First look: Apple' new unibody Mac mini

1235712

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 239
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajmac25 View Post


    As a long time (> 20 years) of Macs, I understand APple products are always a premium, BUT adding $100 to the price is ridiculous. Come on Steve, give us a break!http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif



    ...just stop with the "adding $100 dollar" silliness already. Apple dropped the low-end Mini, and retained the price for the comparably equipped upgrade version in the new one. So just stop. You are comparing breadfruit and kumquats.



    Yes it is sad that they discontinued the "bargain basement" version for the low-budgeted folks, but in reality what percentage of sales were the low-end versions anyway? Anyone? Any idea at all?? I thought not. So again, where the average consumer is concerned - is where Apple targets its decisions. If you are not close to the "golden mean" of that group, your needs are less likely to drive the decision and the pricing.Or anything else. Like features for the iPad. Or the iPhone.



    All you armchair CEOs need to think a little harder about what goes into a decision like this and know the market much, much better than you apparently do.

  • Reply 82 of 239
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post


    It boggles the mind that many think the Mac Mini is way too expensive yet the iMac, which is a very poor deal looked at over the long haul, not so much. As I've noted before, it's 12-year monitor technology mated to six-year computer technology.



    Um, the iMac doesn't use "12-year" old "monitor technology." Show me an IPS monitor from 1998 with the iMac's resolution, contrast and color reproduction. Show me a 2004 CPU and GPU like the iMac has for its price. You mean that the iMac is an old CONCEPT --in which case, you should be logically consistent with your poor argument and prize netbooks above all computers because they are a newer concepts.



    I also chuckle at your spiel about how the iMac is a terrible deal "over the long haul," yet in the same post tell us how much more powerful the Mini will be in a few years. Will the new powerful Mini then make this current one a "poor deal" in the "long haul" too?



    If you think that in terms of specs, the Mini can even touch a $699 HTPC, then you need to do some research. I am speaking only about the specs like you mentioned, omitting build quality and the premium that OS X should, IMO, demand over PCs.
  • Reply 83 of 239
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    You don't get an HDMI with those other machines. Not saying Mini is a good value, but if it is exactly what you want, the price is not unreasonable.



    Not sure why you would need one with the iMac since that is a TV for most people's needs. That's 21" on the low end and 27" on the high. Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes content all play very nicely.



    For the Macbook you can buy a Mini Displayport to HDMI cable. Good enough.



    My HDTV would make a great display for a Mac Mini. I'd just need a wireless keyboard and a magic mouse. Ah, but there's the problem. The wireless keypad works great on the couch but the magic mouse would be clumsy. Apple needs to create a magic mouse in the form of a remote or some 3rd party can do it. People use their thumbs to control a remote so why not a magic mouse-like remote. It would be the perfect set up and I'd call the Mac Mini a value then. Reason being, I already have the display. I'm sure many others of you would agree then. Who needs the AppleTV then?
  • Reply 84 of 239
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bruce Young View Post


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



    Steve Jobs will introduce it by plucking it out of his shirt pocket, like he did with the original Mac 3.5" disk.



    Seriously, I'm also on the side of "How thin does a desktop really need to be"?



    Engineering is all about trade-offs, but when you're relegating yourself to lower-powered components just so you can shave those few extra millimeters off a desktop computer, you need to step back & reevaluate things.
  • Reply 85 of 239
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post


    Apple doesn't go for the el-cheapo market. Apple doesn't know how to make a good $499 computer.



    And if the Mini isn't for you, Apple can sell you a different Mac. Problem solved.



    Why did Apple put el cheapo hardware in the Mini then?



    Apple did know how to make a good $499 computer with the original Mini, which was what the Mini was supposed to be: an affordable and capable machine. Now Apple has simply made it a "capable machine."
  • Reply 86 of 239
    corpunkcorpunk Posts: 12member
    Yes, the initial price increase is disappointing, but can't wait to buy these second hand to use as servers in a colo. The price per inch and per watt is phenomenal.
  • Reply 87 of 239
    Tonight I went to HP and Dell sites and priced their computers with equivalent hardware. It is true that neither company makes a tiny package like the Mini. I'm one who wouldn't use the computer as an HTPC. It would be used for entertainment but it would be for work too. My computers don't need to be tiny.



