Pretty true, but those same people love to hate the mini while nagging for an xMac.
It is a misplaced statement to say those desiring an xMac hate the Mac mini or the iMac this is simply not true.
I like the Mac mini. It is just not the computer for me. It is a well designed computer for its' target market(albeit in its current configuration slightly underpowered for its' price, but will surely be addressed as of the next upgrades), which just happens to place emphasis on physical size. Me, I have room for a bigger computer and a budget for a more expensive computer, just not big enough budget for a Mac Pro.
And I'd venture a guess that most people that desire an xMac computer would whole heartedly agree with me. Heck there are people that own Mac minis for designated uses that still desire an xMac and are continuing to use previous generation towers with dual G4s and G5s.
How many people who rag on the ol' Mac Mini have actually used one?
I wanted a Mac Pro but at the time I needed it I didn't like the configurations available from Apple. I also knew some of the great technology we have today would be coming out. For years I had been doing all of my graphics and web design work on a PowerMac, but with the introduction of Intel chips I needed to move forward to save a lot of money (thanks to the potential this new type of Mac would bring me).
I was thinking about iMacs for quite some time until Apple launched the Mac Mini. When I saw the bus speed, processor, and RAM capabilities, I was amazed and immediately purchased one. I maxed out the RAM, got a Core Duo, and stacked it on top of a LaCie external HDD with additional ports. I'm typing on it right now while my new 3.2GHz Mac Pro w/ the 8800 GT and 10 GBs RAM is a week away from delivery. I have been using it ever since I purchased it to handle all of my professional work. It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
1) Return of Newton, 1.5x iPod Touch, the mini (cripled) Tablet that mimics the Touch. Will never happen. Please tell me, what are its uses? What are its advantages over a iPod Touch or an iPhone? Both of those are more portable, now with more storage, so how would a 7" or 10" iPod Touch be useful for ANYONE? Also, how would this be better than just having a fully functional OSX 13" Tablet? Why would anyone need a PDA, PDAs are dead! iPod Touches and iPhones are far better PDAs anyways and will only improve with the SDK.
Now, I have posted this here before...but it is such a great mock up and I really hope it is true...except for the disk drive of course.
THIS is really what the tablet Mac will look like. My estimations put this thing's screen at roughly 10" though the final device might not be that exact size.
I think when we hear stories about a "Newton 2" or whatever, I think we are hearing about prototypes for this thing. I mean, you are completely right, there is no reason to make a PDA just as they don't need to make an MID. They HAVE those already.
A UMPC though, that is what this is, something like the Asus Eee. Sure, the interface will look like iPhone...but it will run Leopard. The SDK will work for this device (since it will need programs designed around multitouch...though I still think this device will use the rumored advanced gestures of Multitouch 2.0) so I am still hoping (but not counting on or expecting) this to premire with the SDK.
How many people who rag on the ol' Mac Mini have actually used one?
I wanted a Mac Pro but at the time I needed it I didn't like the configurations available from Apple. I also knew some of the great technology we have today would be coming out. For years I had been doing all of my graphics and web design work on a PowerMac, but with the introduction of Intel chips I needed to move forward to save a lot of money (thanks to the potential this new type of Mac would bring me).
I was thinking about iMacs for quite some time until Apple launched the Mac Mini. When I saw the bus speed, processor, and RAM capabilities, I was amazed and immediately purchased one. I maxed out the RAM, got a Core Duo, and stacked it on top of a LaCie external HDD with additional ports. I'm typing on it right now while my new 3.2GHz Mac Pro w/ the 8800 GT and 10 GBs RAM is a week away from delivery. I have been using it ever since I purchased it to handle all of my professional work. It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
I don't worry much about specifications, but I do know what I need. I would like to run Vista and some Linux flavor in virtual machines under VMWare, and I would like to run things like Photoshop and Bibble or Lightroom. The Mac mini, definitely after the next update has all the processor power I need, and I don't care much about graphics performance.
So why is the Mini wrong for me? The HD is too small and the memory maxes out at 2GB. I know what it feels like to work with bibble or vmware with 1 GB. Not a pretty picture. The rest of the interface gets slow. 2GB may be enough, but I'd rather have 4. The other problem for me is the small HD, which you solved by attaching an external HD. That's yet another box and yet another power cord. Not pretty either, and not as fast as an internal disk. The only thing I would want an xMac for is to have a 2nd HD for Time machine. I just don't like the idea of external disks, even though I know that's better for backups. I just don't like it.
The mini maxes out at 3GB of RAM. Apple may not offer 3GB of RAM, but trust me, the unit is capable of it. As for the external drive question, my coworker (we work at an Apple Specialist, mind you) used to boot his mini from a FireWire drive by default, because his extensive iPhoto and Adobe Lightroom libraries worked better on the system drive. By his reports, the mini booted just as fast from the external drive as it did from the internal, likely due to the faster RPM's of the larger drive making up for the fact that it's running through FireWire.
The mini maxes out at 3GB of RAM. Apple may not offer 3GB of RAM, but trust me, the unit is capable of it. As for the external drive question, my coworker (we work at an Apple Specialist, mind you) used to boot his mini from a FireWire drive by default, because his extensive iPhoto and Adobe Lightroom libraries worked better on the system drive. By his reports, the mini booted just as fast from the external drive as it did from the internal, likely due to the faster RPM's of the larger drive making up for the fact that it's running through FireWire.
Exactly I've heard of people doing such things and more to Mac Minis. I know of plenty of individuals who upgraded from PowerMac G3s to Mac Minis with fantastic results! These people do pro audio and video, some publishing & graphics, and some intense work too. In some of these studios, the Mini is the workhorse. In other places, I know of users who have a Mac Pro or two in the workplace and the rest of the employees use Mac Minis with great results, and I never heard anybody do anything but praise the little monsters.
