It seems to me that it hardly matters that the mini is comparable to state-of-the-art from six years ago. It still has the capabilities that it has. The fact that there are much faster machines out there hardly renders the mini inoperable. It still does what it does and I find it can do quite a lot. Anything else is meaningless to me. I don't buy computers just to say I have a computer that can do A, B or C. I buy a computer to accomplish a given set of tasks. If the machine gets the job done, I'm happy. The G4 tower could handle a lot of what I wanted done and so too, by virtue of delivering similar performance, can the mini. And we're talking a 1.25 ghz G4 mini, not the current version operating on only 512 megs of RAM. I have no doubt that 1gig of RAM, soon enough, will become the minimum for the mini line. I can easily imagine that by year's end for well under $800 Cdn. I will be able to buy a mini with decent processor performance, the new version of OS X, 1 gig of RAM, and perhaps even the latest Intel integrated graphics. There's a real chance that hardware decoding for HD content might also be part of the mix.
I do understand where you're coming from. The machine I use for most of my browsing is the one I'm typing on now. It's an upgraded Audio Mac that came with a single 733 MHz G4, which I upgraded to a dual 1.8 GHz board. I upgraded everything else as well, and for its purpose, it's a fine machine.
The point I was making was that most people don't compare what they are getting now, with what they have from 6 years ago. They compare it to what's around now. New software almost always requires faster machines.
Quote:
Why would I care that a Mac tower would blow such a machine out of the water? Am I buying the latest and greatest or am I spending less than $1,000 for a significant boost in computer performance, including what amounts to a new OS.
My comparing the mini to the tower was intended to note that I feel like I got more of my money's worth out of my $629 mini than I did my old tower that cost me 10 times as much.
I'm not saying that you should compare it to a tower. But, you could compare it to an iMac. Depending on what size monitor you want, or have, that would be a sensible choice. But, I'm not telling you to make it either.
Quote:
Basically, slower machines of today like the mini, in absolute terms are pretty darn fast, which is why a computer like the mini makes a lot more sense today than it would have six years ago when you really had to have the power of the G4 tower to get anything more strenous than word-processing done in a reasonable fashion.
You're right. No argument. But, even this machine would be hard paced to run certain software. It depends on why you bought it.
I've recommended Mini's to people who would do well with one.
Quote:
And in regards to people not buying external components because it's too much bother, I would think someone with a desire to do something, will go out and acquire the technology to do it. If that technology that is inexpensive and easy to install (plugging it in, basically) isn't purchased, it tells me we're talking about someone who really didn't care if they did whatever the extra storage required.
If there are a lot of people out there who don't care enough to go out and purchase a hard drve, who cares about them? They obviously don't need anything more than a basic computer that allows for Internet access and a few other tasks of similarly minor difficulty. There's nothing wrong with using a mini that way but it's a waste of a very capable machine.
Most people buying a Mini, or even an iMac, for that matter, do not go out a purchase another Hd. Most people never back-up either. And, I'm talking about most people, not everyone.
But, this whole discussion originally revolved around one point. Whether it would pay to get a Mini with a small flash drive for more money, and then buy a large external drive, or to buy a Mini with just a large internal drive.
I do understand where you're coming from. The machine I use for most of my browsing is the one I'm typing on now. It's an upgraded Audio Mac that came with a single 733 MHz G4, which I upgraded to a dual 1.8 GHz board. I upgraded everything else as well, and for its purpose, it's a fine machine.
The point I was making was that most people don't compare what they are getting now, with what they have from 6 years ago. They compare it to what's around now. New software almost always requires faster machines.
I'm not saying that you should compare it to a tower. But, you could compare it to an iMac. Depending on what size monitor you want, or have, that would be a sensible choice. But, I'm not telling you to make it either.
You're right. No argument. But, even this machine would be hard paced to run certain software. It depends on why you bought it.
I've recommended Mini's to people who would do well with one.
Most people buying a Mini, or even an iMac, for that matter, do not go out a purchase another Hd. Most people never back-up either. And, I'm talking about most people, not everyone.
But, this whole discussion originally revolved around one point. Whether it would pay to get a Mini with a small flash drive for more money, and then buy a large external drive, or to buy a Mini with just a large internal drive.
