or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini - Page 2

post #41 of 573
As a few people have mentioned the Mac mini is pretty important in winning over PC users. I am a 'switcher' and though I've always kept my eye on Apple, the mini gave me the chance to jump in and try it as my main computer. So far it's been great, but I wouldn't have been able to go for the iMa, plus I already have two good hi-res monitors. I knew with the mini that it might be a stepping stone to a more powerful Mac (I've got my eye on a 15" MBP when they finally release Leopard/updated MBP) but I knew that I'd use it for testing even if it wasn't good enough to be my main computer, and at the price it was an easy decision.

I, personally, have never really seen the point of Apple TV, but having a DVD drive was a big reason for me getting the mini, plus obviously it's an actual operational computer not just a media device.

Most people are surprised when they realise that 'pretty little box' on my desk is actually my computer! Quite a few people I know now have minis, and wouldn't have tried a Mac otherwise.

I don't really see the point of an inbetween iMac/mini tower the cube obviously didn't do that well, the mini seems to have caught on, at least with PC users, and for web development it's excellent as a test box. The mini has enough power, especially with its more recent updates (that haven't been shouted about), and if they'd had the Intel ones available when I got mine I could've thrown my PC away!
post #42 of 573
If true, this would be terrible, terrible news. By myself, I have switched nearly a dozen individuals from Windows PCs by pointing them to a Mac Mini. Even the old Core Solo--which in my opinion should have never existed--was just fine once you doubled the RAM to a gig. At the company where I work, thanks to the small footprint of the Mac Mini and the fact that it's robust enough to do what we need to do, I've been replacing our old, dying Windows PCs with Macs via the Mini. We already had tons of monitors and USB mice (we did buy Apple keyboards). And some of my co-workers who've been using the Minis are now buying Macs at home! I could have never pulled this with an iMac. No, the Mini is not going to be the biggest, hottest seller--that should be the MacBook and iMac. But it is a very important component of the Apple line-up. If they do drop it, it will be a stupid and short-sighted mistake. The best thing they could do is bump the RAM to one gig, juice up the processor just a bit and drop the low-end back to $499.

I myself was thinking of getting a Mac Mini. I want to learn some programming languages, want to experiment with Linux and other OSes. And I'm not going to do it on my main machine where all my important stuff is. So, buying a MIni and hooking it up to an old monitor is perfect for me. I have no interest in an Apple TV; I want a computer. Applle: do not be so foolish!
post #43 of 573
I think that it was a great machine that targeted the wrong market. Rather than going after low end PC users, it should have been promoted as a home theatre server, with a larger hard drive, better video capability and optical audio, it would have been a killer home theatre machine.

That's something that the Apple TV falls far short on. Apple TV is an economical machine for the technically illiterate. Myself, I have had a PC hooked up to a video projector and surround sound receiver for years and use it as my home theatre system. If I hadn't set that up before the Mac Mini's release, I might have bought a Mac Mini instead.

For those of us who can figure out how to run a video cord from a PC to a TV, the Apple TV just doesn't make sense.
post #44 of 573
There were 2 Mac Minis on display in the London Regent Street store when I went there a month ago.

TWO.

There were dozens of every other machine - iMacs, MacBooks, Mac Pros ... and two Mac Minis.

It's dead.

Sadly it's one of the more appealing Macs, I was going to get one later this year - I don't want an iMac as I want to share a decent sized monitor between systems, and I simply won't pay for a Mac Pro.

If it isn't updated or replaced, Apple have quite simply lost a sale. I won't be the only one either.
post #45 of 573
I use them as small workgroup servers for some clients. They're perfect for running intranets, backup controllers, document servers and as shared storage with an external hard drive. Why spend thousands on an XServe when a Mac Mini does just fine? They're just lovely little one-box-on-a-shelf solutions.

I've also got one managing automated accounts between an online web store and a company accounts system (MoneyWorks based) with Applescript and PHP syncing data between them. That's all it does. Anything bigger would be overkill.

When you don't need fancy graphics, but you need OSX, the little Mac Mini running headless with no monitor, keyboard or mouse makes a fantastic little appliance server brick. Log in via Remote Desktop and you're sorted.

