Yeah, but even so, his point was a good one. Pairof9's lame "God told me to hate gays" shtick (if you go back and read through it, you'll see) deserved deflating.
Oh dear god... excuse me while I sulk off into a dark corner and place a dunce cap on my head. This is just one of the many reasons why you proof-read your comments, kids.
Oh dear god... excuse me while I sulk off into a dark corner and place a dunce cap on my head. This is just one of the many reasons why you proof-read your comments, kids.
Now that one or more of the Almighty's have been invoked, could an administrator come in here please and close this thread and put us all out of our misery....???
Until about six months ago, my former roommate and I used his first generation G4 Mac Mini as a home theater server. Overall, it worked very well, but if I were to reproduce that system, I would use a MacBook instead of the Mini. Upgrading a Super Drive equipped Mini to the same memory and HDD specs* as the low end Super Drive equipped MacBook brings the price of the Mini to within $325 of the MacBook. What does the consumer get for that $325?
First and foremost, the MacBook comes with an LCD screen. This is a very big deal for any use other than video. NTSC televisions, still used by many people who are likely concerned with the price point, does not have sufficient screen resolution to allow the user to easily read text. As a work around, we used Apple Remote Desktop from our laptops, which worked very well. However, not every potential Mini owner is going to have an extra computer, or the knowledge to implement ARD.
The MacBook comes with a newer generation, faster processor. It has been my experience that when dealing with video on a computer, a faster processor with more RAM is most always superior to a slower processor with less RAM.
The MacBook comes with a keyboard and mouse. While these aren't absolutely necessary when accessing a Mini via ARD, they are definitely creature features worth having. Wireless is better, but neither system comes standard with a wireless keyboard and mouse.
The MacBook does not require a separate UPS, as the battery already serves this function. While the laptop battery won't keep the big screen HDTV up and running, it will allow the user to finish that OS update, or just properly shut down.
The Mac Book comes with iSight built in. While this is not necessary fore a home theater, it is a feature that would likely come in handy, especially if used in conjunction with software like ARD.
The Mini does win the form factor category. The Mac Book has 60 percent more volume than the Mini. However, adding a screen and/or a keyboard and mouse to the Mini mitigates its advantage here.
While the Mac Mini is an effective media server solution, in my experience it is not an optimal solution. At the end of the day, it is a crippled, low end laptop, without the features that make laptops so useful. I do like the Mini, but I think Apple offers better solutions for the needs of most customers, even switchers on a budget.
-JC
* To be fair, anything over 40-60 GB of HDD space is overkill for the Mini (or any other computer) in a media server application, since it is not practical to store a complete library of music or movies internally. With the exception of the Mac Pro, no Mac is upgradeable to enough internal HDD space. One TB of external storage space is a good starting point, but even that will fill up faster than one might expect. Three or even five terabytes would be much better. Still, most users won't initially have a large storage solution set up, and 120 GB is better than 80 GB.
I haven't had a chance to read through other posts on this topic so if I repeat something somebody else has posted, I apologize.
At any rate, it seems to me that Jobs has long been facinated by the idea of a very small form factor and with a couple of developments on the horizon that could render the most surprising reduction in the size of Apple's entry level system, I find it hard to believe that Jobs would abandon this market segment.
After all, the mac mini is son of Cube. And I think we're not too far away from seeing a successor to the mini that will see a reduction in size by the elimination of an optical drive and the replacement of hard drives with solid-state system memory.
As it sits right now, I have three external hard drives and two optical drives attached to my first-gen Mac mini. I think the potential is there for a mini that is half the size of the existing machine and that would serve as a cpu only with external devices handling all the other tasks. Such a computer, freed from the extra cost and production complexity of including a hard drive and optical drive could check in at a very low cost. Imagine, if you will, a mac super mini checking in at $449 in the U.S. and $549 here in Canada. In my case, being as I already use external devices that do optical drive and extra memory, buying a new Mac would be very inexpensive. I can't be the only consumer out there already with such external devices. Flash internal memory in the 40 to 60 gig range would certainly be more than enough if an external drive was being used to store files.
Grandson of the Cube could turn out to be the coolest Mac yet and even if there was a lull, as was the case between the Cube and the Mini, the wait would be worthwhile.