We seem to have gotten off track.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
I'll give you the nod for thinking it out so thoroughly.
A lot of it does make sense.
But, I'll tell you one thing, Apple will never sell a machine without storage containing a bootable OS—their own. That's just not the Apple "experience" they want to push.
I'll give you the nod for thinking it out so thoroughly.
A lot of it does make sense.
But, I'll tell you one thing, Apple will never sell a machine without storage containing a bootable OS—their own. That's just not the Apple "experience" they want to push.
Clearly such a machine would, even if there were no internal hard drive, come with the software to install OS X and being as it is such a marvellous OS, the odds of somebody buying the hypothetical ultra mini and not bothering to install OS X are slim and none. That's especially true considering OS X will come with boot camp, allowing the machine to also run Microsoft's OS. It would be quite easy for Apple to design this product so that the only way to operate the computer would be if OS X was installed, even if it was by the consumer. And besides, nobody would buy a Mac who intended to not run Apple's OS. What would be the point?
I do think such an ultra mini would not be the best choice for someone who had little or no experience with computers. Installing the OS yourself isn't that hard but it isn't for everybody. Still, I could see that product having a lot of appeal for many potential customers.
Clearly such a machine would, even if there were no internal hard drive, come with the software to install OS X and being as it is such a marvellous OS, the odds of somebody buying the hypothetical ultra mini and not bothering to install OS X are slim and none. That's especially true considering OS X will come with boot camp, allowing the machine to also run Microsoft's OS. It would be quite easy for Apple to design this product so that the only way to operate the computer would be if OS X was installed, even if it was by the consumer. And besides, nobody would buy a Mac who intended to not run Apple's OS. What would be the point?
I do think such an ultra mini would not be the best choice for someone who had little or no experience with computers. Installing the OS yourself isn't that hard but it isn't for everybody. Still, I could see that product having a lot of appeal for many potential customers.
It isn't that someone wouldn't install it, it's that someone would HAVE to install it.
Apple doesn't want that. They want you to unpack the machine, plug it in, turn it on, and start playing.
It isn't that someone wouldn't install it, it's that someone would HAVE to install it.
Apple doesn't want that. They want you to unpack the machine, plug it in, turn it on, and start playing.
Even the servers have everything installed.
Perhaps though installing the OS would be little more work than hooking up the hard drive via firewire or USB2, the optical drive in the same fashion and putting in a DVD with the necessary software. As I said, this wouldn't be for everybody. Inexperienced users would certainly not go there.
Another option that would still keep costs down would be to include a small flash drive internally, allowing for the OS to be included in the ultra mini, even if the onboard storage would not be enough to handle that much more. Such a memory would still allow for a remarkably small form factor. I think even the 8 gigs found on a top-end iPod Nano would be enough for such a function. Considering the size of the Nano, I suspect such memory would negligibly impact on the ultra mini form factor. And as flash cost keeps dropping, going higher than 8 gigs in the not-too-distant future would be quite viable.
Just thinking out loud. I'm not that technically savvy and it could be that there are a thousand and one technical obstacles that would not make such a product viable.
The possibilities, though, are quite intriguing and even if Apple is looking to retire the mini as it is currently configured, I think it's highly probable that a sub-$1,000 computer with an amazing form factor is very much in Apple's future.
Now this is about 64-bit machines, which the Mac mini is not, but you never know... is the book already closed?
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
That's what I am thinking, but it is at least strange how Apple neglected the mini lately... from a real update to the keynote.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
aegisdesign showed a Mini stacked on a look-alike hard drive on a post at 03:54 PM on 06-11-2007 .
NewerTechnology also has hard drives that look exactly like the Mini and stack with the Mini; however, they are pricey. NewTechnology also sells HD O-GB kits that also look like the Mini. You can put your own HD or optical drive or whatever in them. You wouldn?t have to rely on Apple to make a cube or super Mini. You could add another empty 0-GB unit if you needed to.
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
I noticed that Steve said "Almost all our computers are 64bit"... which was a backhanded acknowledgement that the Mini still exists... wasn't it?
Curiously enough, he forgot to utter "But soon all will be 64-bit"...
