This is one of those rare instances where the Apple memory upgrade to 4GB makes sense ($100 vs the $109 NewEgg memory).
Ironic, given that they've finally made a field upgrade of the memory SIMMs a simple task and not minor surgery. [shrug]
On another note, does anyone want to buy a collection of sanded-sharp putty knives? LOL!
Actually, what I would probably buy is a single 4GB module for $120 off New Egg. I read somewhere that it's a little faster with 4GB + 1GB than it is with 2GB + 2GB. That way when I go to 8GB I only throw away the other 1GB stick.
That is a nice machine, actually. 1333mhz RAM, and the 4850 1GB can handle all the latest games at almost-highest settings with about 2x or 4x antialiasing at 1920x1080p. Everything else being kept equal, bump the 250 to 320GB of hard disk and drop in a ATI 5850 1GB and you've got a solid gaming beast.
But don't expect a powerful GPU from Apple. Gaming on the Mac? Well, at least Valve is trying. But the Source engine is pretty efficient and not as demanding as the newer titles.
I shan't say more because apparently my recent post history shows I'm anti-Apple now. Apparently, Lemon, you've become *more* anti-Apple. I understand your frustration. I find it a bit weird, but I'm leaning towards understanding more of what you and extremeskater are saying even though 1 year ago I would have argued against it.
BUT THOSE DAMNED PC CASES ARE SO BLOODY UGLY... GEEZ. Also, no great new games that tickle my fancy, not after the epic that was Mass Effect 2 I finished a few months ago.
I think a more comparable machine for the mini is their HTPC build for £601.98 inc VAT with Window Home Premium. No IGP machine is a gaming box. It has a TV tuner and a Core i3 but just a DVD player. It has the 9300 ION I think but has a slot for a dedicated GPU.
I've been debating Dragon Age...now on OS X too...but what I really want is a Jade Empire Sequel. My i5 MBP handles ME2 just fine on high settings but it's not that demanding a game.
Apple uses "overseas" support centres as well, I got one when I rang about my iMac failing, it wasn't a very nice experience, the language wasn't the issue, it was Apple providing them incorrect information. My Dell has never failed, so I can't comment about their support centres.
I called Dell twice. both times I got people with accents who knew their stuff and helped me. I was very surprised, given Dell's reputation.
For me the Mini represents a better value than the 21.5" iMac given the GPU is faster and I can get the screen I want (whether IPS for photo or TN for gaming)
Personally, I'd get a 4GB module and 1 GB module for 5GB of RAM in the mini. The OCZ 4GB is down to $119 so it's only $10 more than the 2x2GB although I prefer Crucial over OCZ. At least I'm not throwing away the 2GB sticks if I want 8GB later.
I think that it makes a lot of sense to compare the Mini against other Macs, instead of comparing it to Windows machines. I don't think that many potential buyers will compare them spec for spec and dollar for dollar against Windows machines.
Its not a matter of greedy. They figured that the price they chose would maximize profits.
If they charged more, they would sell less. If they charged less, they would sell some more, but not enough to make up for the lost profits.
They choose the price that they think will yield the maximum profit. Just like every other company.
And the Mini seems to be aimed directly at populations who are not as price-conscious as others: apple fans who need a computer like this one, and new buyers/switchers who like the form factor and the position in the Apple lineup (the entry-level).
I don't think those folks care primarily about price, and/or have the monitor and keyboard already.
The bottom line is, Apple originally created the mini to be a "cheap" Mac that would draw in buyers who would otherwise not look at a Mac for a desktop computer. It no longer serves that purpose. It's not cheap enough.
I think that Apple knows what it is doing. Those customers are not as price-conscious as some others. They have already decided to buy a Mac. The only real question for them is "Which one?" If they have a decent monitor and keyboard from their PC, and if they compare the price to the iMac, it might be what they choose.
Ok, it has HDMI. But where does it say, that this Mac can playback iTunes HD Content. So far, Macs were not allowed to. Only AppleTV.
