First look: Apple' new unibody Mac mini

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 239
    nanotechnanotech Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Can a Mac Mini really provide TiVo-like functionality? Does it have a tuner card?



    If not, how does that work? How does it get TV input to record on the hard drive?



    Could use Elgato HD etc. and plug it in by USB
  • Reply 62 of 239
    williamgwilliamg Posts: 322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maridia View Post


    I think the design is marvelous. The price, not so much. I'm on the verge of getting one of these things, but just can't make up my mind.



    Just get it. The price will soon be forgotten.
  • Reply 63 of 239
    walneywalney Posts: 70member
    .....
  • Reply 64 of 239
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    But that is primarily due to their phone business, not their computer business.



    Saw it. Liked it. But it does have the ring of truth about it. I wonder how long it is before OS-X is just for power users?



    I don't think it does when you stop comparing Macs to the iPhone. Just like with your comment (above) to WilliamG, the stock is mostly being affected by the iPhone. It's been wildly successful but I think the Macs are the best they have ever produced. They have gone to an expensive milling process for nearly the entire line which means they have perfected it in ways I didn't think were possible for a CE company pushing that much volume. If they were going to ignore the Mac I don't think they would have bothered.



    Also, they are selling more Macs in a quarter than they used to sell in a year just a few years ago. This is big! To lose Macs means to lose a key part of the Apple ecosystem and a large part of their revenue stream.



    Last and most important, they appear to make considerably more profit than any other PC vendor. Just because they made the smartphone business a consumer success despite all the talk of it being so "entrenched" doesn't mean that they should drop it. It's not a one-or-the-other situation. They can and will focus on both market segments.



    Quote:

    BTW it is possible the case design (maybe different height versions) is also intended for future AppleTVs and Timed Capsules as well as the Mac Mini.



    Nice idea. I'd like to see how the antenna are working with that all aluminium design. I think we're getting to the point were routers need to have a more robust OS and they need to be more powerful. Between 802.11n, double band routers, 1000BASE-T, USB3.0 and the speed of FIOS and DOCSIS3.0 cable modems todays consumer routers cannot handle the load if there are multiple users on the LAN taxing it. With the growing number of HD content and other data-heavy services this is becoming more common. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a Time Capsule wiith an A4 chip with a 3.5" HDD and running iOS sans the Cocoa Touch layer.
  • Reply 65 of 239
    williamgwilliamg Posts: 322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    But that is primarily due to their phone business, not their computer business.






    Bingo. You know that they are no longer primarily a computer company.
  • Reply 66 of 239
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walney View Post


    ...or else maybe Mr. H has a very valid point. If they had kept the case dimensions pretty much the same Apple would have an inch of fresh air to play with. So there would have been room for an uprated PSU, separate GPU and enough fresh air to ensure adequate cooling.



    If they made it even bigger they could have also made the chips user removable so you can upgrade more easily, they could have reduced costs even further, they could forego using notebook-grade components for cheaper and faster desktop-grade components, they could used a plastic case that is even cheaper than their old white one, et cetera ad nauseum.



    That's were you're missing the point. Apple knows what they could have done, but you all need to accept what they have done. It doesn't suit your needs and that's that. There is nothing else to discuss about how the product coulda would shoulda.



    If you care to make predictions as to how you think the product will fair in the market and why you think it was the wrong way to go, that's fine. That's can lead to worthwhile discussion. But stating that they could do more for less with a larger case design means you are missing the point.
  • Reply 67 of 239
    williamgwilliamg Posts: 322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post




    Or more likely people will stick with Windows.





    Naw. People who go to the Apple store to replace their windows machine are likely going to buy a Mac. They have already heard something about Apple being expensive, and they are already primed for the "better quality" shtick to overcome that objection.



    I don't think that an excessive number of likely apple-switcher customers will have lasting price objections.
  • Reply 68 of 239
    walneywalney Posts: 70member
    .....
  • Reply 69 of 239
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Saw it. Liked it. But it does have the ring of truth about it. I wonder how long it is before OS-X is just for power users?



