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.
Why?
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now. It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
That is the easy part a larger format machine leads to cheaper hardware due to using common low cost parts. So if you have room for a desk top drive hitting 500 GB is easy.
Don't get me wrong Apple shouldn't enlarge the machine anymore than required to get to the point where a decent size hard drive and standard RAM can fit. Notably I'd settle for laptop RAM as I don't see as huge a cost savings or capability limitation. The lack of room for a 3.5" drive does cripple the MIni more than anything else. Especially for use as a home PC possibly in a media center.
Quote:
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
Understand that this guy doesn't hate the form factor either. What I hate is the limitations it imposes especially related to storage. What people should realize though is that addressing such limitations doesn't imply a hugely different machine. At worst Apple makes the machine a bit longer or they go with a custom daughter card with a "SSD" on it.
Quote:
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now.
Exactly so why are you defending the current design? This is what I don't get - the people in the various forums that defend the Mini and then immediately go about making excuses for it. Lets face it the Mini was an excellent idea when it was introduced years ago, but times have changed. One of those biggest changes was and still is the incredible expansion in the size of Media files, thus the need for disk drives that the Mini can't support now and won't likely be able to support in the future.
It isn't the concept that is bad but rather the expansion of storage demands that highlight the Mini's short comings. And by the way NO and external disk is not acceptable here.
Quote:
It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
The CPU and graphics are there to be installed anytime. That is not the problem, rather you can not update the machines internal storage in a significant way. It seems minor to some people but it really is significant to a modern consumer oriented device. There simply is to much demand on storage space for many potential customers.
Understand that I don't want to have Apple undo what is good about the Mini. As a low power platform it is excellent. All I really want is a platform that meets the demands of modern usage. That means a larger disk drive or another solution.
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now. It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
The main issue is that laptop drives the size you mention are more expensive than their desktop sized counterparts. If you correlate it with the retail costs of these drives, it can add $50-$60 to the cost just because of the size. The gap is even more pronounced with optical drives.
Also, it's tiny size also limits the other upgrades you desire, faster CPU and graphics. It can't be done now. The mini is too small.
The mini only needs to have enough room for a desktop sized hard drive and enough room to properly cool the new CPUs, new northbridges and southbridges, and integrated graphics that generate more heat than the 950's in them now. The power supply should stay external.
BT and wifi should be a choice in a desktop not forced on to you. As you can move there costs to putting in better parts.
It's "forced" on you because Apple wants some minimum standard of capability. The POINT is that value wise it's not as horrid as some folks want to make it out to be.
It's "forced" on you because Apple wants some minimum standard of capability. The POINT is that value wise it's not as horrid as some folks want to make it out to be.
The lowest end Mac DOES have BT and WiFi.
Do you really need WIFI in all desktops? the $30 to $50 + cost can be moved to others parts.
Exactly so why are you defending the current design?
Dave
Because the design is excellent.
It's Apple's disregard for updating the machine that's so frustrating.
Besides our previous disagreement was over the minis ability to run CS3, which I still contend the mini can do comfortably. Even with todays components.
It's Apple's disregard for updating the machine that's so frustrating.
Besides our previous disagreement was over the minis ability to run CS3, which I still contend the mini can do comfortably. Even with todays components.
They don't update it because the design is so limiting. Also, the stagnant evolution of the mini can also be used to point to a complete upcoming redesign of a mini like device.
They don't update it because the design is so limiting. .
They can put faster cpus in now. The 45 nm Penryn cpus generate less heat, not more, than the current Merom cpus. I don't know why larger laptop drives couldn't be fitted into the current mini. They put them in the Macbook.
They can put faster cpus in now. The 45 nm Penryn cpus generate less heat, not more, than the current Merom cpus. I don't know why larger laptop drives couldn't be fitted into the current mini. They put them in the Macbook.