I can play iTunes HD TV content on my original Mac Pro, I have a couple TV episodes in HD dating back to September 2008 and they play. The only thing I don't see is the ability to rent HD movies, but it looks like I can buy HD movies if I wanted to.
I can play iTunes HD TV content on my original Mac Pro, I have a couple TV episodes in HD dating back to September 2008 and they play. The only thing I don't see is the ability to rent HD movies, but it looks like I can buy HD movies if I wanted to.
They differ per country, I can't purchase anything in "HD" from iTunes.
Its not a matter of greedy. They figured that the price they chose would maximize profits.
If they charged more, they would sell less. If they charged less, they would sell some more, but not enough to make up for the lost profits.
They choose the price that they think will yield the maximum profit. Just like every other company.
And the Mini seems to be aimed directly at populations who are not as price-conscious as others: apple fans who need a computer like this one, and new buyers/switchers who like the form factor and the position in the Apple lineup (the entry-level).
I don't think those folks care primarily about price, and/or have the monitor and keyboard already.
Heh. 100% mark ups. I'd call that 'maximising' profits alright. A £300 computer selling for £650.
Sorry, but you just have to accept that we do get gouged. $699 equates to £472 at current exchange rate. There is no import duty on computer equipment from the US, and the UK price (excluding tax) is £552, so we are sucking up an extra $118 (again, excluding taxes) compared to US price.
Even if we accept that it's more expensive doing business in the UK/Europe, the $100 increase from the old model got translated into an extra $164 at this end excluding taxes... and because we then get stiffed for the VAT, that extra $64 then becomes an extra $75 on the bottom line - that's why we get a bit p*ssed
EDIT: ... no import duty from China either
UK prices are a joke.
Other 'PC' vendors operating in the UK can do competitive prices. But Apple have gotten much worse since leaving PPC behind. Ironic considering that they've been selling more.
Ironic with it being in a recession.
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
No.
Ehmmm. If you take away software (not just the OS, don't forget iLife & friends) and design, what is left to compare. A raw list of specifications (limited, e.g. not MTBF stuff) of components? What use is that?
Apple sells 'user experience' more than anything else. More than 'image' (they sell that too, but so is Coca Cola for 99% of their product offering). People are willing to pay for user experience. Many more just look at price and specs and get shafted on user experience.
In other words, people willingly pay for the software and design as it largely defines the user experience. Asking what you buy if you take them away only illustrates how little people understand about what is being sold.
I do think Apple charges too much for this machine outside the US. The possible extra cost (extended consumer protection maybe?) or extra risk (currency rates) can be insured and the cost of that insurance is by far not the raw 17% price difference they charge EU customers.
Heh. 100% mark ups. I'd call that 'maximising' profits alright. A £300 computer selling for £650.
Shadow of greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
UK prices are a joke.
Other 'PC' vendors operating in the UK can do competitive prices. But Apple have gotten much worse since leaving PPC behind. Ironic considering that they've been selling more.
Ironic with it being in a recession.
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
Take away the OS and design and you have everyone else's computer. The fact that people still buy Apple suggests that people do value software and design. Now, it is disappointing that there has been a double-whammy of a price increase for European buyers.
It says it supports multichannel audio output over HDMI in Apple's specs.
You should use brain before mouth.
Regardless... 96k is an idiotic spec, you'll never actually hear the difference the marketing has convinced you of. You're obviously a home user if this is such a 'required feature', however beyond the pure pointless nature of the sampling rate/frequency combo mentioned, I'd also like to hip you to the fact that if you want to sound all 'audio pro' remember the following:
1. As a digital audio connection, HDMI is not the optimum choice, even digital rca coaxial is more reliable, the big boys use optical or even better AES/EBU.
2. If you want to flaunt specs, try 192kHz/24bit - otherwise remember you are a 'mid-sumer stereo customer', best not to try acting all macho in public.
3. Listen more carefully to study music more effectively, if you're missing something in 44.1kHz/16bit 'CD-quality' audio, it might not be a fidelity problem.
