Me too. I personally don't like all-in-ones, but many people do. Discontinuing it, even to replace it with a modular design, would be foolish.
Steve recently said that Apple doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that doesn't suck. Yet they have a $600 computer in the lineup that performs like a $300 PC so they already sell a $500, they just don't want to admit it.
For years I've wondered why the Mac Mini wasn't notebook shaped in the first place. It should have always used the iBook/MacBook logic board for higher performance at lower production cost. It should be a huge money maker for Apple, but it can't be or they'd give it a bit of respect.
I propose two desktops to round out the lineup...
Mac Nano: MacBook without the display, keyboard, battery and expensive one piece aluminum case. $799
Mac Blade: gaming console size desktop case, standard array of ports, FW800, built-in BlueTooth and AirPort, PCIe video card, one empty PCIe slot, quad core processor, 3.5" HD, price = same range as iMac.
They'd have the entire market covered for both all-in-one and modular desktops above $800 and notebooks above $1000.
"You've had the Macintosh for 24 years, and the best you could do is 8% marketshare?"
Because Apple are PINHEADS.
Example, everything in the store is sold at RETAIL when you can save 25-40% elsewhere.
Ram is overpriced.
Macbook 1st GEN COULD NEVER PLAY GAMES but PRO's found out you could run motion and other pro apps.
The OPEN GL for 1st gen MACBOOKS were:
70%
then
140%
then
171% with Leopard.
Then APPL released X300 and the benchmark dropped to 70% making MOTION useless. Why? It couldn't play games anyway so it only affected the PRO user, the user that made Apple who they are and the take a dump on them. To boot, the PRO makes up 1% now and all the CREATIVE classes went from FCP, MOTION, SHAKE to iLife, Safari, iPhoto and email. Duh. Mom and pops trying to do email.
They continue this strategy by releasing NEW MACBOOKS with no firewire. Sure it will run games and for sure, run MOTION and SHAKE, and PHOTOSHOP and APERATURE and MORE, but no FIREWIRE. Musicians are furios (LONG LIVE EFI-X, I hope this takes a big chunk from Apple). FWIW, I know some APPLE sales and GENIUS people and they say the new MACBOOKS are NOT SELLING. Good. Serves Apple right. They used to have commission for their sales people, now they get $10 dollars an hour and know one person who sold 1.3 million last year and you know what he got? A piece of paper saying good job as he works his part time, non insured $10 an hour job.
Apple needs to grow up. Fan boyz need to stop being blind and see that APPLE markets all their hardware in a way that if you really need a feature, you will have to pay for it.
The ironic thing is now the MBPro costs about the same for the MACBOOK yet the profit margins are much higher.
Again, long live EFI-X and I hope this goes on for a long time and machines can be built for fractional cost and do really well. With the help of OSX-86, you can get a laptop that also runs OSX. GOOD.
Until Apple realizes that PROS will own both (if newer machine had firewire) and release machines people want, I am all for the hacks and OSX86. Apple is fickle and am tired of them NOT GIVING THE END USER what they want.
There needs to be a Macbook with all ports, including xpress slot and firewire.
New Macbook Pro's should be differentiated by having quad cores.
New Mac Pro's should be the newer 8 cores x 2 machines and another APPLE GOTCHA is the seating that Apple uses for MAC PRO ram, why? Because if they used normal RAM and not ECC (error correction server ram), you would be able to buy 8/16 GB for 90% less than what Apple charges.
In a way, I can't wait for the end of Jobs at the helm.
You can be sure OSX will be released as an OS for any machine as well as machines that meet everyone's needs and please, spare me the APPLE WON'T DO IT (release the OS for other machines), as I have been right about everything. I said Apple would go x86 years ago, that they had to in order to keep up. Well, Apple is going to need to keep up as iPhones, machine sales are down and will go down and if Apple wants to stay on top, they will have to make tough choices, but choices that everyone wants.
Oh and release a 2.6 mini, firewire, 4GB ram, HDMI, great graphics, DVR (dump apple tv, its a dud just like the air) and get millions of sales.
