With 256MB of video RAM you might want to rethink that...
I HOPE they finally offer at least 512MB of video RAM, but I'm not holding my breath. It took Apple decades before they started offering decent default amounts of main system memory - VRAM is the last thing they have failed to get sane on.
CPUs - meh - CPU's haven't been an issue for all but the most extreme users for a LONG time now; much to Intel's chagrin. Heck, even with video cards it's just not that big of an issue. I have a two year old Video card with 1GB of VRAM that plays Diablo III perfectly smooth at 2,560x1,600. The days of upgrading computers or even video cards on an annual basis to play the latest games have been gone for some time now for all but the geekiest of the frame rate obsessed.
Only if you ignore the things that I said, or choose not to put them into context, is that the case.
The iMac affords the ability to buy whatever the heck display you want.
Reflections on the iMac's screen are abated when the screen is actually on.
The retina MacBook Pro, in addition to operating at a resolution seen as 1440x900, has diminished glossiness from all previous models. The argument against glass-covered displays being therefore rendered further moot.
Your first comment still makes no sense whatsoever. You think someone will buy an iMac and then what, turn it around and buy a 2nd display to actually use?
Second comment is just the same smart-ass remark, so I'll ignore it. You can apparently ignore the reflections, I can't. Even if they don't bother you, they ARE there, without any question.
Third comment at least makes sense. Yes, the reflectiveness is getting better with the retina displays. In fact, the most recent Airs were already a bit better than the MacBook Pro models of a year or two earlier, and the retina is somewhat better than the Airs. But better does not mean perfect, in fact, it doesn't even mean close to perfect or even great. And at over $3000.00 for the mid-level retina MBP, that's a very expensive "semi-okay" option. However, the recent improvements do give me hope that within a couple years that the technology advancements (at commercially viable price points for Apple to actually use) will let me buy another machine from Apple again, rather than a hackintosh, which I really don't want to do.
For the mini? The seriously anemic 256MB of VRAM (even on the highest priced model with discrete graphics) is the biggest negative to the Mini. Especially with graphics intensive software
Your first comment still makes no sense whatsoever. You think someone will buy an iMac and then what, turn it around and buy a 2nd display to actually use?
That wasn't your original statement. I have no illusions about the silliness of doing such a thing, as it's about on par with not using a display simply because it's glossy.
Second comment is just the same smart-ass remark, so I'll ignore it.
No, it's a completely different statement.
You can apparently ignore the reflections, I can't. Even if they don't bother you, they ARE there, without any question.
And they're there on a matte display, too. If you're shining lights bright enough at your display that you're getting reflections, are you really in the best place to be doing color accurate work (or whatever it is that needs done)?
But better does not mean perfect, in fact, it doesn't even mean close to perfect or even great.
As can be said for matte, so I don't get what the big to-do is about.
As can be said for matte, so I don't get what the big to-do is about.
Because matte is better, Gosh!
I can't believe you still engage the "matters". It's about as productive as engaging the "truthers" or other conspiracy theory level thinkers.
Having said that, I still prefer picking my own monitor for other reasons - I need to mirror the display in ways that the OS won't often let me. Being able to mirror the raw signal by tapping in between the Mac and display (for presentation software) works 100% of the time whereas software mirroring is often a crap shoot. Sometimes it works flawlessly, other times it's temperamental if not ineffective, often for no apparent reason and always at the worst possible time. If Apple would just offer models with more VRAM the Mini would be more than sufficient for me. Watching presentation software outputting to multiple screens on my current Mini (or late 2008 MacBook Pro that is stuck with 256MB of RAM), the CPU and GPU rarely go above 60% - but I still get occasional stuttering or artifacts. Mainly because the GPU is starved for VRAM and is having to swap from VRAM to system memory, which is thousand of times slower than referencing VRAM. I dunno why Apple is continually stingy with RAM - at least they finally have default system RAM up to sane levels...
Subjective. And that's the crux of the whole thing. People who prefer matte think their way is the only way. I know; I USED TO BE ONE OF THEM. Then I actually used a glossy display and accepted how stupid it was to have thought matte was worth lying about.