I obviously know what HDMI supports... so my question is rather if it works through the stack, or if, like on my current AppleTV, it will be downsampled to 16/44.1. The reason I want 24/96, is because I got music in that resolution (and 24/48) and I'd like to hear it that way on my sound system in my living room. Big difference? Most unlikely. Some? That's what I'd like to hear. If you got a good receiver, jitter shouldn't be a problem anyway... the data will be reclocked.
It says it supports multichannel audio output over HDMI in Apple's specs.
You should use brain before mouth.
Regardless... 96k is an idiotic spec, you'll never actually hear the difference the marketing has convinced you of. You're obviously a home user if this is such a 'required feature', however beyond the pure pointless nature of the sampling rate/frequency combo mentioned, I'd also like to hip you to the fact that if you want to sound all 'audio pro' remember the following:
1. As a digital audio connection, HDMI is not the optimum choice, even digital rca coaxial is more reliable, the big boys use optical or even better AES/EBU.
2. If you want to flaunt specs, try 192kHz/24bit - otherwise remember you are a 'mid-sumer stereo customer', best not to try acting all macho in public.
3. Listen more carefully to study music more effectively, if you're missing something in 44.1kHz/16bit 'CD-quality' audio, it might not be a fidelity problem.
It may be a cooked mastering problem, see the "loudness wars". I think much of what people hear in the higher rate recordings is less dynamic range compression, clipping, etc. that is normally imposed onto the mastering of the more mass market version.
Comments
This is one of those rare instances where the Apple memory upgrade to 4GB makes sense ($100 vs the $109 NewEgg memory).
Ironic, given that they've finally made a field upgrade of the memory SIMMs a simple task and not minor surgery. [shrug]
On another note, does anyone want to buy a collection of sanded-sharp putty knives? LOL!
Actually, what I would probably buy is a single 4GB module for $120 off New Egg. I read somewhere that it's a little faster with 4GB + 1GB than it is with 2GB + 2GB. That way when I go to 8GB I only throw away the other 1GB stick.
That is a nice machine, actually. 1333mhz RAM, and the 4850 1GB can handle all the latest games at almost-highest settings with about 2x or 4x antialiasing at 1920x1080p. Everything else being kept equal, bump the 250 to 320GB of hard disk and drop in a ATI 5850 1GB and you've got a solid gaming beast.
But don't expect a powerful GPU from Apple. Gaming on the Mac? Well, at least Valve is trying. But the Source engine is pretty efficient and not as demanding as the newer titles.
I shan't say more because apparently my recent post history shows I'm anti-Apple now. Apparently, Lemon, you've become *more* anti-Apple. I understand your frustration. I find it a bit weird, but I'm leaning towards understanding more of what you and extremeskater are saying even though 1 year ago I would have argued against it.
BUT THOSE DAMNED PC CASES ARE SO BLOODY UGLY... GEEZ. Also, no great new games that tickle my fancy, not after the epic that was Mass Effect 2 I finished a few months ago.
I think a more comparable machine for the mini is their HTPC build for £601.98 inc VAT with Window Home Premium. No IGP machine is a gaming box. It has a TV tuner and a Core i3 but just a DVD player. It has the 9300 ION I think but has a slot for a dedicated GPU.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=FS-249-OK
Still...for a mini-ITX board that's one fugly HTPC case to stick it in.
New Overlord DLC for Mass Effect 2 just came out...
http://masseffect.bioware.com/media/video/416/
I've been debating Dragon Age...now on OS X too...but what I really want is a Jade Empire Sequel. My i5 MBP handles ME2 just fine on high settings but it's not that demanding a game.
Agreed. Especially the server model should have one for faster backups.
Does it lack wireless n? Isn't that as good as eSata?
Apple uses "overseas" support centres as well, I got one when I rang about my iMac failing, it wasn't a very nice experience, the language wasn't the issue, it was Apple providing them incorrect information. My Dell has never failed, so I can't comment about their support centres.
