This is referenced a number of times on their site, in writing and (obviously) pictures, some with their laptops in lid-closed mode.
But that is no different from the docking station I had ten years ago with my first ever laptop. Most PC manufactures sold docking stations that you just slid your laptop into, a single connection and boom you had access to external monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc.. all through one connection. That was never heralded as the end of the desktop PC, it was always just a great way of not having to spend the money on two computers.
The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock.
Unlike the 13 inch unibody MacBook, the unibody MacBook Pro has the Kensington security slot on the side with the optical drive. Apple could very well have put the security slot on the left side of the MacBook just so they would have an excuse to say that there was no room for a Firewire 800 connector.
Well, the real killer will be if they announce a huge price drop on Mac Mini. Like bring them back to that $500 margin. Lately it's been nothing but price increases among the whole Mac line...
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
Mmm, that's nice for BMW, a car company. Not exactly analogous to Apple, a computer company.
But aren't Apple defenders always the ones using BMW and Mercedes analogies in response to complaints about Apple's prices and market share? You like making those comparisons then, but not now?
Mini DP is allot less gangly then DVI, can support higher resolutions and also supports daisy chaining.
Except that Apple's own monitor doesn't seem to support daisy chaining. And it is unknown whether Apple's graphics cards will support daisy chaining of DisplayPort monitors at all. It is also unknown whether the Mini DisplayPort output on Apple's Macs can support audio. So while the DisplayPort standard can support a lot of features, it seems that Apple has chosen to support only the absolute minimum level of functionality, just so they can claim that they are using DisplayPort.
Jeez people. Mini-DVI + Mini-DP is a great thing if it happens. Ever hear of something called dual monitors? It would mean a mini that could drive either a 30" ACD or 2x24" monitors. I'd love a dual monitor setup for my mini.
Look at the back of your mini. Put a FW800 where the FW400 goes and there's no bleeding room for a full sized DVI port AND a Mini-DP port unless you want to get rid of "non-essential" items like the vents.
The only "bad" thing about Mini-DVI is that it implies that the footprint of the mini doesn't change much. Meaning same notebook drive, etc. Okay, and a need for a little adapter since no one appears to make a mini-DVI to DVI cable.
Perhaps, it would be only the Sl-DVI adapter. The mDP-to-SLDVI is $29 and the mDP-to-DLDVI is $99. But I think Apple's current position not to include adapters and their move to DP monitors means that the adapters will be an additional cost.
An HDMI port would be nice on a MacMini given the potential for this being a media hub ... unless Apple have another such beast on the way. I have an AppleTV and it is great but I only stream from a MacPro since all my HD movies would fill the ATV in no time.
I'm thrilled that apple is going to keep firewire on the mini. Two laptop hard drives don't make a mini server. 2 or more external desktop hard drives in enclosures, thats how you make a server.
If you are serious, then I certinly hope you do not work with in the technology field, because there is one word to describe any computer person who suggests that kind of setup as a "server": that word is fired!
If you are serious, then I certinly hope you do not work with in the technology field, because there is one word to describe any computer person who suggests that kind of setup as a "server": that word is fired!
Exactly. Servers need redundancy; redundant power supplies, redundant storage, redundant network ports. The mini has none of those. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with using a mini as a desktop server or part of a cluster, but Apple won't market it like that and if you are doing this in the enterprise, you are using the wrong tool here.
But that is no different from the docking station I had ten years ago with my first ever laptop. Most PC manufactures sold docking stations that you just slid your laptop into, a single connection and boom you had access to external monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc.. all through one connection. That was never heralded as the end of the desktop PC, it was always just a great way of not having to spend the money on two computers.
That was a docking station. Nobody had to proclaim "and this is teh beginning of teh end for desktops!!" for it to be true, but obviously docking stations aren't why people are turning to laptops over desktops in ever greater proportions. You yourself listed some reasons why in response to my original post.
I'll concede that perhaps I should have said the industry is overwhelmingly moving towards laptops, as the entire industry is a bit of a stretch considering business, which upgrades their existing systems before they'll consider buying new ones, whether they be desktops or laptops. Even though that's really the only major hold-out and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, it shouldn't not be counted.