I agree and it wouldn't take much- just discontinue AppleTV, add it's software to the mini, add an HDMI port and boom - it's a combo of both. I would keep the optical drive though -with an option for blu-ray.
Agreed.
I would like AppleTV to do the following (in order of descending priority):
1: be a programmable hard-disk video recorder for live TV
2: have an on-screen TV guide
3: allow quick switching between TV and wifi internet for during ad breaks
4: a DVD/bluray player
5: act as an airport base station
6: an access point to the iTunes store for music and movies
This is a great signal from Apple. Unusual, but highly welcomed. Finally, I can securely postpone my multiple-MacMini purchases to post-MWSF '09, without fear of any EOL availability issues. Kudos to Apple for stepping forward, and responding to the community which so loves this little box. I expect AppleTV and the mini to remain separate, and differentiated products, just based on the fact that they have the potential to address disparate markets (while still maintaining healthy margins and increasing revenue for both). The hinted server-oriented support (the dual-HDD option) certainly tends to support that argument.
One feature-set comment: Although lack of Firewire wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker (for what would be essentially, a home theater PC for me), an HDMI port sure would be nice for seamless, adapter-less integration with all of my HDMI-input equipped AVRs, and large, flat-panel TVs. I don't expect one, but it sure would be nice.
One feature-set comment: Although lack of Firewire wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker (for what would be essentially, a home theater PC for me), an HDMI port sure would be nice for seamless, adapter-less integration with all of my HDMI-input equipped AVRs, and large, flat-panel TVs. I don't expect one, but it sure would be nice.
just moved my lower powered mini (again) back beside the big TV and the one thing I could do with would be HDMI WITH SOUND, it would be one less cable AND free up and optical slot on my surround amp.
I would hope for HDMI PLUS DVI/mini display port out on any new mini, difficult to say, but either way the new Apple seems to LOVE adaptors.
And how does this upgraded mini with a 30" screen not murder the Mac Pro?
Because that is the question that has kept Apple from offering a headless mid-Mac.
That's going a bit far I think. I highly doubt that a Mini will do anything for people looking to buy a 4-core+ Xeon workstation. It's not as if people who want a better Mini are shelling out nearly 4 times the amount of money right now. They've either built a hackintosh, are suffering out the iMac or are clinging on to older hardware (we're still on G5s and would love to upgrade to Intel towers but not at £1500 each). I would doubt that in any of those instances are they happy with the decisions Apple are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyner
It's all bs. Talk is cheap Apple. Put up or shut up.
I agree. If they would just deliver what people are asking, they wouldn't have to say to people to hang on while they get their act together.
It's understandable if any delays are caused by hardware issues and nothing to update the machines with but they've been pushing it too far. As soon as they have to ask people to hold on it means they're doing something wrong.
The hints of a dual-HDD option suggest, to me at least, that it's less likely Apple will change to 3.5" drives in a redesigned mini. Now they could go with a standard 3.5" HDD plus an optional 2.5" second HDD but that would probably be without precedent in the industry.
Maybe it just makes too much sense but I think Apple would do themselves a favor by adopting the same footprint for the mini as they already have for Time Capsule and Apple TV (7.7 " x 7.7"). Wouldn't this allow for the use of a 3.5" HDD and also provide opportunities for better design synergies/savings between the three products?
The hints of a dual-HDD option suggest, to me at least, that it's less likely Apple will change to 3.5" drives in a redesigned mini. Now they could go with a standard 3.5" HDD plus an optional 2.5" second HDD but that would probably be without precedent in the industry.
Maybe it just makes too much sense but I think Apple would do themselves a favor by adopting the same footprint for the mini as they already have for Time Capsule and Apple TV (7.7 " x 7.7"). Wouldn't this allow for the use of a 3.5" HDD and also provide opportunities for better design synergies/savings between the three products?
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
It would have to be taller, though, which I have no problem with. I think rebirth of the cube would be nice, even adding a single PCIe slot, but that may be asking for too much.
