Mini Wisdom

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post


    And, oh it's been 333 days since the Mini was last refreshed. It's time. Way beyond time. Like the notebook lines, maybe it's waiting for Montevina (One can hope)...



    The pessimist in me says that Apple will wait to update the mini until AFTER the back-to-school crowd has made its purchases. An upgraded mini at this point might lead money-conscious buyers to gravitate in its direction, opting out of more costly purchases that bring higher margins to Cupertino.



    Meanwhile, my group has to make a decision fairly soon.
  • Reply 42 of 98
    xflarexflare Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    The pessimist in me says that Apple will wait to update the mini until AFTER the back-to-school crowd has made its purchases. An upgraded mini at this point might lead money-conscious buyers to gravitate in its direction, opting out of more costly purchases that bring higher margins to Cupertino.



    What are the margins like on the Mini now? They must be enormous by now- it hasn't been touched in almost a year, the hardware is ancient in computing terms. GMA 950, Combo Drives? They must get those for practically free, all the while charging customers extortionate prices for them.
  • Reply 43 of 98
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xflare View Post


    What are the margins like on the Mini now? They must be enormous by now- it hasn't been touched in almost a year, the hardware is ancient in computing terms. GMA 950, Combo Drives? They must get those for practically free, all the while charging customers extortionate prices for them.



    True. All the more reason to delay the upgrade as long as possible?
  • Reply 44 of 98
    xflarexflare Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    True. All the more reason to delay the upgrade as long as possible?



    Yep..
  • Reply 45 of 98
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    A gross simplification if I ever saw one. In the context of this thread there are many good reasons to keep the Mini out of the equation.



    And most have been rebutted.



    Quote:

    I fully understand the need to complement the high end, I just don't see the Mini as the solution to that issue. As state previously it has very little to do with the integrated graphics.



    Maxed to 3GB it then depends on how badly you need a scratch disk for the size files you work with. Again, I'd buy the mini's last if required and hope for an update.



    CPU wise they are fine. The chief limitation is the IG.



    Quote:

    It is more a case of having to support an odd piece of hardware that ends up being a very small percentage of your installed base. In any event your focus on the refresh just reinforces that performance isn't a strong point of the Mini either.



    Depends on your replacement strategy in the first place. We have several different models of Dell around with different memory speeds, video cards, processors, drive types and the very oldest still have "ancient" GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP cards.



    The "standard" PC is often an illusion in many shops.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The above would be the best reason to keep the iMac out of the main production stream.



    Why? The primary consideration here is how long before you can get a replacement machine in rather than trying to swap components. When one of our Dells break during the warranty period it gets fixed by Dell. Not our IT staff. Nor do you want to be mucking about inside your Mac trying to fix it if it's under Applecare.



    One limitation of Apple is that they only sell Applecare Premium for the XServe line.



    Quote:

    The discussion about performance is most interesting here. Really the upgrade program ought to have realistic goals based on an economic payoff. In other words if a machine can cut production time in half how much would they be willing to pay for it. If a machine can do it in 1/4 or 1/8th the time how much would that be worth to them.



    I'm bothered a bit by this whole program in that the goal seems to convert to Macs but not justify them in any other way. The cost of the hardware might look a lot different if they where to realize a production system that is 3 times faster.



    Presumably TCO and ROI were considered and the Mac won. The problem is budgets are usually not infinite so what product mix can you get for the current capital budget is always an issue.



    Quote:

    First let me say this very clearly if you have desktop machines that are not hooked up to a wired network you are just crazy. Wireless is just such a huge risk in a static location that it just boggles my mind that anyone would consider it a reasonable alternative for an installation of desktop machines. That doesn't even include the speed loss considerations.



    Speed loss is the only real consideration in a modern wireless setup. WPA2/AES + a strong password hasn't been broken to anyone's public knowledge.



    Enterprise wireless setups are more likely compromised (via radius server spoofing) than small company setups using WPA2/AES. Even then, most IT departments can correctly configure their clients to avoid spoofing attacks.



    Quote:

    In other words it needs a complete redesign!