As it sits right now, I have three external hard drives and two optical drives attached to my first-gen Mac mini. I think the potential is there for a mini that is half the size of the existing machine and that would serve as a cpu only with external devices handling all the other tasks. Such a computer, freed from the extra cost and production complexity of including a hard drive and optical drive could check in at a very low cost. Imagine, if you will, a mac super mini checking in at $449 in the U.S. and $549 here in Canada. In my case, being as I already use external devices that do optical drive and extra memory, buying a new Mac would be very inexpensive. I can't be the only consumer out there already with such external devices. Flash internal memory in the 40 to 60 gig range would certainly be more than enough if an external drive was being used to store files.
I like your idea but wouldn't 40GB of flash memory cost much more than 60-80GB on a hard disk?
I like your idea but wouldn't 40GB of flash memory cost much more than 60-80GB on a hard disk?
At the moment that is the case and it's probably why Apple hasn't brought such a super mini to market already.
But within a year, flash memory will drop in price to the point where a low-cost Son of Mini form factor will be viable. What makes this all possible is that such drives will be phased in for laptops and as such affordability will happen, even if the mini disappears for a short while. The technology is being developed for another very common form factor. That's the beauty of developing a desktop that uses laptop technology.
Of course, Apple could, at any time, eliminate the optical drive from the mini and reduce the cost and size but that would be a half step and Apple under Jobs' guidance is a company that likes to do things rather dramatically.
By the way, on the point of removing the optical drive, not only are external optical drives much more common these days, their cost has dropped so much that here in Canada it's roughly $150 to get a USB2 drive that is the equivalent of a super drive. To buy a mac mini upgraded with a superdrive, you need to upgrade to the higher cost mini which retails here for $899 compared to the base mini with a combo drive (and a slower processor) at $679. Even if in the Canadian market a base mini dropped in price to $599 in exchange for the removal of the optical drive, that's a good trade-off. A $599 mini + USB2 "Superdrive" would check in at $749 and, provided the slower processor was fast enough, that would be better than opting for the existing superdrive mini. Apple could afford the change because not only would they no longer have the cost of the drive itself, production costs would be reduced in that a step is eliminated. And the mini would get even smaller as well as offering Apple more form-factor flexibility.
Come to think of it, maybe the time is right for a mini without the optical drive. Hey, Apple, how about it?
I'm not sure that a flash-based Mini is viable by mid 08. A current 32G SSD costs about $350, and that's primarily the cost of the already mass-produced flash chips, not the assembly. A 4GB SD costs about 30E, 8 of those is 240E. There's a little room for mass-production to lower prices, but not all that much. The price of the flash chips will drop precipitately, but by mid-08 even a puny 16G SSD will still cost more in quantity than the smallest available laptop HD, of around 80-120G by that point.
Now, if they decide the cost is worth it, that's something else, but it won't be a cost-saving measure, and a 16 or even 32G SSD will put off a lot of people because it can't even store your itunes collection.
Optical driveless, though.. quite possibly. Hell, they've fabbed the case already, just relabel the @TV. Especially for markets like offices etc, you don't even *want* a local optical drive in every desktop. If they put a pair of expander-supporting eSATA ports on the back and dropped firewire, that would definitely work.
Carmissimo, I don't really understand why you want what you want.
A "mini tower" that has room inside it for a full-size optical drive, full-size HDD and built-in PSU would:
1.) Take up the same or less room than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
2.) Be much cheaper than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
3.) Be just as cheap, if not cheaper, to upgrade to the latest optical drive or HDD.
4.) Have lower running costs than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD. (your solution requires three separate PSUs, each with their own losses. One PSU supplying all components in one machine has lower losses and is therefore cheaper to run.)
Surely a mini-tower Mac is the better way to go? What advantages does your solution offer?
Carmissimo, I don't really understand why you want what you want.
A "mini tower" that has room inside it for a full-size optical drive, full-size HDD and built-in PSU would:
1.) Take up the same or less room than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
2.) Be much cheaper than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
3.) Be just as cheap, if not cheaper, to upgrade to the latest optical drive or HDD.
4.) Have lower running costs than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD. (your solution requires three separate PSUs, each with their own losses. One PSU supplying all components in one machine has lower losses and is therefore cheaper to run.)
Surely a mini-tower Mac is the better way to go? What advantages does your solution offer?