    I can buy the same features for much less money than the Mini or buy a much more capable computer for the same money. I have plenty of room on my desk for a tower.



    If Windows 7 is a great copy of Leopard then I'd be happy with it (maybe, since I've never used it). If I didn't like it I'd just put a Linux distribution on it.



    I'm glad I didn't immediately put Snow Leopard on my Mac Book. Too many people find it buggy right now. My next computer (other than an iPad to be bought this fall) might be a home build. I've read that the component parts have three year manufacturer warrantees and cost less than when bought as a package in a manufactured computer.
  • Reply 88 of 239
    corpunkcorpunk Posts: 12member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    Tonight I went to HP and Dell sites and priced their computers with equivalent hardware. It is true that neither company makes a tiny package like the Mini. I'm one who wouldn't use the computer as an HTPC. It would be used for entertainment but it would be for work too. My computers don't need to be tiny.



    I can buy the same features for much less money than the Mini or buy a much more capable computer for the same money. I have plenty of room on my desk for a tower.



    If Windows 7 is a great copy of Leopard then I'd be happy with it (maybe, since I've never used it). If I didn't like it I'd just put a Linux distribution on it.



    I'm glad I didn't immediately put Snow Leopard on my Mac Book. Too many people find it buggy right now. My next computer (other than an iPad to be bought this fall) might be a home build. I've read that the component parts have three year manufacturer warrantees and cost less than when bought as a package in a manufactured computer.



    You've been down that road Neo, you know where it leads....
  • Reply 89 of 239
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    If Windows 7 is a great copy of Leopard then I'd be happy with it (maybe, since I've never used it). If I didn't like it I'd just put a Linux distribution on it.



    I'm glad I didn't immediately put Snow Leopard on my Mac Book. Too many people find it buggy right now.



    Wheels, first off, 7 is a very solid and FAST OS. I recommend that you give it a go. For some things, like high bit-rate 1080p, Blu-Ray, and many games, it is the only choice.



    I have had nothing but pleasant experiences with Snow Leopard. Aside from its being very RAM hungry (I have only 1.2Gb of 4Gb free, 3 days uptime), it is speedy and stable. I used to have lots of problems with flash/hard drive ejections, but SL has fixed many of those issues too.
  • Reply 90 of 239
    masternavmasternav Posts: 442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post


    No, they don't. If Apple did, they would sell far more computers than any other manufacturer. Fact is they still offer quite poor value for money simply because Mr. Jobs cannot bear the thought of plebs or peasants as Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, Wal-Mart and the like, prefer to call people in the lower income bracket.





    Major logic fail here Bsrr. Wrong on all counts. You erroneously assume that Apple wants to dominate the market - which they have stated several times, from the mouth of Jobsey himself they do not - not on any platform, period.



    They don't want to simply "sell more computers" - that's a Dellism - and you are welcome to it. While your "common-man" approach is gruffly endearing (however briefly), you ignore the very real truth that owning a computer is more than just a hardware purchase - as million of Windows users will wearily inform you. The value of the Mac against your money plays quite nicely, as they tend to last longer, retain their value for resale better, require less operating overhead, and in fact are more enjoyable to use than their competitors, and create more customer loyalty. The numbers of my friends and acquaintances who are Mac owners grows daily and they uniformly report not only enjoying (of all things) their Macs, but their intention of "never going back" to their PC way of life. That figures prominently into the equation as well.



