or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple warns of near-term iMac, Mac mini constraints
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple warns of near-term iMac, Mac mini constraints - Page 3

post #81 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

Apple demonstrates again why Macs make no sense if you are in business. Imagine that you urgently need to acquire a couple more desktops. "Sorry," says Apple, "none available. Can't say when new models will be in stock. Just put your business on hold for a few weeks." No supplier to business can afford to behave that way towards its customers. Apple remains a consumer product.

I guess every now and then the Cult of Microsoft people suddenly think they have this epiphany as to why their computers are superior and register at AI just to post it and show us the error of our ways.

It's not like you can contact any other computer manufacturer, or go to some one particular store, and always be able to get the exact model that you want, so this isn't exactly exciting news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

...and of course all self respecting businesses never plan ahead, they just wake up on day and go, we need new computers....

Sadly, I think that's exactly what many of them do do.
post #82 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

Apple demonstrates again why Macs make no sense if you are in business. Imagine that you urgently need to acquire a couple more desktops. "Sorry," says Apple, "none available. Can't say when new models will be in stock. Just put your business on hold for a few weeks." No supplier to business can afford to behave that way towards its customers. Apple remains a consumer product.

You are pretty bad at running a business if you have to buy extra computers on a whim, and you can still get a mac during this time. Apple just isn't shipping new ones to stores, most stores don't completely sell out before the new inventory comes in.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sadly, I think that's exactly what many of them do do.

That's a good point, they deserve microsoft then and a 50+ strong IT stuff do manage control for the ms crap for the other 50 people who actually do some productive work.
post #84 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

If your last point is correct, your overall argument might be right, but I'm skeptical that we've come to that point (or ever will). Perhaps more importantly, how can we ever know if we've come to that point? How can we know that there won't be "something new" in 6 months that is highly beneficial but requires the latest processor to make it usable? I don't think we can.

Historically, buying the low end of currently available processors hasn't been a good bet. I'm not sure I see evidence that we have reached a point where that no longer applies.

The test, in my view, is editing HD video. When you get to the point where a computer can reasonably handle that demanding process, I suspect you're there. To be sure, more power is always welcome but from my perspective, it's all about having enough power to do what you want to relatively painlessly.

I do realize that some use for our computers that is more demanding than HD video editing could conceivably come along but HD video editing is such a demanding process, any computer that can handle that tough task has to have a serious amount of horsepower.

I still can't get over the fact that my then-state-of-the-art G4 Tower cost 10 times more than my first Mini and they were roughly equal in power. It causes me to balk at spending top dollar for a state-of-the-art tower. Sure a Mini is significantly less powerful but it's also significantly less expensive. You basically buy three Minis for the price of one Nehalem tower. It means that while you think in terms of extracting at least six or seven years out of the tower, turning over a Mini every three or four years seems reasonable enough. I'm on my second Mini and a third one soon enough will be in the mix. As the Mini gets more powerful, it makes it far more easy to live with as a low-cost desktop. Cake and eat it, too, comes to mind. Had I bought a tower back a few years ago when I bought my first Mini, would it be that much more powerful than the Mini is likely to be say, maybe, by next spring when we're likely to have an upgrade on the soon-coming upgrade?
post #85 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

The test, in my view, is editing HD video. When you get to the point where a computer can reasonably handle that demanding process, I suspect you're there. To be sure, more power is always welcome but from my perspective, it's all about having enough power to do what you want to relatively painlessly.

Two points:

1. That may be today's test, but we don't know what that test may be in 6 months or, more likely, 2 years. Two years, for most people, would be a very short time to have to buy a new computer. We don't really have any way to know what is "enough" computing power in the future.

2. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, Apple really does need to stay competitive in the specs race, especially to continue to draw switchers. If for no other reason than to counter word of mouth against them. People don't like uncertainty, so if Apple falls behind in the specs race, that creates uncertainty in peoples minds about whether the Mac they were thinking about buying will last them as long as they need it to. Plenty of people, especially in the Windows world, have had the experience of getting a computer that slowed to a crawl after a couple of OS updates, or upgrading some software, or just as the Web got more intense in regard to rendering requirements. People don't want to repeat that, and the perception, often created by FUD, that that could happen with a Mac they can afford isn't good for Apple.
post #86 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

...and of course all self respecting businesses never plan ahead, they just wake up on day and go, we need new computers....