For me, it'd be an immense loss to lose Apple's cheap headless mac for this kind of task.

I can only hope Kasper has it wrong or Apple have something like HP/Microsoft's Home Server in the wings or the return of the Cube. AppleTV is just not good enough for any of the tasks I use a Mini for, iMacs are too big and Mac Pro/Xserves needlessly expensive and even the much wanked over mid-tower would be overkill. This sucks if true.
post #46 of 573
A 'headless' iMac could do the trick but the size and price would need to be small enough to make it an easy choice. I think the mini was always aimed at switchers, and low-power Mac users it's the perfect stepping stone for PC users to get on to Macs. I've always seen the PowerBook/MacBook range in the same league as the Sony Vaio, but I guess that comparison doesn't really stand up in the desktop market.
post #47 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

if tne news is rite, sad so sad. But what is the alternative?

I was waiting for the next rev of the mini to function as my media center for my EDTV plasma, but when the new MacBooks came out, I sprung for the low-end model, which was just $994 incl. $100 Amazon rebate.

Having a screen is useful, I've found, as some preference pane windows won't fit on EDTV resolution.

As a media center, I needed a full blown Mac (either mini or MacBook), so I could: play DVDs, hook up an Elgato EyeTV Hybrid for DVR, have my entire iTunes library (35 GB and growing), and my entire iPhoto library (10 GB and growing). The AppleTV doesn't fit the bill in so many ways, so it will be very sad if indeed this rumor is true.

[Edit] I justified my purchase of YAM (yet another Mac) by returning my cable box earlier this month (~$900/yr).
post #48 of 573
Think about it... if you can fit a computer (running a variation of OSX) into the iPhone, why not make the mini even smaller? The big push among computer makers is now the $100-200 computer... the computer "for the rest of the world". Perhaps Steve sees opportunity there and will make the "micro mini" (or "Mac nano") that will serve the entry-level computer market for Apple. It makes no sense to take away a bottom tier product that could entice users to upgrade to "real" Apple hardware further down the line.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 573
I'm hoping that it's replaced by a new slightly larger machine running a G965 chipset and E4000 series CPUs with desktop hard drives. Then again, this is Apple we're talking about. they'll probably just discontinue the two Mac Minis and the bottom two iMacs and make the platform even more unaccessible for both the education market those who want to make the jump. One thing remains though that the Mini is a very flawed system and is not competitive due to that notebook hard drive. I hope Jobs and Co is capable of understanding that.
post #50 of 573
stocks are slammed, lots of confusion what is coming up and add mac mini disappearing news as well

19 days to go!

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #51 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by philbutler View Post

I think the 'mini is a cute machine. But I won't buy one - due to it being a bit under powered. On the other hand, I won't buy a Mac tower due to it's size and noise factor. I had a MDD dual 1Ghz G4 tower and it was loud as everything. I have heard that the newer machines are quieter, but I want whisper quiet.

My mac pro is whisper quiet except for the clicky noises from the HDD. My MBP gets louder under load. The advantages of Intel vs PPC.

The mini was a great little machine when released. Woefully underpowered today. If updated to a C2D and Santa Rosa the price is fine as is.

Meh...AI sources have been wrong before. Killing the mini wouldn't make much sense if there's no replacement for the role...AppleTV can't operate standalone and the iMac is a sub-optimal home server.

If there were a cube sized home server with two HDD bays and ZFS you could have a nice little server to feed the iMac, MB, aTV scattered around the house.

Vinea
post #52 of 573
I guess they are ready to take a lump on the chin in the Cinema display product line. I have more mini's and Apple Cinema display's than any other type of mac.

I may have to buy me one just to have around if mine takes a dump...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #53 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I hate to be a rumor monger, but perhaps this means they'll slide the iMac down a little in specs to make more room for a mid-range tower... please!

Damn, I'd love that computer.

-Clive

I cannot take another mid size tower rumor. Please God, make it stop.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 573
Oh, and I need to add to the criticism of the article: It might be sourced, but it's not clearly written. The title needs to be more clear about the nature of the rumor, as does the intro. It's like the article was written backwards.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 573
Yes, less than $500 again would be perfect. For many people that seems to be a real magic price point.
post #56 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by macbuddha1 View Post

Yes, less than $500 again would be perfect. For many people that seems to be a real magic price point.

