I think that possible Mac mini specs need to be viewed more with a negative eye rather than positive eye. Why? Because Apple are going to make more profit selling you an iMac than they will by selling you a Mac mini.
Apple currently market the mini as a machine to tempt Windows users over to the mac platform and possibly as a secondary home machine. I don't see that changing at present. The intel based Mac mini is likely therefore to just be a simple upgrade to the current model.
Apple are not going to make the mini too tempting, because that will stop people buying the iMac. And the iMac is 2.5 times the price of the 1.25ghz mini. I think the intel mini is not going to be too different from the current spec. If the iMac spec is as it is today when the intel mini is introduced, I would expect the only differences to be the CPU and the GPU. Might it get optical audio in/out and line in? Who knows?
On the CPU front, I don't think Apple would use an Intel CPU/architecture that pre-dated its move to the intel platform. Not too many people are going to want to buy old technology. I'd expect the 1.25ghz model to get a 1.5ghz Core Solo, the 1.42ghz version could then get a 1.5ghz Core Duo (I think it's available), or possibly a 1.67ghz Core Solo. But the Duo option would be much better. On the GPU front I'd expect an ATI X1300 with 64MB RAM. Still a good spec for a cheap, almost throw away machine!
Well, Jootec, you say many sensible things. However, choice is good, and the Mini could be made to be profitable for Apple.
If it did have the option for 1.67 Core duo, or even quicker cpu, in time, and option for better graphics, and HD size(up to 250GB, or bigger), and SuperDrive, then the price could rise, and it would be more like 999$, or even more, depending on how outfitted.
It would be a style different from the iMac, if someone already owned a bigger display, or if they just wanted the beauty of the little Mini and a 23" display.
Perhaps it is a pipe dream, but I don't see why it would not be possible for Apple to make an economical Mini, and then give the option for upgrading it, and make monies doing so. Not everyone will want to fool with getting a separate display, would find it easier and simpler to just buy an iMac. So the folks who want a second Mac that is economical could do that, or switchers who have a good display could buy what they wish. It could be as profitable as the iMac, relatively. Better to have choice and attract more business. Perhaps my thinking would siphon off possible iMac buyers, if Apple thinks so they will not do what I want anyway. What I am thinking of is kind of like building up what the Cube was like. Well, it does not hurt to dream.
Here's some specs, maybe more what I want than speculation.
Three models:
Pathetic:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
40 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
Integrated Graphics Chipset
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output
Audio: Analog headphone and audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$499
Low:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
80 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 64 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$699
High:
Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz
1 GB RAM, two SODIMM slots
120 GB Serial ATA HD, 7200 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot loading 8X Superdrive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 54 Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet (56K V.92 modem available as build-to-order option)
$999
No more laptop drives, no more single RAM slots. No bullshit. This is a good enough computer to last a few years. Of course have an edu model with only CD rom/DVD rom, no modem. Price it to go at $429 for edu only.
Thats not bad at all, JD. That is pretty good. I would bet Apple would sell a whole lot of those. I don't know where it all would fit in to Apple's pricing and all that, but those two ideas of economy and a higher end are pretty good ideas. I did some pricing on Apple's Store website, and came up with a 1000$+ 1.25G4 Mac Mini. Too much for what you get with a G4 Mini, with just a 100GB HD, and a 9200 GPU, which is why my lobbying in just a small way here I talked about the 1.67 Core Duo. The FW 400 you have in your description there allows for external HDs.
You guys are pretty optimistic, unrealistically so. I thought my 1.6 Pentium M prediction was optimistic!
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
You guys are pretty optimistic, unrealistically so. I thought my 1.6 Pentium M prediction was optimistic!
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
I figured that the Core Duo would not go in to the Mini for a while, since it is now in the pro Mac book, and the iMac, but it is fun to think about, and one hopes that Apple will come to do this.
You guys are pretty optimistic, unrealistically so. I thought my 1.6 Pentium M prediction was optimistic!
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
I'm betting they won't do this. The name Celeron alone just has too much "crap" baggage associated with it.
All in all, I'm thinking that everything I'm hoping for now--a core duo, core video-compliant, 3.5" HDD and 2 ram slot sporting mini with a BT remote and a power button on the font, with a full-blown video organizer/player/exporter (an iTunes for Video, and not the half-way hack we have now)--will be ready next year. MWSF07. The Intel switch will be complete. Leopard will be out (??). Core Duo chips will be cheap. BVDs (I can't say that with a straight face)/HDDVDs will be out for a while and a bunch of people will have already come up with partial solutions for MMC-ripped video files and player prices will be coming down (thanks to PS3). HDTVs will have even more marketshare, and plasma screen prices will comtinue to plummet. Perpendicular HDD storage will be firmly established and drive sizes will begin climbing again, with falling prices (thanks to MMC induced demand). MPAA will have gotten over its insane fear of people having a portable copy of movies at their disposal. And, remember, a "real" video iPod is supposedly in the works--begging for a real solution for video files with the Apple touch.