I guess proper businesses also schedule their disasters to coincide with stock availability. Can i have your crystal ball, please?
post #87 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Listen to your brain! Gather up some stuff you can do without and get selling on ebay. Cut down on the Latte's for a few weeks, buy cheaper (and less) beer, and in no time you'll be back to normal except with a shiny new iMac. Some things can't be justified or rationalized, they just need to get done.

I'll bet that you are also on the after-dinner speaking circuit!
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #88 of 137
I just bought a base version of '09 mac mini 7 days ago and heard about the mini update rumor today. I was wondering if I should return the mini(and pay restocking fee) and get the updated mini when it comes out. Any advice/suggestions greatly appreciated.
post #89 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Two points:

1. That may be today's test, but we don't know what that test may be in 6 months or, more likely, 2 years. Two years, for most people, would be a very short time to have to buy a new computer. We don't really have any way to know what is "enough" computing power in the future.

2. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, Apple really does need to stay competitive in the specs race, especially to continue to draw switchers. If for no other reason than to counter word of mouth against them. People don't like uncertainty, so if Apple falls behind in the specs race, that creates uncertainty in peoples minds about whether the Mac they were thinking about buying will last them as long as they need it to. Plenty of people, especially in the Windows world, have had the experience of getting a computer that slowed to a crawl after a couple of OS updates, or upgrading some software, or just as the Web got more intense in regard to rendering requirements. People don't want to repeat that, and the perception, often created by FUD, that that could happen with a Mac they can afford isn't good for Apple.

At one point you would have been right to argue that more demanding applications would come along and for years that has been the case. But just because something has been the case in the past doesn't mean it will be so going forward. I think it's of note that OSs are now becoming more efficient. Vista is giving way to Windows 7 and Leopard has been replaced by Snow Leopard. Keep in mind that rendering HD video is extremely demanding and even if other tasks come along, they may be different but not necessarily more demanding. We're not talking word processing.

Certainly, if all I can do is everything I'm doing today plus whatever isn't more demanding than working with HD video, sounds to me like I've got a very useful device.
post #90 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximac View Post

I just bought a base version of '09 mac mini 7 days ago and heard about the mini update rumor today. I was wondering if I should return the mini(and pay restocking fee) and get the updated mini when it comes out. Any advice/suggestions greatly appreciated.

I would most definitely pay the restocking fee and wait. It will most likely be worth it.
post #91 of 137
Couldn't this just mean that he Mini has finally been dropped?
post #92 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

You are pretty bad at running a business if you have to buy extra computers on a whim, and you can still get a mac during this time. Apple just isn't shipping new ones to stores, most stores don't completely sell out before the new inventory comes in.

I disagree. I work for a post production/editorial/motion design company and if someone came to us with a really big job and we needed more hardware fast we might find this supply constraint a big problem. We have to run pretty lean (particularly these days) and cannot afford to have excess and idle hardware lying around. We have found ourselves in this very situation a a couple of times in the past.

Sure we could probably find something that would get the job done, but it might not be the best fit or might cause us to spend more money than we planned just to get the hardware. I think Apple needs to get over this game they play with supply and keeping new products so completely secret. It's a delicate balance for them - they don't want to kill sales with a new product announcement.
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post

Apple demonstrates again why Macs make no sense if you are in business. Imagine that you urgently need to acquire a couple more desktops. "Sorry," says Apple, "none available. Can't say when new models will be in stock. Just put your business on hold for a few weeks." No supplier to business can afford to behave that way towards its customers. Apple remains a consumer product.

Not sure I would agree with you on that. I can goto a BestBuy and get a Mac but I can't get a PC with Vista Biz or XP Pro at BB, OM, Staples... And with the resale value of a 4 year old mac vs a PC the IT Budget stays lower, then you have IT support and I can tell you first hand the most IT does with Mac's on site is call to check if everything is going well... THAT's a first! IT calling the user checking for problems!
post #94 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I disagree. I work for a post production/editorial/motion design company and if someone came to us with a really big job and we needed more hardware fast we might find this supply constraint a big problem. We have to run pretty lean (particularly these days) and cannot afford to have excess and idle hardware lying around. We have found ourselves in this very situation a a couple of times in the past.