    Anecdotally, I was purchasing some odd thing or other at the local Apple Store not too long ago and witnessed something interesting. A young lady (perhaps early twenties) was buying a Macbook laptop, and some of the attendant stuff - One-to-One, AppleCare and some other things. She had, according to her boyfriend, saved up her tips for the last two years waitressing in order to buy her first Mac. She was grinning as she shoveled wads of dollar bills at the stunned Apple Specialist at the POS, and burbling on about her days of hating her computer were over. She was EXCITED about the purchase, and what it meant to her - in spite of the time and effort it took to raise the money she was spending on the device. Why? Because a friend of hers lent her a Mac to help complete some work she was doing (freelance? - that part was not made clear) - and she fell in love with it. Sometimes things are worth the effort to obtain them.



    So you are wrong, as wrong as Mr. Wrong failing about in a big pile of wrong can be.

  • Reply 91 of 239
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I don't think many Mini customers know anything about RAM, the CPU or the GPU. If they already have a computer, they already have the peripherals.



    wrong. i've had four mini's over the years. the latest and fastest is always the HTPC, the older ones get handed down for household general use. that is true of many consumers. there are many HTPC Mini people. then there are all the business users too ...



    this new generation is a good half step. making it easy to add RAM is great. the new outputs are nice. but ... still not having a 7200 rpm drive is just terrible, a fatal flaw. because it makes a real difference in performance (i set up an external 7200 boot drive, so i know). why?



    wait until next year for an even better spec bump. and maybe even blu ray.
  • Reply 92 of 239
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



    Probably not, but I working with standard desktop components, which is the tradeoff Apple gets when going go for thin and efficient as possible. On the other hand, my PC is quite a bit larger.



    I can see Apple's angle, but I'd rather have raw power, or at least the option of it, than having the smallest desktop possible.



    But honestly, I don't even care anymore, I made the choice to build a new PC, rather than getting a new Mac months ago. I dig OSX, like my current Mini, but I also want a good quad-core, a good GPU, USB 3.0, etc, at an acceptable price. The 'look' isn't my priority, not to mention I simply can't justify spending $700 for a C2D and 2 GB of RAM in 2010.
  • Reply 93 of 239
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Interesting how the review doesn't mention the lack of a blu-ray drive. If Apple want this to be a home theatre PC, a Blu-Ray drive is absolutely essential.



    I also find it odd how Apple still keep the majority of the HD rentals on the iTunes store as Apple TV exclusives. Surely it would make sense to open these up to everyone?
  • Reply 94 of 239
    I WANT THE NEW MAC MINI!



    My current one is starting to just look too big. I'm going to shell out an extra $100 over what I paid for my current Mac mini because the new one is 0.6" shorter. My 2" tall model is just too tall compared to the new 1.4" model.



    You have no idea how much of a conversation piece the Mac mini is when you have guests over, and you unplug it and have them hold it in their hands! They can't get over it and neither can I! It supplies an endless source of amusement! Now I get to show them an EVEN SMALLER ONE! (I can just picture their reactions! I can't wait! )



    Just knowing that invisible and hidden inside the outer casing of the new Mac mini lies a Unibody Construction has me bursting with joy! I'd pay more than $100 extra to get this!



    True, I can't see it, but just knowing it's in there makes me just LOVE the computer!



    Although I am saddened that it is wider by 1.2" square, if the next Mac mini is even SMALLER, I'll surely buy that one next! I can't wait! A good portion of the enjoyment I'll get out of the machine is just by looking at it for hours, with the power turned off, just marveling about how they could compress so much technology in such a small space! Word to Apple: smaller and smaller! Keep up that goal!



    I guess If I want a display that is to mesh with the aesthetics of the machine, I should probably buy Apple's low-end 24" screen for $899. So that's $699+$899=$1598+tax.



    The $1,199 iMac! Peh! Its screen will be a whole 2.5" smaller! Imagine! And sure, the iMac comes with 4GB RAM, upgradable to 16GB of RAM, but who would ever in their lifetime need more than 2GB standard, upgradable to 8GB?! Are they nuts?



