But not everybody wants that...many want to just use the monitor they already have and not pay for a second one.
Also, people want to be able to mount the monitor one place (something only the expensive 24" iMac can do) and put the computer elsewhere (or completely away for kiosk applications). They also want to be able to use better quaility monitors and/or HDTVs, sometimes connected to multiple devices, and not have to throw them away every couple of years because the built-in computer is out of date.
Nice to see the base model get dual cores, but I still want to see it drop back down to $499.
Disappointment on the high end, that's barely an improvement at all. Doesn't compare well with the iMac or Macbook.
Yeah, you are right. A $499.00 price point would be ideal for enticing 'switchers' to the Mac camp. The current price point for the Mini is high in my opinion (at least for people that are curious to buy a Mac).
Yeah, you are right. A $499.00 price point would be ideal for enticing 'switchers' to the Mac camp. The current price point for the Mini is high in my opinion (at least for people that are curious to buy a Mac).
I agree. There are some price points that are psychologically useful to hit. If Apple didn't offer their $499 model initially, I probably would not have given the Mac platform a chance. That mini is long gone, but it might be replaced later with a refurbished one. I've bought an iMac (since sold), and a PowerMac.
I'm a switcher. Well, maybe not completely, however, I purchased my first Mac today. I've been looking at the Mac Mini ever since it was introduced but kept holding off for some reason. I was extremely eager to buy when the Intel chips were introduced but I was not impressed by the Core Solo model and I couldn't justify spending the money for a Core Duo model at the time. I told myself I would wait until the base model was a Core Duo and that's what I did.
I think that $875.85 (after upgrades, tax, etc) is pretty pricey considering you don't get a monitor but I knew what I was getting into. My mini will essentially be a glorified DVD & MP3 player for my rather small living room. I already own a 23" Philips LCD TV and Philips micro audio system so I think the mini will be the perfect complement. I look forward to using Front Row with the Apple Remote and setting up my news, weather, and traffic camera widgets ;-)
23" Philips LCD TV
1.66 Core Duo Mini
1GB DDR SDRAM
80GB HD
Combo Drive
Bluetooth Keyboard & Mighty Mouse
PS: Steve, if you're reading this, it would be cool if it could be shipped before 09.12.06 :-P
It's pricey but it would have been a lot less if you were a desktop user. The mouse and keyboard added a hundred bucks to the price, so not including that it's a pretty fair price.
It sounds like a nice setup though, when you've got it all post in that thread everyone is putting their setups into.
I'm really pleased about this. I don't mind the GMA so much now that I've seen how the Core Duo chips make up for it as well as enough Ram.
I agree that the Minis are overpriced compared to the iMac though. For just £150 on the price of the Mini, you get a screen thrown in and Core 2 Duo chips.
Nonetheless, I think a 1.66Duo w 1GB Ram for £450 is good value unlike the £600 it was so I will be getting one.
I suppose I could leave my monitor on with a white image for a few years
I'd still try what Apple says and set up a white image as your screensaver for a while (and change the timing so it will come on more frequently if possible).
The LCDs don't really "burn", there really isn't any heat involved in the process. The liquid crystals just get stuck more or less in one state or another.
As far as the mini goes, I guess I'm going to either wait for a real processor update, a significant drop in price, or for Leopard to come out. Just not enough here yet to justify an upgrade from my G4.
As far as the mini goes, I guess I'm going to either wait for a real processor update, a significant drop in price, or for Leopard to come out. Just not enough here yet to justify an upgrade from my G4.
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
Why does the mini look so expansive in comparison to the iMac? I can get a 20'' iMac for ? 1,500.-; 20'' LCD, 2GHz Core 2 duo; 250 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, keyboard, mouse, 128MB dedicated graphics card.
For a outspeced mini I have to pay ? 1,972.-; 20''ADC, 1,83 GHz Core duo, 160 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, GMA 950, keyboard, mouse
The difference between these 2 systems is almost a second mini (bare bones)
I want to use it for 1 year and then retire it to the living room for video and music, but that's why can't use the built in screen with the iMac.
I'm feeling like getting ripped off, because I don't want a built in screen!
I have to be honest, this minimal update leaves me wondering if they're looking to kill off the mini.
The Mac mini is perfect for those of us with tons of peripherals, screens, keyboards, mice up the wazoo and other stuff, but wanted to get into the new Intel thing on the cheap side. I have mine inside and under my G4^3.