Even today it is not the CPU that is the issue in the Mini. Certainly a cooler faster CPU would be a very nice upgrade but that will happen in time anyways given that the Mini stays in production.
The issue is that many of us have interests in software that demands a lot of disk space. For example iTunes and Aperture. The latest and greatest laptop disk isn't going to make a huge difference in the machines acceptability.
By the way no an external disk is not an option to a reasonably size primary disk. For one thing an external disk should be focused on back ups. That is I'd fully expect to have an external disk for the Mini just to serve as a backup device.
....The issue is that many of us have interests in software that demands a lot of disk space. For example iTunes and Aperture. The latest and greatest laptop disk isn't going to make a huge difference in the machines acceptability.
By the way no an external disk is not an option to a reasonably size primary disk. For one thing an external disk should be focused on back ups. That is I'd fully expect to have an external disk for the Mini just to serve as a backup device.
Dave
Fair enough. The desire for 'max' internal storage is not unreasonable. The mini will always be limited in that regard compared to traditional desktops. However increasing the minis current storage capacity so that it is at least equal to that of the current Macbook is certainly doable now and would only make it a better machine. Many users would be able to get along just fine with 200 or 320 gbs of internal storage.
Fair enough. The desire for 'max' internal storage is not unreasonable. The mini will always be limited in that regard compared to traditional desktops. However increasing the minis current storage capacity so that it is at least equal to that of the current Macbook is certainly doable now and would only make it a better machine. Many users would be able to get along just fine with 200 or 320 gbs of internal storage.
I think the point that many have made is you're paying significantly more $/GB to own a mobile-designed HDD in a computer that isn't "mobile". If Apple is trying to save customers a few bucks by making the 80 GB HDD as the low end (the smallest the MacBook uses is 120 GB), then a better way to achieve the cost target is by using a 3.5" drive.
I think the point that many have made is you're paying significantly more $/GB to own a mobile-designed HDD in a computer that isn't "mobile". If Apple is trying to save customers a few bucks by making the 80 GB HDD as the low end (the smallest the MacBook uses is 120 GB), then a better way to achieve the cost target is by using a 3.5" drive.
I've never said that the mini is a good value. This is one area where JTD(among others) and I agree, it isn't. But the original argument was, 'can the mini run CS3 comfortably?'. It can for most users (obviously everyone's definition of 'comfortable' is going to be different). See this link where a mini is comparaby to a g5 quad in the photoshop test (1.19 for the mini vs. 1.12 for the quad. This supports the observation of others like Marvin and Messiah.
While some people don't value the form factor of the mini, I think it's quite advantageous. Some work environments don't allow for larger tower machines. In my office I have several tower machines that sit on the floor underneath desks(because there's no where else to put them). They are always getting kicked and collect dust which has caused one machine to overheat and fail. Having a small machine that can sit on the desk and not take up much space is nice.
I've never said that the mini is a good value. This is one area where JTD(among others) and I agree, it isn't. But the original argument was, 'can the mini run CS3 comfortably?'. It can for most users (obviously everyone's definition of 'comfortable' is going to be different). See this link where a mini is comparaby to a g5 quad in the photoshop test (1.19 for the mini vs. 1.12 for the quad. This supports the observation of others like Marvin and Messiah.
While some people don't value the form factor of the mini, I think it's quite advantageous. Some work environments don't allow for larger tower machines. In my office I have several tower machines that sit on the floor underneath desks(because there's no where else to put them). They are always getting kicked and collect dust which has caused one machine to overheat and fail. Having a small machine that can sit on the desk and not take up much space is nice.
And no one is saying the mini should be a "tower" that sits on the floor. Between the examples of the Apple TV and the Cube, we can easily surmise that the mini could have a footprint that's only marginally larger than current, not rely exclusively on laptop components (theoretically less expensive to build at equivalent specs), and still be a very small computer perfectly designed to sit on your desktop.
