No way, the Server version has 7200 rpm drives -- check your facts first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Actually as hard drive density has scaled as high as it has, 5400rpm hard drives are much more feasible than they used to be. Yes, a 7200rpm would be nicer for the OS drive, but my guess is heat limitations kept them using 5400 rpm.
Nowadays every new mac mini iteration is $100 more costlier than the previous one...
Doesn't anyone check facts any more? The Mini server price is unchanged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
The people who respond to this "complaint" are ignoring the fact that the starting price went up from the previous model. Instead of directly addressing the price increase over the previous model, they revert to the "Macs are premium priced", "You get what you pay for", "If you don't like it then go buy a PC" type of responses. So how about addressing why Apple raised the starting price instead of keeping it the same, like they have usually done?
Does it matter? Why would it matter if the price was raised purely due to greed or if Intel had increased the component price by $100? Ultimately, you look at the product. You look at the price. You then decide to buy or not to buy (or to buy the older model). The manufacturer's logic in setting the price is irrelevant.
For the record, the new model costs about $100 more than the old entry level (and $100 less than the old mid-range system). For that price you get:
HDMI (for some people, that alone may be worth the price)
SD card slot (remember all the iPad whining that insisted that having an SD card slot was SOOOOO critical?)
Sturdier case, presumably better heat transfer
Slightly faster CPU than old base model, slightly slower than old mid-range model
Twice the RAM capacity
Dramatically faster GPU
Power supply integral to case rather than dangling on the cord
Smaller case
Without knowing the costs of all those items, it's impossible to say if Apple is making more money, the same money, or less money than on the old system, but as I said, it's irrelevant. You look at those changes and look at the old model (which you can still find online) and decide which of them (if any) meets your needs. End of discussion.
No way, the Server version has 7200 rpm drives -- check your facts first.
That doesn't necessarily rule out the heat issue. It could be that the optical drive blocks air flow enough that the 7200 would be a problem. I don't know for sure, but I"m assuming that these use 2.5" disks, so it's plausible that the airflow around a second hard disk would be better than the airflow around an optical drive, allowing for faster drives in the server version.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
You won't see it until an iLife with Blu-Ray features is released...
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter
He was specifically referring to some of the licensing requirements. Guess what? That particular "bag of hurt" was fixed years ago. According to Jobs' own words, that was the issue, and it's been fixed. There is no reason why they shouldn't include the drives now, save for some delusion that their crappy HD downloads can hold a candle to even an average BluRay.
Thanks for your recent refresh of the Mac Mini. It truly is ground breaking. It's small, lightweight, looks pretty and boasts "killer" integrated graphics. We rejoice at the 100% boost in frame rates for your Steam games, because 20 FPS is defiantly better than 10 - Even on a Mac.
It sounds so good on paper, I will have to go and get one. I don't mind even paying an extra £110 for a magic mouse and wireless aluminium keyboard. It's the only item like it in it's product segment, and is worthy of the price premium.
Oh, look - Competition. 1/3 of the price and comes with a keyboard and mouse. But wait, what am I thinking? Sorry Apple, I digress for a moment there. I will still buy the Mac Mini. It makes much more sense after banging my head against my desk a few times.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, you HAVE managed to prove that you don't know anything about computers.
Simply knowing the GPU in a system doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the system. There are great and lousy video cards made the the same processor (albeit often different specs). Same thing with RAM. Apple isn't going to use the same junk RAM that you're obviously content with.
And please explain how Apple could have put a Radeon 4850 and quad core CPU into the Mini. You've added AT LEAST 50% to the heat generation and power consumption. Not to mention that you don't have ANY idea what Apple's costs are.
Why do you insist on making inane posts about subjects you know nothing about?
Oh, look - Competition. 1/3 of the price and comes with a keyboard and mouse. But wait, what am I thinking? Sorry Apple, I digress for a moment there. I will still buy the Mac Mini. It makes much more sense after banging my head against my desk a few times.