This mindset causes my blood to boil! The Mini doesn't compete one bit with the iMac thus there is no reason for the arbitrary performance limitations in the Mini. They certainly need a low cost model, but that does not mean that an upscale Mini couldn't operate at state of the art laptop performance. It would be great if the Mini + model was actually a significant jump in performance over the base model.
Why would you expect a cheaper product to be "better?"
The Mac Mini is entry level, and does a good job for it's price. I don't think it's meant to compete with the iMac, or there would be faster configurations.
That said, it's fast enough for most people IMO.
Well whatever "most people" means. Here is the biggest issue with the Mini, its performance doesn't hold up well if your software demands go up over time. Further the lack of a decent GPU in the base model does impact performance negatively to the point that it does impact users.
Mini has never been a power users machine but it is getting better with each release but it is easy to bring the machine to a crawl. I may go the route of a Mini simply because my needs are changing. However if I had the choice between a castrated Mini and something like an XMac I'd go the XMac route in a heart beat. Why? Mainly to know that 5 years from purchase I will still have a viable computer.
With 256MB of video RAM you might want to rethink that...
I HOPE they finally offer at least 512MB of video RAM, but I'm not holding my breath. It took Apple decades before they started offering decent default amounts of main system memory - VRAM is the last thing they have failed to get sane on.
It is rather sad that they screw over Mini the way they do. What is even more disgusting is the lack of choice. I'd rather see a Mini replacement that takes regular video cards. Well half length cards, we don't need a big box but rather a Mini that is just big enough.
CPUs - meh - CPU's haven't been an issue for all but the most extreme users for a LONG time now; much to Intel's chagrin.
Apples success in tackling other parts of the architecture in its laptops highlights this fact. Performance engineering these days involves paying attention to much of the system outside of the CPU.
Heck, even with video cards it's just not that big of an issue. I have a two year old Video card with 1GB of VRAM that plays Diablo III perfectly smooth at 2,560x1,600.
Well this is more debatable. What is obvious is that a GPU is still a very important part of a system. Along these lines AMDs APUs are a better fit for the Mini if you want integrated GPUs. Being 50% faster than Intel is nothing to sneeze at and can be very noticeable.
The problem with the Mini is that when they did go to the effort of putting a GPU in the machine they only equipped it with 256MB of RAM which simply isn't enough.
The days of upgrading computers or even video cards on an annual basis to play the latest games have been gone for some time now for all but the geekiest of the frame rate obsessed.
Yes those days are gone thankfully. Well at least for PCs, right now Apple is making amazing strides with iOS devices every year that make upgrades compelling. Back to personal computers though and we find a different story. Clock rates aren't scaling upwards like they use to, this means the only realistic way to upgrade is to wait for a couple of generations or go wide. Going wide means multicore machines which are only exploited effectively by a small number of users.
So what we have is only a minor performance factor pushing upgrades combined with stable software means little incentive to run out and update. Here is the key though, buy the right hardware and your need to update can be pushed off into the far future. This though is where Mini kinda blows, the hardware really isn't good enough to be considered a long term investment. That is mostly due to Apple being stingy with the GPU, its RAM and overall capability.
- Cheaper and ecological. You can re-use the display. Actually, the All-in-One desktop computers should not exist, since they force to throw away a perfectly working display. They are anti-ecological.
- It is powerful enough.
I was a switcher last August and I already had a perfectly good 22" monitor, keyboard and mouse. Plus I was trying to stretch some tax return money as far as I could. The only time I hear my Mini is when I'm converting video or playing World of Warcraft. I think I hear it some during Diablo 3, but WoW stresses it harder. Doing anything else on it like watching movies, surfing the web, listening to music, I never hear it. It takes up a lot less space than my old mid-tower PC as well as a ton less electricity. I may be looking at a Mac laptop this coming year or if I decide to stay w/a desktop system I may get a Haswell iMac. Then again, a Haswell Mini and a TB Display could be nice too. I do at least live in a town w/an Apple store about 5 minutes from me, so if I had an iMac and something went wrog, at least I wouldn't have to ship it off. Oh yeah, my model was the $800 upgraded video card mid-2011 version.
