No new Mac Mini or iMac - Page 6

Apple updates (unexpectedly) the white MacBook to Nvidia graphics, more RAM, and more and yet the mini remains untouched. To me this means the mini will either be

1. discontinued
2. discontinued and replaced by a new form factor Mac

If it was only going to make a spec bump, Apple would have done it by now. No, something completely new is in the works.

Even if something completely new is in the works, they still should have updated it by now. They should have updated it twice by now. Maybe even three times.

I know, but at this point I'm not expecting a mini in it's current enclosure with a simple spec update. I expect something completely new. The mini enclosure is exactly 4 years old. Time to retire it.

Agreed.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I kinda think Apple is going to take their bastard stepchild (the Mini) and it's "hobby" (the tv) and merge them into a singular product. Some people don't need the computing power of the mini and just want a the front-end experience that tv provide, and I understand that. For some people though, tv is a non-starter because of the lack of codec support, limited drive space, etc. It's a matter of personal preference of course, but my dream would be to have all of my digital media (TV shows, movies, music and photos) in one place. In my case this is external storage routed to a server device via USB 2.0 or FW800. This device would offer playback to my HDTV through HDMI (allowing an audio pass-through as well) and serve across the wireless network in my home. It would also make all of my media available to stream over the web...

That being said, I know there's TONS of ways to do everything I just described on a current Mac Mini - but let's face it, for someone who doesn't have a lot of tech savvy, it can be a pain in the ass. My uneducated guess would be that Apple is trying to work on solution that combines the two which will 1) allow tv to continue life as a separate product, 2) preserve the profit margin of the Mini, 3) Allow easier connection as an HTPC, 4) Have full access to the iTunes store via FrontRow.

I know it's a bit of a pipe dream, but I can't imagine that Apple has let 2 product lines languish in agony for over a year now without having some vision for their future.

Whatever happens with the Mini though, as soon as they update it, Apple can add a computer sale to the quarterly numbers...

I don't like laptops, so this thing is a total no-go for me, of course its yet another windows box which ain't thrillin' me either. My needs ARE more diverse and an Atom processor is just not enough horsepower to run anything but stripped down apps. But my budget isn't in MacPro territory either, so hopefully the new Mini doesn't come out of the gate hobbled, because it would surely stumble then...

[CENTER][/CENTER]

I know Apple doesn't use off the shelf motherboards but it shows the potential for a micro tower that offers expandability and performance. Making expandable computers that last twice as long as before. How much greener can you get?

That's a nice example. But there will be no slots on anything but the Pro. Period.

The return of the Mac Cube would be a very good thing.

Apple is going to have to be careful when it comes to its designs because when I see things like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/26/a...ride-your-lcd/

I think that this is close to what people who go after all-in-one simplified design need. Apple are trying to push the design beyond its purpose and pretend it's capable of matching mid-range PCs.

It's not and all that's going to happen is they put in an underclocked quad core or make the machine too hot to run.

If they want to use higher performance components, they can do so but they shouldn't try and squeeze them into an enclosure not meant for it and as a result delay hardware updates when the economy is so poor.

All because they don't want to admit they are wrong. £500 for a quad 2.66GHz including display. That is on the table right now from PC vendors and has been for over a month now. The best that Apple will offer is quad 2.0GHz mobile CPU for £700 with a crappy TN panel that you can't upgrade.

Assuming the Mini is staying dual core, it also seems they are purposely holding it back. Just because they can't make the iMac work, why not just give up on it instead of crippling better models just to prove a point?

So how long do we have to wait? February? March? It'll still have a hideous glossy screen anyway so who cares any more? Release the Mini already and let customers decide which model works best.

If the Mini has dual 2.4GHz CPUs and 9400M GPU then by the same reasoning behind the mid-range Mac being unnecessary then so is the iMac. Consumers don't need quad cores with high end GPUs by this argument so the iMac will sell to a market that doesn't exist. Given that the Mini is half the price and powerful enough, the iMac is finished.