Sure we could probably find something that would get the job done, but it might not be the best fit or might cause us to spend more money than we planned just to get the hardware. I think Apple needs to get over this game they play with supply and keeping new products so completely secret. It's a delicate balance for them - they don't want to kill sales with a new product announcement.

I think they did. The article states you can order from Apple but it MAY come from another source. So if I oder an iMac with overnight shipping I'll still get it.

However with Mac's at BestBuy, Local retailers as well as Amazon you need one, order next day and you'll get it... Or order through Newegg and it will arrive an hour later.
post #95 of 137
"Apple demonstrates again why Macs make no sense if you are in business. Imagine that you urgently need to acquire a couple more desktops. "Sorry," says Apple, "none available. Can't say when new models will be in stock. Just put your business on hold for a few weeks." No supplier to business can afford to behave that way towards its customers. Apple remains a consumer product."

Actually, they do. I use my Mini, one of the earliest Intel models, to run OS X and Linux both at home and at work. At work, I use Vista on an iMac to work with programs that are Mafia$oft only. The days of a one-PC-fits-all-business-solution but with a crazy multi-level-price-martix are numbered.

When it comes to customer support with Mafia$oft, for our level of support, three hours of technical support is generally 250 USD per hour. Many of the K-12s and higher education institutions in the US cannot afford to be treated as a cash teet for a bloated corporation. We are already paying enormous licensing fees just for the privilege of running software.
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximac View Post

I just bought a base version of '09 mac mini 7 days ago and heard about the mini update rumor today. I was wondering if I should return the mini(and pay restocking fee) and get the updated mini when it comes out. Any advice/suggestions greatly appreciated.

IMO you should save the money on the restocking fee. You just need to put a 7200rpm drive and 4GB RAM in that Mini and you're good to go for another 2 years at least. Oh and get Snow Leopard.
post #97 of 137
"Historically, buying the low end of currently available processors hasn't been a good bet. I'm not sure I see evidence that we have reached a point where that no longer applies."

I bought a top of the line dual 1 Ghz Quicksilver in 2002. It's still my main machine. However, it was $3000. Then there was a roughly $400 midterm upgrade for Tiger; a new video card, a SATA card and drive, and a USB 2 card. Total cost, $3400. Divided by (rounding up) 8 years, it comes to $425 per year.

A new mac Mini, at least for the last batch, is $600. For another $150 I can get it to 4 GB and add a larger 7200 RPM hard drive. Total cost, $750. If it lasts only two years before it gets tossed/demoted, my TCO is less than buying a high-end box and riding it into the dirt. So I think I do see evidence that the paradigm has changed.

I was all ready to buy a new mini last weekend, but the rumors caused my finger to rise from the 'buy now' button even before I heard about the mini's speed bump. I want to see the new iMacs first. But if they don't have either a quad core or an express-card slot, then it's back to the buy base mini and trick it out plan.
post #98 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

At one point you would have been right to argue that more demanding applications would come along and for years that has been the case. But just because something has been the case in the past doesn't mean it will be so going forward. I think it's of note that OSs are now becoming more efficient. Vista is giving way to Windows 7 and Leopard has been replaced by Snow Leopard. Keep in mind that rendering HD video is extremely demanding and even if other tasks come along, they may be different but not necessarily more demanding. We're not talking word processing.

An analogous argument has been repeatedly made in the past and it has always turned out to be wrong. You could be right this time, you may very well be, but why should anyone count on the chance that you are.

And yes, I understand that rendering HD video is extremely demanding, but I don't think that by itself makes the argument. There have always been "extremely demanding" tasks, supplanted by more demanding tasks, and so on.

But, even if we assume that there will never be a more demanding task than rendering HD video (which, frankly, seems unlikely), wouldn't we want to be able to do it faster, or to do something else, like render 2 or even 3 HD videos at the same time, or multiple other things, at the same time.

As an argument, it just isn't convincing. It's not convincing because past personal experience and everything they hear and read (true or not) contradicts it.

And, from a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.