As for buying a weaker performing computer, I guess you weren't following closely enough or taking what I said literally enough. The reflections make the glossy machines unusable (for me). So given the choice between a weaker performing computer and a computer that's unusable, there really is no choice.
Blah Blah Blah...for every glossy panel whiner there's a pro with a Eizo or NEC on their desks next to their iMacs because their primary monitor has almost always been as expensive if not more than the workstation they use anyway. EVEN IF the iMac was matte they'd STILL be using their very expensive Eizos ANYWAY.
They can toss secondary panels, Outlook and IM on the iMac screen and set it very dim since they work in a darkened room anyway.
So for the tiny percentage of users who doesn't have the space for 2 monitors, doesn't need more than mid level computing and GPU power and does want a non-glossy screen then yes, picking the mini instead of the iMac is the better choice.
This mindset causes my blood to boil! The Mini doesn't compete one bit with the iMac thus there is no reason for the arbitrary performance limitations in the Mini.
Yes it does. Every mini sale is one less monitor sale for Apple and a lower ASP leading to lower revenue and profits.
The mini is specifically positioned to be worse than the entry level iMac in every regard except lowest entry cost.
The mini isn't as good of an option for a lot of applications now as it was when first introduced. To be honest, if you want a mini-server, the little NAS devices can really do a great job. Many of them are built on Linux platforms and allow you console access; I'm looking at trying to run Asterisk on my $200 MyBookLive, and I already have them set up to synchronize between a hot standby device. Likewise, there are mini Atom boxes that can run Windows for ~$300 that are one fourth the size of the Mini.
Sure, OSX is worth a bit of a premium, but the product really needs to be rethought somewhat. If they could cram it down to an AppleTV form factor, have dual network interfaces, etc., then it would be great for a number of things, if the price point were under $500.
I really hope Apple pushes more into the "time capsule" market. The current offerings are a disappointment-- at a minimum I want a way to make one unit a hot standby of another, and give better "server" functions-- without the price going up.
"Apple last updated the Mac mini in July of 2011, adding support for the high-speed Thunderbolt port while ditching the built-in optical disc drive that had been found on previous models. But an updated Mac mini was not listed by analyst Ming-Chi Kuo among the eight new products Apple is rumoured to launch this autumn. [B]With supply already running out, it could be that the Mac Mini is being canned[/B]."
If worse comes to worse, I'll need a good PC replacement notebook or relatively cheap desktop to play Gauntlet Dark Legacy on while I still keep my 2011 Mini.
This is one of the better rumors for me, as I've been on the edge of buying a Mac mini for a few months.. to replace my hackintosh of 4 years old. save on power and continue enjoying the latest operating system and updates.
@allenbf: it may not be "better" than the iMac, but it gives one more flexibility to upgrade the computer without having to replace a perfectly good monitor at the same time.
Comments
With 256MB of video RAM you might want to rethink that...
I HOPE they finally offer at least 512MB of video RAM, but I'm not holding my breath. It took Apple decades before they started offering decent default amounts of main system memory - VRAM is the last thing they have failed to get sane on.
CPUs - meh - CPU's haven't been an issue for all but the most extreme users for a LONG time now; much to Intel's chagrin. Heck, even with video cards it's just not that big of an issue. I have a two year old Video card with 1GB of VRAM that plays Diablo III perfectly smooth at 2,560x1,600. The days of upgrading computers or even video cards on an annual basis to play the latest games have been gone for some time now for all but the geekiest of the frame rate obsessed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Only if you ignore the things that I said, or choose not to put them into context, is that the case.
The iMac affords the ability to buy whatever the heck display you want.
Reflections on the iMac's screen are abated when the screen is actually on.
The retina MacBook Pro, in addition to operating at a resolution seen as 1440x900, has diminished glossiness from all previous models. The argument against glass-covered displays being therefore rendered further moot.
Your first comment still makes no sense whatsoever. You think someone will buy an iMac and then what, turn it around and buy a 2nd display to actually use?
Second comment is just the same smart-ass remark, so I'll ignore it. You can apparently ignore the reflections, I can't. Even if they don't bother you, they ARE there, without any question.
