So, has anyone actually bought one of these things yet? Can it be booted into 64 bit mode? To my knowledge, no version of the mini to date has been successfully booted into 64 bit mode but maybe this is the first.
So, has anyone actually bought one of these things yet? Can it be booted into 64 bit mode? To my knowledge, no version of the mini to date has been successfully booted into 64 bit mode but maybe this is the first.
Anyone have a mid-2010 MacBook? If that supports booting with a 64-bit kernel then I have to assume the new Mac Mini can, as well.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice.
No, you're an AI troll because you have insisted repeatedly that you know more about Apple's customers than Apple does. That is an insane argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
Whatva rip off. Cmon. Make a $1499 core i7 machine with express and pci express slots for the gamers, musicians, editors in the making. Headless. Apple would dobver well. Regardless off what people say about desktops as it would kill off a lot if c desktop sales if it had sli video as people would use bootcamp.
Time to get with the time and stop BEng afraid of losing you 2% pro market.
I doubt if Apple wants to take marketing advice from someone who can't even write simple English sentences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
What's wrong with your mind? The Mini with added 8 GB RAM, the same NVIDIA 320 video chip, the larger (inferior 5400 RPM) hard drive, Bluetooth, Wireless LAN /N are the same things offered on the HP Pavilion. Just because they are different shapes doesn't mean they are different things. THEY ARE BOTH DESKTOP COMPUTERS!
The Mini configured that way costs approximately $1450.00 without a keyboard or mouse. The Pavilion costs just under $1000.00 and comes with a newer Core i3 processor, a full size 7200 RPM hard drive, a keyboard and mouse. That's a huge difference.
Configure a basic Mini and a basic Slimline HP and the HP is less expensive.
Yes, they're both desktop computers. And an office desk and HDTV are both furniture.
The point that you keep ignoring is that while the Mini and your HP Pavilion are both desktop computers, they're designed with entirely different objectives in mind and are targeted at different audiences. The Mini is designed with the objective of being as small and unobtrusive as possible while using as little energy as possible. That requires a number of trade-offs such as the use of more expensive laptop parts and lower energy components.
But if you are unable to understand analogies, let me make it as simple as possible for you. A Timex and a Rolex are both watches. How does Rolex get away with ripping people off by charging more?
A BMW and a Kia are both 4 passenger autos. Why does BMW charge so much more.
You can get a hamburger at my local 4 star steak house and at McDonald's. How does the steak house get away with charging so much more?
Somehow I would take the review of the experts before I considering the wannabes here.
SlashGear, "Mac mini 2010 review" certainly needs perusing if one is really serious about the Mac Mini 2010:
Quote:
Still, we?re big fans of the Mac mini in its current form. Yes, the price has seen a roughly $100 boost over the last-gen model, but if you consider a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter is currently around $35, plus the CPU and GPU boost, and throw in the SDXC card reader too, that doesn?t sound like too bad a deal to us. At $699 we?d certainly pick it over the white entry-level MacBook for home use, and it would make for an ideal family PC in the living room: showing multimedia content one minute, browsing the internet the next. If you?ve already amassed a huge Blu-ray collection ? rather than, say, HD-quality digital content ? then the absence of a suitable optical drive may be a deal breaker, but the majority of people will find a whole lot of their boxes ticked by, ironically, a very small Apple box.
It's really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apple's trying to grab as much market as they can within their business model, which is vastly different from MS'. If licensing OS X to all OEMs is their goal or they would have done it. Until they start doing that there is no way their focus is to grab Windows share of desktop OS sales. You're again failing to understand what Apple's market it, but instead projecting MS' goals with Windows on Apple's goal with Mac OS X.
PS: 1 in 10 people is not even close to the truth. There are nearly 7 billion in the world. Is Apple marketing Macs to all of these people?
No body is out there grab all market segments (not mention 7 billion). Apple must has its target market with a willingness to pay number in their head. Of course you can target the lowest denominate to get a mass appeals like "American Idol" or "XYZ got Talent", but the profit margin would be so low - see where land Nokia in today. Better not be that silly for Jobs. "For the rest of us" ? the one that can find own way to Appleinsider... ?