For someone who has to build a system from scratch, there is probably little advantage. But in my case, for example, I already have three external HDs and two external DVD burners (one is very old and on its death bed). Such a stripped-down mini as I'm proposing would in fact be very inexpensive for me to switch to. I'm working on the assumption that I'm not alone. Being as external hard drives and DVD burners are so inexpensive, I suspect they're already in a lot of people's homes, just as they are in mine. And once I do switch to a High-Def burner of some description, it seems to me that as long as a high-speed interface able to handle all that data is part of the mix, it would mean I could upgrade to High-Def without replacing the entire computer or winding up paying for a superdrive in a mini and then having to buy an external High-Def drive anyway.
The advantage to my suggestion is flexibility in that instead of having to change the cpu to upgrade other bits and pieces, I can simply change the external burner or hard drive, for that matter. As it stands, I'm running my OS off of a firewire 7,200 RPM drive, so the hard drive in the mini is itself just used for some extra storage. When the external drive goes down, I could choose to replace it without the hassle of taking the mini, which is not really user upgradable, in to have the drive replaced, or worse, have to throw the mini out and buy a whole new system. Either way, a new external drive would likely be cheaper and easier to replace.
I will eventually replace the mini. I know that it's just not going to cut it when I end up with a fully High-Def set-up. But I like the idea of a minimalist box containing basicaly the cpu and little else because it allows me to retain that cpu for as long as its useful without being tied down to an optical drive or memory technology that has become outdated to an even greater degree than the cpu. Basically a consumer could expand as far as they need to and upgrade components as needed without being tied down to the limitations of a given form factor.
Right now I have a mini that is the hub for a system that includes more than 500 gigs of storage and a DVD burner. Even a mini minus an optical drive and, for that matter, an intenal hard drive would allow me to do what I'm already doing and without having to go out and purchase additional components.
I could even imagine Apple doing this while hedging their bets by leaving the existing mini in the line-up and adding a new super mini that would be a cpu minus the traditional hard drive and optical drive. Such a device would work beautifully in a lot of settings where compact size would be crucial and external optical drives and hard drives were already in the mix, making it redundant to place them in the super mini (I'm sure Apple could come up with something more clever to call it). Basically the current mini would be convenient for those who basically just need a machine to do the Internet and send off the occasional e-mail. The super mini, on the other hand, would be an interesting product whose time, I believe, is soon at hand.
Of course this is rampant speculation on my part and it's based on a biased view that takes into account the needs of a single customer, namely myself. But on the other hand . . .
I'm not sure that a flash-based Mini is viable by mid 08. A current 32G SSD costs about $350, and that's primarily the cost of the already mass-produced flash chips, not the assembly. A 4GB SD costs about 30E, 8 of those is 240E. There's a little room for mass-production to lower prices, but not all that much. The price of the flash chips will drop precipitately, but by mid-08 even a puny 16G SSD will still cost more in quantity than the smallest available laptop HD, of around 80-120G by that point.
Now, if they decide the cost is worth it, that's something else, but it won't be a cost-saving measure, and a 16 or even 32G SSD will put off a lot of people because it can't even store your itunes collection.
Optical driveless, though.. quite possibly. Hell, they've fabbed the case already, just relabel the @TV. Especially for markets like offices etc, you don't even *want* a local optical drive in every desktop. If they put a pair of expander-supporting eSATA ports on the back and dropped firewire, that would definitely work.
Don't forget that most USB flash drives cost so little for a good reason. They usually use very slow, cheap, memory. Many still use 4x memory. That's only 600 KBs. Faster memory costs correspondingly more. If you price the cost of 100x and up flash cards, you will find them to be much more expensive.
Don't forget that most USB flash drives cost so little for a good reason. They usually use very slow, cheap, memory. Many still use 4x memory. That's only 600 KBs. Faster memory costs correspondingly more. If you price the cost of 100x and up flash cards, you will find them to be much more expensive.
But the price is dropping and there is no reason why the price drop is going to subside any time soon. At some point in the not-too-distant future, putting 30-40 gig flash memory into laptops and desktops will be economically viable.
Clearly it's not happening right now but it's equally clear that it is going to happen. If not in 2008 then certainly by the end of the year after. Being as we're in the middle of 2007, even the end of 2009 isn't that far away,
But the price is dropping and there is no reason why the price drop is going to subside any time soon. At some point in the not-too-distant future, putting 30-40 gig flash memory into laptops and desktops will be economically viable.