3 things that people ALWAYS talk about in every thead that I think will NEVER EVER EVER happen:
1) Return of Newton, 1.5x iPod Touch, the mini (cripled) Tablet that mimics the Touch. Will never happen. Please tell me, what are its uses? What are its advantages over a iPod Touch or an iPhone? Both of those are more portable, now with more storage, so how would a 7" or 10" iPod Touch be useful for ANYONE? Also, how would this be better than just having a fully functional OSX 13" Tablet? Why would anyone need a PDA, PDAs are dead! iPod Touches and iPhones are far better PDAs anyways and will only improve with the SDK.
Oh but if Apple where to deliver something like has been discussed, that is something slightly larger than an iPod Touch, I would have one in a flash. What we are talking about here is something about a half to three quarters of an inch wider and a bit longer with the whole point to contain a high quality HD display. That is a pocketable movie machine. Usage would be as a media machine like iPod but with a slant towards video. The PDA functions would come to the unit naturally just like they do on the current iPods.
I can see significant demand above that size but I think you are pushing it when you get to 13 inches! The problem is maintaining the device as suitable for hand held usage.
As to PDA being dead no way they just added the capability of a cell phone. For that matter I wouldn't mind if the devices above came with a cell capability either. Cell is still a legitimate technology and as long as you can still carry it with you viable to be had in one device. Look at it this way the iPhone is a PDA, like it or not it fills that role. What we are asking for is a similar device that focuses more of its energy on media delivery. The cell capability being put back in the background where it belongs.
Quote:
2) A headless xMac. An Apple consumer-focused Mid-Tower. In a way a cheaper Mac Pro, just not Pro. What would it really be? A Dell box designed and branded by Apple. I know tons of you out there wish you could throw in a better graphics cars into a Mac Mini, or have just one expansion slot and the same people think the Mac Pro is too expensive and over-kill. Thats not what macs are really for, however. They are not for the Tim Allen build-it-yourself types and make it look like a Honda Civic complete with glowing cables and 10 non-working USB/Firewire/SD card reader ports on a PCI slot. Macs area an eco-sytem, and while I do believe Apple will include better graphics cards, they might also include small room for expansion down the road. However, we will never see an xMac.
Clearly you are out of touch with reality. One of the reasons many people have PC's on their desk isn't because they are in love with a MS OS it is the reality that they need a machine that is low cost and customizable. The Mac Pro simply isn't the platform for low cost anything, it is server class hardware in a big desktop box.
As to including room, let face the flips side here they don't need to add a lot of space. A slot or two of PCI Express would do. Even the mobile standard would do.
Quote:
3) Death of the Mac Mini. Mac Mini is here to stay, forever, unless it is replaced by another product line that expands the idea of the Mini, like a Mac Nano. Mac Mini is actually a great tool to bait switchers, and over time, we will see better Minis perhaps for even cheaper prices! Mac Minis were never meant to compete with bottom-feeder sub $400 PCs like Dell or eMachines and never will. Maybe Apple might offer cheaper Mac Mini solution to the education markets (a la eMac), but that would be education only.
The Mini is dead, get over it. That is the current model will be replaced. But in a way the nonsense that you spout above says the same thing.
Quote:
Sorry guys and gals, but none of these things will ever occur. They just don't make any sense. Sure, they are dramatic and fodder for speculation, but none of these would benefit Apple.
Much like you message, especially the Mini related item above.
Well you can pretend I wrote no.1 because I have constantly been saying the tablet will be a Mac and not an iPod, thus the name [I created] Mac touch.
Not the way I see it. I see larger iPods as the most viable path for Apple to follow. The number one reason would be that there is demand in that realm for larger devices. There is about zero demand for a tablet that is focused on running legacy operating systems.
Legacy is an important issue too. If Apple concentrates on the iPod as the mother of its new tablet line then they inherit from that OS and not the Mac OS. This allows Apple to do away with a lot of old crud and makes support on these device far easier. Basically one does away with all the old API and other stuff from ancient history with the iPods.
Quote:
However I don't know if Apple's first tablet will be 13", that's what the Air is for. I have been saying it will be 11", but Apple may even go one step further and make it 10" [I'd personally prefer 11"]. Expect other sizes in the future from Apple, but expect the first Mac touch to be only one screen size around 11". With either an Air-esque tapered exterior design, or a flat slab around 15mm thick. Expect some sort of pop-out stand also.
Way to big for the first expansion of the iPod family. Possibly later yes but I suspect that they next device would be far smaller chasing after the Newton form factor.
Quote:
By the way who likes the first draft design of my blog? I guess you need one these days. I mocked it up in iWeb, I will make the real thing next month. I acquired the domain takingnotes(dot)net several months ago. Final version will have a leather binding up top and some subtle background tweaks etc.
Exactly! I agree, we already have 4 different iPods (5 if you count the iPhone & 6 if you want to stretch the AppleTV, which in essence is an iPod for the living room). If there is a Mac Touch, it will be a true tablet with full OSX. If you want to play your videos, or songs or anything else, you can just like you would on an iPod except that it doesn't stop there! 11" sounds reasonable for a Tablet, but I see it being close to 13". Why because that would make it close to the 8"x11" standard for a page, and wouldn't that be an ideal size for a tablet?
I understand your iPod counts but I think it is a matter of how you look at the numbers. Apple only has two devices that can be said to be really optimized to deliver Movies. We are talking the Touch and AppleTV. The Touch being the only portable device. Apple does not have a hand held device that is really optimized for the delivery of movies/video/tv type media.
Yes I know about the other iPods but I will just flatly say their screens are to tiny and of the wrong format to really be able to justify the content Apple will have access to. In a nut shell Apple needs the larger device to make rentals and downloads a success.
The fact that we get a Mobile OS to go with the product is just a bit of icing on the top. Frankly this OS just makes it easier for Apple's customers to justify the expense of the device. Not to mention is the fact that a slightly larger screen would make the devices much more useful with respect to the on screen keyboard. There are a lot of good reason in fact to go to a slightly larger device, you can name it any thing you want but Newton2 seems to stick in peoples minds.
Interestingly I'd go for iPhone2 my self as the larger tablets could make use of the Cell functionality also. For example an iPhone 2 that is a little more than a half inch longer and maybe a bit more than a half inch wider would allow for a much larger screen. The little extra space might even allow for two flash devices.