1/3 the price? The cheapest one is 329 UK pounds - closer to half the price than 1/3.
More importantly, that's a 1.5 Ghz Athlon processor - not even in the same league as the Mini. Yours has a slower GPU and drastically larger profile.
Finally, it's a Dell - one of the worst systems on the planet. I'd prefer to buy a system that will work and, if there is a problem, comes with reasonable support. There's a reason why Apple always ranks at the top in user satisfaction and computer reliability.
As has been said repeatedly, if you want to buy cheap junk, no one's stopping you. But please stop pretending that your Yugo is the same thing as a BMW because it has one steering wheel, 4 tires, two doors, and seats 4.
Well, you HAVE managed to prove that you don't know anything about computers.
Simply knowing the GPU in a system doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the system. There are great and lousy video cards made the the same processor (albeit often different specs). Same thing with RAM. Apple isn't going to use the same junk RAM that you're obviously content with.
And please explain how Apple could have put a Radeon 4850 and quad core CPU into the Mini. You've added AT LEAST 50% to the heat generation and power consumption. Not to mention that you don't have ANY idea what Apple's costs are.
Why do you insist on making inane posts about subjects you know nothing about?
Apple for the most part uses Samsung memory. Not exactly what anyone would consider high end memory.
Most of the core hardware in Apple systems can be found in any mid range PC. Apple has used Hitachi hard drives for a long time which is exactly what I have in my Apple and PC systems.
As for the GPU I would assume Apple is using standard OEM cards hardly higher end compared to something say from EVGA.
I have owned Apple hardware for a few decades now and I would say without a doubt I have had more issues with Apple hardware then I have ever had with any of my PC hardware. Then again I tend to always buy very high end Windows systems or build them myself. Most of my Apple hardware issues have been heat related over the years.
However you are correct to expect insane hardware specs out of the mac mini is unreasonable. Its not a high end system.
Apple for the most part uses Samsung memory. Not exactly what anyone would consider high end memory.
Most of the core hardware in Apple systems can be found in any mid range PC. Apple has used Hitachi hard drives for a long time which is exactly what I have in my Apple and PC systems.
As for the GPU I would assume Apple is using standard OEM cards hardly higher end compared to something say from EVGA.
I have owned Apple hardware for a few decades now and I would say without a doubt I have had more issues with Apple hardware then I have ever had with any of my PC hardware. Then again I tend to always buy very high end Windows systems or build them myself. Most of my Apple hardware issues have been heat related over the years.
However you are correct to expect insane hardware specs out of the mac mini is unreasonable. Its not a high end system.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
Momentus XT hybrid HDD/SSD drive. Near SSD performance without the $$$$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
The people who respond to this "complaint" are ignoring the fact that the starting price went up from the previous model. Instead of directly addressing the price increase over the previous model, they revert to the "Macs are premium priced", "You get what you pay for", "If you don't like it then go buy a PC" type of responses. So how about addressing why Apple raised the starting price instead of keeping it the same, like they have usually done?
And another question: How does this $699 model compare to the previous $799 model?
I know others have said that but i'm not going to parrot that same statement. The new mini is more expensive and looks the part clearly but I tend to think along the lines of "once the outside has been modified the internals can be changed later" read possibly more integrated CPU/GPU options in the future that will once again reduce cost.
The cool thing to me is the SD card slot. I'd certainly be interested in the mini server and not having an optical drive means little if I've got 32GB of storage available on the SD slot.
Now Apple has SD slots in
Mac mini
iMac
Macbook Pro
Sounds like I won't need an optical drive going forward.
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
You can order the Apple Remote with it, I don't think they'd do that if it didn't have an IR port... Besides, they market this as an HTPC... of course it'll have one
That being said, this is such poor value compared to the MacBook... or anything else from Apple's product line for that matter. And it's not like Apple's product line has an amazing specs/price ratio to begin with.