EDIT: Semantic disconnect. I was reading and writing "rendering" but thinking "encoding". Not that it matters to either of our points, but...
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVguy View Post

"Historically, buying the low end of currently available processors hasn't been a good bet. I'm not sure I see evidence that we have reached a point where that no longer applies."

I bought a top of the line dual 1 Ghz Quicksilver in 2002. It's still my main machine. However, it was $3000. Then there was a roughly $400 midterm upgrade for Tiger; a new video card, a SATA card and drive, and a USB 2 card. Total cost, $3400. Divided by (rounding up) 8 years, it comes to $425 per year.

A new mac Mini, at least for the last batch, is $600. For another $150 I can get it to 4 GB and add a larger 7200 RPM hard drive. Total cost, $750. If it lasts only two years before it gets tossed/demoted, my TCO is less than buying a high-end box and riding it into the dirt. So I think I do see evidence that the paradigm has changed.

I was all ready to buy a new mini last weekend, but the rumors caused my finger to rise from the 'buy now' button even before I heard about the mini's speed bump. I want to see the new iMacs first. But if they don't have either a quad core or an express-card slot, then it's back to the buy base mini and trick it out plan.

I'm going to agree with you. At this stage for mobile CPUs we're seeing the Penryns do quite well overall, such that even a 2ghz Penryn can go for a few more years. There is a bit more shift into other factors being important, such as GPU, RAM and hard disk. Sure a 2.8ghz Penryn would do very well against a 2ghz. But in the context of the next few years, Mac or PC, while Intel would like you to believe CPU is the main dominant factor, things like RAM, GPU (what I've been saying for the past few weeks) and hard drive especially, will affect overall computing experience a lot.

Of course, if you're doing 3D renders and a lot of video encoding, then sure, CPU will be important. But that's a bit further away from the mainstream, and video encoding is at the very cusp of really exploding in terms of speed once they shift it to the GPU. Using even a 9400M has the potential to be faster than a 3ghz Core 2 Duo.

Nonetheless, some of the iMacs should go quadcore, if nothing else but as a differentiating factor, for competing with PCs, and maintaining *some* leading edge.

I got my refurb MacBook Alu 2.0ghz in May or so ... Even though it is the "slowest" (I cringe a bit when I think that I bought the "lowest end CPU") ... It is a Penryn, the MacBook Alu has the aluminium build, 9400M, DDR3 RAM, and I got my SATA2 7200rpm drive I popped in. Paying a significant amount more for 2.5ghz or so CPU was just... I just didn't see the real value.

For me multitasking is important, fast opening and switching between apps, Adobe CS4 and iLife and music creation, not really hardcore video editing but casual editing for YouTube. I run Virtual XP now, so RAM will be important more so than CPU. Currently with VMWare Fusion it is actually better to just allocate 1 CPU to the virtual machine...

I may not be making total sense here, just arrived at work so just wanted to type out a quick reply.
post #100 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximac View Post

I just bought a base version of '09 mac mini 7 days ago and heard about the mini update rumor today. I was wondering if I should return the mini(and pay restocking fee) and get the updated mini when it comes out. Any advice/suggestions greatly appreciated.

The mini won't get a major update until next year. If it gets updated soon, most likely we're talking about the Core 2 Duo getting a notch faster and the hard drive a little bigger. Probably best to just be happy with what you got.
post #101 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The mini won't get a major update until next year. If it gets updated soon, most likely we're talking about the Core 2 Duo getting a notch faster and the hard drive a little bigger. Probably best to just be happy with what you got.

Why wouldn't they redesign the Mini case at the same time as the iMac? Maybe they will match.
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

And with the resale value of a 4 year old mac vs a PC the IT Budget stays lower, then you have IT support and I can tell you first hand the most IT does with Mac's on site is call to check if everything is going well... THAT's a first! IT calling the user checking for problems!

The Windows PCs where I used to work were more than 4 yrs old and never had problems. The only time I called IT support was when I wanted more permissions to install things. Half our room was Mac and half PC...the Macs had endless problems with file and disc compatibility, things mysteriously disappearing after being saved, latest versions of documents failing to appear, spreadsheet issues, optical drive issues with the iMacs, etc. Plus IT support had better knowledge of PCs, which I would assume is fairly standard. I would say overall that the company spent far more on buying and maintaining Macs than PCs.
post #103 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

I guess proper businesses also schedule their disasters to coincide with stock availability. Can i have your crystal ball, please?