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
True, but that's part of my problem with it too. The dual-core 1.66 and 1.83 CPU just barely can play full screen HD content. Apple still recommends "2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo" for 1080p playback (Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback). I was really counting on a serious speed bump on the high-end along with Core 2 Duo to make sure the mini can handle 1080p plus whatever Leopard throws at it. It's so close, but not there yet, which is what has me disappointed. There's no reason why Apple shouldn't keep the mini CPU on par with the iMac.
The dual-core 1.66 and 1.83 CPU just barely can play full screen HD content. Apple still recommends "2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo" for 1080p playback (Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback). I was really counting on a serious speed bump on the high-end along with Core 2 Duo to make sure the mini can handle 1080p plus whatever Leopard throws at it. It's so close, but not there yet, which is what has me disappointed. There's no reason why Apple shouldn't keep the mini CPU on par with the iMac.
In many ways I agree. I still do think that the Mini is overpriced because direct comparisons in spec with the X1600 iMacs and above show that the iMac is a good bit cheaper and still has a good dedicated GPU on top (which certainly helps driving larger displays), with Core 2 Duo and much bigger hard drives.
I think that may have something to do with design. The iMacs are perhaps easier to build. I saw one opened and it looks a lot easier to drop parts into place. Also, I'm guessing maybe the fact the iMac has a standard PSU and not an external one like the iMac will be cheaper too.
However, I've seen a brand new Intel Imac and I have to say, I think the display looks horrible. The quality to me is very bad and nowhere near good enough for professional color work. So I would never get an all-in-one for that reason alone.
I've said all along that Apple should aim to get the mini as close to an iMac without a display as possible even if that meant a case redesign.
Nonetheless, I think the mini is still a capable machine and on the low end, I consider getting a 1.66 dual-core Mini for £399 pretty good value for money. As for HD playback, I think it'll be ok. I played 1080p stuff on a dual 1.83 Macbook and it was only using 50% of each processor. It dropped frames when I tried two streams but one stream was pretty smooth.
I'm not so bothered about HD anyway because I don't think it'll take off for quite a while yet. Encoders/decoders still need serious optimization and we still need the drives to come down a lot in price.
Comments
But not everybody wants that...many want to just use the monitor they already have and not pay for a second one.
Also, people want to be able to mount the monitor one place (something only the expensive 24" iMac can do) and put the computer elsewhere (or completely away for kiosk applications). They also want to be able to use better quaility monitors and/or HDTVs, sometimes connected to multiple devices, and not have to throw them away every couple of years because the built-in computer is out of date.
But not everybody wants that...many want to just use the monitor they already have and not pay for a second one.
Has anyone had an LCD last more than a few years? Mine's all burnt in, it's terrible.
Has anyone had an LCD last more than a few years? Mine's all burnt in, it's terrible.
Avoiding image persistence on Apple LCD displays
Nice to see the base model get dual cores, but I still want to see it drop back down to $499.
Disappointment on the high end, that's barely an improvement at all. Doesn't compare well with the iMac or Macbook.
Yeah, you are right. A $499.00 price point would be ideal for enticing 'switchers' to the Mac camp. The current price point for the Mini is high in my opinion (at least for people that are curious to buy a Mac).
Yeah, you are right. A $499.00 price point would be ideal for enticing 'switchers' to the Mac camp. The current price point for the Mini is high in my opinion (at least for people that are curious to buy a Mac).
I agree. There are some price points that are psychologically useful to hit. If Apple didn't offer their $499 model initially, I probably would not have given the Mac platform a chance. That mini is long gone, but it might be replaced later with a refurbished one. I've bought an iMac (since sold), and a PowerMac.
I think that $875.85 (after upgrades, tax, etc) is pretty pricey considering you don't get a monitor but I knew what I was getting into. My mini will essentially be a glorified DVD & MP3 player for my rather small living room. I already own a 23" Philips LCD TV and Philips micro audio system so I think the mini will be the perfect complement. I look forward to using Front Row with the Apple Remote and setting up my news, weather, and traffic camera widgets ;-)
23" Philips LCD TV
1.66 Core Duo Mini
1GB DDR SDRAM
80GB HD
Combo Drive
Bluetooth Keyboard & Mighty Mouse
PS: Steve, if you're reading this, it would be cool if it could be shipped before 09.12.06 :-P
It sounds like a nice setup though, when you've got it all post in that thread everyone is putting their setups into.
I agree that the Minis are overpriced compared to the iMac though. For just £150 on the price of the Mini, you get a screen thrown in and Core 2 Duo chips.
