One surprise in our testing appeared when we tested the hard-drive access speed by duplicating 500MB of data. The 1.25GHz Mac mini beat the faster 1.42GHz model by 10 seconds. Upon further investigation, we found that the 1.25GHz model actually contains a 5,400RPM drive, despite Apple?s claim that it contains a 4,200RPM drive. The 1.42GHz model, does contain the slower 4,200RPM drive.
I wonder if that is true across the product line, or there was some kind of supply error at the plant the day that mini was made? That would be another factor for buying the 1.25 over the 1.42...
But if you need to buy a display, keyboard, and mouse?which can set you back $700 or more?we?d suggest looking at the 1.6GHz iMac G5
Where are they buying displays? who would think of 700$ for display, k&m for a friggen 500$ box: a decent kb/m combo can be had for ~$50 and a decent display (17 inch crt) can be had for ~79 at costco/sams/BB/CC/compusa
They basically confirmed all of my qualms about the Mini as posted in my thread-the Mac Mini misses its target consumer:
One surprise in our testing appeared when we tested the hard-drive access speed by duplicating 500MB of data. The 1.25GHz Mac mini beat the faster 1.42GHz model by 10 seconds. Upon further investigation, we found that the 1.25GHz model actually contains a 5,400RPM drive, despite Apple?s claim that it contains a 4,200RPM drive. The 1.42GHz model, does contain the slower 4,200RPM drive.
The other components worked as expected, with good AirPort reception and quiet operation, except for the somewhat loud robotic whir of the optical drive as it was accessing a disc. Not surprisingly, the Mac mini?s built-in speaker is weak, so you?ll want to connect external speakers or headphones to listen to music or watch movies. In our many hours of testing, the Mac mini did not heat up our desk much at all, probably due to its well-designed venting system and power supply located outside the case.
We have three words about the 256MB of RAM included with the Mac mini: it?s not enough. (Unfortunately, most of the standard consumer-level Macs only come with 256MB.) We used the mini with 512MB of RAM for hours, and were very happy with its speed and responsiveness, but once we removed that DIMM and put in the stock 256MB DIMM, it seemed a bit sluggish, and wasn?t such a pleasure to use anymore. As we?ve noted in other Mac reviews, 256MB RAM simply isn?t enough memory for OS X, especially if you are planning to use the iLife ?05 applications, which require a moderate amount of horsepower. At least it?s possible to upgrade the mini. But there?s only one DIMM slot, so if you get the standard mini with 256MB of RAM, you?ll need to buy a 512MB DIMM and replace the 256MB one.
Steve, isn't your seven page thread complaining about the mini enough? As much as you want everyone to hate the mini, It isn't happening.
From the review:
Quote:
Macworld?s Buying Advice
So is this little design marvel suited for you? The Mac mini will be a stellar bargain Mac if you want a tiny machine that lets you do basic tasks like check e-mail, use office applications, surf the Web, and make movies and organize photos.
Steve, isn't your seven page thread complaining about the mini enough? As much as you want everyone to hate the mini, It isn't happening.
From the review:
if you are going to ship a machine with an inadequate amount of ram for its intended usage then you better at least provide an easy way to upgrade it.....meaning 2 accessible slots. miniature computers are neat, but adding a RAM slot would not make it massive, just like adding a 3.5 inch hard drive would make it cheaper and only slightly larger but with much greater HD capacities.
if you are going to ship a machine with an inadequate amount of ram for its intended usage then you better at least provide an easy way to upgrade it.....meaning 2 accessible slots. miniature computers are neat, but adding a RAM slot would not make it massive, just like adding a 3.5 inch hard drive would make it cheaper and only slightly larger but with much greater HD capacities.
Stupid neutering decisions on Apple's part.
I like your answer better than the one I was going to give. Thanks!
Comments
One surprise in our testing appeared when we tested the hard-drive access speed by duplicating 500MB of data. The 1.25GHz Mac mini beat the faster 1.42GHz model by 10 seconds. Upon further investigation, we found that the 1.25GHz model actually contains a 5,400RPM drive, despite Apple?s claim that it contains a 4,200RPM drive. The 1.42GHz model, does contain the slower 4,200RPM drive.
I wonder if that is true across the product line, or there was some kind of supply error at the plant the day that mini was made? That would be another factor for buying the 1.25 over the 1.42...
But if you need to buy a display, keyboard, and mouse?which can set you back $700 or more?we?d suggest looking at the 1.6GHz iMac G5
Where are they buying displays? who would think of 700$ for display, k&m for a friggen 500$ box: a decent kb/m combo can be had for ~$50 and a decent display (17 inch crt) can be had for ~79 at costco/sams/BB/CC/compusa
One surprise in our testing appeared when we tested the hard-drive access speed by duplicating 500MB of data. The 1.25GHz Mac mini beat the faster 1.42GHz model by 10 seconds. Upon further investigation, we found that the 1.25GHz model actually contains a 5,400RPM drive, despite Apple?s claim that it contains a 4,200RPM drive. The 1.42GHz model, does contain the slower 4,200RPM drive.
The other components worked as expected, with good AirPort reception and quiet operation, except for the somewhat loud robotic whir of the optical drive as it was accessing a disc. Not surprisingly, the Mac mini?s built-in speaker is weak, so you?ll want to connect external speakers or headphones to listen to music or watch movies. In our many hours of testing, the Mac mini did not heat up our desk much at all, probably due to its well-designed venting system and power supply located outside the case.
We have three words about the 256MB of RAM included with the Mac mini: it?s not enough. (Unfortunately, most of the standard consumer-level Macs only come with 256MB.) We used the mini with 512MB of RAM for hours, and were very happy with its speed and responsiveness, but once we removed that DIMM and put in the stock 256MB DIMM, it seemed a bit sluggish, and wasn?t such a pleasure to use anymore. As we?ve noted in other Mac reviews, 256MB RAM simply isn?t enough memory for OS X, especially if you are planning to use the iLife ?05 applications, which require a moderate amount of horsepower. At least it?s possible to upgrade the mini. But there?s only one DIMM slot, so if you get the standard mini with 256MB of RAM, you?ll need to buy a 512MB DIMM and replace the 256MB one.
From the review:
Macworld?s Buying Advice
So is this little design marvel suited for you? The Mac mini will be a stellar bargain Mac if you want a tiny machine that lets you do basic tasks like check e-mail, use office applications, surf the Web, and make movies and organize photos.
Originally posted by dfiler
Steve, isn't your seven page thread complaining about the mini enough? As much as you want everyone to hate the mini, It isn't happening.
From the review:
if you are going to ship a machine with an inadequate amount of ram for its intended usage then you better at least provide an easy way to upgrade it.....meaning 2 accessible slots. miniature computers are neat, but adding a RAM slot would not make it massive, just like adding a 3.5 inch hard drive would make it cheaper and only slightly larger but with much greater HD capacities.
Stupid neutering decisions on Apple's part.
Originally posted by applenut
if you are going to ship a machine with an inadequate amount of ram for its intended usage then you better at least provide an easy way to upgrade it.....meaning 2 accessible slots. miniature computers are neat, but adding a RAM slot would not make it massive, just like adding a 3.5 inch hard drive would make it cheaper and only slightly larger but with much greater HD capacities.
Stupid neutering decisions on Apple's part.
I like your answer better than the one I was going to give. Thanks!
And of course you are correct.