Clearly it's not happening right now but it's equally clear that it is going to happen. If not in 2008 then certainly by the end of the year after. Being as we're in the middle of 2007, even the end of 2009 isn't that far away,
Prices are dropping. And sometime in 2008, they will drop enough for it to be a viable alternative for some.
Biut, no matter how you look at it, these drives aren't faster than Hd's are, except for access times. The price will always be more than for Hd's, until sometime in the future when a physical drive reaches some limitation that makers can't work their eay around.
But, right now, there is a 1.8" 100 GB drive out. It doesn't use much more current than a flash drive would use for the same size, and is cheaper by a factor of 20
2.5" drives are now at the 300 GB size, and are even cheaper per GB than the 1.8" drives, and are considerably faster.
I think that it will take three years for flash drives to become cheap, and large enough to be even fairly close to competitive, in an equal setting. By close, I mean perhaps twice as expensive, and up to 64 GB at a low enough price so that a large enough number of people will choose it rather than a cheaper, larger Hd solution.
Prices are dropping. And sometime in 2008, they will drop enough for it to be a viable alternative for some.
Biut, no matter how you look at it, these drives aren't faster than Hd's are, except for access times. The price will always be more than for Hd's, until sometime in the future when a physical drive reaches some limitation that makers can't work their eay around.
But, right now, there is a 1.8" 100 GB drive out. It doesn't use much more current than a flash drive would use for the same size, and is cheaper by a factor of 20
2.5" drives are now at the 300 GB size, and are even cheaper per GB than the 1.8" drives, and are considerably faster.
I think that it will take three years for flash drives to become cheap, and large enough to be even fairly close to competitive, in an equal setting. By close, I mean perhaps twice as expensive, and up to 64 GB at a low enough price so that a large enough number of people will choose it rather than a cheaper, larger Hd solution.
I think long before flash drives will replace hard drives for the larger capacities, they will replace them in the lower ranges that will still be substantial enough for a computer to run off of. Something in the 30-60 gig range is enough to run an OS and today's software, with a little storage room as well. I think external drives for storing larger chunks of data are becoming increasingly common and storage discs have become so inexpensive that it is practical to store a lot of data on them, as well.
A basic computer including a flash drive of around 50 gigs would certainly be adequete as the foundation for a desktop set-up able to do quite a lot. In addition, external drives with substantial storage could continue to be part of the equation.
In short, for a long time I think flash and hard-drive tchnology might well co-exist and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think long before flash drives will replace hard drives for the larger capacities, they will replace them in the lower ranges that will still be substantial enough for a computer to run off of. Something in the 30-60 gig range is enough to run an OS and today's software, with a little storage room as well. I think external drives for storing larger chunks of data are becoming increasingly common and storage discs have become so inexpensive that it is practical to store a lot of data on them, as well.
A basic computer including a flash drive of around 50 gigs would certainly be adequete as the foundation for a desktop set-up able to do quite a lot. In addition, external drives with substantial storage could continue to be part of the equation.
In short, for a long time I think flash and hard-drive tchnology might well co-exist and there is nothing wrong with that.
But, people don't want smaller drives. They want bigger drives. And then, after that, they want bigger drives.
32 Gb drives will only be considered by people (except under unusual circumstances) when buying UMPC's, or other machines of that ilk, like, perhaps a 2 pound, or lighter, 11', or smaller screen model.
But, people don't want smaller drives. They want bigger drives. And then, after that, they want bigger drives.
32 Gb drives will only be considered by people (except under unusual circumstances) when buying UMPC's, or other machines of that ilk, like, perhaps a 2 pound, or lighter, 11', or smaller screen model.
Especially Mac users who typically work with video, audio or photos. You need big drives for that stuff.
Marvin had given a good picture of the Mini in an earlier thread. Unfortunately, the Mini is being discontinued.
In case the Mini wasn't replaced with something better, I planned to upgrade my G4 tower. However, I was convinced by you guys that even if I put a lot of $ into the G4, it would still not be as good as a Mini. Then I planned to look for a Mini at MacMall, etc.
I just received the July 2007 issue of MacWorld. Neither MacMall nor MacConnection had the Mini in their lineup. Ouch.
Has anyone been in an Apple Store lately? Are the stores still selling them?
If the Mini is not replaced and I can't find one at one of the MacOutlets, I think I'll slit my wrists. APPLE, MY BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS. Will my choice be between an AIO that I don't want and a Mac Pro I can't afford?
