Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here but I think that is possible under a Tim Cook reign. I see Cook as being just a tad bit open minded to new ideas and not someone who would have a seizure because the iMac is the wrong color blue.
Edit: I'm not embarrassed to own my mini. I love it. Could it use a bit more juice? Sure. Absolutely, no question. Possibly even the 3720QM for example as a starter model? I don't know. It all lies on Intel.
Haswell could go a very long way to correcting the Mini but I still see it as a failed design that needs to be completely rethought. It needs to be turned into a desktop that no one feels embarrassed to own as their primary machine. Technology wise we are very close to being able to put a respectable computer into a Mini sized box. I just hope that Apple can get over its need to make sure the Mini is the worst performer in their entire lineup of Mac systems.
My mini is my primary desktop machine. In what way is it embarrassing to own?
the Mini simply doesn't meet the requirements of common desktop users thus the struggling sales.
Where do you get this???
The Mini is one of the best selling desktops not just right now, but in the history of computing. The reason the Mini sells so very well is because it does meet the requirements of common desktop users.
My mini is my primary desktop machine. In what way is it embarrassing to own?
It is far too expensive for the performance you get out of it. Think about it, the Mini has never been a performance power house. This is no surprise for the entry level model but as you go up in performance the Mini actually becomes a worst value. This compared to Apples own laptops, looking towards more conventional desktops the value equation that is the Mini just gets worst.
In any event it is embarrassing to own because of what you pay for what you get.
Are you compensating for something?
Well no, I'm pointing out the obvious. The fact that you defend apple here is not all that becoming.
I have no problem with one variant of the Mini being an entry level model as Apple needs that. What I have a problem with is that the Mini doesn't even come close to the performance of a Mac Book Pro which should be an easy design point to make. Mind you that is still a Mini made with laptop parts.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here but I think that is possible under a Tim Cook reign.
What would that be? I'm not sure what you are referring to here, possibly the idea of building a Mini that doesn't suck. As to Tim Cook I suspect that things could get worst under his leadership as he is too much of a bean counter.
I see Cook as being just a tad bit open minded to new ideas and not someone who would have a seizure because the iMac is the wrong color blue.
Interesting because my impression is the opposite. It think it will be much tougher getting new ideas dy him than it was with Steve. Tim will want far more evidence that something new will be successful.
Edit: I'm not embarrassed to own my mini. I love it.
The last time I went out to buy a Mac it was 2008, at that time I bought a MBP as I just couldn't stomach what was being offered up in the Mini. Maybe that was me being me, but I think it was a good move. That MBP is showing its age but it is still viable as a computer.
If I had bought a Mini back then I would have walked out of the store with poor performance right off the bat and likely would have had to replace that Mini already.
Frankly the new Minis are looking better but I'm still of the opinion that Apple castrates the machines on purpose and limits the performance of the machine significantly to allow up sell to iMacs and laptops. At this stage there is no reason for the Mini to exist with out a quad core with discrete GPU option. A quad core is really a basic desktop system these days.
Could it use a bit more juice? Sure. Absolutely, no question.
That is my whole point it could easily be designed to support at least state of the art laptop performance. This would still keep the machine Mini sized or there abouts and allow Apple to avoid desktop parts.
Mind you I'm talking about the higher end models, I have no problem with an entry level model. I don't think it is unreasonable when paying close to a thousand buck that one would get significantly better hardware relative to the $600 machine.
Possibly even the 3720QM for example as a starter model? I don't know. It all lies on Intel.
That is the big problem it isn't all Intels fault. Intel has had quad core chips for laptops for some time now. Yeah using such may require an upgrade to the power supply to drive both the quad core and a discrete GPU but so what at least your customers don't end up feeling screwed over. The cost does play a part but I'd rather pay $1100 for a respectable Mini upgrade than to pay the current price and get little value for the up charge.