    Proof that Mac OS X has not been forgotten?
    MAC OS X 10.7

    There were sessions with wee bits of 10.7-related information, if you read between the lines (or search for 10.7 references in the iOS 4 SDK frameworks ? cough, AV Foundation, cough). 10.7 is clearly proceeding, and word on the street is that it?s picking up steam.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walney View Post


    Sorry, but maybe I misunderstood what you said. I took it from your original post that you thought that the future of the mini was going to be constrained because there wouldn't be enough space to make way for faster/hotter processors and gfx. My comment was merely that if they had left the case at the same size then there wouldn't be the same physical constraints, since they have done such a remarkable job on shrinking the logic board further, giving Apple (not me) the flexibility of including meatier components at a later date without yet another case redesign.



    I was pointing out that C2D can't be used forever. This goes for the 13" notebooks, too. Sure, they didn't have to make the case so small, but they did, and since Intel isn't licensing the QuickPath Interconnect and Intel HD IGPs are shite I think the only options for the future of these small Macs is to remove the optical drive, shrink some components (even though I don't think is feasible), and/or change from Intel to AMD for the CPU.
  • Reply 70 of 239
    walneywalney Posts: 70member
    .....
  • Reply 71 of 239
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walney View Post


    Point taken, or maybe it can... perhaps the real future of the mini is that it does indeed turn into appleTV (isn't that still using a Celeron processor?)



    At $700 I'd consider it foolish for Apple to not allow customers to make the Mac Mini into a very expensive AppleTV if they had the software for it.



    It currently uses an Intel Pentium M-class chip. I think it's a special chip that wasn't ever part of their typical lineup.
  • Reply 72 of 239
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    So it seems. However, a really good BluRay player cost several hundreds of dollars. Adding a BluRay drive to the Mini would work, but the video output quality would surely be lacking. No room for the necessary processing video chips.



    The 320m should be able to decode BR video just fine, even the 9400m can (assuming you're running Windows...).



    As far as actual cost, it should be cheap for an OEM like Apple, to add BR. When I added a BR drive to my PC, it was about $70 for the drive and a copy of PowerDVD that could playback BR. I have it hooked up to my 1080p TV over HDMI.



    Although knowing Apple, they'd probably tell people to just buy a BR player if they wanted to watch BR movies though.
  • Reply 73 of 239
    While the Mini was originally intended as the low-cost, entry-level Mac, it hasn't played out that way. You need only to visit any college campus to see what the actual entry-level Mac is. Meanwhile, the Mini has found its place as a small Mac server for businesses, and as home entertainment units, and it's clear that that's how Apple is now positioning the Mini.



    Is the Mini still compelling in those two markets? I think so.
  • Reply 74 of 239
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Oddly, there is still no mDP- or DP-to HDMI adapters or cables that support audio. Not even from Monoprice. It's not like they have to do anything crazy to make an HDMI cable with audio.



    Even more odd is that Apple doesn't offer such an adapter. Note that the Mac Mini comes with an HDMI-to-DVI Adapter which is new, whilst they've offered a mDP-to-DVI adapter since first started using mDP.



    That's strange, the mDP-HDMI adapter I purchased about 8 months says on the package that it supports audio, my MacBook won't do it so I can't test that out.
  • Reply 75 of 239
    user23user23 Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post


    Bingo. You know that they are no longer primarily a computer company.



    further, Apple seems to be attempting to change the very nature of what people presume a computer to be.
  • Reply 76 of 239
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Proof that Mac OS X has not been forgotten?



    I don't believe OS X has been forgotten. They'll be an 10.7 and then a 10.8. But I do think it is becoming a lot less important to Apple. During the Vista era Apple were quite aggressive going after Windows customers. They had the fantastic Get a Mac ad campaign and they brought out the Mac mini at an unheard of price for a Mac. As you noted they are selling more Macs in a quarter than they used to sell in a year just a few years ago. However, their strategy is changing and Apple are no longer going after MS in the same way. iOS is looking like it is the future of Apple, not OS X.



