UPDATE: Sources have informed Think Secret that Mac mini box labels will continue to list the older specifications with no indication of whether the newer or older systems are contained within. The motivation behind this is to help clear current inventory without lowering prices. Essentially, customers are promised that the Mac mini they purchase will have specifications "at least" equal to the label, but that their system may exceed those. Customers who purchase a new Mac mini to find they ended up with the older configuration will not be able to return the system in the hopes of getting the newer configuration without paying a restocking fee.
This is unbelievable! Apple is not going to change the specs on the box in hopes they can trick customers into buying an older model. You might get a new one or you might get an old one. You pay your money and take your chances. I don't think I can go on supporting this company any longer. They are clearly breaking the law here and should be sued.
I have a practical question from a solely consumer user. I'm going to be buying next year--a mini or an iMac. Would I notice a difference in terms of launching applications from the slower hard drive in the mini? And are there other limitations imposed by the mini's 5400 drive? Boot times perhaps?
Consumers, like me, don't need processing power but I'm wondering if a slower drive could impact us most in just the kind of basic tasks we do every day.
(Would it have killed Apple to make the mini just a wee bit larger so they wouldn't have to limit the hard drives and graphics cards? I know, I know, to urge people like me to spring for the iMac.)
a mac mini 1.5ghz g4 with ati9200 64mb and a 5400rpm drive will do just nice. you may find that the iMac is overpowered for basic consumer use. 4200rpm is a bit too slow but 5400rpm with 8mb cache will be nice.
Wow, I can't believe all of the complaining about this. I used to run Mac OS X 10.4.2 on a 1.25ghz single processor PowerMac G4 MDD that had a Radeon 9000 with 64MB of VRAM. Not once did I ever feel that I was missing something because my video card was not Core Image compatable.
I think the VRAM upgrade is more important to the Mini than Core Image compatability is, as the Mini is being attached to large displays (32MB of VRAM on an iBook is reasonable because it only supports a 1024x768 screen).
As for the angst about other Apple upgrades, I think this shows why Apple is switching to Intel. Just look at how some of you are blaming Apple for problems which they have little control over (except price).
agreed. although if the thinksecret reports are true about "not knowing what you're getting in the box", that's disturbing.
agreed. although if the thinksecret reports are true about "not knowing what you're getting in the box", that's disturbing.
Imagine going to the car dealer and being told...
"Well, for $25,000 you'll either get a 170HP engine or a 100HP engine, leather seats or cloth seats, sunroof or no sunroof... we can't tell you though. You just have to take your chances."
If they have excess inventory they either need to hold off on the new configurations or lower the prices on the previous models.
"Well, for $25,000 you'll either get a 170HP engine or a 100HP engine, leather seats or cloth seats, sunroof or no sunroof... we can't tell you though. You just have to take your chances."
If they have excess inventory they either need to hold off on the new configurations or lower the prices on the previous models.
the flipside is the people that basically got a free upgrade for no cost. good for them. but this sounds a bit fishy to me, though.... its downright weird.
Yeah, there or two ways of looking at it but in the end it's just not a good idea.
Things like the 64MB of video memory and 5400rpm hard drives are pretty important to people. Not knowing if they are going to get them or not when they buy it is simply going to cause them to hold off on their purchase. Does Apple want good sales this quarter or not?
I guess Apple figured no one would know about it. Guess again.
The problem was, I was using a Compaq and it kept crapping out on me. i had always wanted a Mac but could never afford it. Just as I was getting 100% fed up with my Compaq and it was getting to the point where it was almost unusable, Apple came out with the Mini so I got it the week it came out. I then had to buy Tiger shortly after, then a RAM upgrade. I would love to have airport and all the upgrades that are in this news post but whatever.
The problem was, I was using a Compaq and it kept crapping out on me. i had always wanted a Mac but could never afford it. Just as I was getting 100% fed up with my Compaq and it was getting to the point where it was almost unusable, Apple came out with the Mini so I got it the week it came out. I then had to buy Tiger shortly after, then a RAM upgrade. I would love to have airport and all the upgrades that are in this news post but whatever.
As you can tell from these threads Mac users complain when Apple doesn't update their machines often enough, and when Apple does update them often enough.
The trick is to try to pay attention to what is happening. That way more often than not you will have a good idea when something is going to be updated.
Of course if you run right out and buy it, then you know that 3 to 6 months later there will be an update. But then, you have no reason to complain. You aren't, are you?