    No, it just needs a refresh. A refreshed penryn mini with one less USB and the addition of eSATA would be great. You can have eSATA today on the mini but requires a mod to expose the port. Electrically, it's all there.



    Montevina/X4500 would be better than Crestline/X3100 but odds are that the mini only goes Crestline. Hoping for something like the GeForce 8300 is beyond hope. Might as well wish for a pony or an xMac.



    The fact that the mini isn't refreshed is is a semi-good sign re the X4500. Perhaps that's just me grasping at straws.
  • Reply 46 of 98
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    So I have had a Mini for the last 3 years and it has always lived under my TV acting as a bloody good media server. It was actually my first ever Mac and only bought because of form factor and very low noise. But since first tasting Mac I have bought among other things a MBP and a Macbook for the wife.



    My Mini is now dead (RIP little man), I have popped him open and changed hard drive and checked a few things out but still no response. My wife got my 2GB of RAM for her MB and the rest is in the trash.



    I have not replaced him yet, my hacked AppleTV is my stand-in media server at the moment this is only a short term measure. But I cannot even think about buying a Mac Mini until I know whether a refresh is coming within the next 2 months or not.



    But If there is a refresh I am expecting more...



    I really would like a HDMI out.

    I really would like a Blu-Ray drive.



    3.5" drives are not important really, external storage is a must for media files anyway with dual drives as a plus. But Blu-Ray I think is probably a dealbreaker.



    I am tempted to go back to windows, only because I could build a very decent Media Center PC with Blu-Ray and a smart little case from Shuttle for not much more than the current Mac-Mini. I am reluctant to do this, really reluctant but not confident Apple are going to deliver anything on this front this calendar year.



    At least if no Blu-Ray then the ability to upgrade to Blu-Ray in the near future may be okay, but what I cannot do is spend money on a refreshed one in Sept only to find out it is refreshed next May with added Blu-Ray.



    This is not like I am expecting anything leading edge here, Blu-Ray should be a fairly standard option on most windows machines by Christmas.



    But for anyone to suggest the Mac Mini does not have a place anymore I would certainly beg to differ, it really is the greatest computer I have ever owned in my life and I miss the little guy loads
  • Reply 47 of 98
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    You might consider a PS3 to complement your aTV. You have plenty of other macs around...
  • Reply 48 of 98
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Best of luck and post back about how it goes.



    Dave



    We've completed round one of purchases: one new Mac Pro octo-core with 8 gig of RAM (not from Apple) and a few beautiful 24" glossy iMacs. Otherwise, we're still in a holding pattern but will probably go with either an upgraded mini (if it arrives soon) or the refurbished white 24" iMacs for those who requested the matte screen.
  • Reply 49 of 98
    kenaustuskenaustus Posts: 916member
    Haven't read through all of the threads, but why not consider a balance of Macs.



    For those that have a critical need for power and a great display get them the lowest priced MacPro.



    Mid range go with a few MacBook Pros with an external display.



    For others use the iMac or Mac mini, depending on their needs.



    As for the mini itself, I would be interested in knowing how Snow Leopard will impact the performance of the current line, and if Apple will finally upgrade it to move forward with where Snow Leopard is heading. Now is the time for Apple to be developing hardware strategies that will take advantage of Snow Leopard. The xMax is too much to ask for, but a significantly improved mini isn't.
  • Reply 50 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post


    We've completed round one of purchases: one new Mac Pro octo-core with 8 gig of RAM (not from Apple) and a few beautiful 24" glossy iMacs. Otherwise, we're still in a holding pattern but will probably go with either an upgraded mini (if it arrives soon) or the refurbished white 24" iMacs for those who requested the matte screen.



    Sounds like you are off to a good start with your roll out.



    Dave
  • Reply 51 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    And most have been rebutted.



    Well no we have had opinions expressed, but I've seen nothing to rebut the facts offered up.

    Quote:

    Maxed to 3GB it then depends on how badly you need a scratch disk for the size files you work with. Again, I'd buy the mini's last if required and hope for an update.



    Apple could certainly update the Mini to something more acceptable there is no doubt there at all. The problem is you can not formulate a business plan around a hoped for device.