    Frankly, I still agree with Bill Gates when he famously said never would anyone need more than 640K. He's such a visionary! Steve Jobs could learn a thing or two from that man.



    With the new Mac mini, when will I EVER max out the 2GB and want to upgrade? It's unimaginable!



    And sure you can upgrade the iMac's standard 500GB hard drive to a 2 terabyte drive, but we won't be speaking in "terabytes" for another decade or two! Sounds like some sort of dinosaur or something. I know I don't want anything to do with it anyway.



    I'll never, ever max out the new Mac mini's 320GB hard drive such that I'll need to upgrade to the max possible the machine allows, 500GB.



    And sure, the iMac's Core Duo processor runs at 3.06GHz, and the new Mac mini's runs at 2.4GHz, but what's 660MHz mean anyway? The Apple // ran at 1MHz! Come on people!



    Those extra several hundred megahertz in the iMac require a louder fan, and I won't stand for that! Fans make me hear secret messages in Beatles songs.



    So I'll spend an extra $400 for a Mac mini and NOT an iMac -- none of my house guests would be impressed with that mammoth thing. It's a hog!



    So I'll be buying the new Mac mini with an Apple 24" display, and the supposedly "more powerful" "more expandable" iMac with its puny screen, migraine-inducing fan and its corpulent size can take a long walk on a short pier for all I care. Good riddance!



    And to Apple: as a HUGE Mac mini fan, you may find my input useful. In the next model, make it far thinner and far less wide -- as far as you can go. If some technology has to be ripped out of it to achieve this, that's less important. I need to regularly refresh my conversation piece.



    One way is to eliminate the optical drive. I know your efforts are to make the optical disc obsolete like the microfloppy, so why not do away with it altogether? In fact, starting tomorrow, direct all Mac product development teams to eliminate optical drives from ALL future Macs.



    Let the optical drive go the way of the microfloppy and Adobe Flash. And Blu-ray or Holographic Versatile Discs? Never gonna catch on. DOA. Don't add Blu-ray drives or Blu-ray drives as BTO options or you'll only be popularizing the technology, and we wouldn't want that.



    If someone wants a Blu-ray drive in their Mac bad enough, some pesky third party will offer such a thing and the necessary drivers. But your OS software engineers can sabotage such drivers with some clever, undocumented, hidden, known-only-to-Apple bits in the OS. Do what you need to do to render rogue Blu-ray drives inoperable on Macs. You won't be serving your goal of killing the optical disc if you don't.



    If you ever do release a new Mac Pro, get rid of its optical drive also. Or, failing that, get rid of the second optical drive bay because it poses a risk that a Mac Pro owner might be able to get a third party Blu-ray drive in there! God forbid!



    Keep up your efforts to kill optical media. And before you know it, Blockbuster will be shutting its doors as will all music stores that sell music on CDs -- OPTICAL DISCS! BLECCCH!



    Back to the Mac mini. Apple, you hate the standard hard drive, so I don't get why you're continuing to use it in your computers!?



    My suggestion for the next Mac mini is to raise its price another $100, and ditch that 54-year-old Winchester hard drive technology for a 32GB Solid State Drive.



    I know that's 1/10th the capacity of the new Mac mini's current 320GB Winchester hard drive that comes standard, but I already asked, When am I ever going to need that much storage space? I mean, really!



    I wouldn't be able to sleep at night just knowing there was a Winchester hard drive hidden inside there -- a 54-year-old technology -- slightly older than Unix.



    Finally, in the next Mac mini you release, consider dumping Mac OS X for iOS. It is better, more powerful, has more animations and eye candy, and it will force application programmers to discipline themselves into writing apps that occupy no more than 256MB.



    App developers have simply had too much freedom, what with mega-gigs of RAM and large, wasteful Winchester hard drives that impose almost no limits on how big an app can be or how much storage the app can use for the content it creates.



    In the application programming world, there's anarchy in the streets, and someone needs to impose some order. Programmers need to go back to the days when they would streamline apps for better performance by counting processor cycles.