Think 2.5 times that...and a 20 display.
post #57 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ersatzplanet View Post

I recently bought a Mini for one use - my front room media server. It is SO much better than the Apple TV it kills me. Every time I here of some new way to hack the Apple TV to get it to do something I laugh - the mini does it allready. I have it hooked uped to my TV now with the S-video adaptor (soon it will be to a new HD set with the HDMI adaptor) and optical audio out to mt surround detup. The Apple TV is currently only stereo. I can play ALL video formats I can find, All Audio formats I can find, play DVDs direectly in 5.1, stream video from the net, watch Joost, and stream-transfer files from all my other computers. Sure it cost twice as much as the Apple TV but with the Apple TV you need another computer anyway! The Mini does it all by itself! It has multiple USB and Firewire ports so expansion is no problem. Soon as I get a HD display I will add the Elgato HD TV tuner and have a HD PVR. Right now it has a Elgato EyeTV attached - works great. I guess what I'm saying is if Apple marketed the Mini as the entertainment hub and not as a do all computer (it's graphics engine and processor ar not as suited for gaming and high end stuff) it would sell many more. I sit across the room with a wireless keyboard and mouse and run everything. If they made front row work with Video_TS folders I would be in heaven, but for now I just go to DVD player and use that. Can you even play DVDs on a Apple TV?

I have almost exactly your setup and sentiments! I cannot agree harder how wonderful the mini is in providing a *FULL-FEATURED* media center including CD/DVD player as well as expandable storage (via ext drives) and the pièce de résistance is that you have a full Mac OS to use and navigate (web, apps, games, etc). All in a small(er) footprint!

Sure it may be a niche usage but it's a great solution and one full of potential as such, if properly promoted. But of course the realist in me knows that the Apple TV signals Apple's future direction.
post #58 of 573
if this is true its certainly very dissapointing. As a student, the only desktop mac i have the money to buy is a mac mini..
post #59 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by philbutler View Post

On the other hand, I won't buy a Mac tower due to it's size and noise factor.

I think the Mac Pro is very quiet. What noise factor are you referring to?

m

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 573
In the Intel Mac World has the Mini ever made sense? It was designed as a cheap Mac aimed at the PC to Mac switcher. And that is what happened to me with the G4 model.

The thing is it uses Intel's mobile platform and mobile components - all more expensive and less powerful than desktop counterparts. If you buy a Mini, a keyboard, a mouse, a half-decent monitor, you might as well have stumped up that little bit more for a 17" iMac (2.0ghz Core 2 Duo, X1600, 1GB RAM, 160GB HD and super-drive) - a much more capable Mac.

Ok the Mini is small and sexy but it is expensive because of its mobile components. Now that you can actually compare a PC spec to a Mac spec, many PC owners might think about buying a Mac but then look at the spec and think, "I can buy a more powerful Dell with a keyboard, mouse and monitor for less." It is especially so because of its core duo.

Apart from the Mac Pro, all Macs make use of Intel's mobile platform. Obviously you'd expect this in mobile models but not in desktops. It also makes the iMac totally silent. But this means that Apple desktops are more expensive and less powerful than PC desktops using x86 desktop CPU's. Why is it Apple don't use Intel's CPU platform which has the greatest bang for your buck - those designed for the desktop?

For some odd reason Apple introduced the 24" iMac with a different motherboard design to the 17" & 20" models. Again that increases costs - 2 board designs rather than 1. Why? The 24" iMac board design is the future of the iMac platform? Or it is a temporary stopgap design until the nextgen of iMac but its being used to test out some ideas around user's GPU choice?

Another odd one - Boot Camp. What possible reasons would I have to use boot camp to run Windows rather than say Parallels? I can only think of one reason and that is playing Windows games. But why would I want to play Windows games on my Mac when the only GPU available to a Mac owner that a gamer can take seriously is the 7900XTX that is only available for the Mac Pro.