In case anybody is wondering yes there is value in quad cores, run just about any IDE and a compiler and you see immediate benefit. Beyond that Mountain Lion should make it pretty obvious the importance of a GPU as Apple has steadily increased the use of the GPU in each Mac OS release. Haswell sort of promises here to make the need for a discrete GPU obsolete, I will take a wait and see with that. Today though the user does benefit from the extra performance of a GPU, thus even with a quad core I'd like to see a discrete GPU. Instead of cheaping out all the time with Mini Apple needs to do what is required to make it happen. I don't care if that means a bigger power supply, faster fan or whatever, just stop selling that joke of a mid range Mini model where your extra hundreds get you very little.
Because the 2011 base model mini has the same processor and graphics as the early 2011 MBP, right?
Err no, not if you are talking 15" MBP. Every MBP that I know of came with a discrete GPU. Admittedly I haven't paid attention to the MBP market in the last year. My iPad actually attracts much of my attention now, the MBP gets used these days for more involved work and or play.
This may be part of my problem with the current Mini, the iPad's a far cheaper solution for basic computing tasks. So when looking for a new Mac I have a stronger need for it not to run like crap when tasked with more demanding uses. After all if iPad handles the easy stuff of E-Mail, net surfing and other minor tasks then the performance of a Mac here is not even worth the discussion.
Possibly even the 3720QM for example as a starter model? I don't know. It all lies on Intel.
A big issue is actually the cost of notebook components if you're trying to make a machine that appeals to a cost conscious market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That is my whole point it could easily be designed to support at least state of the art laptop performance. This would still keep the machine Mini sized or there abouts and allow Apple to avoid desktop parts.
Mind you I'm talking about the higher end models, I have no problem with an entry level model. I don't think it is unreasonable when paying close to a thousand buck that one would get significantly better hardware relative to the $600 machine.
That is the big problem it isn't all Intels fault. Intel has had quad core chips for laptops for some time now. Yeah using such may require an upgrade to the power supply to drive both the quad core and a discrete GPU but so what at least your customers don't end up feeling screwed over. The cost does play a part but I'd rather pay $1100 for a respectable Mini upgrade than to pay the current price and get little value for the up charge.
In case anybody is wondering yes there is value in quad cores, run just about any IDE and a compiler and you see immediate benefit. Beyond that Mountain Lion should make it pretty obvious the importance of a GPU as Apple has steadily increased the use of the GPU in each Mac OS release. Haswell sort of promises here to make the need for a discrete GPU obsolete, I will take a wait and see with that. Today though the user does benefit from the extra performance of a GPU, thus even with a quad core I'd like to see a discrete GPU. Instead of cheaping out all the time with Mini Apple needs to do what is required to make it happen. I don't care if that means a bigger power supply, faster fan or whatever, just stop selling that joke of a mid range Mini model where your extra hundreds get you very little.
Fixed quoting
I could use a good OSX based IDE. I've considered trying XCode. Regarding GPU solutions, that was one criteria for making the jump to Mountain Lion. In the future I expect a minimum version of OpenCL compliance will be the cutoff for the new OS. If they're trending toward an annual cycle, I'd expect the 2011 to lose current OS support in 2014. It could go longer given that some of those are still being sold past mid 2012, but I'd definitely expect OpenCL to become a hard requirement. The HD4000 is supposed to support this, but I don't know if it actually does under Mountain Lion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
My iPad actually attracts much of my attention now, the MBP gets used these days for more involved work and or play.
This may be part of my problem with the current Mini, the iPad's a far cheaper solution for basic computing tasks. So when looking for a new Mac I have a stronger need for it not to run like crap when tasked with more demanding uses. After all if iPad handles the easy stuff of E-Mail, net surfing and other minor tasks then the performance of a Mac here is not even worth the discussion.
I get it. You want a device that better complements the ipad. I'll agree that many people buy these things to be portable then almost never move them from one spot.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to crack wizard's code (I don't have a lot going on with my life right now so you have to cut me some slack).