    So:



    1.) Make the next Mac mini much smaller.



    2.) Kill optical media. Eliminate optical drives from all Mac models. Everything shall be obtained electronically (iTunes).



    2.) Kill the mouse.



    3.) Kill the hard drive, and use only SSDs. And DON'T design Macs to accommodate hard drives.



    4.) Ditch the monolithic Mac OS X that is soooo yesterday for the much nimbler iOS that will finally put a little discipline on these wanton programmers with their limitless RAM and their infinite storage space. It's even more disgraceful than the Beatles' hairstyles when they arrived at Heathrow in 1964. Man, if only Nixon were here.



    And thanks one last time, Apple, for the new Mac mini! What more could anyone want in 2010?



    defender
  • Reply 95 of 239
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It could be argued that Apple makes their machines 'too thin". There are plenty of machines that are only a little thicker overall (sometimes thinner at the front) but are made from plastic and so they are actually lighter ...



    I just hope that the others don't copy too much from Apple on that front. I believe that the unibody approach made the products better for mobile use.

    But from an environmental point of view I don't believe Apple's arguments. When you think about how much Aluminum has to be produced and recycled because of

    the milling process and you take into account that China is producing most of its energy by firing coal I don't believe that this argument can hold its ground.



    Next they use this process for a computer that is in no need for this treatment -> making it more expensive to produce. As you already said they over engineered

    this one and as Mr. H said they might have taken one step to much but the markets will decide.
  • Reply 96 of 239
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member
    I now tried to match the Mini with the cheapest iMac.

    CPU in the Mini is 400MHz slower. Same HD capacity, same RAM size, Magic mouse, wireless keyboard. iMac has the 9400M.



    Without a monitor the Mini is already ? 150,- more expensive than the iMac missing 400MHz in CPU speed and a Monitor.



    If Apple wants me to buy the iMac why don't they just EOL the Mini?

    At the moment I just can't see where Apple wants to go with the Mini???
  • Reply 97 of 239
    joe hsjoe hs Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    I can see Apple's angle, but I'd rather have raw power, or at least the option of it, than having the smallest desktop possible.



    Then get a mac pro, Two 2.93Ghz Quad core intel xeon, 32 Gb RAM, 8 TB 7200rmp serial ATA 3Gb/s: Massive and has good specs; it sounds like it would suit you.
  • Reply 98 of 239
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    I haven't read all there is to read about the new mini but here's a question I've yet to see answered (or asked, for that matter):



    Is this the first Mac mini that can be booted into OS X 64 bit mode?
  • Reply 99 of 239
    gostangostan Posts: 15member
    I am planning on getting the Mini. I love it's, thinness & functionality. I spend most of my time in my HT room and will be using it 75% there and 25% on my desk with a 24 inch display view monitor.



    Different strokes for different folks. But then again, I was always a real fan of the old Duo 230 laptop and dock, so I do not mind moving things around!
  • Reply 100 of 239
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    Tonight I went to HP and Dell sites and priced their computers with equivalent hardware. It is true that neither company makes a tiny package like the Mini. I'm one who wouldn't use the computer as an HTPC. It would be used for entertainment but it would be for work too. My computers don't need to be tiny.



    I can buy the same features for much less money than the Mini or buy a much more capable computer for the same money. I have plenty of room on my desk for a tower.



    If Windows 7 is a great copy of Leopard then I'd be happy with it (maybe, since I've never used it). If I didn't like it I'd just put a Linux distribution on it.



    I'm glad I didn't immediately put Snow Leopard on my Mac Book. Too many people find it buggy right now. My next computer (other than an iPad to be bought this fall) might be a home build. I've read that the component parts have three year manufacturer warrantees and cost less than when bought as a package in a manufactured computer.



    Please, provide us with your comparisons.



    BTW, You apparently did put Snow Leopard on your Mac Book, even though you know, "Too many people find it buggy right now." That's bright. Much like most of what you say.IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.