Sorry, try again. You may have noticed that they actually updated the iBook today with a better graphics card, faster superdrive, etc. Isn't the iBook moving to Intel too? Then why did they update it if the entire G4 product line is on hold? Why did they update it and not the Mac mini?
The same thing happened with the Cube. Everyone was waiting for cheaper models or improved specs. What did they get? A press release stating it was being discontiunued. It's starting to look like the Mac mini will suffer the same fate.
Please note the intended market for the Mac Mini. It is entirely different from the iBook and it is even more different from the Cube.
The Cube had physical and engineering constraints that resulted in a very high price and a terrible bang for the buck ratio.
The Mac Mini has no such constraints and has proven to be a very cost effective machine for Apple. If they reach a point where it requires another inch in dimension they just add an inch.
Right now the only constraint on it is keeping it at its current price points and the G4. Well, they can't do much with the G4 despite them wishing they could. They need to wait for Intel for that. And for the price they offer a very well rounded 500 dollar machine.
You are pissed off at the bottom of the ladder mac. It is meant to be just enough to basic things. It runs all of iLife, the OS, Office, internet, etc....just fine. Desiring more functionality for 500 dollars is unrealistic.
Complain all you want about the graphics but for that pricepoint apple is matching or exceeding other name brand PC manufacturer's. You can not compare to buil it yourself systems. Even PC manufacturer's can not compete with those.
The Mac Mini clearly sells and Apple addressed several of the biggest gripes with it. Most importantly standard memory. Graphics on a 499 machine are not going to be stellar, and really the only thing you can do on it is use the damn ripple effect. if I were Apple I'd regret adding that ripple effect and remove it immediately because for some reason people think it is a display of graphic performance and a modern graphic card. it's not, it's a gimmick
1984 is technically correct. The Mac Mini will be discontinued. The question is when. I can logically estimate is that it is sometime between tomorrow and when the Sun explodes, or whichever happens first.
Sorry, try again. You may have noticed that they actually updated the iBook today with a better graphics card, faster superdrive, etc. Isn't the iBook moving to Intel too? Then why did they update it if the entire G4 product line is on hold? Why did they update it and not the Mac mini?
The same thing happened with the Cube. Everyone was waiting for cheaper models or improved specs. What did they get? A press release stating it was being discontiunued. It's starting to look like the Mac mini will suffer the same fate.
The problem is that you simply have no evidence for your assertion that the mini is going to be discontinued. You're just making it up based on no valid rationale.
A 1.8 Ghz iMac has been around for a year - twice as long as the mini - and it's considered one of the their best sellers. There have been other times when very successful Macs have gone for a while without an update. And the Mini is only about 6 months old - a small update now is hardly a sign that something is wrong, especially with the Intel transition about to throw a wrench into everything.
We don't even have sales figures for individual product lines any more, so we have no idea if the Mini is doing well or poorly. Sorry, but you're just making shit up.
This update is in no way a sign that the Mini will be discontinued. In fact, it makes people like me more willing to buy one. Sure it's not the best Apple out there, but for $500, it's definately a step up from my PowerMac G3.
"The basic mini costs $125 or £72 more in the UK than USA"
Ever heard of VAT? At 17.5%, that accounts for much of the difference.
You know, rather amazingly i have.
Quote:
I wish you guys would at least try and get your facts straight before you start getting "angry" and "dissapointed".
The thing i disapointed about, is taht apple put the price UP, wheras the old price without VAT (which we all have to pay unless we are businesses) was £288 which is $501 dollars, but apple has decided to try and squeeze some more money out of us Europeans.
And yes i do know that you have sales tax is the USA before you ask, but its never as high as 17.5% is it?
The Cube had physical and engineering constraints that resulted in a very high price and a terrible bang for the buck ratio.
The Mac Mini has no such constraints and has proven to be a very cost effective machine for Apple. If they reach a point where it requires another inch in dimension they just add an inch.
They could have done that for the Cube as well, why didn't they?
But I think the Mac mini is going to be with us for a long while.
Sorry to interrupt, but comments about forum moderation, or comments that personally attack or flame another member will be unceremoniously deleted. Continued violations will be dealt with and not nicely. Thanks for your cooperation. - JL
apple has decided to try and squeeze some more money out of us Europeans.
The US is the land of low prices - if you get mad every time it happens, then you are going to be mad your whole life. My car is $43K in the US, and $80K in the UK - and it is made in Belgium!