Nonetheless, I think a 1.66Duo w 1GB Ram for £450 is good value unlike the £600 it was so I will be getting one.
Avoiding image persistence on Apple LCD displays
What if that persistent image is a menubar?
I suppose I could leave my monitor on with a white image for a few years
What if that persistent image is a menubar?
I suppose I could leave my monitor on with a white image for a few years
I'd still try what Apple says and set up a white image as your screensaver for a while (and change the timing so it will come on more frequently if possible).
The LCDs don't really "burn", there really isn't any heat involved in the process. The liquid crystals just get stuck more or less in one state or another.
As far as the mini goes, I guess I'm going to either wait for a real processor update, a significant drop in price, or for Leopard to come out. Just not enough here yet to justify an upgrade from my G4.
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
You just have to make sure to get enough Ram.
For a outspeced mini I have to pay ? 1,972.-; 20''ADC, 1,83 GHz Core duo, 160 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, GMA 950, keyboard, mouse
The difference between these 2 systems is almost a second mini (bare bones)
I want to use it for 1 year and then retire it to the living room for video and music, but that's why can't use the built in screen with the iMac.
I'm feeling like getting ripped off, because I don't want a built in screen!
I have to be honest, this minimal update leaves me wondering if they're looking to kill off the mini.
The Mac mini is perfect for those of us with tons of peripherals, screens, keyboards, mice up the wazoo and other stuff, but wanted to get into the new Intel thing on the cheap side. I have mine inside and under my G4^3.
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
You just have to make sure to get enough Ram.
you have it right Marvin
Are you kidding? You can get a dual-core 1.66 Intel for less than I paid for my 1.25 G4 Mini a year ago - although that came with a superdrive, which I won't be getting this time round. The Intel processors are much faster than the G4s. You're talking about a 500% increase in performance for some threaded apps. Cinebench, which is one of the best benchmarks shows that the core-duo Mini is up to 5x faster than the G4.
You can watch HD trailers for one thing and having two processors is a big bonus. I even played Quake 4 on low settings on a Macbook (dual 1.83 I think) with 1.25GB Ram and it was actually playable IMO. A Mini Duo won't be far off that. Now that is more than a powerbook 1.5GHz with dedicated 64MB Geforce 5200 go can do.
True, but that's part of my problem with it too. The dual-core 1.66 and 1.83 CPU just barely can play full screen HD content. Apple still recommends "2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo" for 1080p playback (Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback). I was really counting on a serious speed bump on the high-end along with Core 2 Duo to make sure the mini can handle 1080p plus whatever Leopard throws at it. It's so close, but not there yet, which is what has me disappointed. There's no reason why Apple shouldn't keep the mini CPU on par with the iMac.
The dual-core 1.66 and 1.83 CPU just barely can play full screen HD content. Apple still recommends "2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo" for 1080p playback (Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback). I was really counting on a serious speed bump on the high-end along with Core 2 Duo to make sure the mini can handle 1080p plus whatever Leopard throws at it. It's so close, but not there yet, which is what has me disappointed. There's no reason why Apple shouldn't keep the mini CPU on par with the iMac.
In many ways I agree. I still do think that the Mini is overpriced because direct comparisons in spec with the X1600 iMacs and above show that the iMac is a good bit cheaper and still has a good dedicated GPU on top (which certainly helps driving larger displays), with Core 2 Duo and much bigger hard drives.
I think that may have something to do with design. The iMacs are perhaps easier to build. I saw one opened and it looks a lot easier to drop parts into place. Also, I'm guessing maybe the fact the iMac has a standard PSU and not an external one like the iMac will be cheaper too.
However, I've seen a brand new Intel Imac and I have to say, I think the display looks horrible. The quality to me is very bad and nowhere near good enough for professional color work. So I would never get an all-in-one for that reason alone.
I've said all along that Apple should aim to get the mini as close to an iMac without a display as possible even if that meant a case redesign.
Nonetheless, I think the mini is still a capable machine and on the low end, I consider getting a 1.66 dual-core Mini for £399 pretty good value for money. As for HD playback, I think it'll be ok. I played 1080p stuff on a dual 1.83 Macbook and it was only using 50% of each processor. It dropped frames when I tried two streams but one stream was pretty smooth.
I'm not so bothered about HD anyway because I don't think it'll take off for quite a while yet. Encoders/decoders still need serious optimization and we still need the drives to come down a lot in price.
They didn't do much huh? Still plan to upgrade mine with faster processor and what not, the Core solo is a dog.