Third comment at least makes sense. Yes, the reflectiveness is getting better with the retina displays. In fact, the most recent Airs were already a bit better than the MacBook Pro models of a year or two earlier, and the retina is somewhat better than the Airs. But better does not mean perfect, in fact, it doesn't even mean close to perfect or even great. And at over $3000.00 for the mid-level retina MBP, that's a very expensive "semi-okay" option. However, the recent improvements do give me hope that within a couple years that the technology advancements (at commercially viable price points for Apple to actually use) will let me buy another machine from Apple again, rather than a hackintosh, which I really don't want to do.
For the mini? The seriously anemic 256MB of VRAM (even on the highest priced model with discrete graphics) is the biggest negative to the Mini. Especially with graphics intensive software
Originally Posted by Blah64
Your first comment still makes no sense whatsoever. You think someone will buy an iMac and then what, turn it around and buy a 2nd display to actually use?
That wasn't your original statement. I have no illusions about the silliness of doing such a thing, as it's about on par with not using a display simply because it's glossy.
Second comment is just the same smart-ass remark, so I'll ignore it.
No, it's a completely different statement.
You can apparently ignore the reflections, I can't. Even if they don't bother you, they ARE there, without any question.
And they're there on a matte display, too. If you're shining lights bright enough at your display that you're getting reflections, are you really in the best place to be doing color accurate work (or whatever it is that needs done)?
But better does not mean perfect, in fact, it doesn't even mean close to perfect or even great.
As can be said for matte, so I don't get what the big to-do is about.
Because matte is better, Gosh!
I can't believe you still engage the "matters". It's about as productive as engaging the "truthers" or other conspiracy theory level thinkers.
Having said that, I still prefer picking my own monitor for other reasons - I need to mirror the display in ways that the OS won't often let me. Being able to mirror the raw signal by tapping in between the Mac and display (for presentation software) works 100% of the time whereas software mirroring is often a crap shoot. Sometimes it works flawlessly, other times it's temperamental if not ineffective, often for no apparent reason and always at the worst possible time. If Apple would just offer models with more VRAM the Mini would be more than sufficient for me. Watching presentation software outputting to multiple screens on my current Mini (or late 2008 MacBook Pro that is stuck with 256MB of RAM), the CPU and GPU rarely go above 60% - but I still get occasional stuttering or artifacts. Mainly because the GPU is starved for VRAM and is having to swap from VRAM to system memory, which is thousand of times slower than referencing VRAM. I dunno why Apple is continually stingy with RAM - at least they finally have default system RAM up to sane levels...
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Because matte is better, Gosh!
Subjective. And that's the crux of the whole thing. People who prefer matte think their way is the only way. I know; I USED TO BE ONE OF THEM. Then I actually used a glossy display and accepted how stupid it was to have thought matte was worth lying about.
16:10, however, I'll never give up on.
Release the 13 in. retina Macbook Pro and iMac already, Apple!!!!
Well whatever "most people" means. Here is the biggest issue with the Mini, its performance doesn't hold up well if your software demands go up over time. Further the lack of a decent GPU in the base model does impact performance negatively to the point that it does impact users.
Mini has never been a power users machine but it is getting better with each release but it is easy to bring the machine to a crawl. I may go the route of a Mini simply because my needs are changing. However if I had the choice between a castrated Mini and something like an XMac I'd go the XMac route in a heart beat. Why? Mainly to know that 5 years from purchase I will still have a viable computer.
The problem with the Mini is that when they did go to the effort of putting a GPU in the machine they only equipped it with 256MB of RAM which simply isn't enough.
Yes those days are gone thankfully. Well at least for PCs, right now Apple is making amazing strides with iOS devices every year that make upgrades compelling. Back to personal computers though and we find a different story. Clock rates aren't scaling upwards like they use to, this means the only realistic way to upgrade is to wait for a couple of generations or go wide. Going wide means multicore machines which are only exploited effectively by a small number of users.