In case the Mini wasn't replaced with something better, I had planned to look for a Mini at MacMall, etc.
I just received the July 2007 issue of MacWorld. Neither MacMall or MacConnection had the Mini in their lineup. Ouch.
Has anyone been in an Apple Store lately? Are the stores still selling them?
The Knoxville TN allegedly had two left when we bought our second one last Thursday after the AI announcement. They couldn't answer when they were getting more.
Comments
Ah, the irony. It's "acquainted".
Yeah, but even so, his point was a good one. Pairof9's lame "God told me to hate gays" shtick (if you go back and read through it, you'll see) deserved deflating.
.
Ah, the irony. It's "acquainted".
Now that one or more of the Almighty's have been invoked, could an administrator come in here please and close this thread and put us all out of our misery....???
First and foremost, the MacBook comes with an LCD screen. This is a very big deal for any use other than video. NTSC televisions, still used by many people who are likely concerned with the price point, does not have sufficient screen resolution to allow the user to easily read text. As a work around, we used Apple Remote Desktop from our laptops, which worked very well. However, not every potential Mini owner is going to have an extra computer, or the knowledge to implement ARD.
The MacBook comes with a newer generation, faster processor. It has been my experience that when dealing with video on a computer, a faster processor with more RAM is most always superior to a slower processor with less RAM.
The MacBook comes with a keyboard and mouse. While these aren't absolutely necessary when accessing a Mini via ARD, they are definitely creature features worth having. Wireless is better, but neither system comes standard with a wireless keyboard and mouse.
The MacBook does not require a separate UPS, as the battery already serves this function. While the laptop battery won't keep the big screen HDTV up and running, it will allow the user to finish that OS update, or just properly shut down.
The Mac Book comes with iSight built in. While this is not necessary fore a home theater, it is a feature that would likely come in handy, especially if used in conjunction with software like ARD.
The Mini does win the form factor category. The Mac Book has 60 percent more volume than the Mini. However, adding a screen and/or a keyboard and mouse to the Mini mitigates its advantage here.
While the Mac Mini is an effective media server solution, in my experience it is not an optimal solution. At the end of the day, it is a crippled, low end laptop, without the features that make laptops so useful. I do like the Mini, but I think Apple offers better solutions for the needs of most customers, even switchers on a budget.
-JC
* To be fair, anything over 40-60 GB of HDD space is overkill for the Mini (or any other computer) in a media server application, since it is not practical to store a complete library of music or movies internally. With the exception of the Mac Pro, no Mac is upgradeable to enough internal HDD space. One TB of external storage space is a good starting point, but even that will fill up faster than one might expect. Three or even five terabytes would be much better. Still, most users won't initially have a large storage solution set up, and 120 GB is better than 80 GB.
Add a third party box like my NewerTech miniStack with TWO bays.
The external box could have one hard drive and one optical drive.
(Two optical drives are slick for duplicating.)
At any rate, it seems to me that Jobs has long been facinated by the idea of a very small form factor and with a couple of developments on the horizon that could render the most surprising reduction in the size of Apple's entry level system, I find it hard to believe that Jobs would abandon this market segment.
After all, the mac mini is son of Cube. And I think we're not too far away from seeing a successor to the mini that will see a reduction in size by the elimination of an optical drive and the replacement of hard drives with solid-state system memory.
As it sits right now, I have three external hard drives and two optical drives attached to my first-gen Mac mini. I think the potential is there for a mini that is half the size of the existing machine and that would serve as a cpu only with external devices handling all the other tasks. Such a computer, freed from the extra cost and production complexity of including a hard drive and optical drive could check in at a very low cost. Imagine, if you will, a mac super mini checking in at $449 in the U.S. and $549 here in Canada. In my case, being as I already use external devices that do optical drive and extra memory, buying a new Mac would be very inexpensive. I can't be the only consumer out there already with such external devices. Flash internal memory in the 40 to 60 gig range would certainly be more than enough if an external drive was being used to store files.
Grandson of the Cube could turn out to be the coolest Mac yet and even if there was a lull, as was the case between the Cube and the Mini, the wait would be worthwhile.