And no one is saying the mini should be a "tower" that sits on the floor. Between the examples of the Apple TV and the Cube, we can easily surmise that the mini could have a footprint that's only marginally larger than current, not rely exclusively on laptop components (theoretically less expensive to build at equivalent specs), and still be a very small computer perfectly designed to sit on your desktop.
Once you start talking larger form factor and desktop parts you're squarely in xMac territory.
Apple ain't going there. It's much better to talk about what the mini could and should be within it's current design parameters.
Once you start talking larger form factor and desktop parts you're squarely in xMac territory.
Apple ain't going there. It's much better to talk about what the mini could and should be within it's current design parameters.
xMac is a term invented by us, Apple aficionados, on forums, and has no meaning outside this arena. How do you know Apple has no intention of "going there"? Apple's primary responsibility to the shareholders is to make money and one way is to sell lots of Macs. If their research shows a Mac sized like the cube would sell and their margins would be acceptable, you bet they would.
Within it's current design parameters, the mini would be a good set top box to replace the Apple TV. That's about it.
xMac is a term invented by us, Apple aficionados, on forums, and has no meaning outside this arena.
Still it has meaning. To deny so is foolish. It's a mythical product that is debated in every Mac forum I visit. It's probably the MOST debated topic related to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider
How do you know Apple has no intention of "going there"? Apple's primary responsibility to the shareholders is to make money and one way is to sell lots of Macs.
While I don't want to claim that I have any inside information that they won't make one, why do you think they will? If it's such a compelling product for them why haven't they released one?
There's no point in drudging up this old and tired debate. Suffice it to say that if it was going to be a big money maker for Apple, they'd already have done it by now.
Why don't we talk about what the mini could be within it's own design parameters, rather than a product that Apple hasn't shown any interest in making.
Comments
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.
Why?
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now. It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
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.
BT and wifi should be a choice in a desktop not forced on to you. As you can move there costs to putting in better parts.
Why?
That is the easy part a larger format machine leads to cheaper hardware due to using common low cost parts. So if you have room for a desk top drive hitting 500 GB is easy.
Don't get me wrong Apple shouldn't enlarge the machine anymore than required to get to the point where a decent size hard drive and standard RAM can fit. Notably I'd settle for laptop RAM as I don't see as huge a cost savings or capability limitation. The lack of room for a 3.5" drive does cripple the MIni more than anything else. Especially for use as a home PC possibly in a media center.
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
Understand that this guy doesn't hate the form factor either. What I hate is the limitations it imposes especially related to storage. What people should realize though is that addressing such limitations doesn't imply a hugely different machine. At worst Apple makes the machine a bit longer or they go with a custom daughter card with a "SSD" on it.
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now.
Exactly so why are you defending the current design? This is what I don't get - the people in the various forums that defend the Mini and then immediately go about making excuses for it. Lets face it the Mini was an excellent idea when it was introduced years ago, but times have changed. One of those biggest changes was and still is the incredible expansion in the size of Media files, thus the need for disk drives that the Mini can't support now and won't likely be able to support in the future.
It isn't the concept that is bad but rather the expansion of storage demands that highlight the Mini's short comings. And by the way NO and external disk is not acceptable here.
It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
The CPU and graphics are there to be installed anytime. That is not the problem, rather you can not update the machines internal storage in a significant way. It seems minor to some people but it really is significant to a modern consumer oriented device. There simply is to much demand on storage space for many potential customers.
Understand that I don't want to have Apple undo what is good about the Mini. As a low power platform it is excellent. All I really want is a platform that meets the demands of modern usage. That means a larger disk drive or another solution.
Dave
Why?
I like the form factor of the mini. It's the machines greatest attribute IMO.
The problem with the mini is that it's not all that it easily could and should be. It should have 200-320 gb HDDs available now. It should have faster cpus and better integrated graphics. It should able to address 4 gbs of RAM. These things can be done now and should be done now.
