Which is one of the many reasons why I doubt we'll see Firewire of any kind on the new Mac mini.
The MacBook has been and still is Apple's budget Mac laptop, so it was never going to get FW800 because it never had it in the first place. The Mac mini is their budget desktop, it's never had FW800, so I don't see why that would change if it didn't for the even more powerful MacBook.
The new Mac notebooks have space constraints, the new Mini probably doesn't. I think it is likely to assume that the new Mini will drop FW400 for FW800.
That whole non-removable battery thing has got to be a crock. I just can't see that happening in a PRO-level laptop. If they were gonna go that route, i think it would have happened in the MacBook rather than the MBPro.
Besides, they're really not hurting for room in the 17" like they are with the 15". (Pretty much the same internal components, but with almost 10% more space.)
Macbook-like enclosure? Surely you don't mean something milled out of a solid block of aluminum, do you? That would be ridiculously expensive for a computer in the price range of the mini and even more impractical given the depth of the milling you'd need to do. Besides, the mini doesn't need the structural stiffness the MB's construction provides because you aren't picking it up and carrying it around all the time.
I also don't think "everyone" is looking for the option to swap the optical drive with a 2nd hard drive. Only those of us with nothing better to do on a Sunday than troll around on these message boards! If Apple at least makes the optical drive an SATA drive and doesn't make it too much of a PIA to swap out, that would likely be sufficient for most of us.
Yes, I said Macbook like and not necessarily milled out of aluminum, but with an all aluminum enclosure and that would be good enough. The AppleTV would be a better example and exactly what I'm talking about. The whole point of the new Macbook is to produce greener systems and the Mac Mini could benefit from the techniques employed with the Macbooks (the mill work wasn't the only green technology they used).
The hard drive option was a rumor presented by AI as a BTO option.
If they get rid of the firewire 400 port that would make it impossible to run a cinema display off a mini? My 30" uses the DVI, USB and Firewire port.
I was hoping the mini upgrade would be good enough to run Lightroom and Photoshop and allow me to keep my Macbook pro as a separate machine.
Am I missing something?
The cinema displays do not "use" a firewire port. It's just a connection to the hub in the back. If you don't use that hub in the back then you don't need to connected it. And as noted, you can use an 800-to-400 plug, assuming the next machine offers an 800. You will also need a displayport to dual DVI adapter to use a 30" ACD with a mini.
Perhaps, it would be only the Sl-DVI adapter. The mDP-to-SLDVI is $29 and the mDP-to-DLDVI is $99. But I think Apple's current position not to include adapters and their move to DP monitors means that the adapters will be an additional cost.
Maybe, but the Mini is somewhat of a special case as it is meant to target switchers who BYODKM, and their M is probably DVI.
The new Mac notebooks have space constraints, the new Mini probably doesn't. I think it is likely to assume that the new Mini will drop FW400 for FW800.
You missed this sentence of my prediction (probably because I edited my post right after submitting it):
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Space restrictions are almost a moot point as both the Mac mini and MacBook are very tightly packed.
You missed this sentence of my prediction (probably because I edited my post right after submitting it):
I didn't see that line. I would argue that the space constraints on the new MB and MBP are greater than the current Mac Mini. They don't even have to add another place for FW800, just swap the FW400 for FW800. The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock. That is about 60% of the left side on the MB. That isn't much space. In either case... we'll probably find out tomorrow.
I don't think the comparison you make is very direct. Both the Mini and iMac use notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat. This increases cost while reducing performance.
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that. I'd be tickled to have a not so mini Mini that was cheaper and used real desktop parts and wasn't a ridiculous PITA to repair/upgrade. I don't need or want Aluminum origami. The mini case is a negative, not a positive in my mind. I don't want to spend $2K on a desktop. Somehow Apple thinks that means I prioritize style over value.
Maybe Apple should spend less suing Psystar and their ilk and more on putting them out of business. I don't mind paying a reasonable premium for quality. But I resent it when people do something for their own reasons and then tell me they are doing me a favor. I don't care if my next computer fits in with Steve's aesthetics. Skip the miniaturization, put in in a normal case using normal components and pass the savings on to me or upcontent the box (better quality parts, more RAM, bigger/faster disk, more slots/ports, whatever).