Let's not go crazy for a second and let's hone in on the current design right now.
What would YOU do (and this goes out to anyone and not just wizard) for the cost in terms of specs?
This is really an interesting discussion as process shrinks are really blurring the lines between what is a desktop processor and what is a laptop. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mini move to a "desktop" processor in the future. Mainly because processors like Haswell will offer up most of the functionality of the Mini in a single low power chip. Low power is relative but a 45 to 55 watt SoC is likely very doable in the Mini.
While it doesn't make a lot of sense "desktop" chips are marketed at a far lower cost. If such chips can be fitted into a Mini without compromise then costs can be controlled on the device. This is why I'm frustrated by the lack of an Ivy Bridge Mini as IB is a step in the right direction as far as increasing performance goes but it looks like Apple will still be stuck with laptop parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by cracking my code. My biggest problem with the Mini is that no matter what happens in the future the size of the Mini significantly limits its capability. Sure tech shrinks means that the Mini becomes more capable each year but that also means that the performance end just gets faster too.
This is really an interesting discussion as process shrinks are really blurring the lines between what is a desktop processor and what is a laptop. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mini move to a "desktop" processor in the future. Mainly because processors like Haswell will offer up most of the functionality of the Mini in a single low power chip. Low power is relative but a 45 to 55 watt SoC is likely very doable in the Mini.
While it doesn't make a lot of sense "desktop" chips are marketed at a far lower cost. If such chips can be fitted into a Mini without compromise then costs can be controlled on the device. This is why I'm frustrated by the lack of an Ivy Bridge Mini as IB is a step in the right direction as far as increasing performance goes but it looks like Apple will still be stuck with laptop parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by cracking my code. My biggest problem with the Mini is that no matter what happens in the future the size of the Mini significantly limits its capability. Sure tech shrinks means that the Mini becomes more capable each year but that also means that the performance end just gets faster too.
You could see something based on mini ATX with low power desktop chips in the next couple years. The typically lower cost for chips with a desktop classification should alleviate some of the cost constraints in building such a machine. I don't expect computers to taper off so much. A big issue right now is a lack of true n-core scaling, which is less of an issue outside of Xeon based machines where extra transistors seem to be allocated to the integrated gpus. You may be looking at a pretty solid/well rounded mini next year. This is often the issue with lower end machines. Sometimes one aspect is sufficient, but they lack in overall balance.
I don't want to quote wizard's entire post though with regards to the Rev. C mini (released in August 2007 thus the current one at the time when he bought his MacBook Pro) was abhorrent. The Rev. D one released in March 2009 wasn't much better although at least it had the GeForce 9400M instead of the Intel GMA 950.
Fast forward to 2010 and the unibody mini is released. We're getting better with easily changeable RAM (now up to 8 GB) though we still have a C2D processor and integrated graphics that offer only 256 MB of video RAM.
The 2011 base model is at least respectable in my opinion for an entry level Mac of its price. Might it be better if it was $100 less? Sure.
As you jump higher, I agree they should add more. For example for the mid-range model, they probably should have made the dual-core i7 the default instead of increasing the clock 200 MHz for the $799 price tag.
You could see something based on mini ATX with low power desktop chips in the next couple years. The typically lower cost for chips with a desktop classification should alleviate some of the cost constraints in building such a machine.
The move to lower power chips could result in a far more interesting and cheaper Mini. At least cheap relative to the performance you get. - lets say a better value. Ivy Bridge is a step in that direction and is one reason I'm frustrated with Apples drawn out release schedule.
I don't expect computers to taper off so much. A big issue right now is a lack of true n-core scaling, which is less of an issue outside of Xeon based machines where extra transistors seem to be allocated to the integrated gpus.
That so called lack of n-core scaling is baloney. Apps that can't be highly parallelized will never see huge benefits from multiprocessors. Mean while there are numerous apps that are steadily improving in that regard. However highly parallel apps are hardly a reason to want four or more cores in a machine, rather the benefit comes from being able to run multiple processes without a significant impact to performance.