The main issue is that laptop drives the size you mention are more expensive than their desktop sized counterparts. If you correlate it with the retail costs of these drives, it can add $50-$60 to the cost just because of the size. The gap is even more pronounced with optical drives.
Also, it's tiny size also limits the other upgrades you desire, faster CPU and graphics. It can't be done now. The mini is too small.
BT and wifi should be a choice in a desktop not forced on to you. As you can move there costs to putting in better parts.
It's "forced" on you because Apple wants some minimum standard of capability. The POINT is that value wise it's not as horrid as some folks want to make it out to be.
The lowest end Mac DOES have BT and WiFi.
It's "forced" on you because Apple wants some minimum standard of capability. The POINT is that value wise it's not as horrid as some folks want to make it out to be.
The lowest end Mac DOES have BT and WiFi.
Do you really need WIFI in all desktops? the $30 to $50 + cost can be moved to others parts.
Exactly so why are you defending the current design?
Dave
Because the design is excellent.
It's Apple's disregard for updating the machine that's so frustrating.
Besides our previous disagreement was over the minis ability to run CS3, which I still contend the mini can do comfortably. Even with todays components.
Because the design is excellent.
It's Apple's disregard for updating the machine that's so frustrating.
Besides our previous disagreement was over the minis ability to run CS3, which I still contend the mini can do comfortably. Even with todays components.
They don't update it because the design is so limiting. Also, the stagnant evolution of the mini can also be used to point to a complete upcoming redesign of a mini like device.
They don't update it because the design is so limiting. .
They can put faster cpus in now. The 45 nm Penryn cpus generate less heat, not more, than the current Merom cpus. I don't know why larger laptop drives couldn't be fitted into the current mini. They put them in the Macbook.
Waka waka
They can put faster cpus in now. The 45 nm Penryn cpus generate less heat, not more, than the current Merom cpus. I don't know why larger laptop drives couldn't be fitted into the current mini. They put them in the Macbook.
Even today it is not the CPU that is the issue in the Mini. Certainly a cooler faster CPU would be a very nice upgrade but that will happen in time anyways given that the Mini stays in production.
The issue is that many of us have interests in software that demands a lot of disk space. For example iTunes and Aperture. The latest and greatest laptop disk isn't going to make a huge difference in the machines acceptability.
By the way no an external disk is not an option to a reasonably size primary disk. For one thing an external disk should be focused on back ups. That is I'd fully expect to have an external disk for the Mini just to serve as a backup device.
Dave
....The issue is that many of us have interests in software that demands a lot of disk space. For example iTunes and Aperture. The latest and greatest laptop disk isn't going to make a huge difference in the machines acceptability.
By the way no an external disk is not an option to a reasonably size primary disk. For one thing an external disk should be focused on back ups. That is I'd fully expect to have an external disk for the Mini just to serve as a backup device.
Dave
Fair enough. The desire for 'max' internal storage is not unreasonable. The mini will always be limited in that regard compared to traditional desktops. However increasing the minis current storage capacity so that it is at least equal to that of the current Macbook is certainly doable now and would only make it a better machine. Many users would be able to get along just fine with 200 or 320 gbs of internal storage.
Fair enough. The desire for 'max' internal storage is not unreasonable. The mini will always be limited in that regard compared to traditional desktops. However increasing the minis current storage capacity so that it is at least equal to that of the current Macbook is certainly doable now and would only make it a better machine. Many users would be able to get along just fine with 200 or 320 gbs of internal storage.
I think the point that many have made is you're paying significantly more $/GB to own a mobile-designed HDD in a computer that isn't "mobile". If Apple is trying to save customers a few bucks by making the 80 GB HDD as the low end (the smallest the MacBook uses is 120 GB), then a better way to achieve the cost target is by using a 3.5" drive.
I think the point that many have made is you're paying significantly more $/GB to own a mobile-designed HDD in a computer that isn't "mobile". If Apple is trying to save customers a few bucks by making the 80 GB HDD as the low end (the smallest the MacBook uses is 120 GB), then a better way to achieve the cost target is by using a 3.5" drive.