Maybe, but the Mini is somewhat of a special case as it is meant to target switchers who BYODKM, and their M is probably DVI.
Which is why if the Mac mini ships with two video outputs, they would either be two Mini DisplayPorts (which seems silly), or one Mini DisplayPort and one full SL-DVI.
A mini-DVI port would be utterly useless as it would require a mDVI-to-DVI adapter, just as MiniDSP would require a mDSP-to-DVI adapter to hook up to a DVI monitor; at least with Mini DisplayPort, there is an Apple Cinema Display that directly interfaces with the port without an adapter. Thus, mini-DVI is out.
So I see two possible scenarios for the new Mac mini:
1) A single, Mini DisplayPort output with an included Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI adapter.
2) Two video outputs, Mini DisplayPort and full SL-DVI, thus no adapter included.
Both seem possible and there's even a third route, which would be scenario #1minus an adapter, but I'd think Apple would want a more affordable 20" LED Mini DisplayPort-equipped Cinema Display to go with it, as asking new buyers of a $600 Mac to cough up nearly twice that amount for the 24" Cinema Display would be a hard sell considering the entry-level iMac would end up being less expensive. If Mini DisplayPort monitors were fairly widespread, it'd be different, but neither Mini nor "Full" DisplayPort monitors are widespread yet.
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that. I'd be tickled to have a not so mini Mini that was cheaper and used real desktop parts and wasn't a ridiculous PITA to repair/upgrade. I don't need or want Aluminum origami. The mini case is a negative, not a positive in my mind. I don't want to spend $2K on a desktop. Somehow Apple thinks that means I prioritize style over value.
Maybe Apple should spend less suing Psystar and their ilk and more on putting them out of business. I don't mind paying a reasonable premium for quality. But I resent it when people do something for their own reasons and then tell me they are doing me a favor. I don't care if my next computer fits in with Steve's aesthetics. Skip the miniaturization, put in in a normal case using normal components and pass the savings on to me or upcontent the box (better quality parts, more RAM, bigger/faster disk, more slots/ports, whatever).
I'm not sure I understand your resentment. It sounds like you are blaming Apple for purposely not building a machine a certain way because you want it. Apple is business, their "own reasons" are to make money, plain and simple.
Their market are people that want simple and svelte machines. If you want a cheap desktop that is fully customizable with standard desktop-grade parts you do have a seemingly unlimited number of options available.
The xMac apparently doesn't fit into their goals right now. I think that eventually they will have to shed the boutique-like nature of their business and start diversifying their product if they wish to grow, but their are many ways in which they can do it without offering the elusive xMac.
I like simplicity, thus I've have been using notebooks for about a decade now, but I am all for the xMac just so the "no xMac" complaints will stop and new "xMac doesn't have <insert>" will start.
Got one [Elgato EyeTV], it works okay, but having to transcode everything into iTunes to be able to watch on my AppleTvs spread through the house is a pain. I am sure some people like it, but it's just not for me.
2 possibilities....
1) Elgato uses Snow Leopard's OpenCL to transcode the MPEG2 MUCH faster.. take advantage of that graphics card!
2) AppleTV & iTunes needs to play back MPEG2 recordings without hacking. (I understand the AppleTV is easily hacked for that, but I'm not sure whether it can integrate with Elgato in any way.)
2) AppleTV & iTunes needs to play back MPEG2 recordings without hacking. (I understand the AppleTV is easily hacked for that, but I'm not sure whether it can integrate with Elgato in any way.)
Adding the codecs to the system is simple, but iTunes will not import many codecs into the library with their default containers. One work around for getting iTunes to play AVIs, etc. is to put it in a .MOV container or create a .MOV link that calls the file. I think the first one can be synced to an AppleTV, but the latter can only be streamed.
I didn't see that line. I would argue that the space constraints on the new MB and MBP are greater than the current Mac Mini. They don't even have to add another place for FW800, just swap the FW400 for FW800. The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock. That is about 60% of the left side on the MB. That isn't much space. In either case... we'll probably find out tomorrow.