Quote:
I can see what your saying about the small keys on the iPod Touch, however, I'm pretty sure apple took multiple hand sizes into account when designing the device. I can see your argument for a "larger" iPod, however, why cripple it and make it only an iPod when it could truly be a fully capable Mac.
I doubt they took anything into consideration.
Quote:
About the xMac, perhaps Apple could mess with the Mac Mini and its dimensions slightly, give it a slot or two and make it more user friendly by giving some wiggle-room for upgrades such as those that you have mentioned. I don't see them building a full or mid-size tower though, not even a cube.
I see multiple possibilities with respect to expansion and the MINI. Frankly I'm not strong on the need for a GPU slot. What I'd like to see is a mini with a card bus slot or similar. This would give us enough flexibility to handle a number of task the hardware currently can't. The machine does need to expand in size any ways to handle a standard disk drive. The 2.5 inch space seems to be going dead. I could see Apple staying with 2.5 inch drives if they where to put the OS on a Flash component.
This would be sort of a hybrid machine with the OS and apps on the Flash component and the user space stuff on the conventional harddrive. This is likely the best way to deliver new technology and keep costs under control. It would also be a slight performance enhancement.
How many people who rag on the ol' Mac Mini have actually used one?
I actually have a computer of older technology. When the Mini first came out Iwas very impressed with it, especially after they updated it with more I/O. Unlike wine computers don't age well.
Quote:
It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
I think what is killing many people here is that the Mini could be upgraded and still contain integrated graphics. It is not that the design is bad it is just that you are paying new dollars for old technology.
Quote:
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
Well yes and no. You don't go down to the store to buy batteries and look for those built on five year old technology. You want to put your money down on something of relatively recent technology. It may still be a 'D" cell on the outside but it is what is in the inside that counts. Same thing with computer hardware, yeah the
GPU works in the Mini but lets face it it is OLD!
Quote:
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I think the biggest killer here is the hard disk of all things. With digital video, digital photography, and music it doesn't take much to tax the drive. The combo of a expensive and less than optimal drive with an outdated GPU just makes for poor value. Frankly a lot of this is due to neglect. At one time the Mini was a good value.
Quote:
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
It is good that your business is moving in a direction that lets you move up to a Mac Pro. The question I have is if you had an option for a much cheaper Mac desktop machine, that had a discreet GPU, would you go for it? The problem as I see it is that there is no middle ground for people to find the right performance / capability level. The Mini is fine as a robust low end machine but it fails miserably when taxed, pretty much as you have described. Something in the middle that is not an iMac would help with that issue.
In any event I'm very curious about what Apple will do with the Mini. It is clear that something is happening as they seem to be getting scarce and the promotional level is non-existent. While many of use have wants with respect to the Mini I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple go in an entirely different direction.
Exactly I've heard of people doing such things and more to Mac Minis. I know of plenty of individuals who upgraded from PowerMac G3s to Mac Minis with fantastic results!
When talking about the Mini and XMac many people consider the current notebook drive to be the weak point in the Mini. It would not be asking much to see that part of the Mini improved and is why many would like to see Mini stretched to handle 3.5" drives.
In any event this stretch to get the Min to function at the level required is why I see it as a less that professional machine. If one has to immediately add an external drive and boot from that then the machine really isn't up to the task. Especially if an internal disk drive upgrade wouldn't gt you where you have to go.
Quote:
These people do pro audio and video, some publishing & graphics, and some intense work too. In some of these studios, the Mini is the workhorse.
Yes it can be a work horse! I just question buying the machine and then only using half the suppled hardware.
Quote:
In other places, I know of users who have a Mac Pro or two in the workplace and the rest of the employees use Mac Minis with great results, and I never heard anybody do anything but praise the little monsters.
If they understand Mini limitations they can make very good use of the hardware. In any event my biggest complaint about the current Mini is that the hardware is simply old. A solid update is needed. More so a bit of a rethink to get the features down right for todays user. That doesn't make for a vastly different machine, just one that is more up to date.
When talking about the Mini and XMac many people consider the current notebook drive to be the weak point in the Mini. It would not be asking much to see that part of the Mini improved and is why many would like to see Mini stretched to handle 3.5" drives.
In any event this stretch to get the Min to function at the level required is why I see it as a less that professional machine. If one has to immediately add an external drive and boot from that then the machine really isn't up to the task. Especially if an internal disk drive upgrade wouldn't gt you where you have to go.
Yes it can be a work horse! I just question buying the machine and then only using half the suppled hardware.
If they understand Mini limitations they can make very good use of the hardware. In any event my biggest complaint about the current Mini is that the hardware is simply old. A solid update is needed. More so a bit of a rethink to get the features down right for todays user. That doesn't make for a vastly different machine, just one that is more up to date.
Dave
Wow Dave. Please refrain from posting in succession like that. You don't even stop to take a breath, lol.
Your out of touch, your welcome to your opinion, but it is yours and yours alone. Please give someone a chance to write back between your posts
oh, and to be honest I stopped reading after your first post, its all nonsense and i won't get those 5 minutes back. No offense
I won't even bother to pick out which of those six posts addressed the mini being "old".
It's based around a Core 2 Duo, and the slim performance gain achieved by a slightly faster Core 2 or by adding Santa Rosa are not something to argue over. Besides, if you look at major PC vendors, you'll find that most Core 2 Duo desktops end up in the same price range as the mini. Some are cheaper, some are more expensive. All of them have integrated graphics by default. Now, everyone criticizes the Mac mini because it doesn't have a dedicated GPU, but you must realize that not everyone needs a dedicated GPU. And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Basically, there's nothing on the mini that isn't fair for it's price range.
I won't even bother to pick out which of those six posts addressed the mini being "old".