This sucks for me. My PMG4 is getting quite long in the tooth (August 2001) and I want something compelling to get me to upgrade to a decked out mini with a nice 23" or 24" lcd. I don't have the budget to afford a tower anymore. The only way I could afford a powermac is if I use my 5G iPod as its screen.
So hopefully, my comp will last another year. Then, hopefully, everything will be in place...
Here's some specs, maybe more what I want than speculation.
Three models:
Pathetic:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
40 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
Integrated Graphics Chipset
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output
Audio: Analog headphone and audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$499
Low:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
80 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 64 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$699
High:
Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz
1 GB RAM, two SODIMM slots
120 GB Serial ATA HD, 7200 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot loading 8X Superdrive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 54 Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet (56K V.92 modem available as build-to-order option)
$999
No more laptop drives, no more single RAM slots. No bullshit. This is a good enough computer to last a few years. Of course have an edu model with only CD rom/DVD rom, no modem. Price it to go at $429 for edu only.
Good specs, except the price, what the difference between iMac and High end model again???
$499
$599
$699
will remain in regardless of what is in them, otherwise the point (for the switchers) of having in Mac mini in the line is useless
$999 is too close to comfort for any PC users with out any expandability... then every one starts to compare with iMac 17"
The Mini has an elegant form, and would be a fetching advertising model, alongside a bigger display. It deserves to be able to be a more powerful Mac, at least as an option. It will not detract from the iMac, which has pretty good value. Right now, you can get an intro BTO Mini(1.25 Mhz) that costs 1050$. Too much for what you get.
The Mini has an elegant form, and would be a fetching advertising model, alongside a bigger display. It deserves to be able to be a more powerful Mac, at least as an option. It will not detract from the iMac, which has pretty good value. Right now, you can get an intro BTO Mini(1.25 Mhz) that costs 1050$. Too much for what you get.
you agree with me or $999 mac mini???
i am bit confused here, in my opinion if some can fork out 999 then it will cost them to go all the way to either 17" or 20"
mostly, iMac slashed price once Merom out, that will be June WWDC, not much may be 100 bucks on iMac and 200 on MacBook Pro
i am bit confused here, in my opinion if some can fork out 999 then it will cost them to go all the way to either 17" or 20"
mostly, iMac slashed price once Merom out, that will be June WWDC, not much may be 100 bucks on iMac and 200 on MacBook Pro
Hello. I am not quite sure what you are saying here.
The thing with me is that I liked the Cube, but I never got one. It had fine design, was quiet, compact, and stylish. But having got a PowerMac before, I did not get a Cube.
Now I see a lovely shape, but it seems more directed to being an inexpensive intro Mac, or second Mac, or a switcher's Mac to try out, with the idea that it will serve for a time, and then the switcher will move to another Mac. Well, that is a good thing, it was a good move by Apple. However, there are very valid points raised by people who would like to see a 3.5" sized drive in it. It will not hurt Apple to put bigger drives in the Mini.
Also, there are those who really like the style of the Mini, and would like to have one that is more powerful. It would compete with the iMac, on the lower iMac, anyway. But if someone has a display, and they do not thusly want nor need to buy an iMac, or go all the way to a PowerMac, then a more powerful Mini would be a good option.
Perhaps the market slot is not big enough, or would be better filled with a smaller tower, that more could be done with('headless iMac', as someone put it). These would be money making options for Apple, I should think, but they may not want more models.
I speculate while I may not get all that I want in this little beauty, that Apple will go with a non laptop HD in the Mini. I liked Junkyard Dawg's spec, and Jootec and krzysiek's direction. May Apple please hear the cries.
About the Merom, I am just thinking that the Mac Book is an advance for people who want a more powerful notebook now, but that if things go well, a new (power) Mac Book will come along before too long, with the Merom, in 3/4 year. At that point, I would think the iMac will proceed in quickness, in Apple's good consideration, just as it had a G5, it will move to a more powerful intel cpu. At that time, the Mac Mini is certainly qualified to get a Core Duo. It would be nice to have it now, and for the other intel cpus to be availble for the pro machines. Then the consumer Macs could have the Core Duo now.
What do you think the chances are for dual monitor support? Never thought the iMac would get it but it did. . . . .