I've never said that the mini is a good value. This is one area where JTD(among others) and I agree, it isn't. But the original argument was, 'can the mini run CS3 comfortably?'. It can for most users (obviously everyone's definition of 'comfortable' is going to be different). See this link where a mini is comparaby to a g5 quad in the photoshop test (1.19 for the mini vs. 1.12 for the quad. This supports the observation of others like Marvin and Messiah.
While some people don't value the form factor of the mini, I think it's quite advantageous. Some work environments don't allow for larger tower machines. In my office I have several tower machines that sit on the floor underneath desks(because there's no where else to put them). They are always getting kicked and collect dust which has caused one machine to overheat and fail. Having a small machine that can sit on the desk and not take up much space is nice.
I've never said that the mini is a good value. This is one area where JTD(among others) and I agree, it isn't. But the original argument was, 'can the mini run CS3 comfortably?'. It can for most users (obviously everyone's definition of 'comfortable' is going to be different). See this link where a mini is comparaby to a g5 quad in the photoshop test (1.19 for the mini vs. 1.12 for the quad. This supports the observation of others like Marvin and Messiah.
While some people don't value the form factor of the mini, I think it's quite advantageous. Some work environments don't allow for larger tower machines. In my office I have several tower machines that sit on the floor underneath desks(because there's no where else to put them). They are always getting kicked and collect dust which has caused one machine to overheat and fail. Having a small machine that can sit on the desk and not take up much space is nice.
And no one is saying the mini should be a "tower" that sits on the floor. Between the examples of the Apple TV and the Cube, we can easily surmise that the mini could have a footprint that's only marginally larger than current, not rely exclusively on laptop components (theoretically less expensive to build at equivalent specs), and still be a very small computer perfectly designed to sit on your desktop.
And no one is saying the mini should be a "tower" that sits on the floor. Between the examples of the Apple TV and the Cube, we can easily surmise that the mini could have a footprint that's only marginally larger than current, not rely exclusively on laptop components (theoretically less expensive to build at equivalent specs), and still be a very small computer perfectly designed to sit on your desktop.
Once you start talking larger form factor and desktop parts you're squarely in xMac territory.
Apple ain't going there. It's much better to talk about what the mini could and should be within it's current design parameters.
Once you start talking larger form factor and desktop parts you're squarely in xMac territory.
Apple ain't going there. It's much better to talk about what the mini could and should be within it's current design parameters.
xMac is a term invented by us, Apple aficionados, on forums, and has no meaning outside this arena. How do you know Apple has no intention of "going there"? Apple's primary responsibility to the shareholders is to make money and one way is to sell lots of Macs. If their research shows a Mac sized like the cube would sell and their margins would be acceptable, you bet they would.
Within it's current design parameters, the mini would be a good set top box to replace the Apple TV. That's about it.
Once you start talking larger form factor and desktop parts you're squarely in xMac territory.
Apple ain't going there. It's much better to talk about what the mini could and should be within it's current design parameters.
And what size defines this mythical xMac? Please be specific in width, depth, and height.
xMac is a term invented by us, Apple aficionados, on forums, and has no meaning outside this arena.
Still it has meaning. To deny so is foolish. It's a mythical product that is debated in every Mac forum I visit. It's probably the MOST debated topic related to Apple.
How do you know Apple has no intention of "going there"? Apple's primary responsibility to the shareholders is to make money and one way is to sell lots of Macs.
While I don't want to claim that I have any inside information that they won't make one, why do you think they will? If it's such a compelling product for them why haven't they released one?
There's no point in drudging up this old and tired debate. Suffice it to say that if it was going to be a big money maker for Apple, they'd already have done it by now.
Why don't we talk about what the mini could be within it's own design parameters, rather than a product that Apple hasn't shown any interest in making.