It's based around a Core 2 Duo, and the slim performance gain achieved by a slightly faster Core 2 or by adding Santa Rosa are not something to argue over. Besides, if you look at major PC vendors, you'll find that most Core 2 Duo desktops end up in the same price range as the mini. Some are cheaper, some are more expensive. All of them have integrated graphics by default. Now, everyone criticizes the Mac mini because it doesn't have a dedicated GPU, but you must realize that not everyone needs a dedicated GPU. And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Basically, there's nothing on the mini that isn't fair for it's price range.
And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Apple doesn't have to force low-end consumers to pay for anything if they just offer a dedicated GPU as an additional cost option on the mini.
Also, the reason few people complain about the hard drive performance in a MBP is because it's a laptop. When you buy a laptop, it is with the understanding that certain concessions are being made for portability and battery life. Higher performing equipment usually means more power needed which results in worse battery life. This argument doesn't hold up with a desktop machine.
Also add that wouldn't the idea of a USB-hub/Firewire-daisy chain hell for all those external accessories behind your Mac mini be self defeating against the whole Mac aesthetic? Wouldn't it be simpler and cleaner for the user to simply be able to put all that equipment into a nice mid-tower case? Clean, elegant, organized.
Apple doesn't have to force low-end consumers to pay for anything if they just offer a dedicated GPU as an additional cost option on the mini.
Also, the reason few people complain about the hard drive performance in a MBP is because it's a laptop. When you buy a laptop, it is with the understanding that certain concessions are being made for portability and battery life. Higher performing equipment usually means more power needed which results in worse battery life. This argument doesn't hold up with a desktop machine.
Also add that wouldn't the idea of a USB-hub/Firewire-daisy chain hell for all those external accessories behind your Mac mini be self defeating against the whole Mac aesthetic? Wouldn't it be simpler and cleaner for the user to simply be able to put all that equipment into a nice mid-tower case? Clean, elegant, organized.
So you give a Mac Mini a better/high-end GPU as an option. Problem solved.
I would any day rather have a USB accessory or two connected to a Mac Mini vs having a mid-tower taking up 2 cubic feet of space!
So you give a Mac Mini a better/high-end GPU as an option. Problem solved.
I would any day rather have a USB accessory or two connected to a Mac Mini vs having a mid-tower taking up 2 cubic feet of space!
Except that they don't offer a dedicated GPU even as an option, let alone a better one. And it doesn't resolve the other performance issues with the mini. A solution that doesn't exist (one that is even less likely than Apple selling an xMac) can't solve the problem.
And it'd be nice if it were only one or two small accessories that could get all their power from the USB port. Right now, connected to my MBP is a Firewire daisy chain of 2 external hard drives (and I need a third) and a FireWave surround adapter. On top of the additional space that all those external accessories take, there's the cabling and the additional power plugs and of course the huge performance hit because they're being connected through FireWire instead of a direct SATA or PCI connection inside the machine. In the end, it's taking up more space and more clutter.
To borrow what you said, I would any day rather have a a united, clean, fast, organized, and Jonathan Ive-designed gorgeous mid-tower case taking up 2 cubic feet of space than a tangle of power cords and USB cables connecting a bunch of accessories to my Mac.
Except that they don't offer a dedicated GPU even as an option, let alone a better one. And it doesn't resolve the other performance issues with the mini. A solution that doesn't exist (one that is even less likely than Apple selling an xMac) can't solve the problem.
And it'd be nice if it were only one or two small accessories that could get all their power from the USB port. Right now, connected to my MBP is a Firewire daisy chain of 2 external hard drives (and I need a third) and a FireWave surround adapter. On top of the additional space that all those external accessories take, there's the cabling and the additional power plugs and of course the huge performance hit because they're being connected through FireWire instead of a direct SATA or PCI connection inside the machine. In the end, it's taking up more space and more clutter.
To borrow what you said, I would any day rather have a a united, clean, fast, organized, and Jonathan Ive-designed gorgeous mid-tower case taking up 2 cubic feet of space than a tangle of power cords and USB cables connecting a bunch of accessories to my Mac.
If thats what you need, than buy a Mac Pro. Obviously you think the Mac Mini has performance issues, go with the Pro.
Please don't tell what you want is a crippled Mac Pro for half the price
If thats what you need, than buy a Mac Pro. Obviously you think the Mac Mini has performance issues, go with the Pro.
Please don't tell what you want is a crippled Mac Pro for half the price
I, as do most xMac people, don't want a crippled Mac Pro because that implies we still want all that expensive server-level hardware inside. We want a Mac running on standard, powerful, reliable, and inexpensive desktop components. Not notebook components that have been performance crippled for size and power constraints like in the iMac or Mac mini, but we certainly don't need server class components like in the Mac Pro. Wolfdales and Conroes instead of Meroms and Penryns. High Speed 10,000rpm 3.5" HDDs. Things like that.
If Apple used standard desktop class components and put them into a Mac Pro case, it would probably (for what most xMac folks want/need) perform almost as well as a Mac Pro for much less than half the cost and give Apple as good or better margins than anything else in the Mac lineup. If that's what you consider a crippled Mac Pro, then bring them on.
I, as do most xMac people, don't want a crippled Mac Pro because that implies we still want all that expensive server-level hardware inside. We want a Mac running on standard, powerful, reliable, and inexpensive desktop components. Not notebook components that have been performance crippled for size and power constraints like in the iMac or Mac mini, but we certainly don't need server class components like in the Mac Pro. Wolfdales and Conroes instead of Meroms and Penryns. High Speed 10,000rpm 3.5" HDDs. Things like that.
If Apple used standard desktop class components and put them into a Mac Pro case, it would probably (for what most xMac folks want/need) perform almost as well as a Mac Pro for much less than half the cost and give Apple as good or better margins than anything else in the Mac lineup. If that's what you consider a crippled Mac Pro, then bring them on.
So you want a Mac Mini then, inside a Mac Pro case?
Or how about a MBP in a Mac Pro case?
What do you want, it doesn't make sense, just like producing an xMac.
Comments
Pretty true, but those same people love to hate the mini while nagging for an xMac.
It is a misplaced statement to say those desiring an xMac hate the Mac mini or the iMac this is simply not true.