You may be looking at a pretty solid/well rounded mini next year. This is often the issue with lower end machines. Sometimes one aspect is sufficient, but they lack in overall balance.
This is very true. It is in fact why I'm trying to milk my old MBP until death. Right now the Mini has a certain appeal to me but that is because they offer nothing else that is suitable performance wise as a desktop machine. The current Mini though just isn't a good buy, with no USB3 and it's relatively poor performance / value I really need to see what they offer up as a replacement.
To be honest I really don't know how Apple can manage to sell any desktop machines! The lack of USB 3 across the board has go to be killing them at least with informed buyers.
I don't want to quote wizard's entire post though with regards to the Rev. C mini (released in August 2007 thus the current one at the time when he bought his MacBook Pro) was abhorrent. The Rev. D one released in March 2009 wasn't much better although at least it had the GeForce 9400M instead of the Intel GMA 950.
Fast forward to 2010 and the unibody mini is released. We're getting better with easily changeable RAM (now up to 8 GB) though we still have a C2D processor and integrated graphics that offer only 256 MB of video RAM.
The 2011 base model is at least respectable in my opinion for an entry level Mac of its price. Might it be better if it was $100 less? Sure.
I really don't have a problem with the idea of an entry level machine. However the lack of USB 3 still means it is hard to reccomend any of the Minis.
As you jump higher, I agree they should add more. For example for the mid-range model, they probably should have made the dual-core i7 the default instead of increasing the clock 200 MHz for the $799 price tag.
This is what sucks in my opinion. If you are going to offer a midrange model at least make it worthwhile and remove the impression that the machine is a rip off. Also make damn sure that such an upscale machine is suitably configured for the software it will potentially run. The lack of suitable video RAM to cover the reccomendations of popular software packages is just appalling as the whole point for many buyers of that midrange machine is to use it to leverage the discrete GPU. The fiasco with the GPU RAM is without a doubt a very frustrating aspect of the current Mini, I'm surprised Apple is so stupid as to not to grasp why people would want the midrange machine in the first place. As you say 200MHz is nothing really.
I don't know where to continue this debate so let's put up a hypothetical situation (the key word is hypothetical now) for the next mini or a new entry level machine (preferably a headless desktop).
I want to know piece by piece what you, wizard, put in this thing and price it at? Do you make one model with a lot of BTO options or more than one model with fewer options?
I don't know where to continue this debate so let's put up a hypothetical situation (the key word is hypothetical now) for the next mini or a new entry level machine (preferably a headless desktop).
Speculation and wishful thinking is all we got right now.
I want to know piece by piece what you, wizard, put in this thing and price it at? Do you make one model with a lot of BTO options or more than one model with fewer options?
Well if you are thinking entry level and as a Mini replacement this is what I would do:
For the entry level model I'd switch over to a desktop chip, either Intel or AMD, with integrated GPUs. Doing so would allow them to bump up performance a bit, allow for cheaper RAM and more RAM sockets. In the end they should be able to save a couple of hundred over the price of an equivalent machine based on laptop parts. The money saved could go to better storage options, lower price or whatever. I'm thinking a chip in the 35 to 45 watt range.
There really should be only one other model, which should be far away from the entry level machine performance wise. In this regards a discrete GPU with a minimal of 1GB of RAM is required. Ideally this would be a midrange AMD Southern Islands processor soldered right onto the motherboard. Along side that would be a quad core Ivy Bridge processor or AMD equivalent in the 55 watt or greater range. The actually spec would be balanced to allow for a price range in the $900 to $1100 dollar range. Obviously this is only doable with desktop parts, but such parts ought to make the price feasable. This isn't excessively higher in price than the current mid mini or the server. However for that price I'm expecting a considerable jump in performance over the entry level model. I still want to see Apple implement PCI Express based SSD on printed circuit cards, ideally in a new format for internal mounting. Two standard PCI Express slots should be supported for I/O, along with two TB ports. This ends up being very tight on PCI Express lanes. All of this should be crammed into a low profile cube maybe 12" inches square and less that 5 inches tall.