If such a market does exist and is big enough then surely this is the same market that would have bought a core 2 quad last year if Apple offered one. No matter what way you look at it, their design choices are not so much wrong if they are making money but at least misguided.

interesting....

i'm not often on the refurb section of the Apple store, but i did notice when i visited there now, that there was no mac mini or imac in the UK store, and no mac mini in the US

on second thoughts, i am pretty sure this has no relation to any kind of update/product release. just something odd, seems people like buying refurbed imacs and mac minis.

d'ya think is it possible that Apple will just release it overnight? or will there most likely be an event in a couple of months from now? i am getting sick and tired of waiting. as i'm sure a lot of people are by now.

peace and love.

I should say! but then hanging around rumour sites isn't helping the patients much

Quad Core or MORE

HURRY UP APPLE!

I like that example. If only Apple would...


I'd 2nd that opinion. To me, as much as I love the iMac's design...(and in some ways it is the ultimate 'Mac') it is really one computer trying to cover two or even 3 market lines. It's price stretches from £799-£1400. If it stretched from £695-£995 tops. You could make the case for it as offering good bang for buck.

But the £995-£1500 territory should be a mid-tower/cube, something. Offering the i7 power with the latest gpus... Can you remember when you could get a G3 tower in the £1300 range inc Vat? Seems like a long time ago, eh? And it's not as if Apple wouldn't be making money. What with monitor sales. Still being one of the standout vendors for not 'bundling' monitors with their 'towers'.

This would leave room for the 'cheap-ass' mini being in the £295-495 price range. The mini is another example of a price gouge. It should be a hundred cheaper at least. And about time they at least included a keyboard and mouse. Yeesh. Tight gits.

To me, the iMac is the equivalent of the Macbook Air. 'Underpowered' as a compromise of it's leading edge design. And that's fine. I'm happy with it's design statement to de-clutter the desktop and offer '75%' the power of true desktops around it. But for the love of God. Give us a bit more choice.

What happened to Apple's plan to make the desktop and laptop grid bigger than 4 boxes? Even if Apple are selling only 30% desktops, that's still about 1 million computers nearly. More than when they sold only towers?
Apple clearly has unfinished business with the desktop line. The current 3 model policy offers a flawed, skewed and insufficient coverage model for many buyers like myself. And I think that market is worth another few hundred thousand buyers. Which is alot when you consider the off putting nature of Apple's stratospheric Mac Pro and the 'limited' iMac.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Think about it, leading edge OS, software, design...

BUT,

OUT OF DATE COMPONENTS AND PRICES!

...and to Apple's shame, they don't offer a consumer desktop with Quad cores. It's pathetic, really.

Lemon Bon Bon.

There's some excellent, really excellent points here. I won't talk around them. They speak for themselves. I agree.

Lemon Bon Bon.

BETTER GRAPHICS Please.

It didn't used to be like this. Although Apple didn't always have the latest and greatest, you could count on them to at least be near to it. This is so sad.

It used to be that Apple was held back by IBM and Motorola. This is a strange feeling to see Apple holding themselves back.

I guess it's their philosophy of saying "no" to everything else so they can work on one thing they really want to do. Why don't they want to make a decent desktop computer anymore?

Well, you could blame Nvidia and ATI for big, expensive, hot, GPUs most of which still can't play Crysis !!!!

I've had a Performa tower, a G4 450 tower and currently have a G5 1.6 and I"m looking to upgrade and have been totally priced out of the towers. I'll probably wind up getting an Imac, but it is a bummer because I use my computer for music and it is limiting not to have any expandability. I'd love to get a Universal Audio PCI card for additional effects processing, but if I stick with Apple I can't.

I hate Windows and don't mind paying a premium for OSX, but Apple please don't make me feel like I'm getting totally ripped off.