I like the Mac mini. It is just not the computer for me. It is a well designed computer for its' target market(albeit in its current configuration slightly underpowered for its' price, but will surely be addressed as of the next upgrades), which just happens to place emphasis on physical size. Me, I have room for a bigger computer and a budget for a more expensive computer, just not big enough budget for a Mac Pro.
And I'd venture a guess that most people that desire an xMac computer would whole heartedly agree with me. Heck there are people that own Mac minis for designated uses that still desire an xMac and are continuing to use previous generation towers with dual G4s and G5s.
I wanted a Mac Pro but at the time I needed it I didn't like the configurations available from Apple. I also knew some of the great technology we have today would be coming out. For years I had been doing all of my graphics and web design work on a PowerMac, but with the introduction of Intel chips I needed to move forward to save a lot of money (thanks to the potential this new type of Mac would bring me).
I was thinking about iMacs for quite some time until Apple launched the Mac Mini. When I saw the bus speed, processor, and RAM capabilities, I was amazed and immediately purchased one. I maxed out the RAM, got a Core Duo, and stacked it on top of a LaCie external HDD with additional ports. I'm typing on it right now while my new 3.2GHz Mac Pro w/ the 8800 GT and 10 GBs RAM is a week away from delivery. I have been using it ever since I purchased it to handle all of my professional work. It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
1) Return of Newton, 1.5x iPod Touch, the mini (cripled) Tablet that mimics the Touch. Will never happen. Please tell me, what are its uses? What are its advantages over a iPod Touch or an iPhone? Both of those are more portable, now with more storage, so how would a 7" or 10" iPod Touch be useful for ANYONE? Also, how would this be better than just having a fully functional OSX 13" Tablet? Why would anyone need a PDA, PDAs are dead! iPod Touches and iPhones are far better PDAs anyways and will only improve with the SDK.
Now, I have posted this here before...but it is such a great mock up and I really hope it is true...except for the disk drive of course.
THIS is really what the tablet Mac will look like. My estimations put this thing's screen at roughly 10" though the final device might not be that exact size.
I think when we hear stories about a "Newton 2" or whatever, I think we are hearing about prototypes for this thing. I mean, you are completely right, there is no reason to make a PDA just as they don't need to make an MID. They HAVE those already.
A UMPC though, that is what this is, something like the Asus Eee. Sure, the interface will look like iPhone...but it will run Leopard. The SDK will work for this device (since it will need programs designed around multitouch...though I still think this device will use the rumored advanced gestures of Multitouch 2.0) so I am still hoping (but not counting on or expecting) this to premire with the SDK.
How many people who rag on the ol' Mac Mini have actually used one?
I wanted a Mac Pro but at the time I needed it I didn't like the configurations available from Apple. I also knew some of the great technology we have today would be coming out. For years I had been doing all of my graphics and web design work on a PowerMac, but with the introduction of Intel chips I needed to move forward to save a lot of money (thanks to the potential this new type of Mac would bring me).
I was thinking about iMacs for quite some time until Apple launched the Mac Mini. When I saw the bus speed, processor, and RAM capabilities, I was amazed and immediately purchased one. I maxed out the RAM, got a Core Duo, and stacked it on top of a LaCie external HDD with additional ports. I'm typing on it right now while my new 3.2GHz Mac Pro w/ the 8800 GT and 10 GBs RAM is a week away from delivery. I have been using it ever since I purchased it to handle all of my professional work. It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
I don't worry much about specifications, but I do know what I need. I would like to run Vista and some Linux flavor in virtual machines under VMWare, and I would like to run things like Photoshop and Bibble or Lightroom. The Mac mini, definitely after the next update has all the processor power I need, and I don't care much about graphics performance.
So why is the Mini wrong for me? The HD is too small and the memory maxes out at 2GB. I know what it feels like to work with bibble or vmware with 1 GB. Not a pretty picture. The rest of the interface gets slow. 2GB may be enough, but I'd rather have 4. The other problem for me is the small HD, which you solved by attaching an external HD. That's yet another box and yet another power cord. Not pretty either, and not as fast as an internal disk. The only thing I would want an xMac for is to have a 2nd HD for Time machine. I just don't like the idea of external disks, even though I know that's better for backups. I just don't like it.
The mini maxes out at 3GB of RAM. Apple may not offer 3GB of RAM, but trust me, the unit is capable of it. As for the external drive question, my coworker (we work at an Apple Specialist, mind you) used to boot his mini from a FireWire drive by default, because his extensive iPhoto and Adobe Lightroom libraries worked better on the system drive. By his reports, the mini booted just as fast from the external drive as it did from the internal, likely due to the faster RPM's of the larger drive making up for the fact that it's running through FireWire.
Exactly I've heard of people doing such things and more to Mac Minis. I know of plenty of individuals who upgraded from PowerMac G3s to Mac Minis with fantastic results! These people do pro audio and video, some publishing & graphics, and some intense work too. In some of these studios, the Mini is the workhorse. In other places, I know of users who have a Mac Pro or two in the workplace and the rest of the employees use Mac Minis with great results, and I never heard anybody do anything but praise the little monsters.
3 things that people ALWAYS talk about in every thead that I think will NEVER EVER EVER happen:
1) Return of Newton, 1.5x iPod Touch, the mini (cripled) Tablet that mimics the Touch. Will never happen. Please tell me, what are its uses? What are its advantages over a iPod Touch or an iPhone? Both of those are more portable, now with more storage, so how would a 7" or 10" iPod Touch be useful for ANYONE? Also, how would this be better than just having a fully functional OSX 13" Tablet? Why would anyone need a PDA, PDAs are dead! iPod Touches and iPhones are far better PDAs anyways and will only improve with the SDK.
Oh but if Apple where to deliver something like has been discussed, that is something slightly larger than an iPod Touch, I would have one in a flash. What we are talking about here is something about a half to three quarters of an inch wider and a bit longer with the whole point to contain a high quality HD display. That is a pocketable movie machine. Usage would be as a media machine like iPod but with a slant towards video. The PDA functions would come to the unit naturally just like they do on the current iPods.