Wait a second. You allow for disaster management in any company but you don't allow for apple to be short of stock for a week or two? When most of their retailers have at the same time ample stock to cater for almost any need by and large? That's strange... Wouldn't it be perfectly natural for any company to cater to their imminent needs with the available apple equipment and then buy in a few days better and cheaper equipment just out?

This is some very pecurial logic.
post #104 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

An analogous argument has been repeatedly made in the past and it has always turned out to be wrong. You could be right this time, you may very well be, but why should anyone count on the chance that you are.

And yes, I understand that rendering HD video is extremely demanding, but I don't think that by itself makes the argument. There have always been "extremely demanding" tasks, supplanted by more demanding tasks, and so on.

But, even if we assume that there will never be a more demanding task than rendering HD video (which, frankly, seems unlikely), wouldn't we want to be able to do it faster, or to do something else, like render 2 or even 3 HD videos at the same time, or multiple other things, at the same time.

As an argument, it just isn't convincing. It's not convincing because past personal experience and everything they hear and read (true or not) contradicts it.

And, from a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.

I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person. There was a time when every few months processor speed leapt forward rather dramatically and being as CPUs a few years ago were way underpowered for anything more strenuous than word processing, everyone was anxious to get their hands on the latest and greatest. I don't think that's the case any longer. Processor upgrades these days bring incremental improvements to the point where sitting out a couple of rounds is no big deal.

The 9400M GPU is a good example of where we are now. It's a decent GPU that is the starting point in Apple's line of computers. When I had my G4 Tower that cost in excess of $6000 Cdn I had to spend more than $300 for a GPU upgrade that got me a GPU that was dramatically inferior to the 9400M.

These days people want to buy a computer that just works and for the most part, that's easy enough to get even with the lower range of Apple's product line.
post #105 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

...From a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.

Right now for the iMacs it is not a huge deal but I am getting a bit concerned if in 2010 the iMacs become far behind Core i5 levels of CPU power and ATI mid-5000 series level of GPU power.

Unless all iMacs are 24" and 28" only and have BluRay drives then it becomes more of a entertainment desktop... Then design and function and form becomes centrestage, being a "desktop computer" becomes less important.
post #106 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by alectheking View Post

I would most definitely pay the restocking fee and wait. It will most likely be worth it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still have about 6 days to return it and want to wait to see how beefy the new mini is. I can still return it when new mini is out, right?
post #107 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Agreed, but no computer company can survive if it can't offer customers a reason to upgrade from their perfectly adequate old machines to something new. It's not about what customers need it's about making them want something new.

And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Couldn't this just mean that he Mini has finally been dropped?

If they're replacing it with a new eMac, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Apple can't make a lot of improvements without making it larger and making it larger could require admitting mistakes were made. Each generation of LCD display however, gives you a little more room to work with.
post #108 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person.

Yes, that is the main point of your argument, with which I disagree. I think you may be correct for some tech people, but I think you are absolutely wrong as to the average person. The so-called "average person" doesn't know anything about cores or hyperthreading or how fast computing power is increasing. The average person still thinks MHz are an absolute measure of computing power and that quad is obviously twice as fast as duo. It's not that the average person is dumb, it's that the average person doesn't really bother to think or know about this stuff at all: I don't mean rarely thinks about it, I mean never.

The average person's view of computer horsepower has not changed at all. The average person has no view on CPU horsepower whatsoever and if you ask them what their view is, they may well respond, "Is that the new car from Honda?"


EDIT:

It occurs to me that it might be useful to look at this from the perspective of an analogy from biology. Evolution works through two different forms of selection: natural and sexual. Natural selection acts on an organism's fitness for the conditions of life: its ability to obtain food, defend itself, evade predators, etc. in order to live to reproduce. Sexual selection acts on an organisms direct success in reproduction: its ability to find, attract, and retain a mate (or mates).