I fully expect such a computer to give solid midrange performance with high end performance still serviced by the Mac Pro. Note that the two machines described above can be built on two completely different chassis with the entry model still in the Mini Box.
Comments
Edit: I'm not embarrassed to own my mini. I love it. Could it use a bit more juice? Sure. Absolutely, no question. Possibly even the 3720QM for example as a starter model? I don't know. It all lies on Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Haswell could go a very long way to correcting the Mini but I still see it as a failed design that needs to be completely rethought. It needs to be turned into a desktop that no one feels embarrassed to own as their primary machine. Technology wise we are very close to being able to put a respectable computer into a Mini sized box. I just hope that Apple can get over its need to make sure the Mini is the worst performer in their entire lineup of Mac systems.
My mini is my primary desktop machine. In what way is it embarrassing to own?
Are you compensating for something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
the Mini simply doesn't meet the requirements of common desktop users thus the struggling sales.
Where do you get this???
The Mini is one of the best selling desktops not just right now, but in the history of computing. The reason the Mini sells so very well is because it does meet the requirements of common desktop users.
In any event it is embarrassing to own because of what you pay for what you get. Well no, I'm pointing out the obvious. The fact that you defend apple here is not all that becoming.
I have no problem with one variant of the Mini being an entry level model as Apple needs that. What I have a problem with is that the Mini doesn't even come close to the performance of a Mac Book Pro which should be an easy design point to make. Mind you that is still a Mini made with laptop parts.
The 15" I'm guessing? Because the 2011 base model mini has the same processor and graphics as the early 2011 MBP, right?
If I had bought a Mini back then I would have walked out of the store with poor performance right off the bat and likely would have had to replace that Mini already.
Frankly the new Minis are looking better but I'm still of the opinion that Apple castrates the machines on purpose and limits the performance of the machine significantly to allow up sell to iMacs and laptops. At this stage there is no reason for the Mini to exist with out a quad core with discrete GPU option. A quad core is really a basic desktop system these days. That is my whole point it could easily be designed to support at least state of the art laptop performance. This would still keep the machine Mini sized or there abouts and allow Apple to avoid desktop parts.
Mind you I'm talking about the higher end models, I have no problem with an entry level model. I don't think it is unreasonable when paying close to a thousand buck that one would get significantly better hardware relative to the $600 machine. That is the big problem it isn't all Intels fault. Intel has had quad core chips for laptops for some time now. Yeah using such may require an upgrade to the power supply to drive both the quad core and a discrete GPU but so what at least your customers don't end up feeling screwed over. The cost does play a part but I'd rather pay $1100 for a respectable Mini upgrade than to pay the current price and get little value for the up charge.
In case anybody is wondering yes there is value in quad cores, run just about any IDE and a compiler and you see immediate benefit. Beyond that Mountain Lion should make it pretty obvious the importance of a GPU as Apple has steadily increased the use of the GPU in each Mac OS release. Haswell sort of promises here to make the need for a discrete GPU obsolete, I will take a wait and see with that. Today though the user does benefit from the extra performance of a GPU, thus even with a quad core I'd like to see a discrete GPU. Instead of cheaping out all the time with Mini Apple needs to do what is required to make it happen. I don't care if that means a bigger power supply, faster fan or whatever, just stop selling that joke of a mid range Mini model where your extra hundreds get you very little.
Fixed quoting
Err no, not if you are talking 15" MBP. Every MBP that I know of came with a discrete GPU. Admittedly I haven't paid attention to the MBP market in the last year. My iPad actually attracts much of my attention now, the MBP gets used these days for more involved work and or play.