I can see significant demand above that size but I think you are pushing it when you get to 13 inches! The problem is maintaining the device as suitable for hand held usage.
As to PDA being dead no way they just added the capability of a cell phone. For that matter I wouldn't mind if the devices above came with a cell capability either. Cell is still a legitimate technology and as long as you can still carry it with you viable to be had in one device. Look at it this way the iPhone is a PDA, like it or not it fills that role. What we are asking for is a similar device that focuses more of its energy on media delivery. The cell capability being put back in the background where it belongs.
2) A headless xMac. An Apple consumer-focused Mid-Tower. In a way a cheaper Mac Pro, just not Pro. What would it really be? A Dell box designed and branded by Apple. I know tons of you out there wish you could throw in a better graphics cars into a Mac Mini, or have just one expansion slot and the same people think the Mac Pro is too expensive and over-kill. Thats not what macs are really for, however. They are not for the Tim Allen build-it-yourself types and make it look like a Honda Civic complete with glowing cables and 10 non-working USB/Firewire/SD card reader ports on a PCI slot. Macs area an eco-sytem, and while I do believe Apple will include better graphics cards, they might also include small room for expansion down the road. However, we will never see an xMac.
Clearly you are out of touch with reality. One of the reasons many people have PC's on their desk isn't because they are in love with a MS OS it is the reality that they need a machine that is low cost and customizable. The Mac Pro simply isn't the platform for low cost anything, it is server class hardware in a big desktop box.
As to including room, let face the flips side here they don't need to add a lot of space. A slot or two of PCI Express would do. Even the mobile standard would do.
3) Death of the Mac Mini. Mac Mini is here to stay, forever, unless it is replaced by another product line that expands the idea of the Mini, like a Mac Nano. Mac Mini is actually a great tool to bait switchers, and over time, we will see better Minis perhaps for even cheaper prices!
The Mini is dead, get over it. That is the current model will be replaced. But in a way the nonsense that you spout above says the same thing.
Sorry guys and gals, but none of these things will ever occur. They just don't make any sense. Sure, they are dramatic and fodder for speculation, but none of these would benefit Apple.
Much like you message, especially the Mini related item above.
Dave
Well you can pretend I wrote no.1 because I have constantly been saying the tablet will be a Mac and not an iPod, thus the name [I created] Mac touch.
Not the way I see it. I see larger iPods as the most viable path for Apple to follow. The number one reason would be that there is demand in that realm for larger devices. There is about zero demand for a tablet that is focused on running legacy operating systems.
Legacy is an important issue too. If Apple concentrates on the iPod as the mother of its new tablet line then they inherit from that OS and not the Mac OS. This allows Apple to do away with a lot of old crud and makes support on these device far easier. Basically one does away with all the old API and other stuff from ancient history with the iPods.
However I don't know if Apple's first tablet will be 13", that's what the Air is for. I have been saying it will be 11", but Apple may even go one step further and make it 10" [I'd personally prefer 11"]. Expect other sizes in the future from Apple, but expect the first Mac touch to be only one screen size around 11". With either an Air-esque tapered exterior design, or a flat slab around 15mm thick. Expect some sort of pop-out stand also.
Way to big for the first expansion of the iPod family. Possibly later yes but I suspect that they next device would be far smaller chasing after the Newton form factor.
By the way who likes the first draft design of my blog? I guess you need one these days. I mocked it up in iWeb, I will make the real thing next month. I acquired the domain takingnotes(dot)net several months ago. Final version will have a leather binding up top and some subtle background tweaks etc.
Don't do many blogs -- sorry!
Dave
Exactly! I agree, we already have 4 different iPods (5 if you count the iPhone & 6 if you want to stretch the AppleTV, which in essence is an iPod for the living room). If there is a Mac Touch, it will be a true tablet with full OSX. If you want to play your videos, or songs or anything else, you can just like you would on an iPod except that it doesn't stop there! 11" sounds reasonable for a Tablet, but I see it being close to 13". Why because that would make it close to the 8"x11" standard for a page, and wouldn't that be an ideal size for a tablet?
I understand your iPod counts but I think it is a matter of how you look at the numbers. Apple only has two devices that can be said to be really optimized to deliver Movies. We are talking the Touch and AppleTV. The Touch being the only portable device. Apple does not have a hand held device that is really optimized for the delivery of movies/video/tv type media.
Yes I know about the other iPods but I will just flatly say their screens are to tiny and of the wrong format to really be able to justify the content Apple will have access to. In a nut shell Apple needs the larger device to make rentals and downloads a success.
The fact that we get a Mobile OS to go with the product is just a bit of icing on the top. Frankly this OS just makes it easier for Apple's customers to justify the expense of the device. Not to mention is the fact that a slightly larger screen would make the devices much more useful with respect to the on screen keyboard. There are a lot of good reason in fact to go to a slightly larger device, you can name it any thing you want but Newton2 seems to stick in peoples minds.
Interestingly I'd go for iPhone2 my self as the larger tablets could make use of the Cell functionality also. For example an iPhone 2 that is a little more than a half inch longer and maybe a bit more than a half inch wider would allow for a much larger screen. The little extra space might even allow for two flash devices.
I can see what your saying about the small keys on the iPod Touch, however, I'm pretty sure apple took multiple hand sizes into account when designing the device. I can see your argument for a "larger" iPod, however, why cripple it and make it only an iPod when it could truly be a fully capable Mac.
I doubt they took anything into consideration.
About the xMac, perhaps Apple could mess with the Mac Mini and its dimensions slightly, give it a slot or two and make it more user friendly by giving some wiggle-room for upgrades such as those that you have mentioned. I don't see them building a full or mid-size tower though, not even a cube.
I see multiple possibilities with respect to expansion and the MINI. Frankly I'm not strong on the need for a GPU slot. What I'd like to see is a mini with a card bus slot or similar. This would give us enough flexibility to handle a number of task the hardware currently can't. The machine does need to expand in size any ways to handle a standard disk drive. The 2.5 inch space seems to be going dead. I could see Apple staying with 2.5 inch drives if they where to put the OS on a Flash component.