Now the iBook actually got updated. It got a new GPU that is Core Image compatible, a faster 8x Superdrive (albeit not DL compatible) and a 100GB hard drive as a build-to-order option. The Mac mini got none of these.
In addition to the above updates, both iBook models have faster RAM and the 14" model got a faster system bus and a $200.00 price drop. I think the Mac mini should have gotten a Core Image compatible GPU, but I think it will be around for awhile because it is a good computer that is inexpensive and serves it's purpose.
If you look at the Mac mini tech specs, the system bus, L2 cache, and memory is the same as the PowerBooks. Compare the CPU speed/memory capacity of the Mac mini (1.42GHz/1GB) vs. 12" PowerBook (1.5GHz/1.25GB).
you can put your life savings on it that the iBook, Powerbook and MacMini will be updated next January with Intel processors.
Quote:
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005
At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
What about this statement, in writing from Apple, leads you to believe that they'll have any Intel machines shipping in January? Let alone half their product line... When is the last time any manufacturer of any kind of product was six months ahead of schedule?
For what it's worth, I think we'll probably see one more Mac Mini update with the new Freescale G4 chips, around the same time as a PowerBook speed-bump. Purely speculation.
What about this statement, in writing from Apple, leads you to believe that they'll have any Intel machines shipping in January? Let alone half their product line... When is the last time any manufacturer of any kind of product was six months ahead of schedule?
For what it's worth, I think we'll probably see one more Mac Mini update with the new Freescale G4 chips, around the same time as a PowerBook speed-bump. Purely speculation.
What about that URL makes you think that time next year is the goal!?
You are trying to explain reading comprehension to me and you can't even do it right yourself.
By this time next year does not mean 6 months ahead of schedule. You don't know their schedule. They never even said what their schedule is. For all you know, in september could see the first Intel mac and it would still fullfil the statement you are trying to correct me on.
1. Technically, it's not a Front Side Bus (FSB) since the Athlon64 has an on-die memory controller. It's better than a FSB.
2. I'm saying it's better than "1GHz" compared to the G5s since the G5's bus is only 64 bits wide. For example, if you were to say a 2GHz G5's bus runs at 1GHz, then you'd have to say that your Athlon64 bus runs at 2GHz "effective"--it's twice as fast as the G5's bus at throughput. And due to the Athlon64's on-die memroy controller, typical latencies are about 4 times better than the G5.
Comments
Originally posted by 1984
Sorry, try again. You may have noticed that they actually updated the iBook today with a better graphics card, faster superdrive, etc. Isn't the iBook moving to Intel too? Then why did they update it if the entire G4 product line is on hold? Why did they update it and not the Mac mini?
The same thing happened with the Cube. Everyone was waiting for cheaper models or improved specs. What did they get? A press release stating it was being discontiunued. It's starting to look like the Mac mini will suffer the same fate.
Please note the intended market for the Mac Mini. It is entirely different from the iBook and it is even more different from the Cube.
The Cube had physical and engineering constraints that resulted in a very high price and a terrible bang for the buck ratio.
The Mac Mini has no such constraints and has proven to be a very cost effective machine for Apple. If they reach a point where it requires another inch in dimension they just add an inch.
Right now the only constraint on it is keeping it at its current price points and the G4. Well, they can't do much with the G4 despite them wishing they could. They need to wait for Intel for that. And for the price they offer a very well rounded 500 dollar machine.
You are pissed off at the bottom of the ladder mac. It is meant to be just enough to basic things. It runs all of iLife, the OS, Office, internet, etc....just fine. Desiring more functionality for 500 dollars is unrealistic.
Complain all you want about the graphics but for that pricepoint apple is matching or exceeding other name brand PC manufacturer's. You can not compare to buil it yourself systems. Even PC manufacturer's can not compete with those.
The Mac Mini clearly sells and Apple addressed several of the biggest gripes with it. Most importantly standard memory. Graphics on a 499 machine are not going to be stellar, and really the only thing you can do on it is use the damn ripple effect. if I were Apple I'd regret adding that ripple effect and remove it immediately because for some reason people think it is a display of graphic performance and a modern graphic card. it's not, it's a gimmick
Originally posted by 1984
Sorry, try again. You may have noticed that they actually updated the iBook today with a better graphics card, faster superdrive, etc. Isn't the iBook moving to Intel too? Then why did they update it if the entire G4 product line is on hold? Why did they update it and not the Mac mini?
