I would MUCH rather see two miniDP ports, rather than one miniDP and one HDMI. The miniDP to HDMI adapters are only $10 and they work great. Hooking up a second monitor to an HDMI source on the other hand... not so easy. Plus you might only be able to use 720p and 1080p resolutions.
I agree entirely. Two mini-DP ports would also fit in better, the HDMI port is larger. mini-DP to DVI and mini-DP to HDMI dongles aren't too expensive, and thus it would be the best overall solution (as long as a dongle was included in the box) for compatibility.
Still, many monitors support HDMI input so it's not all bad.
[QUOTEThat's a 65W GPU though. The highest they could realistically go is the 15-19W Radeon 5650, which is only 20% slower than the 4870.
Does anyone remember what the wattage was on the first minis that had PPC chips in them? I was not a Mac user then but was under the impression that even a G4 chip was pretty hot and power hungry. I am thinking that if they could reliably cool those then maybe they could cool a little hotter gpu.[/QUOTE]
The PPC G4 chip consumed much less power than anything Intel. When Apple moved the mini to Intel, the power consumption (peak) went from 85W to 110W. Of course the Intel minis (except for one old model) are all dual-core, and quite a bit faster.
That's a 65W GPU though. The highest they could realistically go is the 15-19W Radeon 5650, which is only 20% slower than the 4870.
The 320M is also only half of the 4870 so I personally don't mind the 320M - it's pretty amazing performance from an integrated chip and it runs CUDA code unlike ATI GPUs.
I think the only way Apple would switch to ATI is with the Fusion processor next year as it uses a 5000-series GPU.
If they ditch the optical drive, keeping a 65W GPU cool in the top slot shouldn't be hard. Apple manages to offer them in the iMac after all.
Does anyone remember what the wattage was on the first minis that had PPC chips in them? I was not a Mac user then but was under the impression that even a G4 chip was pretty hot and power hungry. I am thinking that if they could reliably cool those then maybe they could cool a little hotter gpu.
The PPC G4 chip consumed much less power than anything Intel. When Apple moved the mini to Intel, the power consumption (peak) went from 85W to 110W. Of course the Intel minis (except for one old model) are all dual-core, and quite a bit faster.
They had 85W power supplies so the whole system couldn't consume more than that and it used the RV280 integrated chip. The RV280 (150nm) and the G4 chip used around 30W each. Apple has never used parts with higher power draw in the Mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonk
If they ditch the optical drive, keeping a 65W GPU cool in the top slot shouldn't be hard. Apple manages to offer them in the iMac after all.
But why would you rather have a GPU like the 65W 4870 over the 15-19W 5650 when you only gain 20-80% performance but have to deal with 400% more power consumption? That doesn't make sense to me.
GPUs are at the point where very low power consumption parts still perform very well.
The 9400M can play modern games like Battlefield 2, Arkham Asylum, MW2, Dirt 2. You have to lower settings right down mostly but the games still look ok:
The 320M doubles the performance of the 9400M and the 5650 is another 50% faster again. So 9400M = low quality, 320M = medium-high quality, 5650 = high-enthusiast quality.
The incoming update should be the 320M and next year, AMD will put the a 5xxx series chip into Fusion so that's a possibility for the future.
How about an eSata connector. The current choices for external storage even with Firewire 800 limits the throughput to less than half of eSata. With internal drives from Apple being limited to laptop drives at 5400 RPM with slower response time and less reliability it makes the MacMini server less than exciting. How about an external eSata port, an option for one of the internal drives to be an SSD with the second drive bay as optional with choices of 7200 RPM drives in the second bay. Then again who says the new MacMini has to stay the same height. Add another 1/2" to the height and we now have room for an SSD and twin HD's for mirrored storage.
Manufacture of Light Peak is expected by Intel in late 2010. If it was available it would be faster than even the 6Gb esata since it starts at 10Gb and can scale to 100 eventually.
As far as the Mini's dimensions, it will depend if they are changing the Mini to focus on a better graphic experience or just more storage. We might see a bit of an increase on the sides as well if they were going to go with a discrete video option. A mini with an i5 and discrete video card would be nice. You could still do the graphics switching that way as well. Yes, you don't have to worry about battery drain like you do on a laptop, but running a lower power graphics chip when better isn't needed is still a more green thing to do.
As soon as Apple unveiled the iPad, I thought that it could signal a resurgence of the desktop. I think a lot of people are going to be looking to combine a unit like the Mini with the iPad. It makes a lot of sense for many, though certainly not everyone.
