Video of claimed next-gen Mac Mini surfaces online - Page 5

The mini has been neglected and will continue to be neglected as long as people buy them up. Frankly I hope the next mini has the same internals (you know they have to be dirt cheap for the 2.0GHz and 965 northbridge with GMA950, hell give them GMA3100) and just add what they want to push, namely mini-DP. It'll be their recession buster. 50% or more margin on ancient tech, and the people continue to lap it up.

The only real difference between the mini and the iMac is the hard drive. You can put a 7200rpm 2.5" drive in it or SSD and the performance will be about even. Apple likes to convince people that the iMac is better value by holding the Mini down. When the updates come out, unless they have some seriously good processors in the low end iMac, they are just a waste of money as you would just be paying for a screen you don't need.

If you look at the 24" LED Cinema screen and think you'd never buy one and then look at the iMac and think you would, all they've done is take that screen and put slightly faster than Mini hardware in the back of it.

But what do you do when your display backlight fails or you get dead pixels? What do you do when you need to take your hard drive out (the aluminum model you have to disconnect the display from the motherboard)? What do you do when display manufacturers bring out some great display technology and you don't want a shiny screen staring at you? Mini owners don't have to bother about it because it's such a modular device.

iMacs already use an enthusiast CPU, the Core 2 Extreme. the iMac is not grossly underpowered like the mini, though. It's a very attractive desktop, pretty fast CPU, decent graphics for home and business use, and a host of other nice features. But I agree, the i7 is not as good a fit as the upcoming Lynnfield i5 CPUs. Who knows what Apple is planning.

The mini on the other hand is not a good value. The GPU will not leverage any of the cool graphics technologies Apple has coming up, the RAM ceiling is inadequate for a modern computer (spare me your "but 2GB is enough for emailing and web browsing, yadda yadda yadda". Great, get a netbook for that then). and it just plain suck.

What? the mini and iMac are leagues apart. Apple keeps it that way.

iMac - processors up to 3GHz
mini - processors up to 2GHz

iMac - RAM to 4GB
mini - RAM to 2GB

iMac - full sized HDD
mini - laptop HDD

iMac - dedicated graphics with discreet VRAM
mini - integrated graphics with shared VRAM

iMac - Firewire 800 AND 400
mini - Firewire 400

iMac - 1066 system bus
mini - 667 system bus

iMac - wireless N
mini - wireless G

iMac - not pathetic
mini - pathetic


The iMac does have a serious flaw, and it hasn't always been like this. the display does hinder upgradability, and this is Apple's decision. Just like you're not supposed to open up the mini and upgrade it yourself. So you can't use this against the iMac. At least the iMac lets you upgrade RAM easily.

The screen dies, you get it replaced. In warranty it's not a big deal. Outside of warranty it can be. Those are the breaks.

You have to take price into consideration though.


The Mini can use 3GB out of a 4GB installation.


Not important with 7200rpm 2.5" drives.


Ram is plentiful these days anyway.


We are comparing the updated model with an old iMac.


New model will have these.


Replacing the drive in the iMac could damage your screen, which costs half the price to replace or more. The worst you could do to a Mini is destroy the whole thing and you can replace the whole thing for the same as an iMac display.


It's still an issue in warranty as your whole machine has to be sent away with your work/personal files for over a week.

Concerning the update, Tim Cook said today at the shareholders meeting:

"I have very fond memories of Macworld. Where we are now with retail investment blows macworld out of the water. Also we can announce press conferences whenever we want now which is better for the company."

So I guess we're waiting for a press event. Now that this meeting is out of the way for another year and the board is re-elected, they can focus on delivering some products. I fear this is going to be a case of 'a watched kettle never boils' type thing. The more time goes on, the more frustrating it will get anticipating an update so it's best just to cool the expectations and just bother about it when they actually decide to do something. Their performance regarding their desktop lineup has just been shameful and more so if it turns out to be dual core across the entire consumer line. The Mac Pro should be great but still very pricey.