    Quote:



    CPU wise they are fine. The chief limitation is the IG.



    I don't believe the CPU to be a huge issue other than it is getting to be a bit expensive for the generation of CPU and GPU. As to the IG I do believe that is an issue, especially as Apple continually leverage's the GPU in the various system libraries. How well the IG work is related to the specific work load. The big problem today is that how that GPU is used is more complex that in the past.

    Quote:





    Depends on your replacement strategy in the first place. We have several different models of Dell around with different memory speeds, video cards, processors, drive types and the very oldest still have "ancient" GeForce 6800 Ultra AGP cards.



    I understand the issue of old equipment very well. WE just recently instituted a program to replace some very old PC's on the production floor. The big problem with these was and is legacy hardware that literally required buying hardware that supported ISA bus interfacing. Not something anybody wanted to do but when the vendor of you interferometer has not other hardware choice you do what you have to do.



    That is not mainstream office computing of course. The point with the Mini is that it is not even close to using standard PC disk drives, memory, graphics cards, power supplies or just about anything internal to the box. Thus a need for specific spares inventory for the Mini. This isn't a huge problem if you have a lot of Mini's and can justify the stock, it is a big problem if you have a few mixed in with a much larger collection of hardware.

    Quote:



    The "standard" PC is often an illusion in many shops.



    Well considering how the corporation I work at currently runs I have a mixed response to that concept. They certainly have the vision of standard PC's. The problem is outside of a clerks desk the configuration needs of a computer can very dramatically. So while they make thing every PC on the floor is standard it isn't in reality.

    Quote:

    Why? The primary consideration here is how long before you can get a replacement machine in rather than trying to swap components. When one of our Dells break during the warranty period it gets fixed by Dell. Not our IT staff. Nor do you want to be mucking about inside your Mac trying to fix it if it's under Applecare.



    The plant I work in runs 24/7 we simply can't wait to morning for most PC repairs. Thus we have a few items on had al the time to support repairs. This includes disk drives and power supplies and the other high failure rate items. Have a failure at the wrong point in the production line and the cost a few minutes downtime can easily exceed the cost of a PC.

    Quote:



    One limitation of Apple is that they only sell Applecare Premium for the XServe line.







    Presumably TCO and ROI were considered and the Mac won. The problem is budgets are usually not infinite so what product mix can you get for the current capital budget is always an issue.



    Or you can be forced into getting something you simply don't need or can't leverage effectively because it isn't a corporate standard.



    AS to budgeting there is always issues there unless your department happens to be marketing (venting here). In any event I still see the Mini as something that isn't easy to justify based on economics especially considering its current value. The reality is that the Mini vs IMac question seems to lean towards the IMac being a better value for many apps.

    Quote:



    Speed loss is the only real consideration in a modern wireless setup. WPA2/AES + a strong password hasn't been broken to anyone's public knowledge.



    Speed loss would seem to be very important to an organization that moves a lot of large graphics files around. As to the RF technologies I still see security as an issue. Maybe it is still secure, I don't really know at the moment, it just seems to be an unneeded risk in an office. The flips side to that is that somebody could tap your corporate wired network too, so I'm not glossing over that.

    Quote:



    Enterprise wireless setups are more likely compromised (via radius server spoofing) than small company setups using WPA2/AES. Even then, most IT departments can correctly configure their clients to avoid spoofing attacks.



    Still the use of RF technology implies you are broadcasting your data. The risk here is that your competition could simply capture that data and decode it.

    Quote:







    No, it just needs a refresh. A refreshed penryn mini with one less USB and the addition of eSATA would be great. You can have eSATA today on the mini but requires a mod to expose the port. Electrically, it's all there.



    Whoa big disagreement here, Mini needs much more than a simple refresh to make it the darling of the corporate world. Further loosing a USB port simply isn't in the equation.



    From a redesign standpoint the Mini needs the following:

    1.

    An easy open case. Here I mean one screw and you are there.

    2.

    Standard desktop RAM expansion.

    3.

    Provision for a standard disk drive. This is less of an issue as laptop drives increase in size. The reality is that most of today's PC's are supported by network storage.