My intention is to go that route being as I already have a Mini+Cinema Display that works rather well.
Cost wise, here in Canada it's $899 for the top-end Mini, $999 for the 24-inch Cinema Display and $549 for a basic iPad = $2447. A MacBook Pro 17" is $2,349.
The MacBook is more powerful but you get more screen real estate with the Cinema Display while the iPad has its advantages as a portable device. And as each generation of Mini ups the performance ante, horsepower becomes progressively less of an issue.
I realize that for many having to be tied down to a fixed desktop system at any point is a deal breaker. I don't feel that way and I believe quite a few people will not mind a desktop/iPad combo. Laptop sales will take a hit but if the sales of Minis, iMacs, and of course millions of iPad sales, more than compensate, Apple will still come out ahead. And there is the incremental impact that would prompt some of us to spend more. I would, for example, balk at spending $2,500 for one computer but being as I've already paid for the first element of this overall package, putting the finishing touches on the arrangement by buying an iPad seems like a no-brainer.
I also like that the Cinema Display is a product that could easily last more than a decade, meaning over the long haul this set-up could cost me less than springing for a new laptop every four or five years. I wouldn't want to be tied down to five-year-old technology in any event. The Mini retains a lot of its value so you trade it in every three years and in the process wind up with the latest Apple software at no additional cost.
The best part is that the iPad will get more powerful, just as the Mini will continue to beef up so if I'm running a 2013 circa Mini/iPad combo, it will mean excellent performance. You're looking at less than a $1,000 every three years to keep your set-up current. Every fourth refresh you spring for a new monitor.
Considering I paid close to $7,000 (including upgrades made later in graphics and memory) for a first-generation g4 DP500 tower, that strikes me as being a great bargain.
I thought so too, at first, but I changed my mind, because the iPad is such a poor laptop replacement.
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
Too bad. Makes the iPad useless to me, since I still have to carry a laptop.
Due to an unexpected delay, we are unable to ship the following item(s)
by the date that you were originally quoted:
MC408LL/A, MAC MINI 2.53/2X2G/2X500/NO OD/AP/BT-USA
will now ship on or before
Jun 15, 2010
A few places are mentioning that date. It makes sense as WWDC goes from the 7th-11th so this Tuesday wouldn't be ideal for placing orders. It's better to leave it until the following Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOSbox-gamer
What is the TDP for the Fusion? Any chance we'll see it in the Mini?
There are two products, Bulldozer and Bobcat. Bobcat is meant to compete with Atom and scale from 1-10W. The APU demo at Computex here:
was running on Bobcat and showed pretty high performance relatively. The Bulldozer product ranges from 10-100W so it will scale according to needs. It may be the case that notebooks will just bundle multiple bobcat cores and bulldozer is for all desktop models.
was running on Bobcat and showed pretty high performance relatively. The Bulldozer product ranges from 10-100W so it will scale according to needs. It may be the case that notebooks will just bundle multiple bobcat cores and bulldozer is for all desktop models.
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
It's quite easy to sync the iPad with more than one computer, as long as you don't set iTunes to sync the same category on each computer.
ie: Sync podcasts on one machine, music on another, apps and documents on a third.
So it would be: Ontario/Bobcat (netbook), Llano/Phenom 2 (notebook), Scorpius/Bulldozer (desktop)
This could work pretty well in Apple's lineup with the MBA getting bobcat. They could even put a bobcat in the iPad as it scales down to 250mW, not that they would though.
The Phenom 2 in Llano doesn't sound all that good:
4-core may be an improvement over current Intel chips but I have reservations about this holding up well against Intel's Sandy bridge CPU. The biggest advantage would be the graphics part but Intel seem to think their next IGP will be pretty good using some Larrabee developments:
Actually, AMD admit in the article that they don't expect their CPUs to be as fast as Intel's but are banking on the 55xx series GPU being much better and offering a better experience.
It kinda leaves NVidia out in the cold either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LE Studios
Check out my educated guesses for the Mid-2010 Mac mini!
I think that's probably about right although if it starts at 2.4GHz, I'd rather see it drop to $499 at the entry level. But I guess with 4GB RAM, at least you save money from not having to upgrade.