I'd say it doesn't make sense for the 15" mbp to have a removable battery, but not the 17". It probably has something to do with structural rigidity for the larger macbook, but maybe there's an additional benefit.
I'm wondering if this means that the 17" might be styled not like the 15", but rather like a very large Air. One advantage of this is that the Air has no glass in front of the screen, so a 17" "Air" could, in theory, have a non-glossy option.
The machine would also be large without looking massive. It could also be 16:9. I think it's too early (too costly), for an OLED display though, except as an option.
Basically I'm saying the 17" might not be just a larger 15". In one way or another it could be a unique model. This would better explain the delay between introductions than some possible manufacturing issues.
Well, yeah. It kind of does. See you turn one port into another. Granted you loose access to a port but...
What he was pointing out was that the unibody MacBooks don't have ANY FireWire ports. Not FW400, not FW800. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. So an adapter in that case isn't a solution.
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
No, no, no.
I listened to the call where he made that statement and he was replying to a question about notebooks. He clearly meant a $500 notebook.
Besides, the Mini was never a $500 computer; you need to buy a keyboard, mouse, monitor and so on. A mini with a decent monitor, keyboard, etc. was closer to $900 than $500. You are misusing Steve's statement, taking it out of context, in two different ways.
Unlike the 13 inch unibody MacBook, the unibody MacBook Pro has the Kensington security slot on the side with the optical drive. Apple could very well have put the security slot on the left side of the MacBook just so they would have an excuse to say that there was no room for a Firewire 800 connector.
That's where the 15" MacBook Pro's Kensington security slot has always been. That's where it is on my nearly 4 year old 15" PowerBook G4.
Furthermore, the security slot isn't part of the motherboard, so it wouldn't impact internal space.
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
Steve (or Phil or Jonathon or ???) could simply say that they didn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk until, BOOM!, now.
Its as much about authoring the dialog as it is about controlling the message.
Steve (or Phil or Jonathon or ???) could simply say that they didn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk until, BOOM!, now.
Its as much about authoring the dialog as it is about controlling the message.
User Alonso Perez correctly noted (above) that the "$500 junk" statement has been taken out of its original context, which was notebooks, referencing netbooks.
They need to do something as they look really terrible vs PCs now. I saw this deal quite recently:
Stylish Quad core 2.4GHz mid-tower, 2GB Ram, 320GB HDD, Nvidia 7050, DVDRW with 19" display, keyboard and mouse £529.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don't think the comparison you make is very direct. Both the Mini and iMac use notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat. This increases cost while reducing performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheTomato
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'm not sure I understand your resentment. It sounds like you are blaming Apple for purposely not building a machine a certain way because you want it. Apple is business, their "own reasons" are to make money, plain and simple.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
This is why fanboys are infuriating. I don't think this is that hard. For better or worse, the Mini is the one product Apple has to offer in the budget desktop market. So then, many potential mini buyers shop the mini against budget desktop PCs instead of against Small Form Factor (SFF) PCs. Insisting this comparison is perforce invalid because Apple decided to use higher cost and lower performance components is a non-sequitur.
To be certain, against other SFF PCs, the mini is less overpriced and underpowered. However I have not seen any data that the budget and switcher markets desire a SFF over a minitower form factor. Apple is still run by mortals. In this case I think they are making a mistake.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
The argument you have is that Apple's doesn't make the elusive xMac to suit your specific needs. Outside of that there is no debate because comparing a machine with laptop-grade part to a machine with desktop-grade parts just to say that the Mini is woefully overpriced is inane because you are not comparing components accurately. It's like comparing desktops with a 2.4GHz Celeron to a 2.4GHz i7 and then saying that the i&'s desktops is overpriced because it's not the same price as the Celeron based machine. Same thing goes with many other components and accesories, especially monitors. The less knowledgeable will compare the screen size without ever considering any other aspects of the display.
Comments
Well, yeah, but an adapter doesn't create a port where one doesn't exist.
Well, yeah. It kind of does. See you turn one port into another. Granted you loose access to a port but...
Well, yeah. It kind of does. See you turn one port into another. Granted you loose access to a port but...
obviously that's what he meant, and why adaptors are not an ideal way to deal with many situations.
