Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini

12325272829

Comments

  • Reply 481 of 575
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If you're properly editing, you should be sitting in the dark, or at least a dim, environment.



    That might be a nice environment for photo/video editing. It's not good for a programmer. You need lots of light to keep your eyes open and prevent eyestrain whilst concentrating on text. Xerox didn't choose black text on white without reason.
  • Reply 482 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    That might be a nice environment for photo/video editing. It's not good for a programmer. You need lots of light to keep your eyes open and prevent eyestrain whilst concentrating on text. Xerox didn't choose black text on white without reason.



    As I said, that's a good environment for editing.



    You did read the rest of the post, right?
  • Reply 483 of 575
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You did read the rest of the post, right?



    I did. Just didn't requote everything. I'd rather not change my environment much. I'm happy with it after many years of finding what works for me. I don't know what Mac I'm having next though. This iMac G5 is hanging on. Might be a Mini next if not a MacBook Pro as none of the other machines do it for me with their shiny screens or they're just overkill (MacPro) or pointless (MacBook Air).
  • Reply 484 of 575
    trobertstroberts Posts: 702member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I don't think it matters. The Mini is like a guy being dragged at the back of vehicle. In pain and torn to shreds, barely any life left. People shout from the crowd just put it out of its misery. But the dragging continues. Which is worse, killing it or endlessly punishing it?



    I think we will see the Mac mini get updated with Santa Rosa and Penryn in one fell swoop. Apple has tried to put some distance between the Mac mini, MacBook and MacBook Pro, but they are not able to do that anymore with Intel pushing Penryn and trying to phase out Merom and Santa Rosa when Montevina gets released.



    The Mac mini went 11 months without an update and only got a Core 2 Duo, just 3 months before the MacBook got Santa Rosa, which was 5 months after the MacBook Pro got Santa Rosa. The MacBook Pro got updated with Penryn as expected, but low and behold, the MacBook also got Penryn and the Multi-Touch trackpad. We did not see a hardware refresh last week because of the SDK event but I think we will see the iMac and Mac mini this Tuesday. The portables were updated together so why not the desktops?
  • Reply 485 of 575
    The mini has historically been a little obsolete compared to other Apple models. It had the slowest G4, it had Core Duo when everything else was Core 2, it still has the older GMA950 IGP.



    It wouldn't surprise me if Apple updated the mini but stuck with Merom-core processors. The chips are cheaper, more readily available, and good enough for the mini.
  • Reply 486 of 575
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    It wouldn't surprise me if Apple updated the mini but stuck with Merom-core processors. The chips are cheaper, more readily available, and good enough for the mini.



    Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
  • Reply 487 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.



    I wish I knew the actual sales numbers, and what numbers Apple considers viable. Until then, all anyone can do is guess. Eventually, the Mini will go the way of all lines, and AI will be able to say they were right (as will some who post here).
  • Reply 488 of 575
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.



    By "18 months", you meant "9 months", of course.
  • Reply 489 of 575
    I use to have an Mac Mini and I loved it, it's great for a seperate computer. They shouldn't do anything to it though
  • Reply 490 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TravisReynolds View Post


    They shouldn't do anything to it though



    Meaning what?
  • Reply 491 of 575
    They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.
  • Reply 492 of 575
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.



    Intel is going to continue manufacturing and selling those processors for at least another 12 months.
  • Reply 493 of 575
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    I setup an AppleTV at my parents and am forced to use wireless. It works fine for sync or stream, but sometimes it can take a while for a sync to latch on... if I could use the nice clear/unused coax cable I have next to it I would.



    I think it would be FAB if they started building Ethernet-over-mains into products like Apple TV. Imagine - no more cables but it would be capable of both WiFi and Ethernet protocols.
  • Reply 494 of 575
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    The mini has historically been a little obsolete compared to other Apple models. It had the slowest G4, it had Core Duo when everything else was Core 2, it still has the older GMA950 IGP.



    Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
  • Reply 495 of 575
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?



    It depends on your point of view.



    The Mac Mini is still more modern than many PCs you can buy and it's quite a bargain given it's small form.



    For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.
  • Reply 496 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?



    They aren't obsolete specs. That would be if they continued to use PPC chips. They are somewhat slower, and use integrated graphics, as most PC's still do.
  • Reply 497 of 575
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post


    They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.



    An xMac, eh? I figured as much.



    Not enough profit margin at $599.

    If more expensive, people would just buy the iMac instead.



    I have yet to hear what the average customer would use PCI slots for. Even with the original Macintosh II, 95% of the buyers only had the single video card (that came with the computer) in there.
  • Reply 498 of 575
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.



    I guess it's a double-edged sword, there are some people who would like a low-spec cheaper version, but Apple might not want to be seen to be selling low spec stuff.



    How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.
  • Reply 499 of 575
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    An xMac, eh? I figured as much.



    Not enough profit margin at $599.



    Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.



    As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.
  • Reply 500 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.



    As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.



    It's not that simple. Apple isn't producing PC clones running OS X, and they never will.



    If Apple did produce an xMac, it would still cost more. I'd love them to produce one that started, in a basic form, at $899.



    No matter what, I can't see it going lower than that. Apple will not use a standard, cheap case. It will be something custom that will always look better, and cost more. They will also offer their keyboards and mice, which would be part of the package, unlike with the Mini, and that will raise the costs, which is why it's NOT with the Mini.



    People seem to be forgetting that as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.