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it and I expected it to happen. It's just discouraging when you pay $900 for something and a few months later, you can get the same thing but better for the same price (especially after you've spent a bunch of money to bring it up to the quality it is after the upgrades)
Apple are hardly breaking the law. You walk into the Apple shop, or go to the online store, and place and order for a 1.4ghz mini. When you get it, it is a 1.5ghz machine. How is that bad? Oh, its bad for _you_ because you think that you are entitled to a free, unadvertised, upgrade. Well, you arent.
What, its not fair that some people get a free upgrade and some people dont. Perhaps. But it isnt advertised. You are aware of the scenario, so I suggest not buying a new mini for a week or two.
As for the GPU, there is one, and only one, reason why the mini needs a better GPU. Quartz Extreme 2d. That is actually, really accelerated rendering. It will have the biggest impact on the slowest machine. Graphics rendering is what really makes OS X seems unresponive, and it is at its worst on the mini. With a good GPU it will really pep up.
But QE2d isnt shipping yet. So there isnt much point in upgrading the mini. I think we'll see an upgrade soon after QE2d does roll out. Im not holding my breath. I think that Apple must have run into a lot of bugs, and they are going to wait for 10.5 to release it, giving developers time to test their software with it.
Finally, http://www.freescale.com/files/abstr.../FTF_TN102.pdf indicates that the 7448 will be shipping next month ( in volume ) and that it has been sampling since February. I wouldnt be surprised if Apple gets the choicest parts, and can put out machines at 1.8ghz or faster. Power consumption is still low, 11w, and it has a faster bus, 200mhz, and a 1mb l2 cache. Benchmarks in the report show it being considerably faster than the 7447, but dont mention the speeds of the compared chips.
Apple are hardly breaking the law. You walk into the Apple shop, or go to the online store, and place and order for a 1.4ghz mini. When you get it, it is a 1.5ghz machine. How is that bad?
It's bad because you might not get that... even though another person buying on the same day might.
And it's more than that... faster processor, better graphics card, improved aiport and BT 2.0 an 8x dual layer burner. Would you be happy if you ended up with the old model when you were exepcting the specs above? I bet you'd be first in line to complain.
I wouldn't even consider buying a Mac mini until Apple lists the new specs on the onilne store.
It's bad because you might not get that... even though another person buying on the same day might.
And it's more than that... faster processor, better graphics card, improved aiport and BT 2.0 an 8x dual layer burner. Would you be happy if you ended up with the old model when you were exepcting the specs above? I bet you'd be first in line to complain.
well if you're buying a computer today you'd probably be unaware of the planned updates or wouldn't be bothered about them. If you were interested you'd probably wait a couple of days. It obviously would be annoying if you found out some people were getting better computers.
I have a practical question from a solely consumer user. I'm going to be buying next year--a mini or an iMac. Would I notice a difference in terms of launching applications from the slower hard drive in the mini? And are there other limitations imposed by the mini's 5400 drive? Boot times perhaps?
I wouldn't be overly concerned with boot speed, especially if you can normally to let the system sleep instead of doing a shutdown. The difference in boot times between my 600MHz iBook G3 w/ 5400rpm HD and 2GHz iMac G5 w/ 7200rpm HD is insubstantial to me. I reboot an average of between once and twice a month, including any software updates that require it.
One example of a slower drive possibly impacting performance is if the system is using a lot of virtual memory and creating additional swapfiles. Remember the mini is only expandable to 1GB RAM and you have to replace the 512MB DIMM since there's only one expansion slot. The iMac has two slots so you can max it to 2GB, or 1.5GB without replacing the 512MB it comes with. The iMac is more easily "user serviceable" than the mini, too.
Some people think the iMac is the best value Mac right now. It may be, especially if you intend to keep it awhile. But if you already have a nice monitor that might influence you in favor of the mini. And budget, obviously, no matter what you buy.
I wouldn't be overly concerned with boot speed, especially if you can normally to let the system sleep instead of doing a shutdown. The difference in boot times between my 600MHz iBook G3 w/ 5400rpm HD and 2GHz iMac G5 w/ 7200rpm HD is insubstantial to me. I reboot an average of between once and twice a month, including any software updates that require it.
Not attacking anyone, but it seems that there are a lot of users on the forum who never shut down. I wonder if anyone has any figures on how much energy is wasted by leaving a mac asleep for 10 hours a day for a month?