There are almost never refurbished Mac minis. When they do appear, they sell out within a day.

If I had to guess I'd say the mini is probably one of the most reliable computers ever made. I don't think I've ever seen a forum post complaining about one failing. So there wouldn't be many to refurbish (an alternate theory is that Apple hasn't sold very many, which I find impossible to believe).

The product grid is larger than 4 products now, in fact its a total mess. I remember when they had four machines - a tower, the Imac, the iBook and the powerbook. Two portables, and two desktops, two pro machines and two consumer machines.

Apple has tried to fit their line to more people by offering more machines, but in the end they have left out more people than before. Lets face it, if you could get an aluminum Macbook or iMac for $800 or so, or a tower for $1400, no one would complain, and you could get away with having two desktops and two portables again.

Instead, we have the Mini, which is ancient and forgotten about by Apple, the white Macbook, which still exists only because Apple can't make a new aluminum mackbook for less than $1000 USD. I agree that you have the Air and iMac, both of which are slaves to their form factor - the Air with its lack of ports and optical drive, and the iMac with its lack of expandability. Then you have the Pro, which is priced out of practicality, the Xserve, which is forgotten about, and the Macbook Pro, which is the only fully featured portable (firewire, pc slot), but like the Pro, is too pricey for most people.

Overall, its just a big mess. If they had three main portables and desktops to satisfy the product/price ranges they would be set:

sub $1000: Mini, low end portable/netbook
$1000-$2000: xMac, Macbook
$2000+: Pro, Macbook Pro

Then leave the iMac and Air as flagship models that ooh and ahh people, and give you products that show off what you can do.

Seems pretty clear, but right now the Mac lineup looks like its in the middle of a transition, but one that is very incomplete and as a result is a total mess.

I agree 4 levels
1. Entry level
Mini and low end laptop TVMac2?
Dual cores
2. Prosumers
xMac , iMac and Macbooks
Quadcore (dual on the books)

3. Pro stuff
ProMac Servers? and Pro Books
Octacore Nehalems piles of them

4. Design corner
Air and other art objects.

At least for the Mini that sums up the frustration. We already know that the tech exists to make an acceptable Mini replacement. So if Apple hasn't gotten a Mini update out yet one has to wonder what the hell is up.

At this point I'd have to think that the hold up is that Apple is waiting on something we don't know about. That would most likely mean a PA Semi chip of some sort. The other possibility is that Apple wants to go i7 but that would mean a massively redesigned Mini and worst an expensive Mini.

As for iMac, that machine is less of a problem for the simple reason that it isn't grossly out dated.

I'm almost thinking that the "new" Mini isn't being targgetted at the same market as the current.


Dave

No, the Mini should have been updated twice by now and could have been updated three times. They are not waiting for anything. They are simply choosing not to update their desktops.

The Mac is dead.

Apple's choice... to milk the customer to the maximum. It is the only reasonable assumption to explain this unique, in the recent computer history, phenomenon (no discontinuation, no price drop).

Well, the MacBook line is where there's some great value. Outside of that, given the pace of technology in general... Hmm...

Well, Apple's in it for the profit (it's not a charity) so they're going to make their profit where they see fit. With Steve out of the picture for a while the RDF is definitely starting to clear. The iLife'09 and iWork'09 RDF doesn't seem to be that strong.

I know, it's late, I have not much of an idea what I'm trying to say, except
WHERE ARE MY NEW IMACS AND MAC MINI ARHGHGHGH

The Mac is dead.
Long live the MacBook.

Apple doesn't make *computers* anymore. Just laptops, phones, and screens.

Do we even need an iMac anymore? What advantage does an iMac have over a small form factor desktop + monitor? (from a consumer's point of view)

• Less cables. At least 2; the one from the monitor to the desktop, and the power cable to the monitor.
• Arguably a prettier design.
• Semi-portable

I would gladly give those all up for a modular design. The disadvantages, from a consumer's point of view, are terrible:

• Thermal limits to higher end and less expensive processors & graphics cards.
• Limits monitor upgrading.
• Limits component upgrading.
• Out of warrantee issues become expensive to fix.