As it sits right now, I have three external hard drives and two optical drives attached to my first-gen Mac mini. I think the potential is there for a mini that is half the size of the existing machine and that would serve as a cpu only with external devices handling all the other tasks. Such a computer, freed from the extra cost and production complexity of including a hard drive and optical drive could check in at a very low cost. Imagine, if you will, a mac super mini checking in at $449 in the U.S. and $549 here in Canada. In my case, being as I already use external devices that do optical drive and extra memory, buying a new Mac would be very inexpensive. I can't be the only consumer out there already with such external devices. Flash internal memory in the 40 to 60 gig range would certainly be more than enough if an external drive was being used to store files.
I like your idea but wouldn't 40GB of flash memory cost much more than 60-80GB on a hard disk?
I like your idea but wouldn't 40GB of flash memory cost much more than 60-80GB on a hard disk?
At the moment that is the case and it's probably why Apple hasn't brought such a super mini to market already.
But within a year, flash memory will drop in price to the point where a low-cost Son of Mini form factor will be viable. What makes this all possible is that such drives will be phased in for laptops and as such affordability will happen, even if the mini disappears for a short while. The technology is being developed for another very common form factor. That's the beauty of developing a desktop that uses laptop technology.
Of course, Apple could, at any time, eliminate the optical drive from the mini and reduce the cost and size but that would be a half step and Apple under Jobs' guidance is a company that likes to do things rather dramatically.
By the way, on the point of removing the optical drive, not only are external optical drives much more common these days, their cost has dropped so much that here in Canada it's roughly $150 to get a USB2 drive that is the equivalent of a super drive. To buy a mac mini upgraded with a superdrive, you need to upgrade to the higher cost mini which retails here for $899 compared to the base mini with a combo drive (and a slower processor) at $679. Even if in the Canadian market a base mini dropped in price to $599 in exchange for the removal of the optical drive, that's a good trade-off. A $599 mini + USB2 "Superdrive" would check in at $749 and, provided the slower processor was fast enough, that would be better than opting for the existing superdrive mini. Apple could afford the change because not only would they no longer have the cost of the drive itself, production costs would be reduced in that a step is eliminated. And the mini would get even smaller as well as offering Apple more form-factor flexibility.
Come to think of it, maybe the time is right for a mini without the optical drive. Hey, Apple, how about it?
Now, if they decide the cost is worth it, that's something else, but it won't be a cost-saving measure, and a 16 or even 32G SSD will put off a lot of people because it can't even store your itunes collection.
Optical driveless, though.. quite possibly. Hell, they've fabbed the case already, just relabel the @TV. Especially for markets like offices etc, you don't even *want* a local optical drive in every desktop. If they put a pair of expander-supporting eSATA ports on the back and dropped firewire, that would definitely work.
A "mini tower" that has room inside it for a full-size optical drive, full-size HDD and built-in PSU would:
1.) Take up the same or less room than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
2.) Be much cheaper than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
3.) Be just as cheap, if not cheaper, to upgrade to the latest optical drive or HDD.
4.) Have lower running costs than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD. (your solution requires three separate PSUs, each with their own losses. One PSU supplying all components in one machine has lower losses and is therefore cheaper to run.)
Surely a mini-tower Mac is the better way to go? What advantages does your solution offer?
Carmissimo, I don't really understand why you want what you want.
A "mini tower" that has room inside it for a full-size optical drive, full-size HDD and built-in PSU would:
1.) Take up the same or less room than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
2.) Be much cheaper than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD.
3.) Be just as cheap, if not cheaper, to upgrade to the latest optical drive or HDD.
4.) Have lower running costs than Ultra-Mini flash-based Mac + external optical drive + external HDD. (your solution requires three separate PSUs, each with their own losses. One PSU supplying all components in one machine has lower losses and is therefore cheaper to run.)
Surely a mini-tower Mac is the better way to go? What advantages does your solution offer?
For someone who has to build a system from scratch, there is probably little advantage. But in my case, for example, I already have three external HDs and two external DVD burners (one is very old and on its death bed). Such a stripped-down mini as I'm proposing would in fact be very inexpensive for me to switch to. I'm working on the assumption that I'm not alone. Being as external hard drives and DVD burners are so inexpensive, I suspect they're already in a lot of people's homes, just as they are in mine. And once I do switch to a High-Def burner of some description, it seems to me that as long as a high-speed interface able to handle all that data is part of the mix, it would mean I could upgrade to High-Def without replacing the entire computer or winding up paying for a superdrive in a mini and then having to buy an external High-Def drive anyway.