Laptops are the desktops of tomorrow. Apple realizes this, which is why they advertise the new Cinema Display as follows:
An LED display that turns your notebook into a desktop[...]
http://www.apple.com/displays/features.html
This is referenced a number of times on their site, in writing and (obviously) pictures, some with their laptops in lid-closed mode.
But that is no different from the docking station I had ten years ago with my first ever laptop. Most PC manufactures sold docking stations that you just slid your laptop into, a single connection and boom you had access to external monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc.. all through one connection. That was never heralded as the end of the desktop PC, it was always just a great way of not having to spend the money on two computers.
The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock.
Unlike the 13 inch unibody MacBook, the unibody MacBook Pro has the Kensington security slot on the side with the optical drive. Apple could very well have put the security slot on the left side of the MacBook just so they would have an excuse to say that there was no room for a Firewire 800 connector.
Well, the real killer will be if they announce a huge price drop on Mac Mini. Like bring them back to that $500 margin. Lately it's been nothing but price increases among the whole Mac line...
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
Mmm, that's nice for BMW, a car company. Not exactly analogous to Apple, a computer company.
But aren't Apple defenders always the ones using BMW and Mercedes analogies in response to complaints about Apple's prices and market share? You like making those comparisons then, but not now?
Mini DP is allot less gangly then DVI, can support higher resolutions and also supports daisy chaining.
Except that Apple's own monitor doesn't seem to support daisy chaining. And it is unknown whether Apple's graphics cards will support daisy chaining of DisplayPort monitors at all. It is also unknown whether the Mini DisplayPort output on Apple's Macs can support audio. So while the DisplayPort standard can support a lot of features, it seems that Apple has chosen to support only the absolute minimum level of functionality, just so they can claim that they are using DisplayPort.
Look at the back of your mini. Put a FW800 where the FW400 goes and there's no bleeding room for a full sized DVI port AND a Mini-DP port unless you want to get rid of "non-essential" items like the vents.
The only "bad" thing about Mini-DVI is that it implies that the footprint of the mini doesn't change much. Meaning same notebook drive, etc. Okay, and a need for a little adapter since no one appears to make a mini-DVI to DVI cable.
Perhaps, it would be only the Sl-DVI adapter. The mDP-to-SLDVI is $29 and the mDP-to-DLDVI is $99. But I think Apple's current position not to include adapters and their move to DP monitors means that the adapters will be an additional cost.
An HDMI port would be nice on a MacMini given the potential for this being a media hub ... unless Apple have another such beast on the way. I have an AppleTV and it is great but I only stream from a MacPro since all my HD movies would fill the ATV in no time.
I'm thrilled that apple is going to keep firewire on the mini. Two laptop hard drives don't make a mini server. 2 or more external desktop hard drives in enclosures, thats how you make a server.
If you are serious, then I certinly hope you do not work with in the technology field, because there is one word to describe any computer person who suggests that kind of setup as a "server": that word is fired!
If you are serious, then I certinly hope you do not work with in the technology field, because there is one word to describe any computer person who suggests that kind of setup as a "server": that word is fired!
Exactly. Servers need redundancy; redundant power supplies, redundant storage, redundant network ports. The mini has none of those. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with using a mini as a desktop server or part of a cluster, but Apple won't market it like that and if you are doing this in the enterprise, you are using the wrong tool here.
But that is no different from the docking station I had ten years ago with my first ever laptop. Most PC manufactures sold docking stations that you just slid your laptop into, a single connection and boom you had access to external monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc.. all through one connection. That was never heralded as the end of the desktop PC, it was always just a great way of not having to spend the money on two computers.
That was a docking station. Nobody had to proclaim "and this is teh beginning of teh end for desktops!!" for it to be true, but obviously docking stations aren't why people are turning to laptops over desktops in ever greater proportions. You yourself listed some reasons why in response to my original post.
I'll concede that perhaps I should have said the industry is overwhelmingly moving towards laptops, as the entire industry is a bit of a stretch considering business, which upgrades their existing systems before they'll consider buying new ones, whether they be desktops or laptops. Even though that's really the only major hold-out and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, it shouldn't not be counted.
I'd say it doesn't make sense for the 15" mbp to have a removable battery, but not the 17". It probably has something to do with structural rigidity for the larger macbook, but maybe there's an additional benefit.