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
Yes, if the new mini is 7.7 x 7.7 that would be fine by me. Eagerly waiting to see what the new mini looks like...alas January it seems.
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
I think 7.7x7.7" would be a great size for the mini. Make it an inch taller, too. That would not only allow enough room for a 3.5" hard drive, but cooling for a desktop-class Core 2 processor.
I think 7.7x7.7" would be a great size for the mini. Make it an inch taller, too. That would not only allow enough room for a 3.5" hard drive, but cooling for a desktop-class Core 2 processor.
I might be mistaken, but I think the desktop-grade Penryn may now be cooler than the CD in the current Mini, and certainly less than the original G4 chips that were in the Mac Mini case. Regradless, I doubt they'd us a desktop-grade CPU in the Mini. I'd like to see a desktop-grade Penryn is the iMac, but I have doubts that Apple will go that route even if it was less expensive, faster and cooler than the previous setup.
I might be mistaken, but I think the desktop-grade Penryn may now be cooler than the CD in the current Mini, and certainly less than the original G4 chips that were in the Mac Mini case. Regradless, I doubt they'd us a desktop-grade CPU in the Mini. I'd like to see a desktop-grade Penryn is the iMac, but I have doubts that Apple will go that route even if it was less expensive, faster and cooler than the previous setup.
From Day One, the mini has used what are essentially the internals from a MacBook though often a cycle out of date. If Apple were to break from that pattern, it's logical that the only thing else they would likely consider would be the internals of the iMac (still a mobile CPU).
I would like AppleTV to do the following (in order of descending priority):
1: be a programmable hard-disk video recorder for live TV
You will have to wait for the cable co to get tur2way or OCAP up and running and also apple will be forced to let the cable co load and run there own software on the apple tv box and I don't know if apple will like that.
Comments
I'm scratching my head over that one...
Me too. I personally don't like all-in-ones, but many people do. Discontinuing it, even to replace it with a modular design, would be foolish.
Steve recently said that Apple doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that doesn't suck. Yet they have a $600 computer in the lineup that performs like a $300 PC so they already sell a $500, they just don't want to admit it.
For years I've wondered why the Mac Mini wasn't notebook shaped in the first place. It should have always used the iBook/MacBook logic board for higher performance at lower production cost. It should be a huge money maker for Apple, but it can't be or they'd give it a bit of respect.
I propose two desktops to round out the lineup...
Mac Nano: MacBook without the display, keyboard, battery and expensive one piece aluminum case. $799
Mac Blade: gaming console size desktop case, standard array of ports, FW800, built-in BlueTooth and AirPort, PCIe video card, one empty PCIe slot, quad core processor, 3.5" HD, price = same range as iMac.
They'd have the entire market covered for both all-in-one and modular desktops above $800 and notebooks above $1000.
Yet no word on Copy and Past, Sync To Do's, Sync Note or PUSH.
I think the Mac Mini can Copy and Past(e), has To Do's, Notes, and I guess the internet equals PUSH. I'm sorry, was this article about the iPhone?
"You've had the Macintosh for 24 years, and the best you could do is 8% marketshare?"
Because Apple are PINHEADS.
Example, everything in the store is sold at RETAIL when you can save 25-40% elsewhere.
Ram is overpriced.
Macbook 1st GEN COULD NEVER PLAY GAMES but PRO's found out you could run motion and other pro apps.
The OPEN GL for 1st gen MACBOOKS were:
70%
then
140%
then
171% with Leopard.
Then APPL released X300 and the benchmark dropped to 70% making MOTION useless. Why? It couldn't play games anyway so it only affected the PRO user, the user that made Apple who they are and the take a dump on them. To boot, the PRO makes up 1% now and all the CREATIVE classes went from FCP, MOTION, SHAKE to iLife, Safari, iPhoto and email. Duh. Mom and pops trying to do email.