You're right. Add the cost of a monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, webcam to the mini.



Typical mini users won't know this. They bring it to the Apple store and Apple will not upgrade it beyond the official 2GB. Well some kid there may but you have no guarantee. In that case, let's say the iMac can be upgraded to 6GB.


True. Capacity is still lacking though.


Performance can't be swept under the rug that way though. Performance suffers.


What updated model? How do we know what it will have? For all we know they were testing putting the MCP79 in it but found a cheaper Intel solution that will let them get even more margins from it.


We assume it will.


I know \ That's the iMac's achilles heel. But you go into it knowing that.



Tell me about it. My iMac powersupply died under warranty and I had it away for the weekend only because they had the part at the store.



I hope so. I'm tired of steering people away from the mini and telling them to get a MacBook portable they don't need.

we are talking about future potential mini buyers. and, you can't tell the market what it is.


or, maybe i have a budget, and unfortunately it is not $1999 for a mbp, or $2799 for a mac pro. nor, do i want to spend $2199 for a top end imac, when i already have a nice 23" monitor. i think, looking at prices, the gap becomes quite obvious.


100% agreed. hopefully if mac pro sales dive, then apple will wake up to this fact.


sadly, though, to get the midrange specs we want, at a midrange price, this is the only choice. lucky for apple, for us designers, it is well... not a choice we want to make.

bring back the cube! or, actually, even a pizza-box case would be nice... if it is done apple style - hell, just cram a macbook pro or imac motherboard as-is into a nice slim pizza box case, and leave out the battery and 9600m - hell, that's the ticket! if it is mbp guts in a 15in x 6in x 1in case - slick! micro-tower, standing on edge. dont forget the designers who helped keep apple alive in the late 90's!

It won't take Mac Pro sales to dive, it'll take mini and iMac sales to dive. The Pro is still relevant in the high-end workstation market. iMac is a little weak but is a decent machine and sales should be OK. Hopefully people see the mini for what it is, an over-priced, under-speced machine and stop buying it. That will spur Apple into action, one way or another.

And, hell yeah! Bring back the LC

It only runs Windows or Linux, therefore it is crap.

Unless you want to try the hackintosh route. Then you have Mac OS X running in an unstable environment. That's not something I'd trust MY data to!

You forgot something:
iMac - Gigabit Ethernet
mini - 10/100 Ethernet

Also, there ARE 2 1/2" hard drives that are 500GB x 7200 rpm.

Why change the boot drive, unless it's to add a 7200 rpm drive? Use the FireWire 800 port and add external drives. I store all my media (photos, music, older project files, etc.) on an external hard drive to keep free space on my internal drive. that's what FireWire is for!

The mini does have gigabit ethernet.

And that's all well and good about 2.5" 500GB drives but 3.5" are at 3 times the capacity! With the iMac, it's probably not essential to swap the HDD; the ones you'd get with it (500-1000GB) are spacious enough to last the lifetime of the machine with Firewire storage to supplement (and backup).

Four times the capacity, the first 2TB drives are out now.

If i'm going to change the drive in a mini it's going to be an SSD so that I have 10k performance and above and run cooler.

The iMac needs to be a quad core platform and the mini needs to stay as a dual core platform.

Intel has paved a road of gold for Apple to easily add the distinction. 210 should offer Arrandale dual core for SFF configs and lynnfield or whatever its 32nm replacement is for quad core. No iMac should be less than a quad core IMO and they should all have 22" or larger IPS screens.


Then the mini wouldn't cannibalize iMac sales because if you need mainstream power you need quad core.

The mini would be the perfect Kitchen or auxilliary computer.

I know they were close, but I didn't know they were already out. 4 times then. Nice.

Dell Studio Hybrid

For the price of a 2.0GHz Mac mini, you get the same processor and DVD burner plus 3GB of RAM, almost 3x the HD space, wireless keyboard and mouse and 22" LCD. If OSX86 could be installed on this, it would be a killer Mini replacement.