$599, 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
250GB SATA II Hard Drive
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
$799, 2.66GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
320GB SATA II Hard Drive
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
$999, 2.66GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
500GB Dual SATA II Hard Drives
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
The latter two options are not that good value as they just jump from 2.53GHz to 2.66GHz and add the 320M. That server option is so not worth $1000 especially considering you're not likely to be using the GPU anyway so you'd actually be far better off just buying a refurb.
750GB is ok too and they'd have more manufacturers to choose from.
There is a 2.8GHz CPU Apple can use but it's $100 more expensive so I reckon the $799 model and $999 model will be either 2.8GHz or they will use single 500GB and dual 750GB respectively. I'd be tempted to buy the second model if it was 2.8GHz over the entry model but not if it's 2.66GHz. Of course a $100 price drop is another option they can consider. It seems to me they are deliberately avoiding having a $500 machine so people don't link it to Jobs' statement about it being a piece of junk. Most people should have forgotten by now so they should drop the price.
I thought so too, at first, but I changed my mind, because the iPad is such a poor laptop replacement.
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
Too bad. Makes the iPad useless to me, since I still have to carry a laptop.
Use Dropbox to sync your documents to GoodReader. You can access them from any computer, including the iPad.
Use AirVideo to sync your movies. Accessible from anywhere on the iPad, even on 3G.
Use Subsonic +iSub app to sync your music.
Use Jump Desktop to access your desktop from anywhere.
I currently have access to 2 desktops, 1 laptop, my 100GB music library, and my 2TB video library...all from my iPad.
750GB is ok too and they'd have more manufacturers to choose from.
There is a 2.8GHz CPU Apple can use but it's $100 more expensive so I reckon the $799 model and $999 model will be either 2.8GHz or they will use single 500GB and dual 750GB respectively. I'd be tempted to buy the second model if it was 2.8GHz over the entry model but not if it's 2.66GHz. Of course a $100 price drop is another option they can consider. It seems to me they are deliberately avoiding having a $500 machine so people don't link it to Jobs' statement about it being a piece of junk. Most people should have forgotten by now so they should drop the price.[/QUOTE]
Hey that Toshiba 1TB is still 12.5mm in Height, the 750GB is 9.5mm but its 5400RPM but Seagate has a 750GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache with height of 9.5mm. Great.
Hey that Toshiba 1TB is still 12.5mm in Height, the 750GB is 9.5mm but its 5400RPM but Seagate has a 750GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache with height of 9.5mm. Great.
I didn't read the full article, it seems like we are stuck with 750GB maximum for now in 9.5mm height. Thing is, at least in the server, without having the optical drive, they should have enough space to fit in 12.5mm drives and still allow for cooling.
Dual 750GB isn't too bad though, the iMac only has options to go to 2TB and the Mini server can hold 1.5TB.
I didn't read the full article, it seems like we are stuck with 750GB maximum for now in 9.5mm height. Thing is, at least in the server, without having the optical drive, they should have enough space to fit in 12.5mm drives and still allow for cooling.
Dual 750GB isn't too bad though, the iMac only has options to go to 2TB and the Mini server can hold 1.5TB.
I remain unimpressed, if this is true. For the price a Mac Mini goes for right now I would expect at least a Core i3 if not a Core i5, with a discreet GPU and switchable graphics a la 15+ inch MBP.
I remain unimpressed, if this is true. For the price a Mac Mini goes for right now I would expect at least a Core i3 if not a Core i5, with a discreet GPU and switchable graphics a la 15+ inch MBP.
Do you even know how anemic the mobile i3 is? That it's claim to fame is the anemic Intel "HD Graphics" IGP? What does that even buy you except pathetic 3D performance? What battery savings are you hoping to have (like the 15+ inch MBP) for a computer that doesn't run off a battery?
Comments
I would MUCH rather see two miniDP ports, rather than one miniDP and one HDMI. The miniDP to HDMI adapters are only $10 and they work great. Hooking up a second monitor to an HDMI source on the other hand... not so easy. Plus you might only be able to use 720p and 1080p resolutions.
I agree entirely. Two mini-DP ports would also fit in better, the HDMI port is larger. mini-DP to DVI and mini-DP to HDMI dongles aren't too expensive, and thus it would be the best overall solution (as long as a dongle was included in the box) for compatibility.
Still, many monitors support HDMI input so it's not all bad.
[QUOTEThat's a 65W GPU though. The highest they could realistically go is the 15-19W Radeon 5650, which is only 20% slower than the 4870.