I see. So you have some magical power to be able to determine what computer hardware someone needs for their application without having any idea whatsoever what their requirement is?
Interesting, no? What does all that extra money get you beyond a nice metal case, a faster CPU, a smaller hard drive, and a missing BD drive? (and also no equivalent for Windows Media Centre) I'm not really seeing much reason to choose the Mini over the Zino...
The target customers will value the nice metal case more highly than better specs. They won't even understand the differences in the specs. And they won't be comparing the box against a PC, but instead, against other Macs.
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
If you think that pieces of paper are what is generally referred to as "bang for buck", then you think that you are entirely correct in your refutation of my statement.
What's wrong with your mind? The Mini with added 8 GB RAM, the same NVIDIA 320 video chip, the larger (inferior 5400 RPM) hard drive, Bluetooth, Wireless LAN /N are the same things offered on the HP Pavilion. Just because they are different shapes doesn't mean they are different things. THEY ARE BOTH DESKTOP COMPUTERS!
No, actually they aren't both "desktop computers". The HP Pavilion is a desktop tower. The mini is a Small Form Factor PC. They are different categories. HP hasn't made a direct Mini competitor like Dell has with the Zino. Even the slimline is more of a slim tower than a SFF competitor.
For me the 25% power reduction in the new mini is one of the more useful enhancements to me given the nature of a living room PC. That it lacks a BD option is less important to me given I have a BD player and probably will pick up a PS3 soon anyway.
Apple is duty-bound to grab as much total profit as they can, and to adjust their business model as required to meet that goal.
My guess is that Apple figures their current business model is most effective, given all other factors, to maximize total profits.
But if they figured that another model would work better, they would jump ship in an instant.
As an example, they used to stress high-end desktops and they used to promote them heavily. Now they have switched focus to mobile devices.
If they thought that something else would maximize total profits, they would switch to that.
It's because Apple has not merely thought in terms of a lucrative business model that it is the success that it is. Seems to me the stress is on providing products and services that enhance the lives of customers, which in turn is profitable because Apple is selling a lot of product and at a premium.
Think in terms of what is in the best interests of the customer and you will most likely succeed.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice.
No, you're an AI troll because you describe Apple customers as "content with whatever Cupertino sees fit to send their way" and those that disagree with this statement as "Apple Fanboi"s...
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
Why must they be running Windows for? I can get a Linux based server with unlimited clients for less than the Mac Mini Server, US$699 for the standard mini isn't it?
It's because Apple has not merely thought in terms of a lucrative business model that it is the success that it is. Seems to me the stress is on providing products and services that enhance the lives of customers, which in turn is profitable because Apple is selling a lot of product and at a premium.
Think in terms of what is in the best interests of the customer and you will most likely succeed.
You're ignoring the fact that Apple actually chooses to stay away from certain customers. They aren't addressing "the customer" (the catch-all version). They are focusing their efforts on a certain type of customer: the very affluent ones. They deliberately do not to compete in the low-margin, low-end market.
They are perfectly capable of pumping out a $399 netbook that yields them a 3-4% net margin. They don't want this business. They are willing to concede that market to others.
Remember, iPhone's market share is something like 3%, yet Apple rakes in 30% of the industry's total profit. Same thing with computers: Apple has over 90% of the >$1000 home computer market.
I find it interesting that no one here is comparing the price of the new Mac Mini to that of the iPad. People are plunking down as much as US $829 (and more overseas) for a 64 GB 3G iPad. In that context, $699 isn't too much to ask. Perhaps people shopping for iPads would be considering a Mac Mini instead? I understand that they are completely different gadgets, but an iPad isn't even a "real" computer.
I doubt if Apple wants to take marketing advice from someone who can't even write simple English sentences.
Not valid or a nice thing to say...
Why is it not valid? Do you really think Apple takes marketing advice from illiterates?
Not nice? Who knows. But if the person takes my advice and gets an education before leaving his parent's basement, I'm actually doing him a favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdistheword
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?