May be the lack of Mini updates, the odd things listed above, the rumor that started this thread, are because Apple are finally listening to people and re-energizing their desktop offerings. Updated iMacs and the headless Mac. A headless Mac would bring many advantages. It would allow Apple to create a highly configurable machine that would suit many people and many price points - from the buyer after the cheap Mac with entry dual-core CPU, Integrated graphics, small hd, combo-drive etc to the serious gamer who wants a quad-core CPU, two dual-core top of the range GPU video cards, large hd, oodles of memory etc. Every body is happy.
post #61 of 573
You know what would be the perfect little box for me...

Merge the Mac Mini with a Drobo in one box.

http://www.drobo.com/

Make sure it's got gigabit ethernet and can act as a router so I don't need an airport extreme. Add AppleTV/Airtunes functionality too.

Go on Steve, it's Cube shaped...
post #62 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

In the Intel Mac World has the Mini ever made sense? It was designed as a cheap Mac aimed at the PC to Mac switcher. And that is what happened to me with the G4 model.

The thing is it uses Intel's mobile platform and mobile components - all more expensive and less powerful than desktop counterparts. If you buy a Mini, a keyboard, a mouse, a half-decent monitor, you might as well have stumped up that little bit more for a 17" iMac (2.0ghz Core 2 Duo, X1600, 1GB RAM, 160GB HD and super-drive) - a much more capable Mac.

Ok the Mini is small and sexy but it is expensive because of its mobile components. Now that you can actually compare a PC spec to a Mac spec, many PC owners might think about buying a Mac but then look at the spec and think, "I can buy a more powerful Dell with a keyboard, mouse and monitor for less." It is especially so because of its core duo.

Apart from the Mac Pro, all Macs make use of Intel's mobile platform. Obviously you'd expect this in mobile models but not in desktops. It also makes the iMac totally silent. But this means that Apple desktops are more expensive and less powerful than PC desktops using x86 desktop CPU's. Why is it Apple don't use Intel's CPU platform which has the greatest bang for your buck - those designed for the desktop?

For some odd reason Apple introduced the 24" iMac with a different motherboard design to the 17" & 20" models. Again that increases costs - 2 board designs rather than 1. Why? The 24" iMac board design is the future of the iMac platform? Or it is a temporary stopgap design until the nextgen of iMac but its being used to test out some ideas around user's GPU choice?

Another odd one - Boot Camp. What possible reasons would I have to use boot camp to run Windows rather than say Parallels? I can only think of one reason and that is playing Windows games. But why would I want to play Windows games on my Mac when the only GPU available to a Mac owner that a gamer can take seriously is the 7900XTX that is only available for the Mac Pro.

May be the lack of Mini updates, the odd things listed above, the rumor that started this thread, are because Apple are finally listening to people and re-energizing their desktop offerings. Updated iMacs and the headless Mac. A headless Mac would bring many advantages. It would allow Apple to create a highly configurable machine that would suit many people and many price points - from the buyer after the cheap Mac with entry dual-core CPU, Integrated graphics, small hd, combo-drive etc to the serious gamer who wants a quad-core CPU, two dual-core top of the range GPU video cards, large hd, oodles of memory etc. Every body is happy.

It makes lots of sense unless Apple is planning to get HP and Dell to do their converting for them.
post #63 of 573
I'll toss in $0.02 saying that I'd be sad to see the mini go. I don't own one, but as others have said, they are a great little Mac appliance machine. And a great switcher machine.

What could be the motivation for killing it? Low margins? I doubt it. If the machine pays for itself, and brings in a profit, why discontinue it? Maybe Apple doesn't have the resources to maintain the machine?

Does Apple have a phobia about selling sub-$1000 computers? First the 17" iMac rumor, now this. What, Apple wants to make sure only the upper-middle class can afford an "Apple"?

I hope the "mini" will be replaced with a very similar product with a different name if it is killed.

- Jasen.
post #64 of 573
It's interesting to note that AI is reporting that 1) the mac mini is going away and 2) that the 17" iMac is going away. It looks like they're clearing out room for a new product.
post #65 of 573
First of all, anyone who "wants" the Mini to die is a plain idiot!!! Why?