I called Dell twice. both times I got people with accents who knew their stuff and helped me. I was very surprised, given Dell's reputation.
an attractive enclosure, but isn't this a fairly poorly thought out design?
Very.
Does it lack wireless n? Isn't that as good as eSata?
No, but Firewire is-or at least close enough for backup use which is what you were responding to.
For me the Mini represents a better value than the 21.5" iMac given the GPU is faster and I can get the screen I want (whether IPS for photo or TN for gaming)
Personally, I'd get a 4GB module and 1 GB module for 5GB of RAM in the mini. The OCZ 4GB is down to $119 so it's only $10 more than the 2x2GB although I prefer Crucial over OCZ. At least I'm not throwing away the 2GB sticks if I want 8GB later.
I think that it makes a lot of sense to compare the Mini against other Macs, instead of comparing it to Windows machines. I don't think that many potential buyers will compare them spec for spec and dollar for dollar against Windows machines.
But they won't/don't because they're greedy.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Its not a matter of greedy. They figured that the price they chose would maximize profits.
If they charged more, they would sell less. If they charged less, they would sell some more, but not enough to make up for the lost profits.
They choose the price that they think will yield the maximum profit. Just like every other company.
And the Mini seems to be aimed directly at populations who are not as price-conscious as others: apple fans who need a computer like this one, and new buyers/switchers who like the form factor and the position in the Apple lineup (the entry-level).
I don't think those folks care primarily about price, and/or have the monitor and keyboard already.
1) Apple's product line may not have "amazing spec/price ratio" but they simply just work, every time, all the time, without fail.
Do you really believe that? The failure rate was quoted in another post.
Ok, it has HDMI. But where does it say, that this Mac can playback iTunes HD Content. So far, Macs were not allowed to. Only AppleTV.
You're kidding. Right? What other weird gotchas are there?
The bottom line is, Apple originally created the mini to be a "cheap" Mac that would draw in buyers who would otherwise not look at a Mac for a desktop computer. It no longer serves that purpose. It's not cheap enough.
I think that Apple knows what it is doing. Those customers are not as price-conscious as some others. They have already decided to buy a Mac. The only real question for them is "Which one?" If they have a decent monitor and keyboard from their PC, and if they compare the price to the iMac, it might be what they choose.
So I guess I have no choice but to pay for a beautiful device that's about $200 too much, but is the only thing that suits my needs.
Steve knew you would.
Ok, it has HDMI. But where does it say, that this Mac can playback iTunes HD Content. So far, Macs were not allowed to. Only AppleTV.
I can play iTunes HD TV content on my original Mac Pro, I have a couple TV episodes in HD dating back to September 2008 and they play. The only thing I don't see is the ability to rent HD movies, but it looks like I can buy HD movies if I wanted to.
I can play iTunes HD TV content on my original Mac Pro, I have a couple TV episodes in HD dating back to September 2008 and they play. The only thing I don't see is the ability to rent HD movies, but it looks like I can buy HD movies if I wanted to.
They differ per country, I can't purchase anything in "HD" from iTunes.
Its not a matter of greedy. They figured that the price they chose would maximize profits.
If they charged more, they would sell less. If they charged less, they would sell some more, but not enough to make up for the lost profits.
They choose the price that they think will yield the maximum profit. Just like every other company.
And the Mini seems to be aimed directly at populations who are not as price-conscious as others: apple fans who need a computer like this one, and new buyers/switchers who like the form factor and the position in the Apple lineup (the entry-level).
I don't think those folks care primarily about price, and/or have the monitor and keyboard already.
Heh. 100% mark ups. I'd call that 'maximising' profits alright. A £300 computer selling for £650.
Shadow of greed.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Sorry, but you just have to accept that we do get gouged. $699 equates to £472 at current exchange rate. There is no import duty on computer equipment from the US, and the UK price (excluding tax) is £552, so we are sucking up an extra $118 (again, excluding taxes) compared to US price.