They continue this strategy by releasing NEW MACBOOKS with no firewire. Sure it will run games and for sure, run MOTION and SHAKE, and PHOTOSHOP and APERATURE and MORE, but no FIREWIRE. Musicians are furios (LONG LIVE EFI-X, I hope this takes a big chunk from Apple). FWIW, I know some APPLE sales and GENIUS people and they say the new MACBOOKS are NOT SELLING. Good. Serves Apple right. They used to have commission for their sales people, now they get $10 dollars an hour and know one person who sold 1.3 million last year and you know what he got? A piece of paper saying good job as he works his part time, non insured $10 an hour job.
Apple needs to grow up. Fan boyz need to stop being blind and see that APPLE markets all their hardware in a way that if you really need a feature, you will have to pay for it.
The ironic thing is now the MBPro costs about the same for the MACBOOK yet the profit margins are much higher.
Again, long live EFI-X and I hope this goes on for a long time and machines can be built for fractional cost and do really well. With the help of OSX-86, you can get a laptop that also runs OSX. GOOD.
Until Apple realizes that PROS will own both (if newer machine had firewire) and release machines people want, I am all for the hacks and OSX86. Apple is fickle and am tired of them NOT GIVING THE END USER what they want.
There needs to be a Macbook with all ports, including xpress slot and firewire.
New Macbook Pro's should be differentiated by having quad cores.
New Mac Pro's should be the newer 8 cores x 2 machines and another APPLE GOTCHA is the seating that Apple uses for MAC PRO ram, why? Because if they used normal RAM and not ECC (error correction server ram), you would be able to buy 8/16 GB for 90% less than what Apple charges.
In a way, I can't wait for the end of Jobs at the helm.
You can be sure OSX will be released as an OS for any machine as well as machines that meet everyone's needs and please, spare me the APPLE WON'T DO IT (release the OS for other machines), as I have been right about everything. I said Apple would go x86 years ago, that they had to in order to keep up. Well, Apple is going to need to keep up as iPhones, machine sales are down and will go down and if Apple wants to stay on top, they will have to make tough choices, but choices that everyone wants.
Oh and release a 2.6 mini, firewire, 4GB ram, HDMI, great graphics, DVR (dump apple tv, its a dud just like the air) and get millions of sales.
Whatever happens, it'll be too little too late.
I agree and it wouldn't take much- just discontinue AppleTV, add it's software to the mini, add an HDMI port and boom - it's a combo of both. I would keep the optical drive though -with an option for blu-ray.
Agreed.
I would like AppleTV to do the following (in order of descending priority):
1: be a programmable hard-disk video recorder for live TV
2: have an on-screen TV guide
3: allow quick switching between TV and wifi internet for during ad breaks
4: a DVD/bluray player
5: act as an airport base station
6: an access point to the iTunes store for music and movies
One feature-set comment: Although lack of Firewire wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker (for what would be essentially, a home theater PC for me), an HDMI port sure would be nice for seamless, adapter-less integration with all of my HDMI-input equipped AVRs, and large, flat-panel TVs. I don't expect one, but it sure would be nice.
One feature-set comment: Although lack of Firewire wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker (for what would be essentially, a home theater PC for me), an HDMI port sure would be nice for seamless, adapter-less integration with all of my HDMI-input equipped AVRs, and large, flat-panel TVs. I don't expect one, but it sure would be nice.
just moved my lower powered mini (again) back beside the big TV and the one thing I could do with would be HDMI WITH SOUND, it would be one less cable AND free up and optical slot on my surround amp.
I would hope for HDMI PLUS DVI/mini display port out on any new mini, difficult to say, but either way the new Apple seems to LOVE adaptors.
And how does this upgraded mini with a 30" screen not murder the Mac Pro?
Because that is the question that has kept Apple from offering a headless mid-Mac.
That's going a bit far I think. I highly doubt that a Mini will do anything for people looking to buy a 4-core+ Xeon workstation. It's not as if people who want a better Mini are shelling out nearly 4 times the amount of money right now. They've either built a hackintosh, are suffering out the iMac or are clinging on to older hardware (we're still on G5s and would love to upgrade to Intel towers but not at £1500 each). I would doubt that in any of those instances are they happy with the decisions Apple are making.
