourself, the REAL starting price for an iMac is $1,700 because I would refuse to go from having 4GB of ram to only 3.5GB because my underpowered video card is eating up my system memory. Even Dell etc put a low end dedicated card with ram that doesn't eat your ram on anything above $1k.
Ive been here a while and never witnessed an update where a bunch of people didn't complain.
just how it is
just how it is
I think what first hit me and got me disappointed was when I logged onto the Apple Store this morning to check out the updates.
I knew that the minis and iMacs were being updated, but did not know that the Mac Pros were being updated as well.
So when I first got into the Apple store, I saw this picture without reading the heading fully (only focusing on the words 'new Mac'):
![banner_macpro_090303.jpg]()
I immediately felt a sense of excitement, thinking that it was a new larger mini that had some expansion capabilities - and then I realized that it was the picture of the top of the Mac Pro... And then I noticed the same 2.0 GHZ Core 2 Duo processer which has been in these forever, and then.... Well, I am over it now.
But I think taking the top of the Power Mac and turning it into the new design of a max-mini Mac would be really nice... It would really give new meaning to the phrase 'cutting into their pro line'.
I knew that the minis and iMacs were being updated, but did not know that the Mac Pros were being updated as well.
So when I first got into the Apple store, I saw this picture without reading the heading fully (only focusing on the words 'new Mac'):
I immediately felt a sense of excitement, thinking that it was a new larger mini that had some expansion capabilities - and then I realized that it was the picture of the top of the Mac Pro... And then I noticed the same 2.0 GHZ Core 2 Duo processer which has been in these forever, and then.... Well, I am over it now.
But I think taking the top of the Power Mac and turning it into the new design of a max-mini Mac would be really nice... It would really give new meaning to the phrase 'cutting into their pro line'.
So tell me what you expected to have in the Mac mini besides a P7xxx/P8xxx Series mobile processor and 9400M G?
Minitower mac isn't happening. The mini update was the best thing all day. Followed by the dual band Airport Extreme.
Minitower mac isn't happening. The mini update was the best thing all day. Followed by the dual band Airport Extreme.
GT120
.. which basically = 9400 anyway doesnt it?? which is basically an 8400 :|(not really, just confused :-S)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120M = 9600MGT120
(not really, just confused :-S)
The 9400M G is basically a 8400M GS with shared video RAM. I don't expect to see a dedicated video solution in the Mac mini again. The fact that the iMac uses it is horrifying.
Hey, I agree with you - the mini update was not bad. I was talking about my initial reaction, which was not positive. After having time to reflect on what the mini really is, I am not disappointed with the update in any way. I was just hoping for something different.
A mini-tower might not happen, but I definitely see a real need for the return of a Power Mac type of system. There is no reason why Apple could not have both a lower cost Power Mac and high end Mac Pro. Having no option of a tower less than $2K is just insane and will either help grow the Hackintosh market (a route which I really don't want to go) or push potential buyers into a different brand. Apple has a real unique product in OS X, and right now there is no alternative that competes. But by locking consumers into such rigid choices, coupled with yesterdays technology - it gives incentives to others to provide what Apple will not. Perhaps it may be the inspiration for an even better interface to be developed one day on a competing Unix platform like Ubuntu or OpenSolaris...
In response to:
So tell me what you expected to have in the Mac mini besides a P7xxx/P8xxx Series mobile processor and 9400M G?
In my mind, since the mini does not have a screen, keyboard or battery - it is not really a laptop -and does not need to be constrained to a 'mobile' processor. In my opinion it is more of a desktop than a laptop and should probably have desktop hardware, as opposed to laptop hardware. So this update could have given us a redesign with some real desktop hardware and specs. I was thinking that an update almost two years in the making would have given ample time for such an update. Because what they released today should have been updated a year ago...
That being said, for it's size and price (which I also include the value of OSX and iLife), I still think its a great value. I think a Core 2 Duo 2 GHZ mobile chip still commands about $200. Add the price of the software, and I definitely see the value in a mini.
I am watching for some more reviews and an absolute confirmation that the mini can actually use 6 GB of ram or more. Once I see this, I will immediately go to my local Apple store and buy one.
gah i was close.. so what is the GT130 equivalent to then??
the imac NEEDS a dedicated DESKTOP grade GPU, (and CPU aswell)..