Does anyone remember what the wattage was on the first minis that had PPC chips in them? I was not a Mac user then but was under the impression that even a G4 chip was pretty hot and power hungry. I am thinking that if they could reliably cool those then maybe they could cool a little hotter gpu.[/QUOTE]
The PPC G4 chip consumed much less power than anything Intel. When Apple moved the mini to Intel, the power consumption (peak) went from 85W to 110W. Of course the Intel minis (except for one old model) are all dual-core, and quite a bit faster.
That's a 65W GPU though. The highest they could realistically go is the 15-19W Radeon 5650, which is only 20% slower than the 4870.
The 320M is also only half of the 4870 so I personally don't mind the 320M - it's pretty amazing performance from an integrated chip and it runs CUDA code unlike ATI GPUs.
I think the only way Apple would switch to ATI is with the Fusion processor next year as it uses a 5000-series GPU.
If they ditch the optical drive, keeping a 65W GPU cool in the top slot shouldn't be hard. Apple manages to offer them in the iMac after all.
Does anyone remember what the wattage was on the first minis that had PPC chips in them? I was not a Mac user then but was under the impression that even a G4 chip was pretty hot and power hungry. I am thinking that if they could reliably cool those then maybe they could cool a little hotter gpu.
The PPC G4 chip consumed much less power than anything Intel. When Apple moved the mini to Intel, the power consumption (peak) went from 85W to 110W. Of course the Intel minis (except for one old model) are all dual-core, and quite a bit faster.
They had 85W power supplies so the whole system couldn't consume more than that and it used the RV280 integrated chip. The RV280 (150nm) and the G4 chip used around 30W each. Apple has never used parts with higher power draw in the Mini.
If they ditch the optical drive, keeping a 65W GPU cool in the top slot shouldn't be hard. Apple manages to offer them in the iMac after all.
But why would you rather have a GPU like the 65W 4870 over the 15-19W 5650 when you only gain 20-80% performance but have to deal with 400% more power consumption? That doesn't make sense to me.
GPUs are at the point where very low power consumption parts still perform very well.
The 9400M can play modern games like Battlefield 2, Arkham Asylum, MW2, Dirt 2. You have to lower settings right down mostly but the games still look ok:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhvphyDJ7Ws
The 320M doubles the performance of the 9400M and the 5650 is another 50% faster again. So 9400M = low quality, 320M = medium-high quality, 5650 = high-enthusiast quality.
The incoming update should be the 320M and next year, AMD will put the a 5xxx series chip into Fusion so that's a possibility for the future.
How about an eSata connector. The current choices for external storage even with Firewire 800 limits the throughput to less than half of eSata. With internal drives from Apple being limited to laptop drives at 5400 RPM with slower response time and less reliability it makes the MacMini server less than exciting. How about an external eSata port, an option for one of the internal drives to be an SSD with the second drive bay as optional with choices of 7200 RPM drives in the second bay. Then again who says the new MacMini has to stay the same height. Add another 1/2" to the height and we now have room for an SSD and twin HD's for mirrored storage.
Manufacture of Light Peak is expected by Intel in late 2010. If it was available it would be faster than even the 6Gb esata since it starts at 10Gb and can scale to 100 eventually.
As far as the Mini's dimensions, it will depend if they are changing the Mini to focus on a better graphic experience or just more storage. We might see a bit of an increase on the sides as well if they were going to go with a discrete video option. A mini with an i5 and discrete video card would be nice. You could still do the graphics switching that way as well. Yes, you don't have to worry about battery drain like you do on a laptop, but running a lower power graphics chip when better isn't needed is still a more green thing to do.
Due to an unexpected delay, we are unable to ship the following item(s)
by the date that you were originally quoted:
MC408LL/A, MAC MINI 2.53/2X2G/2X500/NO OD/AP/BT-USA
will now ship on or before
Jun 15, 2010
As soon as Apple unveiled the iPad, I thought that it could signal a resurgence of the desktop. I think a lot of people are going to be looking to combine a unit like the Mini with the iPad. It makes a lot of sense for many, though certainly not everyone.
My intention is to go that route being as I already have a Mini+Cinema Display that works rather well.
Cost wise, here in Canada it's $899 for the top-end Mini, $999 for the 24-inch Cinema Display and $549 for a basic iPad = $2447. A MacBook Pro 17" is $2,349.
The MacBook is more powerful but you get more screen real estate with the Cinema Display while the iPad has its advantages as a portable device. And as each generation of Mini ups the performance ante, horsepower becomes progressively less of an issue.