So what we have is only a minor performance factor pushing upgrades combined with stable software means little incentive to run out and update. Here is the key though, buy the right hardware and your need to update can be pushed off into the far future. This though is where Mini kinda blows, the hardware really isn't good enough to be considered a long term investment. That is mostly due to Apple being stingy with the GPU, its RAM and overall capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx
Why the Mac mini is the best Mac desktop:
- Quiet. You do not hear it.
- Cheaper and ecological. You can re-use the display. Actually, the All-in-One desktop computers should not exist, since they force to throw away a perfectly working display. They are anti-ecological.
- It is powerful enough.
I was a switcher last August and I already had a perfectly good 22" monitor, keyboard and mouse. Plus I was trying to stretch some tax return money as far as I could. The only time I hear my Mini is when I'm converting video or playing World of Warcraft. I think I hear it some during Diablo 3, but WoW stresses it harder. Doing anything else on it like watching movies, surfing the web, listening to music, I never hear it. It takes up a lot less space than my old mid-tower PC as well as a ton less electricity. I may be looking at a Mac laptop this coming year or if I decide to stay w/a desktop system I may get a Haswell iMac. Then again, a Haswell Mini and a TB Display could be nice too. I do at least live in a town w/an Apple store about 5 minutes from me, so if I had an iMac and something went wrog, at least I wouldn't have to ship it off. Oh yeah, my model was the $800 upgraded video card mid-2011 version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
As for buying a weaker performing computer, I guess you weren't following closely enough or taking what I said literally enough. The reflections make the glossy machines unusable (for me). So given the choice between a weaker performing computer and a computer that's unusable, there really is no choice.
Blah Blah Blah...for every glossy panel whiner there's a pro with a Eizo or NEC on their desks next to their iMacs because their primary monitor has almost always been as expensive if not more than the workstation they use anyway. EVEN IF the iMac was matte they'd STILL be using their very expensive Eizos ANYWAY.
They can toss secondary panels, Outlook and IM on the iMac screen and set it very dim since they work in a darkened room anyway.
So for the tiny percentage of users who doesn't have the space for 2 monitors, doesn't need more than mid level computing and GPU power and does want a non-glossy screen then yes, picking the mini instead of the iMac is the better choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This mindset causes my blood to boil! The Mini doesn't compete one bit with the iMac thus there is no reason for the arbitrary performance limitations in the Mini.
Yes it does. Every mini sale is one less monitor sale for Apple and a lower ASP leading to lower revenue and profits.
The mini is specifically positioned to be worse than the entry level iMac in every regard except lowest entry cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenaustus
I can remember waiting 8 months for my G5 iMac. Ordered it on the day it was announced many years ago.
Now I'm waiting for an update to replace that G5 and am past the 8 month G5 wait.
Lol...there are folks on here that's been waiting for and predicting the imminent arrival of an Apple branded TV since 2006...
That's a long time to be holding your breath...Apple ships when Apple ships. The long mini drought was no fun either.
Sure, OSX is worth a bit of a premium, but the product really needs to be rethought somewhat. If they could cram it down to an AppleTV form factor, have dual network interfaces, etc., then it would be great for a number of things, if the price point were under $500.
I really hope Apple pushes more into the "time capsule" market. The current offerings are a disappointment-- at a minimum I want a way to make one unit a hot standby of another, and give better "server" functions-- without the price going up.
Specifically this part
"Apple last updated the Mac mini in July of 2011, adding support for the high-speed Thunderbolt port while ditching the built-in optical disc drive that had been found on previous models. But an updated Mac mini was not listed by analyst Ming-Chi Kuo among the eight new products Apple is rumoured to launch this autumn. [B]With supply already running out, it could be that the Mac Mini is being canned[/B]."
If worse comes to worse, I'll need a good PC replacement notebook or relatively cheap desktop to play Gauntlet Dark Legacy on while I still keep my 2011 Mini.
Originally Posted by Winter
With supply already running out, it could be that the Mac Mini is being canned."
They just redesigned it.
What? I'm checking the Apple Store. It's not showing for me.
Originally Posted by Winter
What? I'm checking the Apple Store. It's not showing for me.
I mean just as in "only two releases ago". They're still invested in it, so don't worry.