    4.

    I'd actually like to see more USB ports though that gets into a power issue.



    I'm not trying to suggest a major remake, what I'm after is a machine that can stand toe to toe service wise with more generic PC hardware.

    Quote:



    Montevina/X4500 would be better than Crestline/X3100 but odds are that the mini only goes Crestline. Hoping for something like the GeForce 8300 is beyond hope. Might as well wish for a pony or an xMac.



    A GeForce might be out of the question, but ATI does have some interesting integrated chips available plus low power laptop variants. In any event I don't see the issue of the GPU as being a show stopper for the corporate "standard" world. Right or wrong the corporate answer seems to be to go with the cheapest GPU that can be had. Personally I think that is a mistake with Mac OS/X but that does depend on how dedicated the Mini might be to a specific task.

    Quote:



    The fact that the mini isn't refreshed is is a semi-good sign re the X4500. Perhaps that's just me grasping at straws.



    That could be or Apple may have more significant plans for the Mini. Part of the problem with the Mini is that Laptops have become reasonable competitors for low end hardware. Not that the Mini is really low end but it is in the price range where it competes with laptops, from just about everybody.



    Personally I think Apple needs to evolve the mini for the consumer market. In that sense it needs to be better optimized for multimedia delivery. That would lead the Mini away from servicing the traditional corporate usage. It is just that right now I can't see the hardware, as currently configured, as having much of a future. If Apple tries to keep the Min corporate focused it will end up with to little to attract future consumers and just the opposite happens if they focus on the consumer world and configure the machine is such a way that the corporate world basically walks away. Right now the Mini is highly biased for the consumer market, nothing wrong with that just that it make it a hard sell for the corporate account.



    By the way that is not to dismiss the reality that the Minis are being used in corporate environments. It just that the Mini is not as flexible and deployable as one would want.



    Dave
  • Reply 52 of 98
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    My gut feeling is that the diminutive size of the mini is not the feature that is attracting most of its buyers. Instead, it's the low cost and relatively quiet operation (though when my mini's fan kicks in, it's no longer "quiet") coupled with much better looks than the average PC. None of those features drive the mini toward exclusive use of the laptop components that it's currently built from. Frankly, the mini doesn't need to remain quite as small as it is to be the machine that I think Apple wants it to be.
  • Reply 53 of 98
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post


    My gut feeling is that the diminutive size of the mini is not the feature that is attracting most of its buyers. Instead, it's the low cost and relatively quiet operation (though when my mini's fan kicks in, it's no longer "quiet") coupled with much better looks than the average PC. None of those features drive the mini toward exclusive use of the laptop components that it's currently built from. Frankly, the mini doesn't need to remain quite as small as it is to be the machine that I think Apple wants it to be.



    agreed.

    if the size was increased to something like the cube (sorry!), the 'mini++' could be reasonable silent even when used for something a little more demanding than facebook.com or mail.app. (both of which can be quite demanding, mind you...)
  • Reply 54 of 98
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tubgirl View Post


    agreed.

    if the size was increased to something like the cube (sorry!), the 'mini++' could be reasonable silent even when used for something a little more demanding than facebook.com or mail.app. (both of which can be quite demanding, mind you...)



    Here's an interesting little dimensional factoid.... The Apple TV and the Cube have an identical footprint (7.7" X 7.7"). The difference is obviously the height (1.1" vs. 9.8"). By contrast, the mini's footprint is 6.5" X 6.5". It's height is 2".



    Pure speculation of course but one might be led to conclude that if you marry the Apple TV's/Cube's footprint with something more like the mini's height (or certainly less than the Cube's), you could end up with a small and attractive computer that isn't forced into the compromises that currently exist in the mini.
  • Reply 55 of 98
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post


    My gut feeling is that the diminutive size of the mini is not the feature that is attracting most of its buyers. Instead, it's the low cost and relatively quiet operation (though when my mini's fan kicks in, it's no longer "quiet") coupled with much better looks than the average PC. None of those features drive the mini toward exclusive use of the laptop components that it's currently built from. Frankly, the mini doesn't need to remain quite as small as it is to be the machine that I think Apple wants it to be.