I realize that for many having to be tied down to a fixed desktop system at any point is a deal breaker. I don't feel that way and I believe quite a few people will not mind a desktop/iPad combo. Laptop sales will take a hit but if the sales of Minis, iMacs, and of course millions of iPad sales, more than compensate, Apple will still come out ahead. And there is the incremental impact that would prompt some of us to spend more. I would, for example, balk at spending $2,500 for one computer but being as I've already paid for the first element of this overall package, putting the finishing touches on the arrangement by buying an iPad seems like a no-brainer.
I also like that the Cinema Display is a product that could easily last more than a decade, meaning over the long haul this set-up could cost me less than springing for a new laptop every four or five years. I wouldn't want to be tied down to five-year-old technology in any event. The Mini retains a lot of its value so you trade it in every three years and in the process wind up with the latest Apple software at no additional cost.
The best part is that the iPad will get more powerful, just as the Mini will continue to beef up so if I'm running a 2013 circa Mini/iPad combo, it will mean excellent performance. You're looking at less than a $1,000 every three years to keep your set-up current. Every fourth refresh you spring for a new monitor.
Considering I paid close to $7,000 (including upgrades made later in graphics and memory) for a first-generation g4 DP500 tower, that strikes me as being a great bargain.
I thought so too, at first, but I changed my mind, because the iPad is such a poor laptop replacement.
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
Too bad. Makes the iPad useless to me, since I still have to carry a laptop.
Got the following from Apple today;
Due to an unexpected delay, we are unable to ship the following item(s)
by the date that you were originally quoted:
MC408LL/A, MAC MINI 2.53/2X2G/2X500/NO OD/AP/BT-USA
will now ship on or before
Jun 15, 2010
A few places are mentioning that date. It makes sense as WWDC goes from the 7th-11th so this Tuesday wouldn't be ideal for placing orders. It's better to leave it until the following Tuesday.
What is the TDP for the Fusion? Any chance we'll see it in the Mini?
There are two products, Bulldozer and Bobcat. Bobcat is meant to compete with Atom and scale from 1-10W. The APU demo at Computex here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5mKP5R8B8
was running on Bobcat and showed pretty high performance relatively. The Bulldozer product ranges from 10-100W so it will scale according to needs. It may be the case that notebooks will just bundle multiple bobcat cores and bulldozer is for all desktop models.
There are two products, Bulldozer and Bobcat. Bobcat is meant to compete with Atom and scale from 1-10W. The APU demo at Computex here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg5mKP5R8B8
was running on Bobcat and showed pretty high performance relatively. The Bulldozer product ranges from 10-100W so it will scale according to needs. It may be the case that notebooks will just bundle multiple bobcat cores and bulldozer is for all desktop models.
According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion Bobcat is being aimed at netbooks and mobile phones. Llano would be the notebook part. This article has a bit of info as well: http://arstechnica.com/business/guid...the-laptop.ars
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
It's quite easy to sync the iPad with more than one computer, as long as you don't set iTunes to sync the same category on each computer.
ie: Sync podcasts on one machine, music on another, apps and documents on a third.
According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion Bobcat is being aimed at netbooks and mobile phones. Llano would be the notebook part. This article has a bit of info as well: http://arstechnica.com/business/guid...the-laptop.ars
So it would be: Ontario/Bobcat (netbook), Llano/Phenom 2 (notebook), Scorpius/Bulldozer (desktop)
This could work pretty well in Apple's lineup with the MBA getting bobcat. They could even put a bobcat in the iPad as it scales down to 250mW, not that they would though.
The Phenom 2 in Llano doesn't sound all that good:
4-core may be an improvement over current Intel chips but I have reservations about this holding up well against Intel's Sandy bridge CPU. The biggest advantage would be the graphics part but Intel seem to think their next IGP will be pretty good using some Larrabee developments:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...integrated-gpu
Actually, AMD admit in the article that they don't expect their CPUs to be as fast as Intel's but are banking on the 55xx series GPU being much better and offering a better experience.
It kinda leaves NVidia out in the cold either way.
Check out my educated guesses for the Mid-2010 Mac mini!
I think that's probably about right although if it starts at 2.4GHz, I'd rather see it drop to $499 at the entry level. But I guess with 4GB RAM, at least you save money from not having to upgrade.