Heh...thats a good and bad thing. Good in that one way for all to be 64-bit is to simply drop the mini. Bad in that a 64-bit update doesn't seem to be a near term update to warrant such a comment.
Curiously enough, he forgot to utter "But soon all will be 64-bit"...
There could have been a reason for that.
They certainly could have bolstered their claim of 64 bit compatibility if they had upgraded the Mini for the WWDC. That would have fit into the presentation.
It's possible that they will either discontinue the machine, as has already been suggested, or will simply not upgrade it to 64 bits anytime soon.
I was of course half-joking, so I did not really expect him to say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
...or will simply not upgrade it to 64 bits anytime soon.
Which hardly makes sense after the bold statements about 64-bit and the graphic with all the Macs except the Mac mini. One would logically think that at least after Leopard's release, all the machines sold by Apple will be 64-bit and the 32-bit compatibility is there for the older models.
But yes, Apple has proved in the past that it is capable to do the unthinkable, so to leave the Mac mini with 32-bit CPU for a long time to come is certainly a possibility.
Eventually, won't all chips be 64 bit or will Windows Vista (can you run 32 bit windows on a 64 bit chip) keep that from happening for some time to come?
Eventually, won't all chips be 64 bit or will Windows Vista (can you run 32 bit windows on a 64 bit chip) keep that from happening for some time to come?
All of the 64bit Intel and AMD chips can run either 64bit or 32bit code. The problem is that there are two versions of Windows, one for 32bit and one for 64bit. 32bit can't run any 64bit apps. 64bit can only run some 32bit apps and there's very few drivers so even if you've a 64bit copy of Word, if your printer driver is 32bit you're stuffed, it won't talk to it. For that reason, there's a tiny fraction of Windows 64 bit users and no incentive for developers to write 64bit Windows applications or drivers.
Apple doesn't have that problem. There's every incentive to write 64bit code.
However, if the developer is writing cross platform applications (I'm looking at you Adobe) then they'll almost certainly stick to 32bit and so development will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator - Windows 32bit.
However, if the developer is writing cross platform applications (I'm looking at you Adobe) then they'll almost certainly stick to 32bit and so development will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator - Windows 32bit.
Hmm.... I wonder why Steve used a photo manipulation exercise to demonstrate the power of 64 bit computing.
Hmm.... I wonder why Steve used a photo manipulation exercise to demonstrate the power of 64 bit computing.
64-bit's biggest advantage is allowing you to drastically increase your memory address space so if you have enough Ram, you can use all of it for any given process. Photos are good because they give you clear visual feedback about what's going on so they're good for a demonstration.
Comments
It seems to me that it hardly matters that the mini is comparable to state-of-the-art from six years ago. It still has the capabilities that it has. The fact that there are much faster machines out there hardly renders the mini inoperable. It still does what it does and I find it can do quite a lot. Anything else is meaningless to me. I don't buy computers just to say I have a computer that can do A, B or C. I buy a computer to accomplish a given set of tasks. If the machine gets the job done, I'm happy. The G4 tower could handle a lot of what I wanted done and so too, by virtue of delivering similar performance, can the mini. And we're talking a 1.25 ghz G4 mini, not the current version operating on only 512 megs of RAM. I have no doubt that 1gig of RAM, soon enough, will become the minimum for the mini line. I can easily imagine that by year's end for well under $800 Cdn. I will be able to buy a mini with decent processor performance, the new version of OS X, 1 gig of RAM, and perhaps even the latest Intel integrated graphics. There's a real chance that hardware decoding for HD content might also be part of the mix.
I do understand where you're coming from. The machine I use for most of my browsing is the one I'm typing on now. It's an upgraded Audio Mac that came with a single 733 MHz G4, which I upgraded to a dual 1.8 GHz board. I upgraded everything else as well, and for its purpose, it's a fine machine.
The point I was making was that most people don't compare what they are getting now, with what they have from 6 years ago. They compare it to what's around now. New software almost always requires faster machines.
Why would I care that a Mac tower would blow such a machine out of the water? Am I buying the latest and greatest or am I spending less than $1,000 for a significant boost in computer performance, including what amounts to a new OS.
My comparing the mini to the tower was intended to note that I feel like I got more of my money's worth out of my $629 mini than I did my old tower that cost me 10 times as much.