I'd venture the Mac mini's space constraints are at least equal to the 13" MacBook's and likely greater than the 15" MacBook Pro's. The Mac mini is smaller in every way except thickness, which is mainly due to the placement of its built-in SuperDrive being on top of all the other components, rather than to one side or the other, like the MacBook/Pro. It also has been and still is the slowest Mac, save for the MacBook Air.
We're also ignoring the possibility of minor to major case changes, which could make it an even minier Mini; I don't see Apple making a larger Mini because I can't think of any recent product revisions that were larger than their predecessors.
I'd venture the Mac mini's space constraints are at least equal to the 13" MacBook's and likely greater than the 15" MacBook Pro's. The Mac mini is smaller in every way except thickness, which is mainly due to the placement of its built-in SuperDrive being on top of all the other components, rather than to one side or the other, like the MacBook/Pro. It's also the slowest Mac, save for the MacBook Air..
You don't have to venture, just look at teh back of a Mac Mini. Then look at the left side of a new unibody Mac notebook. The Mini has a lot more space foor ports.
PS: How could the Mac Mini's backside port space be equal to the smaller MB but greater than the larger MBPs? That doesn't make any since.
You don't have to venture, just look at teh back of a Mac Mini. Then look at the left side of a new unibody Mac notebook. The Mini has a lot more space for ports.
That's true, maybe I'm being a bit unrealistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: How could the Mac Mini's backside port space be equal to the smaller MB but greater than the larger MBPs? That doesn't make any since.
I didn't say anything about "backside port" space, just space constraints in general. As I said, the Mac mini is smaller in every regard except thickness, which obviously affords it more space in some ways. But its thickness is mainly due to its SuperDrive being stacked on top, rather than put adjacent to (as the MacBook/Pro do), the rest of its components.
If you are not a unibody MacBook owner but are nevertheless bitching about the lack of FireWire ports then you are offering what's known as a "baseless critique."
If you are unibody MacBook owner but still need of FireWire ports, then it was pretty much a foolish purchase.
At the end of the day, if you are a unibody MacBook owner but are not satisfied with it, you are in a tiny minority of MacBook owners.
I fail to see how an individual, such as myself, who was prepared to upgrade from his old MacBook to a new one and did not as a result of the new MacBook lacking firewire, constitutes a "baseless critique."
The Mini DVI connector will allow the mini to continue to cater to users who already own a display, while the Mini DisplayPort will offer support for customers of Apple's latest LED-backlit Cinema Display.
What is the point of having both Mini DisplayPort and Mini DVI? Mini DVI is no more compatible than Mini DisplayPort. They both need an adapter to connect to a DVI or VGA monitor.
Getting back to the 17" MBP. I have been waiting for over a year for this machine.
I needed back in Dec 07, waited for the jan 08 refresh which turned out to be nothing but a small price drop for the same machine in Dec 07, an obvious sign to wait until a BIG refresh come June.
June came and went, so I waited again until Oct finally an update! which was a new design (love it)and a new graphics chip (love it) but not much of a bump in the processor (egh) and NO 17"!
So here we are Jan 09 (3 months into the Macbook pro product cycle) and the 17" will finally come out with the same specs as the 15 but with a non-removable battery?
sweet.
I am convinced it with be non removable (user) due to the "design issues" (screen and drive) which meant: with the new graphic card running the hi res screen all the time would make a removable battery (space issue with dvd drive) not possible.
Apple loves Removable batteries because they can sell more of them to people who need 4 or 5 batteries because of a trip or something, and will only do a non removable if the design just cant do without it (space).
So most likely there will be a small increase in batt life, (zzzz)
However, my PB 1.5 is going on 5 years in april, so if released next week I will buy an untested 1st generation 17" mbp with a new NVIDIA Chip 3 months into cycle with no other bells and whistles? Looking at the old 17" next to 15" in the apple store, yesterday The 17" looks huge compared to the new 15", you would think they could through something else in there, a quad-core or maybe a small drawer for loose change or something...