Monitor spanning is coming to consumer models becouse of the need for it for Home Entertainment connectivity. It is already built into the video cards that Apple uses, and Apple turns it off using software that can be circumvented. Whether we see it in the next Mac Mini or not is yet to be seen, but it will eventually be part of all of Apple's desktop, and probably their laptop lines.
Monitor spanning is coming to consumer models becouse of the need for it for Home Entertainment connectivity. It is already built into the video cards that Apple uses, and Apple turns it off using software that can be circumvented. Whether we see it in the next Mac Mini or not is yet to be seen, but it will eventually be part of all of Apple's desktop, and probably their laptop lines.
Thats what I was figuring. But how would they do it. A video card with two connection ports (ie Powermac) or still one connection just using a 3rd party splitter? Is that even possible?
If the mini gets a SATA 7200 rpm hdd, I don't care if it has a G4 1.0 GHz chip, I will buy a new one for work. The HDD improvement alone would be cause for celebration...
Yes, that is what I was thinking. The second idea you have there, a more powerful Mac Mini, BTO, it would not displace the iMac, it would provide for those who already have an Apple 20 or 23 inch display, or another good display.
So Apple can have an economical Mac, and one that has more power, in HD, like the 7200rpm drive, and a core duo, eventually, and for that matter, better graphics. Now you can buy a 9200 with 128 MB vram from OWC, not just the paltry 32MB, and there have been two other graphics solutions mentioned here, ATI x600 and x1300.
There clearly are people who want something like this.
The other kind of thought is the mini tower that people have asked for, but that should be in another thread.
Knowing Apple, instead of having the (low-end) iMac specs (without a screen) as the mini should be, they will cripple it in some way such as offering only a single-core processor!!!
Knowing Apple, instead of having the (low-end) iMac specs (without a screen) as the mini should be, they will cripple it in some way such as offering only a single-core processor!!!
This whole scanerio amuse me ...
iPods prices cheaper than Creative Zens, look at the success of iPods, they are elegant, works well and not very pricy compared to other MP3 Player...
my guess this is TIME to ride on success on iPod and carry the sales to Macs
i think it is NEW APPLE, we will see better mac mini unless they want to create another Dull little boxes for themeselves and make BIG KEY NOTE about it!
Comments
Originally posted by Jootec from Mars
I think that possible Mac mini specs need to be viewed more with a negative eye rather than positive eye. Why? Because Apple are going to make more profit selling you an iMac than they will by selling you a Mac mini.
Apple currently market the mini as a machine to tempt Windows users over to the mac platform and possibly as a secondary home machine. I don't see that changing at present. The intel based Mac mini is likely therefore to just be a simple upgrade to the current model.
Apple are not going to make the mini too tempting, because that will stop people buying the iMac. And the iMac is 2.5 times the price of the 1.25ghz mini. I think the intel mini is not going to be too different from the current spec. If the iMac spec is as it is today when the intel mini is introduced, I would expect the only differences to be the CPU and the GPU. Might it get optical audio in/out and line in? Who knows?
On the CPU front, I don't think Apple would use an Intel CPU/architecture that pre-dated its move to the intel platform. Not too many people are going to want to buy old technology. I'd expect the 1.25ghz model to get a 1.5ghz Core Solo, the 1.42ghz version could then get a 1.5ghz Core Duo (I think it's available), or possibly a 1.67ghz Core Solo. But the Duo option would be much better. On the GPU front I'd expect an ATI X1300 with 64MB RAM. Still a good spec for a cheap, almost throw away machine!
Well, Jootec, you say many sensible things. However, choice is good, and the Mini could be made to be profitable for Apple.
If it did have the option for 1.67 Core duo, or even quicker cpu, in time, and option for better graphics, and HD size(up to 250GB, or bigger), and SuperDrive, then the price could rise, and it would be more like 999$, or even more, depending on how outfitted.
It would be a style different from the iMac, if someone already owned a bigger display, or if they just wanted the beauty of the little Mini and a 23" display.
Perhaps it is a pipe dream, but I don't see why it would not be possible for Apple to make an economical Mini, and then give the option for upgrading it, and make monies doing so. Not everyone will want to fool with getting a separate display, would find it easier and simpler to just buy an iMac. So the folks who want a second Mac that is economical could do that, or switchers who have a good display could buy what they wish. It could be as profitable as the iMac, relatively. Better to have choice and attract more business. Perhaps my thinking would siphon off possible iMac buyers, if Apple thinks so they will not do what I want anyway. What I am thinking of is kind of like building up what the Cube was like. Well, it does not hurt to dream.