It's all bs. Talk is cheap Apple. Put up or shut up.
I agree. If they would just deliver what people are asking, they wouldn't have to say to people to hang on while they get their act together.
It's understandable if any delays are caused by hardware issues and nothing to update the machines with but they've been pushing it too far. As soon as they have to ask people to hold on it means they're doing something wrong.
Maybe it just makes too much sense but I think Apple would do themselves a favor by adopting the same footprint for the mini as they already have for Time Capsule and Apple TV (7.7 " x 7.7"). Wouldn't this allow for the use of a 3.5" HDD and also provide opportunities for better design synergies/savings between the three products?
The hints of a dual-HDD option suggest, to me at least, that it's less likely Apple will change to 3.5" drives in a redesigned mini. Now they could go with a standard 3.5" HDD plus an optional 2.5" second HDD but that would probably be without precedent in the industry.
Maybe it just makes too much sense but I think Apple would do themselves a favor by adopting the same footprint for the mini as they already have for Time Capsule and Apple TV (7.7 " x 7.7"). Wouldn't this allow for the use of a 3.5" HDD and also provide opportunities for better design synergies/savings between the three products?
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
It would have to be taller, though, which I have no problem with. I think rebirth of the cube would be nice, even adding a single PCIe slot, but that may be asking for too much.
The current mini footprint is already large enough for a 3.5" drive (many companies make external 3.5" drives designed to stack with the mini) and it also already matches the footprint of the Airport Extreme base station. I have a "mini-tower" consisting of two HDs, a mini, and Airport base station. This is one of the reasons I don't see a big need for an "xMac". Just stack the components you want. (OK, you couldn't add a 2nd video card, but pretty much else.)
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
Yes, if the new mini is 7.7 x 7.7 that would be fine by me. Eagerly waiting to see what the new mini looks like...alas January it seems.
I think there's been a strong consensus here that a 6.5" x 6.5" footprint is not large enough for a computer that uses a 3.5" HDD even if there are drive enclosures of that size. My personal view is that stacking a Time Capsule on top of a mini is more useful than putting an Airport Base Station on top. That takes care of your need for a stackable drive and WiFi router in one stroke.
Also, I don't recall people saying that a 6.5" x 6.5" computer is fine while a 7.7" x 7.7" computer is "too big".
I think 7.7x7.7" would be a great size for the mini. Make it an inch taller, too. That would not only allow enough room for a 3.5" hard drive, but cooling for a desktop-class Core 2 processor.
I think 7.7x7.7" would be a great size for the mini. Make it an inch taller, too. That would not only allow enough room for a 3.5" hard drive, but cooling for a desktop-class Core 2 processor.
I might be mistaken, but I think the desktop-grade Penryn may now be cooler than the CD in the current Mini, and certainly less than the original G4 chips that were in the Mac Mini case. Regradless, I doubt they'd us a desktop-grade CPU in the Mini. I'd like to see a desktop-grade Penryn is the iMac, but I have doubts that Apple will go that route even if it was less expensive, faster and cooler than the previous setup.
I might be mistaken, but I think the desktop-grade Penryn may now be cooler than the CD in the current Mini, and certainly less than the original G4 chips that were in the Mac Mini case. Regradless, I doubt they'd us a desktop-grade CPU in the Mini. I'd like to see a desktop-grade Penryn is the iMac, but I have doubts that Apple will go that route even if it was less expensive, faster and cooler than the previous setup.
From Day One, the mini has used what are essentially the internals from a MacBook though often a cycle out of date. If Apple were to break from that pattern, it's logical that the only thing else they would likely consider would be the internals of the iMac (still a mobile CPU).
Agreed.
I would like AppleTV to do the following (in order of descending priority):
1: be a programmable hard-disk video recorder for live TV
You will have to wait for the cable co to get tur2way or OCAP up and running and also apple will be forced to let the cable co load and run there own software on the apple tv box and I don't know if apple will like that.