1) IR remote??? That is some archaic shit. Try Apple's free "Remote" app on your iPod Touch or iPhone for full control of iTunes, or you could try any of the plethora of third party remote applications.
2) Apple's product line may not have "amazing spec/price ratio" but they simply just work, every time, all the time, without fail. Unlike any PC you can name that may look better on paper, but is flakey as hell, like most PCs. So how's about you get a clue?
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
His hand waving negates your warped reality.
'Knows nothing' about computers.
Eh? Why? Because 'Pompous Man' says so?
The overclockers example is one of hundreds of possible (er...choice...something I know nothing about because I know nothing about 'computers'....sacred knowledge that only 'Pompous' Man knows...) examples that blow the Mini out the water on value for money. From the same site. 6 core tower add any gpu that will blow away anything Apple has for less than 2,300 quid.
Period? You're on one if you think a mini represents good value at £650. An eye watering biscuit tin.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Skater has a point. 'Blind loyalty' to Apple because they do 'some' things well doesn't negate criticism of their desktop policy. Which is and has been crrrrrrrrrrrrrap for some time. Nicely designed boxes with underperforming parts.
The rest of their hardware in laptops and phones/pads is ok. But their desktop line up is retarded, as are the prices, as are the gpus, as are the vram amounts as are the prices (I said that once, yeah?)
You can go to overclockers and get a six core system for under a k. You just know that such a system from Apple is going to start at 2k for their 'pro' because, apparently, it's a 'wooooo' 'workstation'. (But without any of the workstation parts, yeah? Oh. The Xeon. A quad core. For 2k. Yeah. Bad ass workstation part...along with the bad ass consumer gpu and flacid penile ram.)
Apple. Like the iPhone 4. The laptops are decent.
The dekstops and the price hikes over the last year or so in recession smack of arrogance and greed.
Comments
Actually as hard drive density has scaled as high as it has, 5400rpm hard drives are much more feasible than they used to be. Yes, a 7200rpm would be nicer for the OS drive, but my guess is heat limitations kept them using 5400 rpm.
Nowadays every new mac mini iteration is $100 more costlier than the previous one...
Doesn't anyone check facts any more? The Mini server price is unchanged.
The people who respond to this "complaint" are ignoring the fact that the starting price went up from the previous model. Instead of directly addressing the price increase over the previous model, they revert to the "Macs are premium priced", "You get what you pay for", "If you don't like it then go buy a PC" type of responses. So how about addressing why Apple raised the starting price instead of keeping it the same, like they have usually done?
Does it matter? Why would it matter if the price was raised purely due to greed or if Intel had increased the component price by $100? Ultimately, you look at the product. You look at the price. You then decide to buy or not to buy (or to buy the older model). The manufacturer's logic in setting the price is irrelevant.
For the record, the new model costs about $100 more than the old entry level (and $100 less than the old mid-range system). For that price you get:
HDMI (for some people, that alone may be worth the price)
SD card slot (remember all the iPad whining that insisted that having an SD card slot was SOOOOO critical?)
Sturdier case, presumably better heat transfer
Slightly faster CPU than old base model, slightly slower than old mid-range model
Twice the RAM capacity
Dramatically faster GPU
Power supply integral to case rather than dangling on the cord
Smaller case
Without knowing the costs of all those items, it's impossible to say if Apple is making more money, the same money, or less money than on the old system, but as I said, it's irrelevant. You look at those changes and look at the old model (which you can still find online) and decide which of them (if any) meets your needs. End of discussion.
Sheesh. People will complain about anything.
No way, the Server version has 7200 rpm drives -- check your facts first.
That doesn't necessarily rule out the heat issue. It could be that the optical drive blocks air flow enough that the 7200 would be a problem. I don't know for sure, but I"m assuming that these use 2.5" disks, so it's plausible that the airflow around a second hard disk would be better than the airflow around an optical drive, allowing for faster drives in the server version.
- AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 2.90GHz (Socket AM3) offers multitasking performance.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
How about Firewire 3200? The official spec has been out for a while now.
He was specifically referring to some of the licensing requirements. Guess what? That particular "bag of hurt" was fixed years ago. According to Jobs' own words, that was the issue, and it's been fixed. There is no reason why they shouldn't include the drives now, save for some delusion that their crappy HD downloads can hold a candle to even an average BluRay.
It sounds so good on paper, I will have to go and get one. I don't mind even paying an extra £110 for a magic mouse and wireless aluminium keyboard. It's the only item like it in it's product segment, and is worthy of the price premium.
Thanks once again App... Oh, What's this?
http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home...=ukdhs1&~ck=mn
Oh, look - Competition. 1/3 of the price and comes with a keyboard and mouse. But wait, what am I thinking? Sorry Apple, I digress for a moment there. I will still buy the Mac Mini. It makes much more sense after banging my head against my desk a few times.
In fact, I'll have 2.
Regards,
Tipoo
Why You Should Buy This System?
- AMD Athlon II X2 Dual Core 250 2.90GHz (Socket AM3) offers multitasking performance.
- 250GB Seagate Barracuda hard drive gives a solid and reliable storage capacity.
- 4GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM allows for snappy and precise processes to be made.
- HIS ATI Radeon HD 4850 iCooler IV 1024MB GDDR3 offers superb gaming performance.
From Overclockers.co.uk
£429.99 inc VAT (minus the OS. Pick your flavour...of Windows...)
Note the inclusion of a 'cheap ass' card that Apple only deems worthy of inclusion on a 'high end' iMac.
And there's '6 core' systems for less than a grand and not much more than a mini.
Yeah. And some people complain about 'anything.' Anything. Apple could have thrown in a Radeon 4850, 2 gigs more ram and a quad core cpu and still made a profit over the old mini price of less than 400.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, you HAVE managed to prove that you don't know anything about computers.
Simply knowing the GPU in a system doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the system. There are great and lousy video cards made the the same processor (albeit often different specs). Same thing with RAM. Apple isn't going to use the same junk RAM that you're obviously content with.
And please explain how Apple could have put a Radeon 4850 and quad core CPU into the Mini. You've added AT LEAST 50% to the heat generation and power consumption. Not to mention that you don't have ANY idea what Apple's costs are.
Why do you insist on making inane posts about subjects you know nothing about?
Thanks once again App... Oh, What's this?
http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/home...=ukdhs1&~ck=mn
Oh, look - Competition. 1/3 of the price and comes with a keyboard and mouse. But wait, what am I thinking? Sorry Apple, I digress for a moment there. I will still buy the Mac Mini. It makes much more sense after banging my head against my desk a few times.
1/3 the price? The cheapest one is 329 UK pounds - closer to half the price than 1/3.
More importantly, that's a 1.5 Ghz Athlon processor - not even in the same league as the Mini. Yours has a slower GPU and drastically larger profile.
Finally, it's a Dell - one of the worst systems on the planet. I'd prefer to buy a system that will work and, if there is a problem, comes with reasonable support. There's a reason why Apple always ranks at the top in user satisfaction and computer reliability.
As has been said repeatedly, if you want to buy cheap junk, no one's stopping you. But please stop pretending that your Yugo is the same thing as a BMW because it has one steering wheel, 4 tires, two doors, and seats 4.
Well, you HAVE managed to prove that you don't know anything about computers.
Simply knowing the GPU in a system doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the system. There are great and lousy video cards made the the same processor (albeit often different specs). Same thing with RAM. Apple isn't going to use the same junk RAM that you're obviously content with.
And please explain how Apple could have put a Radeon 4850 and quad core CPU into the Mini. You've added AT LEAST 50% to the heat generation and power consumption. Not to mention that you don't have ANY idea what Apple's costs are.