Three models:
Pathetic:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
40 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
Integrated Graphics Chipset
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output
Audio: Analog headphone and audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$499
Low:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
80 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 64 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$699
High:
Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz
1 GB RAM, two SODIMM slots
120 GB Serial ATA HD, 7200 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot loading 8X Superdrive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 54 Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet (56K V.92 modem available as build-to-order option)
$999
No more laptop drives, no more single RAM slots. No bullshit. This is a good enough computer to last a few years. Of course have an edu model with only CD rom/DVD rom, no modem. Price it to go at $429 for edu only.
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
Originally posted by THT
You guys are pretty optimistic, unrealistically so. I thought my 1.6 Pentium M prediction was optimistic!
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
I figured that the Core Duo would not go in to the Mini for a while, since it is now in the pro Mac book, and the iMac, but it is fun to think about, and one hopes that Apple will come to do this.
Originally posted by THT
You guys are pretty optimistic, unrealistically so. I thought my 1.6 Pentium M prediction was optimistic!
If the $499 Mac mini is to be updated in 1H 06, it has to be a Celeron-M, which is really just the 1 MB L2 Banias Pentium-M manufactured at 90 nm, or the 2 MB L2 Dothan Pentium-M. Intel can sell these chips for $50 and still make 50% margin on it.
Core Solo chips or Core Duo chips won't be affordable until Merom ships.
I'm betting they won't do this. The name Celeron alone just has too much "crap" baggage associated with it.
All in all, I'm thinking that everything I'm hoping for now--a core duo, core video-compliant, 3.5" HDD and 2 ram slot sporting mini with a BT remote and a power button on the font, with a full-blown video organizer/player/exporter (an iTunes for Video, and not the half-way hack we have now)--will be ready next year. MWSF07. The Intel switch will be complete. Leopard will be out (??). Core Duo chips will be cheap. BVDs (I can't say that with a straight face)/HDDVDs will be out for a while and a bunch of people will have already come up with partial solutions for MMC-ripped video files and player prices will be coming down (thanks to PS3). HDTVs will have even more marketshare, and plasma screen prices will comtinue to plummet. Perpendicular HDD storage will be firmly established and drive sizes will begin climbing again, with falling prices (thanks to MMC induced demand). MPAA will have gotten over its insane fear of people having a portable copy of movies at their disposal. And, remember, a "real" video iPod is supposedly in the works--begging for a real solution for video files with the Apple touch.
This sucks for me. My PMG4 is getting quite long in the tooth (August 2001) and I want something compelling to get me to upgrade to a decked out mini with a nice 23" or 24" lcd. I don't have the budget to afford a tower anymore. The only way I could afford a powermac is if I use my 5G iPod as its screen.
So hopefully, my comp will last another year. Then, hopefully, everything will be in place...
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Here's some specs, maybe more what I want than speculation.
Three models:
Pathetic:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
40 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
Integrated Graphics Chipset
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output
Audio: Analog headphone and audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$499
Low:
Intel Core Solo, 1.66 GHz
512 MB RAM, two SODIMM slots
80 GB Serial ATA HD, 5400 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 64 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot-loading Combo Drive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
$699
High:
Intel Core Duo, 1.66 GHz
1 GB RAM, two SODIMM slots
120 GB Serial ATA HD, 7200 RPM
ATI Radeon X600 Pro with 128 MB DDR SDRAM; PCI-Express
Slot loading 8X Superdrive
Ports: FW400, 2 USB2, DVI/VGA output, S-Video and composite video.
Audio: headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in
Built-in 54 Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet (56K V.92 modem available as build-to-order option)
$999
No more laptop drives, no more single RAM slots. No bullshit. This is a good enough computer to last a few years. Of course have an edu model with only CD rom/DVD rom, no modem. Price it to go at $429 for edu only.
Good specs, except the price, what the difference between iMac and High end model again???
$499
$599
$699
will remain in regardless of what is in them, otherwise the point (for the switchers) of having in Mac mini in the line is useless
$999 is too close to comfort for any PC users with out any expandability... then every one starts to compare with iMac 17"
Originally posted by unemployeed
What do you think the chances are for dual monitor support? Never thought the iMac would get it but it did. . . . .
But the iMac has a built-in monitor. For the mini to have dual monitor support, it'd have to have two DVI jacks on the back. Won't happen.
Originally posted by NordicMan
The Mini has an elegant form, and would be a fetching advertising model, alongside a bigger display. It deserves to be able to be a more powerful Mac, at least as an option. It will not detract from the iMac, which has pretty good value. Right now, you can get an intro BTO Mini(1.25 Mhz) that costs 1050$. Too much for what you get.
you agree with me or $999 mac mini???
i am bit confused here, in my opinion if some can fork out 999 then it will cost them to go all the way to either 17" or 20"
mostly, iMac slashed price once Merom out, that will be June WWDC, not much may be 100 bucks on iMac and 200 on MacBook Pro
Originally posted by shanmugam
you agree with me or $999 mac mini???
i am bit confused here, in my opinion if some can fork out 999 then it will cost them to go all the way to either 17" or 20"
mostly, iMac slashed price once Merom out, that will be June WWDC, not much may be 100 bucks on iMac and 200 on MacBook Pro
Hello. I am not quite sure what you are saying here.
The thing with me is that I liked the Cube, but I never got one. It had fine design, was quiet, compact, and stylish. But having got a PowerMac before, I did not get a Cube.
Now I see a lovely shape, but it seems more directed to being an inexpensive intro Mac, or second Mac, or a switcher's Mac to try out, with the idea that it will serve for a time, and then the switcher will move to another Mac. Well, that is a good thing, it was a good move by Apple. However, there are very valid points raised by people who would like to see a 3.5" sized drive in it. It will not hurt Apple to put bigger drives in the Mini.
Also, there are those who really like the style of the Mini, and would like to have one that is more powerful. It would compete with the iMac, on the lower iMac, anyway. But if someone has a display, and they do not thusly want nor need to buy an iMac, or go all the way to a PowerMac, then a more powerful Mini would be a good option.
Perhaps the market slot is not big enough, or would be better filled with a smaller tower, that more could be done with('headless iMac', as someone put it). These would be money making options for Apple, I should think, but they may not want more models.
I speculate while I may not get all that I want in this little beauty, that Apple will go with a non laptop HD in the Mini. I liked Junkyard Dawg's spec, and Jootec and krzysiek's direction. May Apple please hear the cries.
About the Merom, I am just thinking that the Mac Book is an advance for people who want a more powerful notebook now, but that if things go well, a new (power) Mac Book will come along before too long, with the Merom, in 3/4 year. At that point, I would think the iMac will proceed in quickness, in Apple's good consideration, just as it had a G5, it will move to a more powerful intel cpu. At that time, the Mac Mini is certainly qualified to get a Core Duo. It would be nice to have it now, and for the other intel cpus to be availble for the pro machines. Then the consumer Macs could have the Core Duo now.
Originally posted by unemployeed
What do you think the chances are for dual monitor support? Never thought the iMac would get it but it did. . . . .
Monitor spanning is coming to consumer models becouse of the need for it for Home Entertainment connectivity. It is already built into the video cards that Apple uses, and Apple turns it off using software that can be circumvented. Whether we see it in the next Mac Mini or not is yet to be seen, but it will eventually be part of all of Apple's desktop, and probably their laptop lines.
Originally posted by @homenow
Monitor spanning is coming to consumer models becouse of the need for it for Home Entertainment connectivity. It is already built into the video cards that Apple uses, and Apple turns it off using software that can be circumvented. Whether we see it in the next Mac Mini or not is yet to be seen, but it will eventually be part of all of Apple's desktop, and probably their laptop lines.
Thats what I was figuring. But how would they do it. A video card with two connection ports (ie Powermac) or still one connection just using a 3rd party splitter? Is that even possible?
possible new kinda of mac mini something similar to Cube, (not to replace mac mini, additional machine in between mac mini and Power Mac/iMac)
or
BTO $999, almost powerful as iMac without Monitor...
but the base config remains same $499, $599. $699
$699 can be BTO to headless iMac
this makes more sensible for power users...
3.5"/2.5" SATA 7200 RPM HDD alone will be big booster with hopefully some form of Core Duo/Solo
So Apple can have an economical Mac, and one that has more power, in HD, like the 7200rpm drive, and a core duo, eventually, and for that matter, better graphics. Now you can buy a 9200 with 128 MB vram from OWC, not just the paltry 32MB, and there have been two other graphics solutions mentioned here, ATI x600 and x1300.
There clearly are people who want something like this.
The other kind of thought is the mini tower that people have asked for, but that should be in another thread.
Originally posted by s.metcalf
Knowing Apple, instead of having the (low-end) iMac specs (without a screen) as the mini should be, they will cripple it in some way such as offering only a single-core processor!!!
This whole scanerio amuse me ...
iPods prices cheaper than Creative Zens, look at the success of iPods, they are elegant, works well and not very pricy compared to other MP3 Player...
my guess this is TIME to ride on success on iPod and carry the sales to Macs
i think it is NEW APPLE, we will see better mac mini unless they want to create another Dull little boxes for themeselves and make BIG KEY NOTE about it!