    If that's the case then I think it would make sense to make a larger version of the mini. The price would appeal to many more switchers if Apple used a 3.5 HDD and full size optical. I agree with your gut feeling that switchers are not buying minis for it's diminutive size but for the relatively low Mac price.
  • Reply 56 of 98
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Well no we have had opinions expressed, but I've seen nothing to rebut the facts offered up.



    Folks questioned the ablity of the mini to run CS3. Reports from actual users say it runs CS3.



    Quote:

    Apple could certainly update the Mini to something more acceptable there is no doubt there at all. The problem is you can not formulate a business plan around a hoped for device.



    The current mini is acceptable for use with CS3. Not optimal but acceptable.



    Quote:

    I don't believe the CPU to be a huge issue other than it is getting to be a bit expensive for the generation of CPU and GPU. As to the IG I do believe that is an issue, especially as Apple continually leverage's the GPU in the various system libraries. How well the IG work is related to the specific work load. The big problem today is that how that GPU is used is more complex that in the past.



    The mini is capable of running CS3. Therefore while the IG is the weakest link it is acceptable.



    Quote:

    I understand the issue of old equipment very well.



    Then you should understand that uniformity of hardware is an illusion. Having a few Minis is not a hardship for IT. Worst case is that you keep one in reserve with a half decent monitor in case any of the iMacs or Minis break.



    Quote:

    That is not mainstream office computing of course. The point with the Mini is that it is not even close to using standard PC disk drives, memory, graphics cards, power supplies or just about anything internal to the box.



    The point is most IT shops do not repair machines but send them out if they are under warranty. Are you seriously saying the businesses will ruin their warranties by swapping disks, power supplies, etc and pay for repairs out of pocket?



    Quote:

    Thus a need for specific spares inventory for the Mini.



    There is zero need for specific spares inventory for the mini. There's a desire to have a couple backup machines you can swap in if you have to. Macbooks, minis or Macbook Pros are good candidates...



    Quote:

    Or you can be forced into getting something you simply don't need or can't leverage effectively because it isn't a corporate standard.



    OSX is the corporate standard. The hardware can vary. In any case, the Mac line is farily consistent with itself. It's all notebooks or desktops that are stationary notebooks with two exceptions: Mac Pro and XServe.



    Quote:

    AS to budgeting there is always issues there unless your department happens to be marketing (venting here). In any event I still see the Mini as something that isn't easy to justify based on economics especially considering its current value. The reality is that the Mini vs IMac question seems to lean towards the IMac being a better value for many apps.



    The iMac may be a better value but if you already own decent monitors and you need 3 more machines on $2100 then you get minis.



    Quote:

    Speed loss would seem to be very important to an organization that moves a lot of large graphics files around. As to the RF technologies I still see security as an issue. Maybe it is still secure, I don't really know at the moment, it just seems to be an unneeded risk in an office.



    If you don't know then how can you boldly assert that it is an issue. Whether the speed penalty is worth it depends on many factors.



    Quote:

    Still the use of RF technology implies you are broadcasting your data. The risk here is that your competition could simply capture that data and decode it.



    Securely ENCRYPTED data. Good luck with breaking it.



    Quote:

    Whoa big disagreement here, Mini needs much more than a simple refresh to make it the darling of the corporate world. Further loosing a USB port simply isn't in the equation.



    I never said it would become a darling of the corporate world. I said it would be great. I would gladly trade one USB port for an eSATA port.





    Quote:

    From a redesign standpoint the Mini needs the following:

    1. An easy open case. Here I mean one screw and you are there.



    Most folks will never open the case more than once.



    Quote:

    2. Standard desktop RAM expansion.



    It's based on laptop parts. Never happen. No Mac uses "standard" desktop RAM.



    Quote:

    3. Provision for a standard disk drive. This is less of an issue as laptop drives increase in size. The reality is that most of today's PC's are supported by network storage.



    Not in this form factor. Perhaps as a cube like home server.



    Quote:

    4.I'd actually like to see more USB ports though that gets into a power issue.