1. Having a cheaper headless Mac is important for the supposedly growing number of switchers like my relatives who don't need a new monitor yet.
2. Why do you care if it looks like an aTV? If people want it even if it is a minority, why get rid of it?
3. Unless Apple is losing money on it, why throw away the R&D that went into designing it?
4. Why does the fact that ubergeeks in a Mac forum not liking the Mini make any difference to keeping the market open to the rest of the computer buying public? No one who walks into a Walmart cares what we think.

The Mini should have stayed at $500 even if somewhat crippled. It would have been good enough for those who need it and it wouldn't hurt Apple sales to the base of the party. If your only problem with the Mini is about price, that has nothing to do with the form factor or the needs of those who could use one. It is a problem with Apple.

AppleInsider is being as stupid as Apple (if it actually does this) for no reason other than to act as all powerful arbiters of what computing must be to Mac buyers. Stupid pseudo-intellectual, wannabe-marketing dweebs!
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #66 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Whether Apple will squeeze another revision from the mini, and how long it plans to allow existing models to linger, are both unclear. But as the extended Memorial Day break dawns upon us, the point being driven should be clear:

Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.

nah, only the product name is dead. i think it has simply evolved into something else. that is, it's now Apple TV.
post #67 of 573
There is only one all-Mac internet café here in Berlin and it only uses minis.
I do too, but I'd prefer a small tower. I think, because of it's size, the mini was relative expensive to make - it had to use 'lap-top' parts.
A small tower, being much more flexible and configurable, could cover the $500 to $1500 range and, in the lower price ranges, be ideal for switchers, schools, penniless students and those who need only modest performance, and in the higher-priced configerations, for some professionals and the more demanding Mac-users.
Charko
Reply
Charko
Reply
post #68 of 573
I wonder if Apple really even cares about market share anymore. Maybe this move (if true) , along with the delay of Leopard because of the iPhone, is reflective of them dropping "Computer" from their name.

How can you gain market share by severely restricting choice? Want a laptop with a 15 or 17" screen but don't need a high end graphics card or processor? Want a single processor tower? So do a lot of others, but look elsewhere because Apple won't offer them.
post #69 of 573
Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could just give people what they want? They never gave the mini a chance. It should be larger, have a full sized 3.5" HD, a TV tuner/ASTC combo, and an option for a Blu-ray drive. Let it be what @tv isn't. Let it be a full fledged media server and Mac hooked up to an HDTV. Let it work with a wireless KB with built-in trackpad. Let it be Santa Rosa with flash cache and a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo. Let it be what switchers, Mac users and media mavens want to own!
post #70 of 573
Whether any new device takes the place of the Mini, it is pretty obvious that the key will be to slowly wean music and video away from the computer.

As much as a Mac with iTunes is great at organizing things smartly and keeping a leash on content, we all know that content will increasingly be available on phones and mobile devices and setboxes that do not require a Mac or a Windows pc.

Verizon has set their future on competing for content by just using a phone. That has major disadvantages, but those will fade over time as wifi enlargens and phones get smarter.

aTV, if it is to "replace" the Mini, will need to become more than just a really expensive wireless holding cell for content. It needs to access the web and deal with DRM (for awhile anyway) and run more independent of the Mac itself, or it will be leapfrogged. This is a few years away, but my point is that the Mini can help with that transition for some years to come.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #71 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

Apart from the Mac Pro, all Macs make use of Intel's mobile platform. Obviously you'd expect this in mobile models but not in desktops. It also makes the iMac totally silent.

It also makes the Mac Mini totally silent, cool and small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

But this means that Apple desktops are more expensive and less powerful than PC desktops using x86 desktop CPU's. Why is it Apple don't use Intel's CPU platform which has the greatest bang for your buck - those designed for the desktop?

Because Apple design silent, cool and small computers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

For some odd reason Apple introduced the 24" iMac with a different motherboard design to the 17" & 20" models. Again that increases costs - 2 board designs rather than 1. Why? The 24" iMac board design is the future of the iMac platform? Or it is a temporary stopgap design until the nextgen of iMac but its being used to test out some ideas around user's GPU choice?