Agreed. But not offering the i7 and 'enthusiast' performance and price benefits care of a mid-tower or something...is poor.

It's about time Apple offered some innovation and variety in their desktop line up. Yeesh. Two laptops masquerading as desktops and the 'only' truly expandable computer is the Mac Pro with a price tag to match. Most Wintel buyers have the choice (whether they want to exercise that option...) to upgrade from prices starting at less than £500.

The mini just plain sucks right now. Geeze. Most computers in that price bracket at least have the optimism to offer a k/board and Monitor...

Lemon Bon Bon.

No kidding. Apple are in for a sales shock if they offer duos when quads are now the desktop norm. I wouldn't buy an iMac with a duo. I'm still hopeful they can stick a Nehalem i7 2.66 quad in the top end...and dreaming of a 28 inch version.

*Shrugs. Didn't they fit a G5 in the old white case? Didn't that run hot?

Lemon Bon Bon.

Well. I don't think either OS are 'crap'. But I take the sentiment. They are hard work and painful to use. I certainly feel like crap when I've used Windows. It's an obtuse 'little' program.


The spec certainly isn't crap. And Apple should be offering that kind of value in their consumer desktop line up. There is no need to offer such limited performance for a form factor re: desktops. Laptops, fine. I can even see the need for iMac and Mini form factors. But I dispute that design must take the lead over performance when there's an equal amount of desktop buyers or more that would like the mainstream performance and cost benefits of the i7 platform.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Not if they used a cheaper alternative IN ADDITION to the Xeons. ie the i7. And you'd have a reasonably prices line of towers underneath the workstation range.

Quads or Octos. You could take your pick. With a price to fit both pockets. And they'd sell boat loads more towers. Wintel buyers could buy them KNOWING they'd got a PC and they'd get to try the Mac.

(If I was 'armchair' CEO for a day...this is the one thing I'd change. Mid-tower! ...and I'd bundel a k/b and Monitor with the mini...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

There you can perfectly see why the Mini is still around and hasn't received a update till now.
Profit in the size of what Apple makes from the MBs. We are told that Apple makes about 30% margin on the MBs, but thats margin not profit. 30% of $ 1,500.- ~ $ 500.-

If you subtract all things from the studio hybrid to match the Mini you save about $ 460,-.

With the Mini you can't match the HD size and you don't get draft n wireless and no way to upgrade the Mini to 3 GB RAM by Apple. Furthermore the studio hybrid incorporates the X3100 IGP.

So even if dell doesn't make any profit on the studio hybrid and just covers costs, Apple is making $ 460,- of pure profit (Apple can for sure match dells BOM and manufacturing costs).
Until no-one is buying the Mini Apple will sell it as it is, because it is pure gold for Apple.

And as we all prefer MacOSX that much more over Windows as we do, Apple may find a full year of life left in the Mini as it is specced now.
Good for Apple , bad for us Mac aficionados.

Even forgot to say that most of the development costs for the Mini could be laid of to the MB 2006
as the Mini shares most/all(?) features of the motherboard with the MB from 3 years ago.

There is little likelihood that the mini will soldier on unchanged for another year. Don't forget that for Apple to sell the mini with components not used in other Apple products is inefficient. Not going to happen. The mini makes sense using pretty much the same basic internals as the macbook line of computers. It means, for example, that Apple has more clout with nVidia if it's using that company's 9400M GPU in more products. So opting for the 9400 in the mini is a no-brainer.

Certain sites have been reliable in terms of their claims of what Apple is working on and I do believe that Apple has put some effort into reworking the mini. As such, it's unlikely the machine will not be revised in the next short while.

I've started a website about this:
www.newmacmini.com
Latest rumor shows that the new mac mini may use intel's new upcoming core i7 mobile processor!

We know that mobile Nehalem isn't coming until the end of the year but the Mini won't be delayed because of that in the same way the laptops weren't. The Mini has a number of significant upgrades to go before it jumps to Nehalem.

First post whose only goal is to get you to go to his site equals SPAM.