I'm not saying that you should compare it to a tower. But, you could compare it to an iMac. Depending on what size monitor you want, or have, that would be a sensible choice. But, I'm not telling you to make it either.
Basically, slower machines of today like the mini, in absolute terms are pretty darn fast, which is why a computer like the mini makes a lot more sense today than it would have six years ago when you really had to have the power of the G4 tower to get anything more strenous than word-processing done in a reasonable fashion.
You're right. No argument. But, even this machine would be hard paced to run certain software. It depends on why you bought it.
I've recommended Mini's to people who would do well with one.
And in regards to people not buying external components because it's too much bother, I would think someone with a desire to do something, will go out and acquire the technology to do it. If that technology that is inexpensive and easy to install (plugging it in, basically) isn't purchased, it tells me we're talking about someone who really didn't care if they did whatever the extra storage required.
If there are a lot of people out there who don't care enough to go out and purchase a hard drve, who cares about them? They obviously don't need anything more than a basic computer that allows for Internet access and a few other tasks of similarly minor difficulty. There's nothing wrong with using a mini that way but it's a waste of a very capable machine.
Most people buying a Mini, or even an iMac, for that matter, do not go out a purchase another Hd. Most people never back-up either. And, I'm talking about most people, not everyone.
But, this whole discussion originally revolved around one point. Whether it would pay to get a Mini with a small flash drive for more money, and then buy a large external drive, or to buy a Mini with just a large internal drive.
We seem to have gotten off track.
I do understand where you're coming from. The machine I use for most of my browsing is the one I'm typing on now. It's an upgraded Audio Mac that came with a single 733 MHz G4, which I upgraded to a dual 1.8 GHz board. I upgraded everything else as well, and for its purpose, it's a fine machine.
The point I was making was that most people don't compare what they are getting now, with what they have from 6 years ago. They compare it to what's around now. New software almost always requires faster machines.
I'm not saying that you should compare it to a tower. But, you could compare it to an iMac. Depending on what size monitor you want, or have, that would be a sensible choice. But, I'm not telling you to make it either.
You're right. No argument. But, even this machine would be hard paced to run certain software. It depends on why you bought it.
I've recommended Mini's to people who would do well with one.
Most people buying a Mini, or even an iMac, for that matter, do not go out a purchase another Hd. Most people never back-up either. And, I'm talking about most people, not everyone.
But, this whole discussion originally revolved around one point. Whether it would pay to get a Mini with a small flash drive for more money, and then buy a large external drive, or to buy a Mini with just a large internal drive.
We seem to have gotten off track.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
I'll give you the nod for thinking it out so thoroughly.
A lot of it does make sense.
But, I'll tell you one thing, Apple will never sell a machine without storage containing a bootable OS—their own. That's just not the Apple "experience" they want to push.
I'll give you the nod for thinking it out so thoroughly.
A lot of it does make sense.
But, I'll tell you one thing, Apple will never sell a machine without storage containing a bootable OS—their own. That's just not the Apple "experience" they want to push.
Clearly such a machine would, even if there were no internal hard drive, come with the software to install OS X and being as it is such a marvellous OS, the odds of somebody buying the hypothetical ultra mini and not bothering to install OS X are slim and none. That's especially true considering OS X will come with boot camp, allowing the machine to also run Microsoft's OS. It would be quite easy for Apple to design this product so that the only way to operate the computer would be if OS X was installed, even if it was by the consumer. And besides, nobody would buy a Mac who intended to not run Apple's OS. What would be the point?
I do think such an ultra mini would not be the best choice for someone who had little or no experience with computers. Installing the OS yourself isn't that hard but it isn't for everybody. Still, I could see that product having a lot of appeal for many potential customers.
Clearly such a machine would, even if there were no internal hard drive, come with the software to install OS X and being as it is such a marvellous OS, the odds of somebody buying the hypothetical ultra mini and not bothering to install OS X are slim and none. That's especially true considering OS X will come with boot camp, allowing the machine to also run Microsoft's OS. It would be quite easy for Apple to design this product so that the only way to operate the computer would be if OS X was installed, even if it was by the consumer. And besides, nobody would buy a Mac who intended to not run Apple's OS. What would be the point?