$599, 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
250GB SATA II Hard Drive
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
$799, 2.66GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
320GB SATA II Hard Drive
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
$999, 2.66GHz Intel Core Duo 2 with 3MB Cache
4GB DDR3 PC8500
500GB Dual SATA II Hard Drives
NVIDIA 320M 256MB DDR3 Shared
The latter two options are not that good value as they just jump from 2.53GHz to 2.66GHz and add the 320M. That server option is so not worth $1000 especially considering you're not likely to be using the GPU anyway so you'd actually be far better off just buying a refurb.
You actually get 1TB 9.5mm drives now:
http://en.akihabaranews.com/41019/st...-and-750gb-hdd
750GB is ok too and they'd have more manufacturers to choose from.
There is a 2.8GHz CPU Apple can use but it's $100 more expensive so I reckon the $799 model and $999 model will be either 2.8GHz or they will use single 500GB and dual 750GB respectively. I'd be tempted to buy the second model if it was 2.8GHz over the entry model but not if it's 2.66GHz. Of course a $100 price drop is another option they can consider. It seems to me they are deliberately avoiding having a $500 machine so people don't link it to Jobs' statement about it being a piece of junk. Most people should have forgotten by now so they should drop the price.
I thought so too, at first, but I changed my mind, because the iPad is such a poor laptop replacement.
The iPad is a peripheral of exactly one regular computer. It shares some files with it. A worthwhile laptop replacement should be able to synchronize with more than one computer. If it did, I could have a computer at home, a computer at work (both desktops) and an iPad. As it is, I am either prevented from putting music files from home on the iPad, so it's not very entertaining on the road, or I'm prevented from loading business documents from work, in which case it's useless for business travel.
Too bad. Makes the iPad useless to me, since I still have to carry a laptop.
Use Dropbox to sync your documents to GoodReader. You can access them from any computer, including the iPad.
Use AirVideo to sync your movies. Accessible from anywhere on the iPad, even on 3G.
Use Subsonic +iSub app to sync your music.
Use Jump Desktop to access your desktop from anywhere.
I currently have access to 2 desktops, 1 laptop, my 100GB music library, and my 2TB video library...all from my iPad.
http://en.akihabaranews.com/41019/st...-and-750gb-hdd
750GB is ok too and they'd have more manufacturers to choose from.
There is a 2.8GHz CPU Apple can use but it's $100 more expensive so I reckon the $799 model and $999 model will be either 2.8GHz or they will use single 500GB and dual 750GB respectively. I'd be tempted to buy the second model if it was 2.8GHz over the entry model but not if it's 2.66GHz. Of course a $100 price drop is another option they can consider. It seems to me they are deliberately avoiding having a $500 machine so people don't link it to Jobs' statement about it being a piece of junk. Most people should have forgotten by now so they should drop the price.[/QUOTE]
Hey that Toshiba 1TB is still 12.5mm in Height, the 750GB is 9.5mm but its 5400RPM but Seagate has a 750GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache with height of 9.5mm. Great.
- GeForce 320M
- 4GB RAM standard
- SSD option
- No increase in noise
Hey that Toshiba 1TB is still 12.5mm in Height, the 750GB is 9.5mm but its 5400RPM but Seagate has a 750GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache with height of 9.5mm. Great.
I didn't read the full article, it seems like we are stuck with 750GB maximum for now in 9.5mm height. Thing is, at least in the server, without having the optical drive, they should have enough space to fit in 12.5mm drives and still allow for cooling.
Dual 750GB isn't too bad though, the iMac only has options to go to 2TB and the Mini server can hold 1.5TB.
I didn't read the full article, it seems like we are stuck with 750GB maximum for now in 9.5mm height. Thing is, at least in the server, without having the optical drive, they should have enough space to fit in 12.5mm drives and still allow for cooling.
Dual 750GB isn't too bad though, the iMac only has options to go to 2TB and the Mini server can hold 1.5TB.
You can fit a 12.5mm HDD into the unibody MBPs.
I remain unimpressed, if this is true. For the price a Mac Mini goes for right now I would expect at least a Core i3 if not a Core i5, with a discreet GPU and switchable graphics a la 15+ inch MBP.
Do you even know how anemic the mobile i3 is? That it's claim to fame is the anemic Intel "HD Graphics" IGP? What does that even buy you except pathetic 3D performance? What battery savings are you hoping to have (like the 15+ inch MBP) for a computer that doesn't run off a battery?