Not attacking anyone, but it seems that there are a lot of users on the forum who never shut down. I wonder if anyone has any figures on how much energy is wasted by leaving a mac asleep for 10 hours a day for a month?
Also it's much better to shut down regularly - at start up routine checks are made on the computer making sure it's in order - I never leave my computer on for more than a few days - and that's only if I'm working on a project with a lot of work open. However, a sleeping computer uses very little energy.
Comments
This is unbelievable! Apple is not going to change the specs on the box in hopes they can trick customers into buying an older model. You might get a new one or you might get an old one. You pay your money and take your chances. I don't think I can go on supporting this company any longer. They are clearly breaking the law here and should be sued.
Originally posted by reynard
I have a practical question from a solely consumer user. I'm going to be buying next year--a mini or an iMac. Would I notice a difference in terms of launching applications from the slower hard drive in the mini? And are there other limitations imposed by the mini's 5400 drive? Boot times perhaps?
Consumers, like me, don't need processing power but I'm wondering if a slower drive could impact us most in just the kind of basic tasks we do every day.
(Would it have killed Apple to make the mini just a wee bit larger so they wouldn't have to limit the hard drives and graphics cards? I know, I know, to urge people like me to spring for the iMac.)
a mac mini 1.5ghz g4 with ati9200 64mb and a 5400rpm drive will do just nice. you may find that the iMac is overpowered for basic consumer use. 4200rpm is a bit too slow but 5400rpm with 8mb cache will be nice.
Originally posted by Agent69
Wow, I can't believe all of the complaining about this. I used to run Mac OS X 10.4.2 on a 1.25ghz single processor PowerMac G4 MDD that had a Radeon 9000 with 64MB of VRAM. Not once did I ever feel that I was missing something because my video card was not Core Image compatable.
I think the VRAM upgrade is more important to the Mini than Core Image compatability is, as the Mini is being attached to large displays (32MB of VRAM on an iBook is reasonable because it only supports a 1024x768 screen).
As for the angst about other Apple upgrades, I think this shows why Apple is switching to Intel. Just look at how some of you are blaming Apple for problems which they have little control over (except price).
agreed. although if the thinksecret reports are true about "not knowing what you're getting in the box", that's disturbing.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I suppose the Mac Mini should also have a G5 in it too?
As far as I know, there is no core OS X technology that depends on features of the G5 processor. So not necessarily.
Originally posted by sunilraman
agreed. although if the thinksecret reports are true about "not knowing what you're getting in the box", that's disturbing.
Imagine going to the car dealer and being told...
"Well, for $25,000 you'll either get a 170HP engine or a 100HP engine, leather seats or cloth seats, sunroof or no sunroof... we can't tell you though. You just have to take your chances."
If they have excess inventory they either need to hold off on the new configurations or lower the prices on the previous models.
Originally posted by 1984
Imagine going to the car dealer and being told...
"Well, for $25,000 you'll either get a 170HP engine or a 100HP engine, leather seats or cloth seats, sunroof or no sunroof... we can't tell you though. You just have to take your chances."
If they have excess inventory they either need to hold off on the new configurations or lower the prices on the previous models.
the flipside is the people that basically got a free upgrade for no cost. good for them. but this sounds a bit fishy to me, though.... its downright weird.
Things like the 64MB of video memory and 5400rpm hard drives are pretty important to people. Not knowing if they are going to get them or not when they buy it is simply going to cause them to hold off on their purchase. Does Apple want good sales this quarter or not?
I guess Apple figured no one would know about it. Guess again.
Originally posted by Sekio
I'm never buying a first generation computer ever again!
I never do.
I keep advising people not to.
Originally posted by Sekio
The problem was, I was using a Compaq and it kept crapping out on me. i had always wanted a Mac but could never afford it. Just as I was getting 100% fed up with my Compaq and it was getting to the point where it was almost unusable, Apple came out with the Mini so I got it the week it came out. I then had to buy Tiger shortly after, then a RAM upgrade. I would love to have airport and all the upgrades that are in this news post but whatever.
As you can tell from these threads Mac users complain when Apple doesn't update their machines often enough, and when Apple does update them often enough.
The trick is to try to pay attention to what is happening. That way more often than not you will have a good idea when something is going to be updated.
Of course if you run right out and buy it, then you know that 3 to 6 months later there will be an update. But then, you have no reason to complain. You aren't, are you?
What, its not fair that some people get a free upgrade and some people dont. Perhaps. But it isnt advertised. You are aware of the scenario, so I suggest not buying a new mini for a week or two.
As for the GPU, there is one, and only one, reason why the mini needs a better GPU. Quartz Extreme 2d. That is actually, really accelerated rendering. It will have the biggest impact on the slowest machine. Graphics rendering is what really makes OS X seems unresponive, and it is at its worst on the mini. With a good GPU it will really pep up.
But QE2d isnt shipping yet. So there isnt much point in upgrading the mini. I think we'll see an upgrade soon after QE2d does roll out. Im not holding my breath. I think that Apple must have run into a lot of bugs, and they are going to wait for 10.5 to release it, giving developers time to test their software with it.
Finally, http://www.freescale.com/files/abstr.../FTF_TN102.pdf indicates that the 7448 will be shipping next month ( in volume ) and that it has been sampling since February. I wouldnt be surprised if Apple gets the choicest parts, and can put out machines at 1.8ghz or faster. Power consumption is still low, 11w, and it has a faster bus, 200mhz, and a 1mb l2 cache. Benchmarks in the report show it being considerably faster than the 7447, but dont mention the speeds of the compared chips.
That powerbook upgrade is just around the corner.
Shame the dual core chip has been delayed a year.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Shame the dual core chip has been delayed a year.
Could you be more specific on that?
Originally posted by mmmpie
Apple are hardly breaking the law. You walk into the Apple shop, or go to the online store, and place and order for a 1.4ghz mini. When you get it, it is a 1.5ghz machine. How is that bad?
It's bad because you might not get that... even though another person buying on the same day might.
And it's more than that... faster processor, better graphics card, improved aiport and BT 2.0 an 8x dual layer burner. Would you be happy if you ended up with the old model when you were exepcting the specs above? I bet you'd be first in line to complain.
I wouldn't even consider buying a Mac mini until Apple lists the new specs on the onilne store.
Originally posted by xflare
It's bad because you might not get that... even though another person buying on the same day might.
And it's more than that... faster processor, better graphics card, improved aiport and BT 2.0 an 8x dual layer burner. Would you be happy if you ended up with the old model when you were exepcting the specs above? I bet you'd be first in line to complain.
well if you're buying a computer today you'd probably be unaware of the planned updates or wouldn't be bothered about them. If you were interested you'd probably wait a couple of days. It obviously would be annoying if you found out some people were getting better computers.
Originally posted by reynard
I have a practical question from a solely consumer user. I'm going to be buying next year--a mini or an iMac. Would I notice a difference in terms of launching applications from the slower hard drive in the mini? And are there other limitations imposed by the mini's 5400 drive? Boot times perhaps?
I wouldn't be overly concerned with boot speed, especially if you can normally to let the system sleep instead of doing a shutdown. The difference in boot times between my 600MHz iBook G3 w/ 5400rpm HD and 2GHz iMac G5 w/ 7200rpm HD is insubstantial to me. I reboot an average of between once and twice a month, including any software updates that require it.
One example of a slower drive possibly impacting performance is if the system is using a lot of virtual memory and creating additional swapfiles. Remember the mini is only expandable to 1GB RAM and you have to replace the 512MB DIMM since there's only one expansion slot. The iMac has two slots so you can max it to 2GB, or 1.5GB without replacing the 512MB it comes with. The iMac is more easily "user serviceable" than the mini, too.
Some people think the iMac is the best value Mac right now. It may be, especially if you intend to keep it awhile. But if you already have a nice monitor that might influence you in favor of the mini. And budget, obviously, no matter what you buy.
Originally posted by sjk
I wouldn't be overly concerned with boot speed, especially if you can normally to let the system sleep instead of doing a shutdown. The difference in boot times between my 600MHz iBook G3 w/ 5400rpm HD and 2GHz iMac G5 w/ 7200rpm HD is insubstantial to me. I reboot an average of between once and twice a month, including any software updates that require it.
Not attacking anyone, but it seems that there are a lot of users on the forum who never shut down. I wonder if anyone has any figures on how much energy is wasted by leaving a mac asleep for 10 hours a day for a month?
Originally posted by G_Warren
Not attacking anyone, but it seems that there are a lot of users on the forum who never shut down. I wonder if anyone has any figures on how much energy is wasted by leaving a mac asleep for 10 hours a day for a month?
Also it's much better to shut down regularly - at start up routine checks are made on the computer making sure it's in order - I never leave my computer on for more than a few days - and that's only if I'm working on a project with a lot of work open. However, a sleeping computer uses very little energy.