I do think such an ultra mini would not be the best choice for someone who had little or no experience with computers. Installing the OS yourself isn't that hard but it isn't for everybody. Still, I could see that product having a lot of appeal for many potential customers.
It isn't that someone wouldn't install it, it's that someone would HAVE to install it.
Apple doesn't want that. They want you to unpack the machine, plug it in, turn it on, and start playing.
Even the servers have everything installed.
It isn't that someone wouldn't install it, it's that someone would HAVE to install it.
Apple doesn't want that. They want you to unpack the machine, plug it in, turn it on, and start playing.
Even the servers have everything installed.
Perhaps though installing the OS would be little more work than hooking up the hard drive via firewire or USB2, the optical drive in the same fashion and putting in a DVD with the necessary software. As I said, this wouldn't be for everybody. Inexperienced users would certainly not go there.
Another option that would still keep costs down would be to include a small flash drive internally, allowing for the OS to be included in the ultra mini, even if the onboard storage would not be enough to handle that much more. Such a memory would still allow for a remarkably small form factor. I think even the 8 gigs found on a top-end iPod Nano would be enough for such a function. Considering the size of the Nano, I suspect such memory would negligibly impact on the ultra mini form factor. And as flash cost keeps dropping, going higher than 8 gigs in the not-too-distant future would be quite viable.
Just thinking out loud. I'm not that technically savvy and it could be that there are a thousand and one technical obstacles that would not make such a product viable.
The possibilities, though, are quite intriguing and even if Apple is looking to retire the mini as it is currently configured, I think it's highly probable that a sub-$1,000 computer with an amazing form factor is very much in Apple's future.
Where is the Mac mini?
Now this is about 64-bit machines, which the Mac mini is not, but you never know... is the book already closed?
Now this is about 64-bit machines, which the Mac mini is not, but you never know... is the book already closed?
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
That's what I am thinking, but it is at least strange how Apple neglected the mini lately... from a real update to the keynote.
I do agree with you that the decision to go with a cooler form factor at the expense of storage capacity was the wrong one. A somewhat larger mini with a standard hard drive that would be both 7,200 RPM and able to hold more data would have resulted in a higher value package.
But that ship has sailed. There's no way now that Apple would bring out a mini that was less mini. That's just not the Steve Jobs way and fault him though you may, the man does have a great flair for developing cool, ground-breaking products. The computer industry owes him big-time on that front.
Looking ahead, I see flash memory in the 40 to 60 gig range in an even smaller base mini with a basic optical drive. Supplementing that product would be a stripped down mini that has no internal storage or optical drive. Not only would the ultra mini be amazingly compact, it would give comsumers freedom to add whatever optical drive and storage they wanted. The advantage, besides having such an improbably tiny computer, is that one could upgrade optical and storage technology without doing a thing to the basic computer at the heart of the system. Provided the ultra mini was powerful enough, I could see it being a machine that would be useful for a very long time.
Even if it were true that a lot of mini owners haven't made a point of adding external drives (don't know if that's the case), I could certainly see a market for a flexible product like the ultra mini. I for one would be able to buy such a machine and be up and running without spending a dime on any additional products because I already own them. And even if I didn't, for roughly $300 Cdn. I could certainly purchase external hard drives and optical drives to be up and running. If the ultra mini itself checked in at let's say $499 Cdn. I would have the following for a total cost of $800 Cdn. A 320 gig 7,200 RPM drive, a DVD Burner, aka a superdrive, and the specs from the base mini.
Compare that to the mini as it sits. The base model with a 60-gig, 5,400 RPM drive and an optical drive that burns CDs but not DVDs, costs $679 Cdn. while the step-up model with a faster processor, an 80-gig, 5,400-rpm drive and a superdrive costs $899 Cdn.
Now imagine if there was a base ultra mini at $499 Cdn. and one with a faster processor retailing for $649 Cdn. If you went for the faster processor, it would cost $949 for that plus a superdrive plus a 7,200 RPM 320-gig hard drive. Right now, $899 gets you 80 gigs at 5,400 rpm. Which would you prefer? Imagine my delight at being able to have the superdrive, nearly 500 gigs, and only pay $649 to step up to the new mini with the faster processor (assuming of course that Apple will soon make 1 gig of RAM the base spec).