There are 4 different iMac motherboards. Two 17", 20" and 24". All different. No conspiracy theory needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

Another odd one - Boot Camp. What possible reasons would I have to use boot camp to run Windows rather than say Parallels? I can only think of one reason and that is playing Windows games.

It's not for games. It's a safety net for users who still have to run some windows applications, be that for work purposes or otherwise. It's there to attract switchers who might feel nervous making a transition to the Mac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

But why would I want to play Windows games on my Mac when the only GPU available to a Mac owner that a gamer can take seriously is the 7900XTX that is only available for the Mac Pro.

No idea. Why not just buy a PC in the first place if you're into Windows games. Seems patently stupid buying a more expensive Mac to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

May be the lack of Mini updates, the odd things listed above, the rumor that started this thread, are because Apple are finally listening to people and re-energizing their desktop offerings.

I fail to see how dropping models and piss poor Macbook updates is Apple 're-energizing their desktop'. They need a Mini in their lineup or an iServe just as much as they need a mid tower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars View Post

Updated iMacs and the headless Mac. A headless Mac would bring many advantages. It would allow Apple to create a highly configurable machine that would suit many people and many price points - from the buyer after the cheap Mac with entry dual-core CPU, Integrated graphics, small hd, combo-drive etc to the serious gamer who wants a quad-core CPU, two dual-core top of the range GPU video cards, large hd, oodles of memory etc. Every body is happy.

Gamers are never happy IME. And if a Mac Mini isn't a headless iMac then just what is it? It's almost an identical spec to the low end iMac except for the screen and drive.
post #72 of 573
... but if it does get 'put down', buy one quickly on the cheap, use it as a second computer or media-centre and then you might even make a small profit in the future when you sell it, because they might well become collector-items.
Charko
Reply
Charko
Reply
post #73 of 573
I agree with most people on here. Bring down the price to that magic $500 level, and you'll get more switchers / happier consumers.

But honestly, I don't think the Mac Mini should be axed. I do think Apple should release a mid-tower to stay competitive. Then again, they are enjoying being propietary. Isn't that how Apple almost killed themselves back in the Performa age? Apple, please heed your customers' ideas, they are the ones you want to please, as they are they buying power, as much as you wish it was your investors.

I own a Mac Mini PPC 1.42ghz. I got it cheap when the intel version first came out. It runs quitely and nicely hooked up to my TV, sitting under my GameCube, acting as my media server, my print server, dashboard running all the time when I'm not watching a show or movie so I can see latest weather and other useful info. I'll be getting an EyeTV soon for it to use it as a DVR, and life will be happy. True, not the fastest machine in the house, but it does serve a purpose.

I know many college students on my campus with Mac Mini's since they are the only mac they could afford. Our media department is all Macintosh, and so lets the students work at home. It can run Final Cut Express just fine, you just have to wait a little while longer to do rendering. I've sold many people onto macs using the Mac Mini, and am about to buy one for my campus TV studio as a simple mobile editing machine (laptops break when handed to some students).

Please apple, keep this little machine going. Cut the price back to the original cost, and we will be happy customers.

(The more and more I see Apple do, the more and more I'm disliking the company. Ubuntu, here I come)
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #74 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ak1808 View Post

Why would you hook up a beautiful little computer to a dirty old keyboard, mouse and monitor?

Because it's cheaper than having a clean keyboard with badly designed keys and a badly designed mouse and a sparkly low-quality built-in display that costs a fortune to fix when it breaks. That's why I have my home Mac mini hooked up to a scissor-key PC keyboard, a Microsoft mouse with 4 proper buttons and a CRT display. I have a setup that I like and my display will cost me £30 to fix in the worst case scenario not £600.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ak1808 View Post

This is for a niche of nickle-pinchers and media-center freaks. It is simply not a mainstream computer. Axe it!

Wrong, I can run Shake and Final Cut on a Mac Mini and the rendering speed can on occasions keep up with a £2500 quad G5 but on average is only about 1/3rd the speed, which I'd say is pretty good going. It's to do with software optimization too. The only reason you could say it's not a mainstream computer is because Apple cripple it with slower CPUs and graphics capabilities.