This would be sort of a hybrid machine with the OS and apps on the Flash component and the user space stuff on the conventional harddrive. This is likely the best way to deliver new technology and keep costs under control. It would also be a slight performance enhancement.
Dave
How many people who rag on the ol' Mac Mini have actually used one?
I actually have a computer of older technology. When the Mini first came out Iwas very impressed with it, especially after they updated it with more I/O. Unlike wine computers don't age well.
It has been tough working on larger graphics intensive projects thanks to the integrated graphics, so it is out of the question for high-resolution Photoshop work, very complicated Illustrator work, and video editing, but for the work I do?work which taxes my computer far more than many other users?it has been great. It runs Leopard very smoothly and can handle loads of programs without trouble. It just isn't as fast or nice as current offerings.
I think what is killing many people here is that the Mini could be upgraded and still contain integrated graphics. It is not that the design is bad it is just that you are paying new dollars for old technology.
People should look more at what a product can offer them in actual use and a little bit less at specifications. I hear people who don't even do any advanced work, or advanced gaming, complain about how under-powered systems like this are.
Well yes and no. You don't go down to the store to buy batteries and look for those built on five year old technology. You want to put your money down on something of relatively recent technology. It may still be a 'D" cell on the outside but it is what is in the inside that counts. Same thing with computer hardware, yeah the
GPU works in the Mini but lets face it it is OLD!
If this 'low-end' Mac served me well enough for this purpose, it must be absolutely marvelous for the audience to whom it was intended?people who use their computer for general purposes (internet, email, productivity software) and family interests (iLife, photo editing, casual gaming).
I think the biggest killer here is the hard disk of all things. With digital video, digital photography, and music it doesn't take much to tax the drive. The combo of a expensive and less than optimal drive with an outdated GPU just makes for poor value. Frankly a lot of this is due to neglect. At one time the Mini was a good value.
I won't be getting another seeing as how that Mac Pro will serve me for many years, but I won't be excited to see it leave from Apple's lineup.
It is good that your business is moving in a direction that lets you move up to a Mac Pro. The question I have is if you had an option for a much cheaper Mac desktop machine, that had a discreet GPU, would you go for it? The problem as I see it is that there is no middle ground for people to find the right performance / capability level. The Mini is fine as a robust low end machine but it fails miserably when taxed, pretty much as you have described. Something in the middle that is not an iMac would help with that issue.
In any event I'm very curious about what Apple will do with the Mini. It is clear that something is happening as they seem to be getting scarce and the promotional level is non-existent. While many of use have wants with respect to the Mini I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple go in an entirely different direction.
Dave
Exactly I've heard of people doing such things and more to Mac Minis. I know of plenty of individuals who upgraded from PowerMac G3s to Mac Minis with fantastic results!
When talking about the Mini and XMac many people consider the current notebook drive to be the weak point in the Mini. It would not be asking much to see that part of the Mini improved and is why many would like to see Mini stretched to handle 3.5" drives.
In any event this stretch to get the Min to function at the level required is why I see it as a less that professional machine. If one has to immediately add an external drive and boot from that then the machine really isn't up to the task. Especially if an internal disk drive upgrade wouldn't gt you where you have to go.
These people do pro audio and video, some publishing & graphics, and some intense work too. In some of these studios, the Mini is the workhorse.
Yes it can be a work horse! I just question buying the machine and then only using half the suppled hardware.
In other places, I know of users who have a Mac Pro or two in the workplace and the rest of the employees use Mac Minis with great results, and I never heard anybody do anything but praise the little monsters.
If they understand Mini limitations they can make very good use of the hardware. In any event my biggest complaint about the current Mini is that the hardware is simply old. A solid update is needed. More so a bit of a rethink to get the features down right for todays user. That doesn't make for a vastly different machine, just one that is more up to date.
Dave
When talking about the Mini and XMac many people consider the current notebook drive to be the weak point in the Mini. It would not be asking much to see that part of the Mini improved and is why many would like to see Mini stretched to handle 3.5" drives.
In any event this stretch to get the Min to function at the level required is why I see it as a less that professional machine. If one has to immediately add an external drive and boot from that then the machine really isn't up to the task. Especially if an internal disk drive upgrade wouldn't gt you where you have to go.
Yes it can be a work horse! I just question buying the machine and then only using half the suppled hardware.
If they understand Mini limitations they can make very good use of the hardware. In any event my biggest complaint about the current Mini is that the hardware is simply old. A solid update is needed. More so a bit of a rethink to get the features down right for todays user. That doesn't make for a vastly different machine, just one that is more up to date.
Dave
Wow Dave. Please refrain from posting in succession like that. You don't even stop to take a breath, lol.
Your out of touch, your welcome to your opinion, but it is yours and yours alone. Please give someone a chance to write back between your posts
oh, and to be honest I stopped reading after your first post, its all nonsense and i won't get those 5 minutes back. No offense
It's based around a Core 2 Duo, and the slim performance gain achieved by a slightly faster Core 2 or by adding Santa Rosa are not something to argue over. Besides, if you look at major PC vendors, you'll find that most Core 2 Duo desktops end up in the same price range as the mini. Some are cheaper, some are more expensive. All of them have integrated graphics by default. Now, everyone criticizes the Mac mini because it doesn't have a dedicated GPU, but you must realize that not everyone needs a dedicated GPU. And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Basically, there's nothing on the mini that isn't fair for it's price range.
I won't even bother to pick out which of those six posts addressed the mini being "old".
It's based around a Core 2 Duo, and the slim performance gain achieved by a slightly faster Core 2 or by adding Santa Rosa are not something to argue over. Besides, if you look at major PC vendors, you'll find that most Core 2 Duo desktops end up in the same price range as the mini. Some are cheaper, some are more expensive. All of them have integrated graphics by default. Now, everyone criticizes the Mac mini because it doesn't have a dedicated GPU, but you must realize that not everyone needs a dedicated GPU. And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Basically, there's nothing on the mini that isn't fair for it's price range.
good post! i agree entirely!