The mini is worse because it has all the disadvantages of the iMac plus being outdated and even more thermal restrictions are imposed on it.

I couldn't agree more with Outsider. Some more disadvantages of the iMac...

* Can only have 2nd monitor on left side cause the cd burner is side mounted
* No height adjustability
* Forced to have glossy LCD
* Slower superdrive vs a desktop
* Slower front side bus vs a desktop

Edit: My 2000th POST!!!

The iMac needs something to add pizzaz. Discrete graphics isn't enough IMO. I'm likely going this route. In it's present form the iMac is somewhat of a "bag of hurt".



I get %85 of the cleanliness of an iMac but the ability to change out my monitor almost at will.

Excellence. But it only has GMA950 which is just a garbage GPU.

Cable mess.

That said, a 20" iMac is going to be cheaper than a [13" MacBook + 20" screen]. So, MacMini and "xMac" aside, the 20" iMac is still important! To me and I'm sure others.

Apple has disappointed Mac fans time after time, and yet fanboys keep thinking the next time a Mini, iMac, etc. comes out, it will have everything we want at a lower price. Apparently, SJ prefers to give us whatever costs the least (for Apple) and the most for buyers (with no thought of parity with PC box makeup). He sits up there in his ivory tower and snickers at our gullibility. Unfortunately for me (and most of you), we still buy for the OS X because the rest of the PC world is bereft of OS quality.
Isn't there a parable or something that says something like, "There's a man who has had a bad day every single day of his life, but he thinks tomorrow will be different"? There's a vast difference between an optimist and a 'sucker'. I believe SJ thinks we're suckers and will accept anything he can foist on us. I also believe he's right. We will.

Well when you have a Billionaire CEO and millionaire C-level Execs I think there's a tendency to forget what it's like to be on a reasonable budget.

Apple seems to think that families can oufit everyone with iMacs but that's just not the case. If Apple wants to be a part of my digital hub lifestyle they have to start acting like they value EVERY one of my purchases whether it be a lowely mac mini or a Mac Pro.

I don't need a 256-core GPU in a mini but what I do need is some evolution and enough support for Apple's latest technologies.

Not me. I'm finally specing out that hackintosh. I can't afford a Mac Pro yet for freelance stuff I'm doing now and the iMac and mini will be using old technology by the time it comes out. I was waiting to see what came out today. I have my answer. The guys at EFI-X seem to have a good solution there.

Atom + nVidia Ion:

I will wait till the new iMacs come out before deciding but that sort of solution is getting more and more attractive.

Boy I could see iMovie 09's image stabilization taking FOREVER on that.

I hope you don't complain if your clients start doing whatever they please with the product of that freelance work, regardless of whether or not it complies with the original agreement between you and your clients.

Or, maybe Apple realizes that except for marketing purposes, having an extra .02 Ghz of clockrate on your processor is really not that big of a deal. The majority of the market don't really need or appreciate the "massive" differences in performance that people get excited about here, except, again, as far as marketing goes.

Not really. The nVidia chip can achieve much higher throughput on video processing functions (encoding/decoding) compared to a Core 2 chip. I don't know for sure but it is very likely that the image stabilization feature is using the motion estimation step of the encoding process....

It'll be interesting to see where Apple goes with the ATV.

I don't think the Mac mini should be going Atom personally because yes you can leverage the GPU in Ion to great effect under certain circumstances but overall you're hitting your CPU most day in and day out and that's going to make a Atom Mac mini slower than what's available today.

I think the Atom is more likely in a HTPC like device from Apple provided they don't go SoC for the AppleTV and ARM processing.

So in essence more features and functionality = Atom/ion
less features and more appliance like = ARM/PowerVR

IMO of course.