I guess I should be happy they are still making this machine, however I had hoped for more out of the 17" by now...I suppose it will have the new mini display port which I can plug into my new 30" display (also been waiting for) which comes out?..
Comments
Which is one of the many reasons why I doubt we'll see Firewire of any kind on the new Mac mini.
The MacBook has been and still is Apple's budget Mac laptop, so it was never going to get FW800 because it never had it in the first place. The Mac mini is their budget desktop, it's never had FW800, so I don't see why that would change if it didn't for the even more powerful MacBook.
The new Mac notebooks have space constraints, the new Mini probably doesn't. I think it is likely to assume that the new Mini will drop FW400 for FW800.
Besides, they're really not hurting for room in the 17" like they are with the 15". (Pretty much the same internal components, but with almost 10% more space.)
Macbook-like enclosure? Surely you don't mean something milled out of a solid block of aluminum, do you? That would be ridiculously expensive for a computer in the price range of the mini and even more impractical given the depth of the milling you'd need to do. Besides, the mini doesn't need the structural stiffness the MB's construction provides because you aren't picking it up and carrying it around all the time.
I also don't think "everyone" is looking for the option to swap the optical drive with a 2nd hard drive. Only those of us with nothing better to do on a Sunday than troll around on these message boards! If Apple at least makes the optical drive an SATA drive and doesn't make it too much of a PIA to swap out, that would likely be sufficient for most of us.
Yes, I said Macbook like and not necessarily milled out of aluminum, but with an all aluminum enclosure and that would be good enough. The AppleTV would be a better example and exactly what I'm talking about. The whole point of the new Macbook is to produce greener systems and the Mac Mini could benefit from the techniques employed with the Macbooks (the mill work wasn't the only green technology they used).
The hard drive option was a rumor presented by AI as a BTO option.
If they get rid of the firewire 400 port that would make it impossible to run a cinema display off a mini? My 30" uses the DVI, USB and Firewire port.
I was hoping the mini upgrade would be good enough to run Lightroom and Photoshop and allow me to keep my Macbook pro as a separate machine.
Am I missing something?
The cinema displays do not "use" a firewire port. It's just a connection to the hub in the back. If you don't use that hub in the back then you don't need to connected it. And as noted, you can use an 800-to-400 plug, assuming the next machine offers an 800. You will also need a displayport to dual DVI adapter to use a 30" ACD with a mini.
Perhaps, it would be only the Sl-DVI adapter. The mDP-to-SLDVI is $29 and the mDP-to-DLDVI is $99. But I think Apple's current position not to include adapters and their move to DP monitors means that the adapters will be an additional cost.
Maybe, but the Mini is somewhat of a special case as it is meant to target switchers who BYODKM, and their M is probably DVI.
The new Mac notebooks have space constraints, the new Mini probably doesn't. I think it is likely to assume that the new Mini will drop FW400 for FW800.
You missed this sentence of my prediction (probably because I edited my post right after submitting it):
Space restrictions are almost a moot point as both the Mac mini and MacBook are very tightly packed.
You missed this sentence of my prediction (probably because I edited my post right after submitting it):
I didn't see that line. I would argue that the space constraints on the new MB and MBP are greater than the current Mac Mini. They don't even have to add another place for FW800, just swap the FW400 for FW800. The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock. That is about 60% of the left side on the MB. That isn't much space. In either case... we'll probably find out tomorrow.
I don't think the comparison you make is very direct. Both the Mini and iMac use notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat. This increases cost while reducing performance.
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that.
Maybe Apple should spend less suing Psystar and their ilk and more on putting them out of business. I don't mind paying a reasonable premium for quality. But I resent it when people do something for their own reasons and then tell me they are doing me a favor. I don't care if my next computer fits in with Steve's aesthetics. Skip the miniaturization, put in in a normal case using normal components and pass the savings on to me or upcontent the box (better quality parts, more RAM, bigger/faster disk, more slots/ports, whatever).
Maybe, but the Mini is somewhat of a special case as it is meant to target switchers who BYODKM, and their M is probably DVI.