Why do you insist on making inane posts about subjects you know nothing about?
Apple for the most part uses Samsung memory. Not exactly what anyone would consider high end memory.
Most of the core hardware in Apple systems can be found in any mid range PC. Apple has used Hitachi hard drives for a long time which is exactly what I have in my Apple and PC systems.
As for the GPU I would assume Apple is using standard OEM cards hardly higher end compared to something say from EVGA.
I have owned Apple hardware for a few decades now and I would say without a doubt I have had more issues with Apple hardware then I have ever had with any of my PC hardware. Then again I tend to always buy very high end Windows systems or build them myself. Most of my Apple hardware issues have been heat related over the years.
However you are correct to expect insane hardware specs out of the mac mini is unreasonable. Its not a high end system.
Apple for the most part uses Samsung memory. Not exactly what anyone would consider high end memory.
Most of the core hardware in Apple systems can be found in any mid range PC. Apple has used Hitachi hard drives for a long time which is exactly what I have in my Apple and PC systems.
As for the GPU I would assume Apple is using standard OEM cards hardly higher end compared to something say from EVGA.
I have owned Apple hardware for a few decades now and I would say without a doubt I have had more issues with Apple hardware then I have ever had with any of my PC hardware. Then again I tend to always buy very high end Windows systems or build them myself. Most of my Apple hardware issues have been heat related over the years.
However you are correct to expect insane hardware specs out of the mac mini is unreasonable. Its not a high end system.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
You're also making the same mistake. You're assuming that all Hitachi hard drives are created equal and that all Samsung memory is created equal. And that all video cards with the same GPU are identical.
That isn't even close to being true. For example, some time ago, there was a problem with third party memory used in Macs. Even when the memory allegedly met the same specs, it didn't work - because Apple used tighter tolerances. Same thing with capacitors a decade before. It is absolutely insane to think that you can state that two systems are identical simply because they both use DDR3 RAM, Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia graphics.
Bottom line is that, your alleged experience aside, Macs have far greater reliability and customer satisfaction than anything from Dell - or any other vendor, for that matter.
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
Are you kidding me? Show me anything that would defend the arguement that Apple somehow gets some magical supply of Hitachi hard drives or Samsung memory.
As for video cards while ATI and Nvidia supply the chipset many of the vendors create the entire card around the chipset.
I am not making a mistake about anything I have been building my own computers since I was 19.
If you were talking about things like CPU codiing which gamers like myself often pick for better overclocking then you would have a point but things like Samsung memory is nothing more then Samsung memory.
Apple would have to use at least a difference in CAS Latency for better performance which they don't because I have tested it.
You say I am making a mistake, when I talk about CPU coding like a C1 compared to an E0 or memory CL do you even know what I am talking about?
While I enjoy my Apple systems, with Apple you get what you get good or bad, when I build my own systems I get what I want.
Also in regards to GPU's Apple seems to have issues at times seeing the last two times they put out first gen iMacs they have to supply firmware updates due to GPU hangs. Which in both cases took several months to resolve.
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
What about the hard drive?
Momentus XT hybrid HDD/SSD drive. Near SSD performance without the $$$$$
The people who respond to this "complaint" are ignoring the fact that the starting price went up from the previous model. Instead of directly addressing the price increase over the previous model, they revert to the "Macs are premium priced", "You get what you pay for", "If you don't like it then go buy a PC" type of responses. So how about addressing why Apple raised the starting price instead of keeping it the same, like they have usually done?
And another question: How does this $699 model compare to the previous $799 model?
I know others have said that but i'm not going to parrot that same statement. The new mini is more expensive and looks the part clearly but I tend to think along the lines of "once the outside has been modified the internals can be changed later" read possibly more integrated CPU/GPU options in the future that will once again reduce cost.
The cool thing to me is the SD card slot. I'd certainly be interested in the mini server and not having an optical drive means little if I've got 32GB of storage available on the SD slot.