I'm wondering if this means that the 17" might be styled not like the 15", but rather like a very large Air. One advantage of this is that the Air has no glass in front of the screen, so a 17" "Air" could, in theory, have a non-glossy option.
The machine would also be large without looking massive. It could also be 16:9. I think it's too early (too costly), for an OLED display though, except as an option.
Basically I'm saying the 17" might not be just a larger 15". In one way or another it could be a unique model. This would better explain the delay between introductions than some possible manufacturing issues.
We'll see.
Well, yeah. It kind of does. See you turn one port into another. Granted you loose access to a port but...
What he was pointing out was that the unibody MacBooks don't have ANY FireWire ports. Not FW400, not FW800. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. So an adapter in that case isn't a solution.
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
No, no, no.
I listened to the call where he made that statement and he was replying to a question about notebooks. He clearly meant a $500 notebook.
Besides, the Mini was never a $500 computer; you need to buy a keyboard, mouse, monitor and so on. A mini with a decent monitor, keyboard, etc. was closer to $900 than $500. You are misusing Steve's statement, taking it out of context, in two different ways.
Unlike the 13 inch unibody MacBook, the unibody MacBook Pro has the Kensington security slot on the side with the optical drive. Apple could very well have put the security slot on the left side of the MacBook just so they would have an excuse to say that there was no room for a Firewire 800 connector.
That's where the 15" MacBook Pro's Kensington security slot has always been. That's where it is on my nearly 4 year old 15" PowerBook G4.
Furthermore, the security slot isn't part of the motherboard, so it wouldn't impact internal space.
Steve Jobs already said that he doesn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. Never mind the fact that the original Mac Mini started at $499. If Apple were to return to the $500 pricing, then either Steve is admitting that the Mac Mini is a piece of junk, or Steve is a liar. So Apple would have to raise prices just to avoid making Steve look bad.
Steve (or Phil or Jonathon or ???) could simply say that they didn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk until, BOOM!, now.
Its as much about authoring the dialog as it is about controlling the message.
Steve (or Phil or Jonathon or ???) could simply say that they didn't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk until, BOOM!, now.
Its as much about authoring the dialog as it is about controlling the message.
User Alonso Perez correctly noted (above) that the "$500 junk" statement has been taken out of its original context, which was notebooks, referencing netbooks.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=106043
They need to do something as they look really terrible vs PCs now. I saw this deal quite recently:
Stylish Quad core 2.4GHz mid-tower, 2GB Ram, 320GB HDD, Nvidia 7050, DVDRW with 19" display, keyboard and mouse £529.
I don't think the comparison you make is very direct. Both the Mini and iMac use notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat. This increases cost while reducing performance.
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that.
I'm not sure I understand your resentment. It sounds like you are blaming Apple for purposely not building a machine a certain way because you want it. Apple is business, their "own reasons" are to make money, plain and simple.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
This is why fanboys are infuriating. I don't think this is that hard. For better or worse, the Mini is the one product Apple has to offer in the budget desktop market. So then, many potential mini buyers shop the mini against budget desktop PCs instead of against Small Form Factor (SFF) PCs. Insisting this comparison is perforce invalid because Apple decided to use higher cost and lower performance components is a non-sequitur.
To be certain, against other SFF PCs, the mini is less overpriced and underpowered. However I have not seen any data that the budget and switcher markets desire a SFF over a minitower form factor. Apple is still run by mortals. In this case I think they are making a mistake.
So lets back this up. Someone posts a price comparison between a Mini and a PC. In response you state that since Apple uses laptop parts to make the mini we should expect higher price and lower performance. Q.E.D. I point out that I'd rather have the lower cost and higher performance. You then claim this criticism is misguided and unfair.
The argument you have is that Apple's doesn't make the elusive xMac to suit your specific needs. Outside of that there is no debate because comparing a machine with laptop-grade part to a machine with desktop-grade parts just to say that the Mini is woefully overpriced is inane because you are not comparing components accurately. It's like comparing desktops with a 2.4GHz Celeron to a 2.4GHz i7 and then saying that the i&'s desktops is overpriced because it's not the same price as the Celeron based machine. Same thing goes with many other components and accesories, especially monitors. The less knowledgeable will compare the screen size without ever considering any other aspects of the display.