Which is why if the Mac mini ships with two video outputs, they would either be two Mini DisplayPorts (which seems silly), or one Mini DisplayPort and one full SL-DVI.
A mini-DVI port would be utterly useless as it would require a mDVI-to-DVI adapter, just as MiniDSP would require a mDSP-to-DVI adapter to hook up to a DVI monitor; at least with Mini DisplayPort, there is an Apple Cinema Display that directly interfaces with the port without an adapter. Thus, mini-DVI is out.
So I see two possible scenarios for the new Mac mini:
1) A single, Mini DisplayPort output with an included Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI adapter.
2) Two video outputs, Mini DisplayPort and full SL-DVI, thus no adapter included.
Both seem possible and there's even a third route, which would be scenario #1 minus an adapter, but I'd think Apple would want a more affordable 20" LED Mini DisplayPort-equipped Cinema Display to go with it, as asking new buyers of a $600 Mac to cough up nearly twice that amount for the 24" Cinema Display would be a hard sell considering the entry-level iMac would end up being less expensive. If Mini DisplayPort monitors were fairly widespread, it'd be different, but neither Mini nor "Full" DisplayPort monitors are widespread yet.
That's nice except I didn't ask Apple for that.
Maybe Apple should spend less suing Psystar and their ilk and more on putting them out of business. I don't mind paying a reasonable premium for quality. But I resent it when people do something for their own reasons and then tell me they are doing me a favor. I don't care if my next computer fits in with Steve's aesthetics. Skip the miniaturization, put in in a normal case using normal components and pass the savings on to me or upcontent the box (better quality parts, more RAM, bigger/faster disk, more slots/ports, whatever).
I'm not sure I understand your resentment. It sounds like you are blaming Apple for purposely not building a machine a certain way because you want it. Apple is business, their "own reasons" are to make money, plain and simple.
Their market are people that want simple and svelte machines. If you want a cheap desktop that is fully customizable with standard desktop-grade parts you do have a seemingly unlimited number of options available.
The xMac apparently doesn't fit into their goals right now. I think that eventually they will have to shed the boutique-like nature of their business and start diversifying their product if they wish to grow, but their are many ways in which they can do it without offering the elusive xMac.
I like simplicity, thus I've have been using notebooks for about a decade now, but I am all for the xMac just so the "no xMac" complaints will stop and new "xMac doesn't have <insert>" will start.
Got one [Elgato EyeTV], it works okay, but having to transcode everything into iTunes to be able to watch on my AppleTvs spread through the house is a pain. I am sure some people like it, but it's just not for me.
2 possibilities....
1) Elgato uses Snow Leopard's OpenCL to transcode the MPEG2 MUCH faster.. take advantage of that graphics card!
2) AppleTV & iTunes needs to play back MPEG2 recordings without hacking. (I understand the AppleTV is easily hacked for that, but I'm not sure whether it can integrate with Elgato in any way.)
2) AppleTV & iTunes needs to play back MPEG2 recordings without hacking. (I understand the AppleTV is easily hacked for that, but I'm not sure whether it can integrate with Elgato in any way.)
Adding the codecs to the system is simple, but iTunes will not import many codecs into the library with their default containers. One work around for getting iTunes to play AVIs, etc. is to put it in a .MOV container or create a .MOV link that calls the file. I think the first one can be synced to an AppleTV, but the latter can only be streamed.
I didn't see that line. I would argue that the space constraints on the new MB and MBP are greater than the current Mac Mini. They don't even have to add another place for FW800, just swap the FW400 for FW800. The new uni-body Macs have all their ports on one side from the power plug to the Kensington lock. That is about 60% of the left side on the MB. That isn't much space. In either case... we'll probably find out tomorrow.
I'd venture the Mac mini's space constraints are at least equal to the 13" MacBook's and likely greater than the 15" MacBook Pro's. The Mac mini is smaller in every way except thickness, which is mainly due to the placement of its built-in SuperDrive being on top of all the other components, rather than to one side or the other, like the MacBook/Pro. It also has been and still is the slowest Mac, save for the MacBook Air.