The advantage to my suggestion is flexibility in that instead of having to change the cpu to upgrade other bits and pieces, I can simply change the external burner or hard drive, for that matter. As it stands, I'm running my OS off of a firewire 7,200 RPM drive, so the hard drive in the mini is itself just used for some extra storage. When the external drive goes down, I could choose to replace it without the hassle of taking the mini, which is not really user upgradable, in to have the drive replaced, or worse, have to throw the mini out and buy a whole new system. Either way, a new external drive would likely be cheaper and easier to replace.
I will eventually replace the mini. I know that it's just not going to cut it when I end up with a fully High-Def set-up. But I like the idea of a minimalist box containing basicaly the cpu and little else because it allows me to retain that cpu for as long as its useful without being tied down to an optical drive or memory technology that has become outdated to an even greater degree than the cpu. Basically a consumer could expand as far as they need to and upgrade components as needed without being tied down to the limitations of a given form factor.
Right now I have a mini that is the hub for a system that includes more than 500 gigs of storage and a DVD burner. Even a mini minus an optical drive and, for that matter, an intenal hard drive would allow me to do what I'm already doing and without having to go out and purchase additional components.
I could even imagine Apple doing this while hedging their bets by leaving the existing mini in the line-up and adding a new super mini that would be a cpu minus the traditional hard drive and optical drive. Such a device would work beautifully in a lot of settings where compact size would be crucial and external optical drives and hard drives were already in the mix, making it redundant to place them in the super mini (I'm sure Apple could come up with something more clever to call it). Basically the current mini would be convenient for those who basically just need a machine to do the Internet and send off the occasional e-mail. The super mini, on the other hand, would be an interesting product whose time, I believe, is soon at hand.
Of course this is rampant speculation on my part and it's based on a biased view that takes into account the needs of a single customer, namely myself. But on the other hand . . .
I'm not sure that a flash-based Mini is viable by mid 08. A current 32G SSD costs about $350, and that's primarily the cost of the already mass-produced flash chips, not the assembly. A 4GB SD costs about 30E, 8 of those is 240E. There's a little room for mass-production to lower prices, but not all that much. The price of the flash chips will drop precipitately, but by mid-08 even a puny 16G SSD will still cost more in quantity than the smallest available laptop HD, of around 80-120G by that point.
Now, if they decide the cost is worth it, that's something else, but it won't be a cost-saving measure, and a 16 or even 32G SSD will put off a lot of people because it can't even store your itunes collection.
Optical driveless, though.. quite possibly. Hell, they've fabbed the case already, just relabel the @TV. Especially for markets like offices etc, you don't even *want* a local optical drive in every desktop. If they put a pair of expander-supporting eSATA ports on the back and dropped firewire, that would definitely work.
Don't forget that most USB flash drives cost so little for a good reason. They usually use very slow, cheap, memory. Many still use 4x memory. That's only 600 KBs. Faster memory costs correspondingly more. If you price the cost of 100x and up flash cards, you will find them to be much more expensive.
Don't forget that most USB flash drives cost so little for a good reason. They usually use very slow, cheap, memory. Many still use 4x memory. That's only 600 KBs. Faster memory costs correspondingly more. If you price the cost of 100x and up flash cards, you will find them to be much more expensive.
But the price is dropping and there is no reason why the price drop is going to subside any time soon. At some point in the not-too-distant future, putting 30-40 gig flash memory into laptops and desktops will be economically viable.
Clearly it's not happening right now but it's equally clear that it is going to happen. If not in 2008 then certainly by the end of the year after. Being as we're in the middle of 2007, even the end of 2009 isn't that far away,
But the price is dropping and there is no reason why the price drop is going to subside any time soon. At some point in the not-too-distant future, putting 30-40 gig flash memory into laptops and desktops will be economically viable.
Clearly it's not happening right now but it's equally clear that it is going to happen. If not in 2008 then certainly by the end of the year after. Being as we're in the middle of 2007, even the end of 2009 isn't that far away,
Prices are dropping. And sometime in 2008, they will drop enough for it to be a viable alternative for some.
Biut, no matter how you look at it, these drives aren't faster than Hd's are, except for access times. The price will always be more than for Hd's, until sometime in the future when a physical drive reaches some limitation that makers can't work their eay around.
But, right now, there is a 1.8" 100 GB drive out. It doesn't use much more current than a flash drive would use for the same size, and is cheaper by a factor of 20
2.5" drives are now at the 300 GB size, and are even cheaper per GB than the 1.8" drives, and are considerably faster.