This may be part of my problem with the current Mini, the iPad's a far cheaper solution for basic computing tasks. So when looking for a new Mac I have a stronger need for it not to run like crap when tasked with more demanding uses. After all if iPad handles the easy stuff of E-Mail, net surfing and other minor tasks then the performance of a Mac here is not even worth the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter
Possibly even the 3720QM for example as a starter model? I don't know. It all lies on Intel.
A big issue is actually the cost of notebook components if you're trying to make a machine that appeals to a cost conscious market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That is my whole point it could easily be designed to support at least state of the art laptop performance. This would still keep the machine Mini sized or there abouts and allow Apple to avoid desktop parts.
Mind you I'm talking about the higher end models, I have no problem with an entry level model. I don't think it is unreasonable when paying close to a thousand buck that one would get significantly better hardware relative to the $600 machine.
That is the big problem it isn't all Intels fault. Intel has had quad core chips for laptops for some time now. Yeah using such may require an upgrade to the power supply to drive both the quad core and a discrete GPU but so what at least your customers don't end up feeling screwed over. The cost does play a part but I'd rather pay $1100 for a respectable Mini upgrade than to pay the current price and get little value for the up charge.
In case anybody is wondering yes there is value in quad cores, run just about any IDE and a compiler and you see immediate benefit. Beyond that Mountain Lion should make it pretty obvious the importance of a GPU as Apple has steadily increased the use of the GPU in each Mac OS release. Haswell sort of promises here to make the need for a discrete GPU obsolete, I will take a wait and see with that. Today though the user does benefit from the extra performance of a GPU, thus even with a quad core I'd like to see a discrete GPU. Instead of cheaping out all the time with Mini Apple needs to do what is required to make it happen. I don't care if that means a bigger power supply, faster fan or whatever, just stop selling that joke of a mid range Mini model where your extra hundreds get you very little.
Fixed quoting
I could use a good OSX based IDE. I've considered trying XCode. Regarding GPU solutions, that was one criteria for making the jump to Mountain Lion. In the future I expect a minimum version of OpenCL compliance will be the cutoff for the new OS. If they're trending toward an annual cycle, I'd expect the 2011 to lose current OS support in 2014. It could go longer given that some of those are still being sold past mid 2012, but I'd definitely expect OpenCL to become a hard requirement. The HD4000 is supposed to support this, but I don't know if it actually does under Mountain Lion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
My iPad actually attracts much of my attention now, the MBP gets used these days for more involved work and or play.
This may be part of my problem with the current Mini, the iPad's a far cheaper solution for basic computing tasks. So when looking for a new Mac I have a stronger need for it not to run like crap when tasked with more demanding uses. After all if iPad handles the easy stuff of E-Mail, net surfing and other minor tasks then the performance of a Mac here is not even worth the discussion.
I get it. You want a device that better complements the ipad. I'll agree that many people buy these things to be portable then almost never move them from one spot.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to crack wizard's code (I don't have a lot going on with my life right now so you have to cut me some slack).
Let's not go crazy for a second and let's hone in on the current design right now.
What would YOU do (and this goes out to anyone and not just wizard) for the cost in terms of specs?
This is really an interesting discussion as process shrinks are really blurring the lines between what is a desktop processor and what is a laptop. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mini move to a "desktop" processor in the future. Mainly because processors like Haswell will offer up most of the functionality of the Mini in a single low power chip. Low power is relative but a 45 to 55 watt SoC is likely very doable in the Mini.
While it doesn't make a lot of sense "desktop" chips are marketed at a far lower cost. If such chips can be fitted into a Mini without compromise then costs can be controlled on the device. This is why I'm frustrated by the lack of an Ivy Bridge Mini as IB is a step in the right direction as far as increasing performance goes but it looks like Apple will still be stuck with laptop parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by cracking my code. My biggest problem with the Mini is that no matter what happens in the future the size of the Mini significantly limits its capability. Sure tech shrinks means that the Mini becomes more capable each year but that also means that the performance end just gets faster too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is really an interesting discussion as process shrinks are really blurring the lines between what is a desktop processor and what is a laptop. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mini move to a "desktop" processor in the future. Mainly because processors like Haswell will offer up most of the functionality of the Mini in a single low power chip. Low power is relative but a 45 to 55 watt SoC is likely very doable in the Mini.