Even if we accept that it's more expensive doing business in the UK/Europe, the $100 increase from the old model got translated into an extra $164 at this end excluding taxes... and because we then get stiffed for the VAT, that extra $64 then becomes an extra $75 on the bottom line - that's why we get a bit p*ssed
EDIT: ... no import duty from China either
UK prices are a joke.
Other 'PC' vendors operating in the UK can do competitive prices. But Apple have gotten much worse since leaving PPC behind. Ironic considering that they've been selling more.
Ironic with it being in a recession.
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
No.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
No.
Ehmmm. If you take away software (not just the OS, don't forget iLife & friends) and design, what is left to compare. A raw list of specifications (limited, e.g. not MTBF stuff) of components? What use is that?
Apple sells 'user experience' more than anything else. More than 'image' (they sell that too, but so is Coca Cola for 99% of their product offering). People are willing to pay for user experience. Many more just look at price and specs and get shafted on user experience.
In other words, people willingly pay for the software and design as it largely defines the user experience. Asking what you buy if you take them away only illustrates how little people understand about what is being sold.
I do think Apple charges too much for this machine outside the US. The possible extra cost (extended consumer protection maybe?) or extra risk (currency rates) can be insured and the cost of that insurance is by far not the raw 17% price difference they charge EU customers.
Heh. 100% mark ups. I'd call that 'maximising' profits alright. A £300 computer selling for £650.
Shadow of greed.
UK prices are a joke.
Other 'PC' vendors operating in the UK can do competitive prices. But Apple have gotten much worse since leaving PPC behind. Ironic considering that they've been selling more.
Ironic with it being in a recession.
Take away the OS and the design. Would you buy one?
Take away the OS and design and you have everyone else's computer. The fact that people still buy Apple suggests that people do value software and design. Now, it is disappointing that there has been a double-whammy of a price increase for European buyers.
It says it supports multichannel audio output over HDMI in Apple's specs.
You should use brain before mouth.
Regardless... 96k is an idiotic spec, you'll never actually hear the difference the marketing has convinced you of. You're obviously a home user if this is such a 'required feature', however beyond the pure pointless nature of the sampling rate/frequency combo mentioned, I'd also like to hip you to the fact that if you want to sound all 'audio pro' remember the following:
1. As a digital audio connection, HDMI is not the optimum choice, even digital rca coaxial is more reliable, the big boys use optical or even better AES/EBU.
2. If you want to flaunt specs, try 192kHz/24bit - otherwise remember you are a 'mid-sumer stereo customer', best not to try acting all macho in public.
3. Listen more carefully to study music more effectively, if you're missing something in 44.1kHz/16bit 'CD-quality' audio, it might not be a fidelity problem.
I obviously know what HDMI supports... so my question is rather if it works through the stack, or if, like on my current AppleTV, it will be downsampled to 16/44.1. The reason I want 24/96, is because I got music in that resolution (and 24/48) and I'd like to hear it that way on my sound system in my living room. Big difference? Most unlikely. Some? That's what I'd like to hear. If you got a good receiver, jitter shouldn't be a problem anyway... the data will be reclocked.
It says it supports multichannel audio output over HDMI in Apple's specs.
You should use brain before mouth.
Regardless... 96k is an idiotic spec, you'll never actually hear the difference the marketing has convinced you of. You're obviously a home user if this is such a 'required feature', however beyond the pure pointless nature of the sampling rate/frequency combo mentioned, I'd also like to hip you to the fact that if you want to sound all 'audio pro' remember the following:
1. As a digital audio connection, HDMI is not the optimum choice, even digital rca coaxial is more reliable, the big boys use optical or even better AES/EBU.
2. If you want to flaunt specs, try 192kHz/24bit - otherwise remember you are a 'mid-sumer stereo customer', best not to try acting all macho in public.
3. Listen more carefully to study music more effectively, if you're missing something in 44.1kHz/16bit 'CD-quality' audio, it might not be a fidelity problem.
It may be a cooked mastering problem, see the "loudness wars". I think much of what people hear in the higher rate recordings is less dynamic range compression, clipping, etc. that is normally imposed onto the mastering of the more mass market version.