I think that it will take three years for flash drives to become cheap, and large enough to be even fairly close to competitive, in an equal setting. By close, I mean perhaps twice as expensive, and up to 64 GB at a low enough price so that a large enough number of people will choose it rather than a cheaper, larger Hd solution.
Prices are dropping. And sometime in 2008, they will drop enough for it to be a viable alternative for some.
Biut, no matter how you look at it, these drives aren't faster than Hd's are, except for access times. The price will always be more than for Hd's, until sometime in the future when a physical drive reaches some limitation that makers can't work their eay around.
But, right now, there is a 1.8" 100 GB drive out. It doesn't use much more current than a flash drive would use for the same size, and is cheaper by a factor of 20
2.5" drives are now at the 300 GB size, and are even cheaper per GB than the 1.8" drives, and are considerably faster.
I think that it will take three years for flash drives to become cheap, and large enough to be even fairly close to competitive, in an equal setting. By close, I mean perhaps twice as expensive, and up to 64 GB at a low enough price so that a large enough number of people will choose it rather than a cheaper, larger Hd solution.
I think long before flash drives will replace hard drives for the larger capacities, they will replace them in the lower ranges that will still be substantial enough for a computer to run off of. Something in the 30-60 gig range is enough to run an OS and today's software, with a little storage room as well. I think external drives for storing larger chunks of data are becoming increasingly common and storage discs have become so inexpensive that it is practical to store a lot of data on them, as well.
A basic computer including a flash drive of around 50 gigs would certainly be adequete as the foundation for a desktop set-up able to do quite a lot. In addition, external drives with substantial storage could continue to be part of the equation.
In short, for a long time I think flash and hard-drive tchnology might well co-exist and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think long before flash drives will replace hard drives for the larger capacities, they will replace them in the lower ranges that will still be substantial enough for a computer to run off of. Something in the 30-60 gig range is enough to run an OS and today's software, with a little storage room as well. I think external drives for storing larger chunks of data are becoming increasingly common and storage discs have become so inexpensive that it is practical to store a lot of data on them, as well.
A basic computer including a flash drive of around 50 gigs would certainly be adequete as the foundation for a desktop set-up able to do quite a lot. In addition, external drives with substantial storage could continue to be part of the equation.
In short, for a long time I think flash and hard-drive tchnology might well co-exist and there is nothing wrong with that.
But, people don't want smaller drives. They want bigger drives. And then, after that, they want bigger drives.
32 Gb drives will only be considered by people (except under unusual circumstances) when buying UMPC's, or other machines of that ilk, like, perhaps a 2 pound, or lighter, 11', or smaller screen model.
But, people don't want smaller drives. They want bigger drives. And then, after that, they want bigger drives.
32 Gb drives will only be considered by people (except under unusual circumstances) when buying UMPC's, or other machines of that ilk, like, perhaps a 2 pound, or lighter, 11', or smaller screen model.
Especially Mac users who typically work with video, audio or photos. You need big drives for that stuff.
In case the Mini wasn't replaced with something better, I planned to upgrade my G4 tower. However, I was convinced by you guys that even if I put a lot of $ into the G4, it would still not be as good as a Mini. Then I planned to look for a Mini at MacMall, etc.
I just received the July 2007 issue of MacWorld. Neither MacMall nor MacConnection had the Mini in their lineup. Ouch.
Has anyone been in an Apple Store lately? Are the stores still selling them?
If the Mini is not replaced and I can't find one at one of the MacOutlets, I think I'll slit my wrists. APPLE, MY BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS. Will my choice be between an AIO that I don't want and a Mac Pro I can't afford?
Any words of encouragement? Anyone?
I just received the July 2007 issue of MacWorld. Neither MacMall or MacConnection had the Mini in their lineup. Ouch.
Huh? I see four models at MacConnection and two at MacMall, all in stock.
In case the Mini wasn't replaced with something better, I had planned to look for a Mini at MacMall, etc.
I just received the July 2007 issue of MacWorld. Neither MacMall or MacConnection had the Mini in their lineup. Ouch.
Has anyone been in an Apple Store lately? Are the stores still selling them?
The Knoxville TN allegedly had two left when we bought our second one last Thursday after the AI announcement. They couldn't answer when they were getting more.