    It's a small form factor machine and not everyone needs 4 ports. 3 USB + FW 400 + eSATA is greatly superior to 5 USB.



    Quote:

    I'm not trying to suggest a major remake, what I'm after is a machine that can stand toe to toe service wise with more generic PC hardware.



    What you're asking for is a xMac. That's a major remake. You've moved from a SFF computer based on mobile parts to a mini tower based on desktop parts.



    Congrats. Yet another xMac thread.



    Quote:

    Personally I think Apple needs to evolve the mini for the consumer market.



    It IS designed for the consumer market.



    Quote:

    In that sense it needs to be better optimized for multimedia delivery. That would lead the Mini away from servicing the traditional corporate usage. It is just that right now I can't see the hardware, as currently configured, as having much of a future. If Apple tries to keep the Min corporate focused it will end up with to little to attract future consumers and just the opposite happens if they focus on the consumer world and configure the machine is such a way that the corporate world basically walks away. Right now the Mini is highly biased for the consumer market, nothing wrong with that just that it make it a hard sell for the corporate account.



    This paragraph makes no sense. The mini is a consumer machine with some crossover uses. It has a strategic place in the Mac lineup as the cheapest Mac to run OSX. The objective is to provide the 1st mac for switchers and be so-so enough for upsell once folks have decicded that OSX is for them.



    If the mini goes away, it will only be for a cube like replacement that can serve as a slightly better home server.



    That's still unlikely as the price point moves up.
  • Reply 57 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post




    It's based on laptop parts. Never happen. No Mac uses "standard" desktop RAM.



    The power mac G4 and G5 did also apple ram is over priced and the base ram of 1gb is low leading to people opening it up and adding ram to the mini.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    This paragraph makes no sense. The mini is a consumer machine with some crossover uses. It has a strategic place in the Mac lineup as the cheapest Mac to run OSX. The objective is to provide the 1st mac for switchers and be so-so enough for upsell once folks have decicded that OSX is for them.



    If the mini goes away, it will only be for a cube like replacement that can serve as a slightly better home server.



    That's still unlikely as the price point moves up.



    The mini may have a strategic place but it's price is to high for it's hardware the older mini coasted $100 less.



    The $799.00 mini is a joke and should be replaced by a real desktop
  • Reply 58 of 98
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    As much as I like the idea of the mini form factor the price is obscene for what you get. Instead of $599/$799 it really is worth $299 and $349 respectively.



    How about a new LC. The form factor was great; small, flat, expandable, sexy.







  • Reply 59 of 98
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    As much as I like the idea of the mini form factor the price is obscene for what you get. Instead of $599/$799 it really is worth $299 and $349 respectively.



    The cheapest dell core 2 is $399.



    With BT and FW it's $539.



    Yes, it has a dvd burner and keyboard/mouse but Apple's prices are not as out of whack as you claim.
  • Reply 60 of 98
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    As much as I like the idea of the mini form factor the price is obscene for what you get.



    I'm not sure if obscene is the best description but the device is certainly over priced after not getting a serious update in ages.

    Quote:

    Instead of $599/$799 it really is worth $299 and $349 respectively.



    Well the problem is the components being used lead to a price that is out of sync with respect to what one would expect for a low cost PC. Or maybe I should say a Apples low end machine.

    Quote:



    How about a new LC. The form factor was great; small, flat, expandable, sexy.



    The LC was always an interesting platform though at the time a little underpowered. Frankly all I'm looking for is a housing that allows one to build a desktop PC out of lower cost components. This to allow Apple to deliver a more competitive cost effective platform. Also more mainstream parts should allow Apple more options when it comes to updating the machine.



    When it comes right down to it doe the machine even need to be LC sized? Just provide room for a desktop RAM DIMM and a disk drive. An internal power supply might be considered also. I wouldn't even be upset if they got rid of the CDROM drive.



    One thing I do wish that Apple would consider doing is to go the solid state storage route. But and it is a big one, move away from the drive as a module concept. Instead take a lead from the AIR and build a secondary storage module like the did with the RAM module on AIR. The idea being to increase ones packaging flexibility.



    Dave
Sign In or Register to comment.