I can understand why they'd make this move. The laptop is in two models - pro and consumer, the desktops have 3 models. Now if, as I've said before, they manage to redesign the iMac well and hit a reasonable price point, I won't object too much but given the price of 20" displays and rumors that the 17" is going, I don't see them hitting a price that's within the reach of most consumers. This will drive Apple further into the niche that the Mac Mini was pulling them out of.

There's just no way consumers will take Apple seriously if there's no desktop cheaper than the lowest end laptop.

What I could see is Apple cutting the cost of the iMacs so that a 17" ended up at £499 with GMA, then £599 with the X1600 then £799 for the 20" and £1199 for the 24". It seems reasonable that this could be done because retail 17" LCDs are under £100. The lowest iMac has the same components as a Mini (besides the CPUs which we know cost the same), which is at £399. LED backlighting is cheaper and the parts must have come down in price since 9 months ago so this seems plausible.

If Apple hadn't designed the Mini so badly - clips instead of screws, GMA chips only, slower CPUs, 512MB Ram default, I would be not only sad but angry to see it go but having seen how easy it is to upgrade stuff in the iMac, especially Ram, I think that design is better overall.

But as mentioned, there are just things you can't do unless it's headless like put it in a car or use it as a media center. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm a bit sceptical. If they ditch the Mini, the cube has to come back.
post #75 of 573
Gee, horrible news indeed!
I have about 40 machines working in the enterprise. Not one of them has ever failed, but that's besides the point. And the point is that they are affordable for the enterprise, even more so when they used to have G4s in them. That was the key point for replacing the PCs. I doubt the management would go for expensive iMacs and it doesn't make sense from their perspective since they want just a computer, not a monitor, and any additional gadgets are perceived as "expensive". So I really hope it's wrong or that we'll see the return of the Cube, or something of that sort. PLEASE! I'm pretty sure the Mini is one hell of a gateway Mac. Heck, I've bought a G4 some 2 years ago or so and still very happy with it, typing this on the "petite computer" as AI puts it. I wonder if iMacs really sell so bad they have to kill the Mini line... Ahhh...
post #76 of 573
I really hope we see a low cost tower emerge, there is NO EXCUSE for not having a C2D Mac(almost?)Pro that uses standard DDR2, with 4 Dimm slots, and PCIx16 GPU for sub or-about $1000: Hate to say it, but if I do not see a system like this at WWDC, I will be ordering a Dell...My credit card is rareing to go. Is Apple willing to take my cash?

I love Apple, but I refuse to pay $2500 for a PC and the iMac is unacceptable, period!

My mini is nice, but it is so crippled, I would LOVE to be able to toss in a 750 gig HDD in there, but that is not a possibility.


Who needs dual Xeons (or even one for that matter) for web, music, watching video and such?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #77 of 573
I really hope they don't. The Mac mini is SO great for special projects because of its small size and price point, I'm looking at purchasing 11 of them shortly for a project I'm working on. While I can understand wanting to focus consumers on the iMac as much as possible it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to continue to use the Mac platform for special projects if the Mac mini goes the way of the dodo. Please Apple, don't drop the mini from your desktop lineup!
JayCr.Sytes.Net < Yes, it's a url...
Reply
JayCr.Sytes.Net < Yes, it's a url...
Reply
post #78 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Gamers are never happy IME. And if a Mac Mini isn't a headless iMac then just what is it? It's almost an identical spec to the low end iMac except for the screen and drive.

You ignore 2 improtant acronyms GPU, and HDD
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #79 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdj21ya View Post

Sorry, thanks for pointing that out. It was confusing to have the sources cited so far down in the article. I'm used to the news convention of putting the more concrete stuff at the top of the article, with the opinion following.

You're confusing journalists who have web sites from people who happen to know how to type and have web sites. Macrumors goes one step worse and actually cites AppleInsider at its source.

It's a constant frustration for me too.
post #80 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolie View Post

Mac minis were always underpowered when compared against competitor's PCs, and you always got less for the money. At any time, you can go on Dell or HP, and get a more powerful computer than Mac Mini, which INCLUDES a monitor (even if it's crap), and essentials like, I dunno, A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD??

You also get Windows and a huge mass of trial software.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini