or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Photo of next-gen Apple Mac mini in the wild?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Photo of next-gen Apple Mac mini in the wild? - Page 4

post #121 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quevar View Post

Could the NVIDIA and Intel lawsuit be holding this up? If Apple wanted to use NVIDIA chips, Intel could have said they won't give them unless they use a non-NVIDIA graphics chip since they claim it's a unlicensed chipset.

Nope. That lawsuit is regarding nehelem generation chipsets, which are the ones that will be released later this year. The mac mini is still going to use the core2duo chips which the license is in place for.

Also the macbooks do have 5 usb ports, just that 2 of them are used by the keyboard and isight internally to the south bridge or whatever nVidia calls their I/O.
post #122 of 222
Make the low end one $399 and I'll take one.
post #123 of 222
I'm starting to think it's more and more a fake. The IEEE 1394b port is sideways. I can't find a surface connector that lets you attach the port to a logic board on it's side. I've seen sideways USB and even FW400 surface mount connectors but not for FW800.
post #124 of 222
I vote fake. The mini DVI is useless without an adapter, at which point you might as well get a mini DisplayPort adapter. There's no reason to have one of each: If it was going to be a dual head system (not likely!) it would use the same connector for both.
post #125 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post

miniDP has no support for analogue monitors.

Apple sells a mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter for $29. Link
post #126 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.

Because Apple was already shipping draft n products.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #127 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Because Apple was already shipping draft n products.

Airport Extreme Draft n did not come out until January 2007. The second rev Macbook was released in Nov 2006, with draft n support.
post #128 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by fezzasus View Post

The Mini DisplayPort is an open standard, there are already adaptors being made for it by third parties, unlike the previous port which was apple only.

You have it backwards. VESA created the DisplayPort standard a couple years ago, and only now have manufacturers begun to incorporate it. As is typical, Apple took the bull by the horns by not only adopting the standard but expanding upon it with mini-DisplayPort. Both standards are royalty free, but mini-DisplayPort is not "open." You need Apple's consent (whenever that implies).

I don't see why Apple would want to include a mini-DVI port, of all things. True, the DVI standard in and of itself is widespread, but mini-DVI is a pretty fringe standard and definitely not ubiquitous. If Apple is gunning for PC converts, I don't think this is the way to do it, and besides, IMO, the average convert isn't going to want to be befuddled and bothered with having to wade into the world of "gee, which connector(s) do I need to buy just to hook a monitor up to my Mac-mini?" I would say just ditch the mini-DVI in favor of either 1) a second mini-DisplayPort or 2) a full-size DisplayPort. At least with the latter, there are monitors out there from Dell, HP, etc that do sport full-sized DisplayPorts. Apple is known for its "take it and like it, or leave it" attitude, so surely they can axe DVI altogether and continue to provide industry direction, which is what they do best.

Also, any word on what drive size(s) might be offered with this update?
post #129 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post

Why would they use ddr3 memory and only a core 2 duo ? Why not use an i7 or wait till i5?

The i7 runs 4 times hotter than the mobile CPU in the Mini. It wouldn't last very long bore damage was done. There's also the space issue.

As for the i5, the merom chip will be almost three years old the the 945 chipset will be approaching four by the time the i5 is released.
post #130 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

Airport Extreme Draft n did not come out until January 2007. The second rev Macbook was released in Nov 2006, with draft n support.

Ok so Apple did it knowing they were going to have a product out within a month or so. I don't see any signs of any FW3200 or USB 3 devices being released anytime soon.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5
120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #131 of 222
If this came out next month I'd be all over it like a Soviet on cheap vodka.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A photo making the rounds on the Internet appears to conform to descriptions of a next-generation Mac mini published by AppleInsider earlier in the year.

The photo shows the rear of a Mac mini that includes five USB ports instead of 4, both mini DVI and Mini DisplayPort connectors, and FireWire 800 instead of 400 -- all of which were specifications for a next-generation Mac mini first published by AppleInsider back in January (1, 2).

For what it's worth, this is the second picture of a Mac mini seen by AppleInsider with such a port makeup, the first of which we were asked not to publish. While we cannot vouch for the authenticity of this new photo, it shows a Mac mini that is identical in every way to the system in the unpublished photo, which was said to be a prototype from last fall.

People familiar with Apple's plans have said that the new Mac mini, like Apple's MacBook families and upcoming line of iMacs, will be powered by chipsets from NVIDIA Corp.

However, with no official announcement from Apple, and two photos of the same unreleased system making the rounds in as many months, there's an outside chance the company may have recently changed its course for the next-gen Mac mini.

Update: The image was also posted to the MacRumors forums from user 'monthy,' who claims the system will ship with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo with 3MB Level 2 cache, 2GB DDR 3 RAM @ 1066MHz and a ATA Super Drive. It appears monthy is the source of the image.

post #132 of 222
The only thing this thread proves is that there are some dummies on the AI forums. Key posts... the one about having the audio ports above the usb ports being impossible, and the one about the USB logo only being above one port.
post #133 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

would it be unreasonable to think that a new iMac would release as the chip was released?

i'd like to have a new computer (either PC or Mac) by November at the very latest, preferably by September. Would it be unreasonable to think that the a new iMac with the new Chip sets would be released by then?

this is one issue i do have with apple, its hard to know when to buy their products as they tend to keep everything a secret until it is released (which is also good in some ways) it would be nice however to know if waiting is worth it.

what times during the year do they normally have these releases? or is it just whenever they have a product to put out they have a conference and then sell it shortly after?

iMac updates have been expected for awhile. MacRumors keeps track of this stuff in their Buying Guide, which is as good an indicator of product updates as you're likely to find. I'm not sure if the i7 has a version that's compatible with the iMac, so if if that's the chipset you're looking for, you may have to wait until more 32nm chips are released. For that, you can often gain a clue from Intel's roadmap, which is much more forthcoming. Mobile i7 chips are expected, last I checked, in Q4 2009.
post #134 of 222
I think this is a prototype updated Mac Mini (or fake). I don't think Apple are going to release it. It sounds too attractive to be true. My gut feeling. I could be wrong. Apple is 100% unpredictable right now. And that is quite unsettling.
post #135 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbw87 View Post

That still doesn't explain the presence of the mini-DVI port.

And it doesn't seem Apple is supporting daisy-chaining on its DP display, so maybe two ports would be a safer hedge. Also allows someone to run one DVI and one DP monitor.

Point taken about the adaptors being crap, but I can't imagine Jobs/Cook getting up on stage and saying "yeah, our DP-DVI adapters are pretty crap, so we shoved a mini-DVI port on there for DVI users... those adapters work better."

I can think of a couple of reasons for the miniDVI...

First, the miniDVI-to-DVI/VGA adaptors are each $19 vs $29 for the miniDP-to-DVI/VGA. So it's cheaper for customers or for Apple to include the adaptor in the box.

Second, miniDP supports DRM, and my understanding is that the miniDP adaptors won't work to put DRM'd content on a legacy display. Including the miniDVI would be a way to avoid obsoleting your display if/when Apple activates the DRM (for HD movie rentals, for example). For the MB/MBP this isn't as big a deal because you'd still be able to view the content on the built-in display if not an external monitor. But for the mini, you need a connector that's always going to work with older displays.
post #136 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejaysplace24 View Post

iMac updates have been expected for awhile. MacRumors keeps track of this stuff in their Buying Guide, which is as good an indicator of product updates as you're likely to find. I'm not sure if the i7 has a version that's compatible with the iMac, so if if that's the chipset you're looking for, you may have to wait until more 32nm chips are released. For that, you can often gain a clue from Intel's roadmap, which is much more forthcoming. Mobile i7 chips are expected, last I checked, in Q4 2009.

My feeling is iMac does not need i7. It just needs bumped Core2s , the Core2Quad in the top end 24" (come on there's plenty of space for thermal engineering a mobile or even desktop quad into that without resorting to liquid cooling - just look at the stuff Zalman and CoolerMaster is doing ~ I'm sure Apple can slim that all down intelligently like use a large part of the back part of the iMac as a heatsink/heatfin etc. etc. it's all about surface area and the 24" has a huge surface area) and *most importantly* Nvidia 9600 and 9800 graphics.

<apologies for run-on sentences in this post>
post #137 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post

Why would they use ddr3 memory and only a core 2 duo ? Why not use an i7 or wait till i5?

We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs. DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.

Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine. Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.
post #138 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

I'm starting to think it's more and more a fake. The IEEE 1394b port is sideways. I can't find a surface connector that lets you attach the port to a logic board on it's side. I've seen sideways USB and even FW400 surface mount connectors but not for FW800.

The FW port on the current mac mini is placed sideways. FW800 ports are very rare, which may explain why you have never seen a FW800 on its side.
post #139 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Second, miniDP supports DRM, and my understanding is that the miniDP adaptors won't work to put DRM'd content on a legacy display. Including the miniDVI would be a way to avoid obsoleting your display if/when Apple activates the DRM (for HD movie rentals, for example). For the MB/MBP this isn't as big a deal because you'd still be able to view the content on the built-in display if not an external monitor. But for the mini, you need a connector that's always going to work with older displays.

Very logical deduction. This would make total sense to me too.
post #140 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Ok so Apple did it knowing they were going to have a product out within a month or so. I don't see any signs of any FW3200 or USB 3 devices being released anytime soon.

My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.
post #141 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

My feeling is iMac does not need i7. It just needs bumped Core2s , the Core2Quad in the top end 24" (come on there's plenty of space for thermal engineering a mobile or even desktop quad into that without resorting to liquid cooling - just look at the stuff Zalman and CoolerMaster is doing ~ I'm sure Apple can slim that all down intelligently like use a large part of the back part of the iMac as a heatsink/heatfin etc. etc. it's all about surface area and the 24" has a huge surface area) and *most importantly* Nvidia 9600 and 9800 graphics.

<apologies for run-on sentences in this post>

iMac will need Clarksfield (i5 mobile), by the time it comes out (end of this year), since i7 would have gone mainstream by this time and Nehalem is just that much better than Penryn.
post #142 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer View Post

If you're going to use that argument, should all macs have a multitude of USB ports? Or if a switcher is getting an iMac, it's not as important because they can be really messy about things and plug stuff into the keyboard?

Well, laptops have have limited space and none of Apple's desktops have been updated in awhile. So perhaps the next round of updates of the mini, iMac and MacPro will all have more USB ports.
post #143 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

My point was it would be nice to have something that's future-proof.

No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.
post #144 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs. DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.

Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine. Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.

REPEAT after me: It's not a sin to want faster processors...
post #145 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I can think of a couple of reasons for the miniDVI...

First, the miniDVI-to-DVI/VGA adaptors are each $19 vs $29 for the miniDP-to-DVI/VGA. So it's cheaper for customers or for Apple to include the adaptor in the box.

Second, miniDP supports DRM, and my understanding is that the miniDP adaptors won't work to put DRM'd content on a legacy display. Including the miniDVI would be a way to avoid obsoleting your display if/when Apple activates the DRM (for HD movie rentals, for example). For the MB/MBP this isn't as big a deal because you'd still be able to view the content on the built-in display if not an external monitor. But for the mini, you need a connector that's always going to work with older displays.

If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.
post #146 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

No gadget is ever "future-proof," at best, maybe "future-ready." After all, yesterday's new and/or visionary is today's old and/or unrealistic. Besides, the FW3200 and USB3 standards aren't even ready for prime time yet.

What do you mean by not ready for prime time? FW3200 is already defined in IEEE 1394b spec, which was released when FW800 was introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewir..._1394b-2002.29). The new spec just offers some further clarifications. Therefore, it's quite possible that the FW800 chip installed in the upcoming mini will support FW3200 when those devices come out.
post #147 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.dub View Post

Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.

Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.

The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.

I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.

It's probably a cell phone photo which explains the graininess. Also, if you look closely, you'll see that the camera is focus on the wood grain of the table, not the back of the mini. This is pretty typical when you try to take a close up photo with a camera phone. Also, if you look at the top edge of the USB ports, you can see the reflection from the metal shift from port to port. This is exactly what would happen in a real photo due to the different reflection angle between the camera and light source shifting with the offset of each port. If the photo is a fake, it's a really good fake.

Also, the port arrangement you are saying makes no sense is the EXACT port arrangement of the current mini.
post #148 of 222
I'm telling you that sucker is real. Whether Apple finally gets around to releasing it...that's another thing...
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 #149 of 222
Without a dedicated PCI-Express GPU it's DOA for my needs.
post #150 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

If I'm not mistaken, HDCP allows downgrading to SD to support legacy displays.

True, but it's unclear exactly how Apple would implement it if they did. If I recall correctly, when Apple had it's "oops" when the new MacBooks were accidentally released with HDCP enabled, the video refused to play at all, not even in SD format.
post #151 of 222
I like it. While I'd prefer a slightly embiggened mini, keeping the design the same is the next best thing. The mini is a beautiful little machine.
post #152 of 222
I have been waiting so long for LED based 24" Quad Core iMac, an LED iMac Quad Core along with Snow Leopard would be a dynamite.
post #153 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

I like it. While I'd prefer a slightly embiggened mini, keeping the design the same is the next best thing. The mini is a beautiful little machine.

I hear you Jebediah.
post #154 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post

Given that:
-the Mini is positioned a low-end consumer grade machine
-that Apple removed FW400 from the low-end consumer MacBook
-that Apple is still selling the previous model MacBook with FW400

I would say it is quite unlikely that Apple would upgrade the Mini from FW400 to FW800.

I think it would be more likely that Apple might lead the way to USB 3.0 (presuming there is a chipset available), and include a USB 3 port (and either have all USB 3 ports, which are backwards compatible with USB 2 or have several other USB 2 ports, depending on cost & chipset capabilities).

The mac mini is neither consumer or pro it just is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbw87 View Post

But they sell a mini-displayport to DVI adapter: there's no need for mini DVI.

I could understand if they put a full-size DVI port on the mini, to cater for people's old monitors without the need for adapters. But customers who buy it for use with a DVI monitor will need a mini-DVI to DVI adapter ANYWAY, so why the hell not just put mini-DP on there and be done with it?

Makes no sense. I call fake.

I would think for the same reason video cards had/have vga and dvi, this probably can drive 2 monitors...

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.dub View Post

Wow that thing is so fake looking I don't understand how someone could think it is real.

Pretty easy to photoshop that together then make it all blurry and poor quality after to cover imperfections.

The port arrangement, and the ports used don't even make sense.

I'm all for a new mini, but this is NOT something to get your hopes up on.

I don't know I used to do full time photo retouching for like 5 years, and that noise is hard to retouch, especially because the lighting of it is graduated and the shadows in the jacks look pretty good. It's barely possible to get something looking that good, like a fresh photo from a 2-3 Mega Pixel camera and then JPEGed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Remember the thread about data centers using minis. That would be way cool to use FW800 with external storage for a web servers.

FW800 would be great for a 1TB 3.5inch 7200 Mini Stack or something...

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.

Thanks for reminding me GOSH I hope this has 802.11n NNN...

Laters...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #155 of 222
The Mac Mini for most people is a great computer to hook up to your large screen TV. Why go with an Apple TV that is limited in functionality as well as power, when you can have a full blown computer that is a lot more powerful?

There is a completely different class of users - that use the Mac Mini in an entirely different way - Data Centers have sprung up with racks and racks of Mac Mini units - and their requirements are entirely different to what the Home Theater enthusiast needs.

For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast considers the Mac Mini to be essentially a low power computer hooked up to the TV - a glorified Apple TV for most people. But if you are putting stacks of the Mac Mini in a data center, you need the Mac Mini to be a powerful computer.

For a long time, Server Consolidation was the buzz word for Administrators - Take really monstrously powerful hardware and create Virtual Computers on them - to which you can dynamically allocate processors, RAM, disk space, etc. This was considered as a way to reduce the cost of a server. However there has been another dynamic at work - because servers use expensive parts that are produced in much lower volumes than the low end computers, the price per unit of performance is a lot better for the lower end computers than for servers. Despite the fact that price per unit is higher in servers, the cost of rack space, power consumption, heat dissipation costs, etc. still forced most people to go in for Server Consolidation. The Mac Mini has turned all those equations in favor of the low end machine. It takes up much lesser space, uses much lesser power, and generates much lesser heat - in fact, Mac Mini does not even require a fan to dissipate heat. Because of this, most "Server" applications can be efficiently handled by the Mac Mini. Even high end high performance Server applications can be handled cheaper by a stack of Minis that distribute the tasks between them, than by massive powerful computers.

The requirements of these two communities are completely different. For instance, the Home Theater enthusiast needs a DVD player/recorder - but on a server it is useless to have DVD drives on each server machine! They would much rather have that space utilized for 3.5" HDD instead of the current 2.5" HDD.

There are other such differences as well - like the need for USB ports, firewire ports, WiFi, etc. Servers dont need these capabilities, but Home Theater users need lots of these.

To add to the above confusion, there is also the nascent Car Computer market - where the Mini is very popular. That market has entirely different needs to everyone else - starting from the voltage used by the computer, and the location of all the ports/controls!

Quite obviously Apple does not want to confuse the market by releasing different versions of the Mac Mini targetting different segments - this is so "un-Apple". Along with this, there is another dynamic at work - Apple does not earn too much of margins from the Mac Mini -and obviously, the Mac Mini is cannibalizing some sales from the iMac.

There is one way for Apple to handle both these issues - and that, is to sell the Mac Mini as a "component" based system, where the components fit together like Bricks. Each market segment would buy the components they need, and can ignore the components they dont need. Apple needs to come up with a connector technology that gives much better throughput between the components than is possible with existing technologies. For instance, servers would like to have a lot of HDD space - would be great if a Mac Mini can have 3-4 HDD "bricks" attached to it - and with connectivity that is close in speeds to internal connectivity. Quite obviously, USB/Firewire connectivity for disks will not be acceptable at all.

This connector technology would be proprietary to Apple, and they can earn money by licensing this technology to 3rd parties. It should be sophisticated enough that it would work for various purposes - fast data for HDD, etc., support USB, Firewire, Bluetooth, WiFi etc. for the consumer, support additional Consumer devices like Video Grabbers, Audio/Video amplifiers, etc.

This drastic redesign is what is causing so much of a delay in the release of the Mac Mini. If Apple can do this right, and can patent everything that goes into this, it will easily be able to capture significant chunk of the market for servers, as well as the entire Home Theater enthusiast market. At the same time, margins will not be impacted at all - because each of the components can actually be sold at even higher margins that Apple makes on their other product lines. And people will happily pay for the convenience and flexibility that this approach offers.

This will also be the best way to offer "true" upgrading capability to the market. Quite obviously, none of today's computers are upgraded often. Even computers like the Mac Pro, which can be upgraded, dont see too many upgrades in practise. However, if the components are all individual bricks, that fit together seamlessly, it will obviously be a much more upgradeable solution - the customer can add/replace a brick at any time.

All these images floating around on the internet are most likely photoshopped rumor posts. The other possibility is that Apple has not yet perfected the "brick" design, so there will be one more iteration of the Mac Mini, with marginal changes, before Apple goes in for the total overhaul described above.
post #156 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Without a dedicated PCI-Express GPU it's DOA for my needs.

The 9400M outperforms the 2400XT in the iMac. It gives you near parity with dedicated solutions at the entry level. Anything higher you wouldn't be seeing in a Mini anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever00 View Post

The same reason why Apple used a draft-n wireless chip in the first Macbook.

Wireless-N devices were on the market before support for it arrived in Macs.
post #157 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

The FW800 is nice, but what the hell does anyone need five USB ports for on this level of computer?

Currently have 8 USB connections connected to my current Apple Mini at work, and have 11 USB connections connected to my iMac at home.
post #158 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

Until FW3200 devices arrive whats the use? Same goes for USB 3 for that matter...

As has been the history of computing technology you need adoption before you can build peripherials. In the case of USB Apple was one of the earliest adopters going. Considering there is nothing for Apple to adopt with the newer Firewire standards implementation is possible.

By nothing to adopt I mean the connector is backwards compatible. Considering the low pain involved implementation would purely be a case of having the new hardware ready. Wether the hardware is ready is another question.

Dave
post #159 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

We do not need i7 or i5. Core 2 Duos, even mobile versions, eg. Penryn, are very, very good CPUs.

Good CPUs they may be but the performance differential is to huge to ignore. Using your logic a Pentium would be good enough, but you really don't see much demand for old Pentium hardware on the desk top.

The other thing is that you are going to want a processor with lots of threads once Snow Leopard comes out.
Quote:
DDR3 is useful when paired with integrated 9400M, gives one of the best integrated graphics options out there and decimates any Intel integrated graphic rubbish.

Like I said, the Mac Mini just needs a 2ghz Core 2 Duo Penryn, DDR3 RAM and 9400M Nvidia, I can tell you that is quite a decent machine.

It wouldn't be much better than the current machine that everybody complains about.
Quote:
Upgrade to max 4GB RAM, throw in a 7200rpm (even notebook) drive, your talking one of the fastest desktop computers in the world of that size.

Well if you say so. I just don't think the majority of the people waiting on a new Mini would agree with you.


Dave
post #160 of 222
uuuuh... No. dont think so
[ JUSTIN ]
[ @justin_horn ]
[ @whenwillapple ]
Reply
[ JUSTIN ]
[ @justin_horn ]
[ @whenwillapple ]
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Photo of next-gen Apple Mac mini in the wild?