And it would be more detrimental to Apple to force low-end consumers to pay for a dedicated GPU than it would be to tell prosumers to just go for an iMac.
The mini's only other alleged weak point is the laptop hard drive, but no one complains about the hard drive performance in the $2499 MacBook Pro, do they? And if storage is your concern, there's a plethora of external input on the back.
Apple doesn't have to force low-end consumers to pay for anything if they just offer a dedicated GPU as an additional cost option on the mini.
Also, the reason few people complain about the hard drive performance in a MBP is because it's a laptop. When you buy a laptop, it is with the understanding that certain concessions are being made for portability and battery life. Higher performing equipment usually means more power needed which results in worse battery life. This argument doesn't hold up with a desktop machine.
Also add that wouldn't the idea of a USB-hub/Firewire-daisy chain hell for all those external accessories behind your Mac mini be self defeating against the whole Mac aesthetic? Wouldn't it be simpler and cleaner for the user to simply be able to put all that equipment into a nice mid-tower case? Clean, elegant, organized.
Apple doesn't have to force low-end consumers to pay for anything if they just offer a dedicated GPU as an additional cost option on the mini.
Also, the reason few people complain about the hard drive performance in a MBP is because it's a laptop. When you buy a laptop, it is with the understanding that certain concessions are being made for portability and battery life. Higher performing equipment usually means more power needed which results in worse battery life. This argument doesn't hold up with a desktop machine.
Also add that wouldn't the idea of a USB-hub/Firewire-daisy chain hell for all those external accessories behind your Mac mini be self defeating against the whole Mac aesthetic? Wouldn't it be simpler and cleaner for the user to simply be able to put all that equipment into a nice mid-tower case? Clean, elegant, organized.
So you give a Mac Mini a better/high-end GPU as an option. Problem solved.
I would any day rather have a USB accessory or two connected to a Mac Mini vs having a mid-tower taking up 2 cubic feet of space!
So you give a Mac Mini a better/high-end GPU as an option. Problem solved.
I would any day rather have a USB accessory or two connected to a Mac Mini vs having a mid-tower taking up 2 cubic feet of space!
Except that they don't offer a dedicated GPU even as an option, let alone a better one. And it doesn't resolve the other performance issues with the mini. A solution that doesn't exist (one that is even less likely than Apple selling an xMac) can't solve the problem.
And it'd be nice if it were only one or two small accessories that could get all their power from the USB port. Right now, connected to my MBP is a Firewire daisy chain of 2 external hard drives (and I need a third) and a FireWave surround adapter. On top of the additional space that all those external accessories take, there's the cabling and the additional power plugs and of course the huge performance hit because they're being connected through FireWire instead of a direct SATA or PCI connection inside the machine. In the end, it's taking up more space and more clutter.
To borrow what you said, I would any day rather have a a united, clean, fast, organized, and Jonathan Ive-designed gorgeous mid-tower case taking up 2 cubic feet of space than a tangle of power cords and USB cables connecting a bunch of accessories to my Mac.
Except that they don't offer a dedicated GPU even as an option, let alone a better one. And it doesn't resolve the other performance issues with the mini. A solution that doesn't exist (one that is even less likely than Apple selling an xMac) can't solve the problem.
And it'd be nice if it were only one or two small accessories that could get all their power from the USB port. Right now, connected to my MBP is a Firewire daisy chain of 2 external hard drives (and I need a third) and a FireWave surround adapter. On top of the additional space that all those external accessories take, there's the cabling and the additional power plugs and of course the huge performance hit because they're being connected through FireWire instead of a direct SATA or PCI connection inside the machine. In the end, it's taking up more space and more clutter.
To borrow what you said, I would any day rather have a a united, clean, fast, organized, and Jonathan Ive-designed gorgeous mid-tower case taking up 2 cubic feet of space than a tangle of power cords and USB cables connecting a bunch of accessories to my Mac.
If thats what you need, than buy a Mac Pro. Obviously you think the Mac Mini has performance issues, go with the Pro.
Please don't tell what you want is a crippled Mac Pro for half the price
If thats what you need, than buy a Mac Pro. Obviously you think the Mac Mini has performance issues, go with the Pro.
Please don't tell what you want is a crippled Mac Pro for half the price
I, as do most xMac people, don't want a crippled Mac Pro because that implies we still want all that expensive server-level hardware inside. We want a Mac running on standard, powerful, reliable, and inexpensive desktop components. Not notebook components that have been performance crippled for size and power constraints like in the iMac or Mac mini, but we certainly don't need server class components like in the Mac Pro. Wolfdales and Conroes instead of Meroms and Penryns. High Speed 10,000rpm 3.5" HDDs. Things like that.
If Apple used standard desktop class components and put them into a Mac Pro case, it would probably (for what most xMac folks want/need) perform almost as well as a Mac Pro for much less than half the cost and give Apple as good or better margins than anything else in the Mac lineup. If that's what you consider a crippled Mac Pro, then bring them on.
I, as do most xMac people, don't want a crippled Mac Pro because that implies we still want all that expensive server-level hardware inside. We want a Mac running on standard, powerful, reliable, and inexpensive desktop components. Not notebook components that have been performance crippled for size and power constraints like in the iMac or Mac mini, but we certainly don't need server class components like in the Mac Pro. Wolfdales and Conroes instead of Meroms and Penryns. High Speed 10,000rpm 3.5" HDDs. Things like that.
If Apple used standard desktop class components and put them into a Mac Pro case, it would probably (for what most xMac folks want/need) perform almost as well as a Mac Pro for much less than half the cost and give Apple as good or better margins than anything else in the Mac lineup. If that's what you consider a crippled Mac Pro, then bring them on.
So you want a Mac Mini then, inside a Mac Pro case?
Or how about a MBP in a Mac Pro case?
What do you want, it doesn't make sense, just like producing an xMac.