While it doesn't make a lot of sense "desktop" chips are marketed at a far lower cost. If such chips can be fitted into a Mini without compromise then costs can be controlled on the device. This is why I'm frustrated by the lack of an Ivy Bridge Mini as IB is a step in the right direction as far as increasing performance goes but it looks like Apple will still be stuck with laptop parts.
I'm not sure what you mean by cracking my code. My biggest problem with the Mini is that no matter what happens in the future the size of the Mini significantly limits its capability. Sure tech shrinks means that the Mini becomes more capable each year but that also means that the performance end just gets faster too.
You could see something based on mini ATX with low power desktop chips in the next couple years. The typically lower cost for chips with a desktop classification should alleviate some of the cost constraints in building such a machine. I don't expect computers to taper off so much. A big issue right now is a lack of true n-core scaling, which is less of an issue outside of Xeon based machines where extra transistors seem to be allocated to the integrated gpus. You may be looking at a pretty solid/well rounded mini next year. This is often the issue with lower end machines. Sometimes one aspect is sufficient, but they lack in overall balance.
Fast forward to 2010 and the unibody mini is released. We're getting better with easily changeable RAM (now up to 8 GB) though we still have a C2D processor and integrated graphics that offer only 256 MB of video RAM.
The 2011 base model is at least respectable in my opinion for an entry level Mac of its price. Might it be better if it was $100 less? Sure.
As you jump higher, I agree they should add more. For example for the mid-range model, they probably should have made the dual-core i7 the default instead of increasing the clock 200 MHz for the $799 price tag.
I'll take a wait and see approach.
To be honest I really don't know how Apple can manage to sell any desktop machines! The lack of USB 3 across the board has go to be killing them at least with informed buyers.
Yeah, one long wait if you ask me!
I want to know piece by piece what you, wizard, put in this thing and price it at? Do you make one model with a lot of BTO options or more than one model with fewer options?
For the entry level model I'd switch over to a desktop chip, either Intel or AMD, with integrated GPUs. Doing so would allow them to bump up performance a bit, allow for cheaper RAM and more RAM sockets. In the end they should be able to save a couple of hundred over the price of an equivalent machine based on laptop parts. The money saved could go to better storage options, lower price or whatever. I'm thinking a chip in the 35 to 45 watt range.
There really should be only one other model, which should be far away from the entry level machine performance wise. In this regards a discrete GPU with a minimal of 1GB of RAM is required. Ideally this would be a midrange AMD Southern Islands processor soldered right onto the motherboard. Along side that would be a quad core Ivy Bridge processor or AMD equivalent in the 55 watt or greater range. The actually spec would be balanced to allow for a price range in the $900 to $1100 dollar range. Obviously this is only doable with desktop parts, but such parts ought to make the price feasable. This isn't excessively higher in price than the current mid mini or the server. However for that price I'm expecting a considerable jump in performance over the entry level model. I still want to see Apple implement PCI Express based SSD on printed circuit cards, ideally in a new format for internal mounting. Two standard PCI Express slots should be supported for I/O, along with two TB ports. This ends up being very tight on PCI Express lanes. All of this should be crammed into a low profile cube maybe 12" inches square and less that 5 inches tall.
I fully expect such a computer to give solid midrange performance with high end performance still serviced by the Mac Pro. Note that the two machines described above can be built on two completely different chassis with the entry model still in the Mini Box.
mac mini pc from apple is not upgraded since many time and i think apple will have to have some of the highest specifications for the latest upgrades.