We're also ignoring the possibility of minor to major case changes, which could make it an even minier Mini; I don't see Apple making a larger Mini because I can't think of any recent product revisions that were larger than their predecessors.
I'd venture the Mac mini's space constraints are at least equal to the 13" MacBook's and likely greater than the 15" MacBook Pro's. The Mac mini is smaller in every way except thickness, which is mainly due to the placement of its built-in SuperDrive being on top of all the other components, rather than to one side or the other, like the MacBook/Pro. It's also the slowest Mac, save for the MacBook Air..
You don't have to venture, just look at teh back of a Mac Mini. Then look at the left side of a new unibody Mac notebook. The Mini has a lot more space foor ports.
PS: How could the Mac Mini's backside port space be equal to the smaller MB but greater than the larger MBPs? That doesn't make any since.
You don't have to venture, just look at teh back of a Mac Mini. Then look at the left side of a new unibody Mac notebook. The Mini has a lot more space for ports.
That's true, maybe I'm being a bit unrealistic.
PS: How could the Mac Mini's backside port space be equal to the smaller MB but greater than the larger MBPs? That doesn't make any since.
I didn't say anything about "backside port" space, just space constraints in general. As I said, the Mac mini is smaller in every regard except thickness, which obviously affords it more space in some ways. But its thickness is mainly due to its SuperDrive being stacked on top, rather than put adjacent to (as the MacBook/Pro do), the rest of its components.
- If you are not a unibody MacBook owner but are nevertheless bitching about the lack of FireWire ports then you are offering what's known as a "baseless critique."
- If you are unibody MacBook owner but still need of FireWire ports, then it was pretty much a foolish purchase.
At the end of the day, if you are a unibody MacBook owner but are not satisfied with it, you are in a tiny minority of MacBook owners.I fail to see how an individual, such as myself, who was prepared to upgrade from his old MacBook to a new one and did not as a result of the new MacBook lacking firewire, constitutes a "baseless critique."
So I see two possible scenarios for the new Mac mini:
1) A single, Mini DisplayPort output with an included Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI adapter.
2) Two video outputs, Mini DisplayPort and full SL-DVI, thus no adapter included.
I agree, these are the most likely scenarios (and also most preferable from my point of view).
The Mini DVI connector will allow the mini to continue to cater to users who already own a display, while the Mini DisplayPort will offer support for customers of Apple's latest LED-backlit Cinema Display.
What is the point of having both Mini DisplayPort and Mini DVI? Mini DVI is no more compatible than Mini DisplayPort. They both need an adapter to connect to a DVI or VGA monitor.
Getting back to the 17" MBP. I have been waiting for over a year for this machine.
I needed back in Dec 07, waited for the jan 08 refresh which turned out to be nothing but a small price drop for the same machine in Dec 07, an obvious sign to wait until a BIG refresh come June.
June came and went, so I waited again until Oct finally an update! which was a new design (love it)and a new graphics chip (love it) but not much of a bump in the processor (egh) and NO 17"!
So here we are Jan 09 (3 months into the Macbook pro product cycle) and the 17" will finally come out with the same specs as the 15 but with a non-removable battery?
sweet.
I am convinced it with be non removable (user) due to the "design issues" (screen and drive) which meant: with the new graphic card running the hi res screen all the time would make a removable battery (space issue with dvd drive) not possible.
Apple loves Removable batteries because they can sell more of them to people who need 4 or 5 batteries because of a trip or something, and will only do a non removable if the design just cant do without it (space).
So most likely there will be a small increase in batt life, (zzzz)
However, my PB 1.5 is going on 5 years in april, so if released next week I will buy an untested 1st generation 17" mbp with a new NVIDIA Chip 3 months into cycle with no other bells and whistles? Looking at the old 17" next to 15" in the apple store, yesterday The 17" looks huge compared to the new 15", you would think they could through something else in there, a quad-core or maybe a small drawer for loose change or something...
I guess I should be happy they are still making this machine, however I had hoped for more out of the 17" by now...I suppose it will have the new mini display port which I can plug into my new 30" display (also been waiting for) which comes out?..