    Going forward I wouldn't be surprised iOS 5 or iOS 6 removes the iTunes dependency, moving functionality to the cloud or allowing iOS devices to work directly with a Time Capsule for backup and media storage. OS X will be for power users (people who need to run Photoshop or Xcode or create massive spreadsheets). iOS will be for everyone else.
  • Reply 77 of 239
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    The 320m should be able to decode BR video just fine, even the 9400m can (assuming you're running Windows...).



    As far as actual cost, it should be cheap for an OEM like Apple, to add BR. When I added a BR drive to my PC, it was about $70 for the drive and a copy of PowerDVD that could playback BR. I have it hooked up to my 1080p TV over HDMI.



    Although knowing Apple, they'd probably tell people to just buy a BR player if they wanted to watch BR movies though.



    Accoridng to an AI article the Nvidia 320M does support Pure Video HD so Full-Profile Blu-ray and HD-DVD decoding is possible.



    If you can find me a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading Blu-ray drive that works within the power constraints of the Mac Mini and Mac notebooks for $70 I'll start up a business tomorrow and cut you in all profits.



    As previously stated, you can't just plug in a Blu-ray drive and play a Blu-ray movie. You'd still have to install and play it through Windows; and not through a VM, it has to be native install via BootCamp.
  • Reply 78 of 239
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    ... OS X will be for power users (people who need to run Photoshop or Xcode or create massive spreadsheets). iOS will be for everyone else.



    Every time someone makes this argument, which has some truth in it, for some purposes, there is always the implicit premise that OS X, OS X hardware, OS X software, the things people do on OS X will somehow just stand still while iOS and the mobile devices it runs on, and the software it runs will evolve into OS X replacements. The entire argument depends on that premise, and that premise is entirely, obviously and fatally flawed. OS X class systems will always outpace the capability of portable iOS class systems.



    There are a lot of other things wrong with the argument that iOS powered (and similar) devices will replace OS X class systems, such as that OS X UI will be more productive than iOS UI in situations where you connect a keyboard and pointing device, and that the ergonomics of touch are ill suited to certain tasks, but given that a necessary and fundamental premise is false, I have trouble understanding why people are jumping on this bandwagon, other than to attribute it to touch screen hysteria.
  • Reply 79 of 239
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ameldrum1 View Post


    form above function.



    imagine trying to actually insert an SD card (or connect a USB drive) when this unit is sitting snugly in your TV/entertainment unit with a bunch of cables connected to the back (making it difficult to move). or even reach the power switch for that matter...



    dumb, dumb, dumb.



    totally, totally, totally ...



    or, as in my case, my Oct 2009 Mac Mini (which I like, esp at the $100 cheaper price I spent), where even though it has FIVE USB, I put a powered USB Hub in one of them so I can actually insert and remove my flash drives without having to crawl under the desk.



    Apple has really gone too far down the artsy must-look-clean path to the point of making it hard to actually plug anything into it. Sigh.
  • Reply 80 of 239
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Sure. It's all about getting the functionality, portability, build-quality/sturdiness mix right. It's extremely challenging for portable products and Apple pretty much always gets it right.



    But, what's the point making a desktop 1.4" tall instead of 2.4" (or whatever?) I can see the attraction of small and silent relative to a tower, but 2.4" is still incredibly small next to a "normal tower". Where's the benefit?



    Because I don't consider screwing over basic functionality to make a desktop computer as thin as possible, innovation?

    ...



    I agree.



    Here they decided to make the Mini wider, and if they had allowed the same or slightly more height, they could have put in a full sizes 3.5 HD. Admittedly, it would draw more power, but not hugely if they picked the right vendor. And the performance would be substantially better. (I know, I replaced my Mac mini 2.5" 5400 with a 2.5" 7200 HD and it is very noticeably snappier )



    Apple is unhealthily (word?) obsessed with thinness for no practical value to the end user.



    Next gen, The new Mac mini Mini, so small that you can't even plug anything into it. But boy is it THIN!

    (he says with some slight sarcasm... )
Sign In or Register to comment.