The same thing happened with the Cube. Everyone was waiting for cheaper models or improved specs. What did they get? A press release stating it was being discontiunued. It's starting to look like the Mac mini will suffer the same fate.
The problem is that you simply have no evidence for your assertion that the mini is going to be discontinued. You're just making it up based on no valid rationale.
A 1.8 Ghz iMac has been around for a year - twice as long as the mini - and it's considered one of the their best sellers. There have been other times when very successful Macs have gone for a while without an update. And the Mini is only about 6 months old - a small update now is hardly a sign that something is wrong, especially with the Intel transition about to throw a wrench into everything.
We don't even have sales figures for individual product lines any more, so we have no idea if the Mini is doing well or poorly. Sorry, but you're just making shit up.
"The basic mini costs $125 or £72 more in the UK than USA"
Ever heard of VAT? At 17.5%, that accounts for much of the difference.
You know, rather amazingly i have.
I wish you guys would at least try and get your facts straight before you start getting "angry" and "dissapointed".
The thing i disapointed about, is taht apple put the price UP, wheras the old price without VAT (which we all have to pay unless we are businesses) was £288 which is $501 dollars, but apple has decided to try and squeeze some more money out of us Europeans.
And yes i do know that you have sales tax is the USA before you ask, but its never as high as 17.5% is it?
Originally posted by Bronxite
The Cube had physical and engineering constraints that resulted in a very high price and a terrible bang for the buck ratio.
The Mac Mini has no such constraints and has proven to be a very cost effective machine for Apple. If they reach a point where it requires another inch in dimension they just add an inch.
They could have done that for the Cube as well, why didn't they?
But I think the Mac mini is going to be with us for a long while.
Originally posted by stustanley
apple has decided to try and squeeze some more money out of us Europeans.
The US is the land of low prices - if you get mad every time it happens, then you are going to be mad your whole life. My car is $43K in the US, and $80K in the UK - and it is made in Belgium!
Originally posted by 1984
Now the iBook actually got updated. It got a new GPU that is Core Image compatible, a faster 8x Superdrive (albeit not DL compatible) and a 100GB hard drive as a build-to-order option. The Mac mini got none of these.
In addition to the above updates, both iBook models have faster RAM and the 14" model got a faster system bus and a $200.00 price drop. I think the Mac mini should have gotten a Core Image compatible GPU, but I think it will be around for awhile because it is a good computer that is inexpensive and serves it's purpose.
If you look at the Mac mini tech specs, the system bus, L2 cache, and memory is the same as the PowerBooks. Compare the CPU speed/memory capacity of the Mac mini (1.42GHz/1GB) vs. 12" PowerBook (1.5GHz/1.25GB).
Originally posted by Bronxite
you can put your life savings on it that the iBook, Powerbook and MacMini will be updated next January with Intel processors.
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005
At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.
What about this statement, in writing from Apple, leads you to believe that they'll have any Intel machines shipping in January? Let alone half their product line... When is the last time any manufacturer of any kind of product was six months ahead of schedule?
For what it's worth, I think we'll probably see one more Mac Mini update with the new Freescale G4 chips, around the same time as a PowerBook speed-bump. Purely speculation.
Originally posted by Reid
What about this statement, in writing from Apple, leads you to believe that they'll have any Intel machines shipping in January? Let alone half their product line... When is the last time any manufacturer of any kind of product was six months ahead of schedule?
For what it's worth, I think we'll probably see one more Mac Mini update with the new Freescale G4 chips, around the same time as a PowerBook speed-bump. Purely speculation.
What about that URL makes you think that time next year is the goal!?
You are trying to explain reading comprehension to me and you can't even do it right yourself.
By this time next year does not mean 6 months ahead of schedule. You don't know their schedule. They never even said what their schedule is. For all you know, in september could see the first Intel mac and it would still fullfil the statement you are trying to correct me on.
amazing
Originally posted by Existence
1. Technically, it's not a Front Side Bus (FSB) since the Athlon64 has an on-die memory controller. It's better than a FSB.
2. I'm saying it's better than "1GHz" compared to the G5s since the G5's bus is only 64 bits wide. For example, if you were to say a 2GHz G5's bus runs at 1GHz, then you'd have to say that your Athlon64 bus runs at 2GHz "effective"--it's twice as fast as the G5's bus at throughput. And due to the Athlon64's on-die memroy controller, typical latencies are about 4 times better than the G5.
I see, thanks for the education!
I do love this hardware.