The argument that current CPUs are just fine for current and foreseeable computing needs is equivalent to saying that an organism is well adapted to its environment. But, from a marketing perspective, it's equally, or even more, important that a computer be able to compete with its rivals for the affections of the users. So, while quad cores, better GPUs, bigger hard drives, more RAM, etc. may not be strictly necessary for performing normal computing tasks, they are essential in courting buyers, no less so than industrial design.
post #109 of 137
post #110 of 137
It would be soooo cool if they took the 30" display and made an iMac out of it. Either way, it will be interesting to see what the new models look like. I've got a newer 20" iMac at home... and an old G5 at the office. The G5 used to seem like such a screamer....LOL. But isn't that the story with any computer we end up buying. There's no such thing as fast enough or a screen that's big enough.
post #111 of 137
I was on the Apple Store website, maybe two weeks ago, and I was shocked to see the Mini's default memory at 4GB! In the configuration wizard, you could choose a smaller amounts of RAM (1 or 2 I believe) and it was money OFF the base price then for each smaller RAM amount.

Evidently I just happened to hit it when Apple was live-testing the new specs.

Too bad I didn't order right then... I wonder if Apple would have honored the sale....

I really didn't want to have to crack that case to add more RAM myself.

I can't remember if the CPU speed was different.
post #112 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

IMO you should save the money on the restocking fee. You just need to put a 7200rpm drive and 4GB RAM in that Mini and you're good to go for another 2 years at least. Oh and get Snow Leopard.

I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
Your second Mini will be easy.
post #113 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenoz View Post

I was on the Apple Store website, maybe two weeks ago, and I was shocked to see the Mini's default memory at 4GB! In the configuration wizard, you could choose a smaller amounts of RAM (1 or 2 I believe) and it was money OFF the base price then for each smaller RAM amount.

Sorry but the entry Mini is still 1GB.

And in Austria availability is 24h.
post #114 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.

Now I know you're kidding.

Without a suite of demanding software and a stop watch it's impossible to tell the current iMac from the 18 month old ones. The only significant change Apple made this year was finally including RAM and hard drive equal in size to those found in $500 desktop PCs.
post #115 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
Your second Mini will be easy.

I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.
post #116 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Why wouldn't they redesign the Mini case at the same time as the iMac? Maybe they will match.

Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.

As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.

They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.

Seeing a pattern here?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #117 of 137
My guess is the Mac mini upgrades will come before the new iMac. I would think the Mac mini update would arrive on or before Wednesday, October 7th. I think the mini upgrade will be minor. A trickling down the line of components, where the 2.0GHz with 320GB HD and 2GB RAM is standard at $599. Followed by the 2.26GHz, 500GB HD, and 4GB RAM at $799.

The new iMac is coming at an Apple special event around Tuesday, October 13th.

It will be updated design that uses the quad core "Core i7" processors.

SD card slots are almost a given.

As I brought up earlier this year, I think that Apple will begin its transition to 16:9 displays here by introducing a 21.5-inch iMac and a 25.5-inch iMac. Both LG and Samsung, Apple's favorite LCD panel makers, produce 16:9 displays of this size.

What else may get updated at this Mac special event (which is what I think they'll call it) is questionable. Again, if they are updating the MacBook family, I think this line, too, will transition itself away from 16:9 displays and over to 16:10 displays. The timing for this with the rumored MacBook redesign would be perfect. Quad-core Core i7 chips for the MacBook? That's the $64,000 question.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #118 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.

As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.

They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.

Seeing a pattern here?

Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #119 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.

Since this is the internet, people like to reveal their innermost fantasies. We would all like to see optical media permanently replaced by SS memory, but outside of the new PSP Go, I'm not aware of any major device that has completely done away with optical storage --unless the device were SS in the first place, such as the current DS Lite.

BRD movies are already expensive. Can people actually imagine a 2009 or 2010 world in which 30-50Gb BRD movies are sold on memory cards? Can you say $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #120 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.

Does SL fix the horrible problem of hard drives being improperly ejected if the machine is either manually or automatically put to sleep?

I don't like to USE external HDDs as my main or even secondary drive (I use one just for back-ups) because I've had too much data become corrupted when I forgot to eject the drive, and my Mac went to sleep!
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple warns of near-term iMac, Mac mini constraints