It seems to me that Apple could take the mini's form factor to another level and you would still get what you want in that having the extra capacity and speed of a full-size drive would be just a matter of adding such a device in external firewire form. Opting for the slower processor (remember this is in Canadian funds) would mean 320 gigs and a superdrive for a total cost of about $799 vs. the $679 it costs for the base mini. The $799 package would be a far better deal, I think, in that $120 for all that extra storage and a superdrive would be well worthwhile. More importantly, for those who wouldn't want to go that route, something similar to the $679 package currently offered could still remain in the mix.
aegisdesign showed a Mini stacked on a look-alike hard drive on a post at 03:54 PM on 06-11-2007 .
NewerTechnology also has hard drives that look exactly like the Mini and stack with the Mini; however, they are pricey. NewTechnology also sells HD O-GB kits that also look like the Mini. You can put your own HD or optical drive or whatever in them. You wouldn?t have to rely on Apple to make a cube or super Mini. You could add another empty 0-GB unit if you needed to.
www.newertechnology.com
It was in the shot earlier in the keynote showing all the machines transitioned to Intel. Obviously since it is a 32bit Core(Duo) in the Mini, it wouldn't make sense in the slide about which machines supported 64bit.
I noticed that Steve said "Almost all our computers are 64bit"... which was a backhanded acknowledgement that the Mini still exists... wasn't it?
Still wonder about the future!
I noticed that Steve said "Almost all our computers are 64bit"...
Curiously enough, he forgot to utter "But soon all will be 64-bit"...
Curiously enough, he forgot to utter "But soon all will be 64-bit"...
Heh...thats a good and bad thing. Good in that one way for all to be 64-bit is to simply drop the mini. Bad in that a 64-bit update doesn't seem to be a near term update to warrant such a comment.
Curiously enough, he forgot to utter "But soon all will be 64-bit"...
There could have been a reason for that.
They certainly could have bolstered their claim of 64 bit compatibility if they had upgraded the Mini for the WWDC. That would have fit into the presentation.
It's possible that they will either discontinue the machine, as has already been suggested, or will simply not upgrade it to 64 bits anytime soon.
There could have been a reason for that.
I was of course half-joking, so I did not really expect him to say that.
...or will simply not upgrade it to 64 bits anytime soon.
Which hardly makes sense after the bold statements about 64-bit and the graphic with all the Macs except the Mac mini. One would logically think that at least after Leopard's release, all the machines sold by Apple will be 64-bit and the 32-bit compatibility is there for the older models.
But yes, Apple has proved in the past that it is capable to do the unthinkable, so to leave the Mac mini with 32-bit CPU for a long time to come is certainly a possibility.
Eventually, won't all chips be 64 bit or will Windows Vista (can you run 32 bit windows on a 64 bit chip) keep that from happening for some time to come?
All of the 64bit Intel and AMD chips can run either 64bit or 32bit code. The problem is that there are two versions of Windows, one for 32bit and one for 64bit. 32bit can't run any 64bit apps. 64bit can only run some 32bit apps and there's very few drivers so even if you've a 64bit copy of Word, if your printer driver is 32bit you're stuffed, it won't talk to it. For that reason, there's a tiny fraction of Windows 64 bit users and no incentive for developers to write 64bit Windows applications or drivers.
Apple doesn't have that problem. There's every incentive to write 64bit code.
However, if the developer is writing cross platform applications (I'm looking at you Adobe) then they'll almost certainly stick to 32bit and so development will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator - Windows 32bit.
However, if the developer is writing cross platform applications (I'm looking at you Adobe) then they'll almost certainly stick to 32bit and so development will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator - Windows 32bit.
Hmm.... I wonder why Steve used a photo manipulation exercise to demonstrate the power of 64 bit computing.
Hmm.... I wonder why Steve used a photo manipulation exercise to demonstrate the power of 64 bit computing.
64-bit's biggest advantage is allowing you to drastically increase your memory address space so if you have enough Ram, you can use all of it for any given process. Photos are good because they give you clear visual feedback about what's going on so they're good for a demonstration.