Now Apple has SD slots in
Mac mini
iMac
Macbook Pro
Sounds like I won't need an optical drive going forward.
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
You can order the Apple Remote with it, I don't think they'd do that if it didn't have an IR port... Besides, they market this as an HTPC... of course it'll have one
That being said, this is such poor value compared to the MacBook... or anything else from Apple's product line for that matter. And it's not like Apple's product line has an amazing specs/price ratio to begin with.
1) IR remote??? That is some archaic shit. Try Apple's free "Remote" app on your iPod Touch or iPhone for full control of iTunes, or you could try any of the plethora of third party remote applications.
2) Apple's product line may not have "amazing spec/price ratio" but they simply just work, every time, all the time, without fail. Unlike any PC you can name that may look better on paper, but is flakey as hell, like most PCs. So how's about you get a clue?
...Add $188 for upgrades from New Egg
Seagate Momentus 7200.4 500GB 7200RPM 2.5" SATA $79
Crucial 2x2GB kit for $109
...
This is one of those rare instances where the Apple memory upgrade to 4GB makes sense ($100 vs the $109 NewEgg memory).
Ironic, given that they've finally made a field upgrade of the memory SIMMs a simple task and not minor surgery. [shrug]
On another note, does anyone want to buy a collection of sanded-sharp putty knives? LOL!
So you think your handwaving somehow negates reality?
There are documented cases supporting what I said - RAM in one case and capacitors in another.
Most importantly, the proof is in the pudding. It really doesn't matter if it's the CPU or RAM latency or capacitor tolerances or power supply stability or motherboard (both power supply and motherboard are unique to Apple, btw) reliability. Apple has better reliability than other vendors. Period. End of discussion.
His hand waving negates your warped reality.
'Knows nothing' about computers.
Eh? Why? Because 'Pompous Man' says so?
The overclockers example is one of hundreds of possible (er...choice...something I know nothing about because I know nothing about 'computers'....sacred knowledge that only 'Pompous' Man knows...) examples that blow the Mini out the water on value for money. From the same site. 6 core tower add any gpu that will blow away anything Apple has for less than 2,300 quid.
Period? You're on one if you think a mini represents good value at £650. An eye watering biscuit tin.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Of course you want to end the discussion because clearly you don't have a clue what I am talking about. If you did then you could put up a solid debate, which clearly you can't.
There are many tier 2 and tier 3 vendors that have far better reliability then Apple. At a lower cost.
Apple in 2008 and 2009 still scored the highest with a 9.2, 16% of their hardware needed repairs on average. Companies like Asus had an 8.8 rating, hardly a bad rating. Asus while getting a lower score then Apple had only an 6% product repair, Sony was right next to Apple with 18%. Toshiba had a 13% repair ratio.
So blind loyality to Apple doesn't equal better numbers. They just simply have a cult like following.
Skater has a point. 'Blind loyalty' to Apple because they do 'some' things well doesn't negate criticism of their desktop policy. Which is and has been crrrrrrrrrrrrrap for some time. Nicely designed boxes with underperforming parts.
The rest of their hardware in laptops and phones/pads is ok. But their desktop line up is retarded, as are the prices, as are the gpus, as are the vram amounts as are the prices (I said that once, yeah?)
You can go to overclockers and get a six core system for under a k. You just know that such a system from Apple is going to start at 2k for their 'pro' because, apparently, it's a 'wooooo' 'workstation'. (But without any of the workstation parts, yeah? Oh. The Xeon. A quad core. For 2k. Yeah. Bad ass workstation part...along with the bad ass consumer gpu and flacid penile ram.)
Apple. Like the iPhone 4. The laptops are decent.
The dekstops and the price hikes over the last year or so in recession smack of arrogance and greed.
Lemon Bon Bon.
1) That is some archaic shit.
Perfect quote for Apple's desktop line and the 'cutting' edge parts that go in them.
Lemon Bon Bon.