Mini uses same general PC parts. Doesn't mean quality. "Get it?"
Really? Which PC uses the same mother board as the Mac Mini?
Which PC uses the same case as the Mac Mini?
Which PC uses the same power supply as the Mac Mini?
And that doesn't even get into specifications - it has been well documented that Apple's purchase specs are tighter than the industry average - for example, their RAM is made to tighter tolerances than the cheap stuff you're always advocating.
Of course, if Apple IS using the same components as everything else, then you are left with the problem of explaining how Macs are almost always more reliable, on average, than any other vendor's computers. Must be magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Why must they be running Windows for? I can get a Linux based server with unlimited clients for less than the Mac Mini Server, US$699 for the standard mini isn't it?
Yes, you can get cheap stuff if you wish.
But for the overwhelming majority of users, Windows is the nearest equivalent to Mac OS X in terms of usability. More importantly, Macs and Windows computers together make up 98-99% of the computer market. So the fact that there might be some niche machine that's cheaper doesn't negate the fact that the Mac Mini server is a bargain - compared to the 98-99% of the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
If you think that pieces of paper are what is generally referred to as "bang for buck", then you think that you are entirely correct in your refutation of my statement.
I concede. Bye.
So in your view licenses 'pieces of paper' are meaningless? Sorry, I prefer to pay for things that I use rather than stealing them. The fact that you think stealing is OK says a lot about your posting here.
Yes, they're both desktop computers. And an office desk and HDTV are both furniture.
The point that you keep ignoring is that while the Mini and your HP Pavilion are both desktop computers, they're designed with entirely different objectives in mind and are targeted at different audiences. The Mini is designed with the objective of being as small and unobtrusive as possible while using as little energy as possible. That requires a number of trade-offs such as the use of more expensive laptop parts and lower energy components.
But if you are unable to understand analogies, let me make it as simple as possible for you. A Timex and a Rolex are both watches. How does Rolex get away with ripping people off by charging more?
A BMW and a Kia are both 4 passenger autos. Why does BMW charge so much more.
You can get a hamburger at my local 4 star steak house and at McDonald's. How does the steak house get away with charging so much more?
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?
You're so wrong in so many ways.
Dude, I buy computers to do computing. That is my objective when I buy them. I don't buy them because they look cute. I bought my Apple computer for functionality, not because it came in white. Black cost more. To me the color didn't matter one bit. If I wanted a box that is small and looks good I'd buy a cool clock radio with an MP3 player dock. There are many quite stylish models out there.
When tower computers (even the small HP Slimline) are too big to fit on a desk there is always the option to put them on the floor on a stand. That gives plenty of room for more crap on the top of the desk. If I were living or working in an extremely tiny place I wouldn't be buying a Mini. I'd get a laptop. The Mini is just a laptop without the screen, keyboard, track pad, microphone, or camera.
I don't know a lot of BMW owners these days, but a few years back there weren't any BMW owners I knew who didn't have their air conditioners fail more than one time. Everything electronic was a bit screwy too. Anybody that buys a Range Rover will experience one of the least reliable vehicles on the road, and they cost over $85,000.00. High prices don't always equate to high quality. Maybe that's a lesson you haven't learned yet.
A friend of mine drove his family sedan, a Nissan Sentra, into the ground at over 250,000 miles. It worked very well until the end.
I found the parts on my $400 bicycle lasting much longer than my $1000 bicycle too. Go figure.
Comments
So, has anyone actually bought one of these things yet? Can it be booted into 64 bit mode? To my knowledge, no version of the mini to date has been successfully booted into 64 bit mode but maybe this is the first.
Anyone have a mid-2010 MacBook? If that supports booting with a 64-bit kernel then I have to assume the new Mac Mini can, as well.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice.
No, you're an AI troll because you have insisted repeatedly that you know more about Apple's customers than Apple does. That is an insane argument.
Whatva rip off. Cmon. Make a $1499 core i7 machine with express and pci express slots for the gamers, musicians, editors in the making. Headless. Apple would dobver well. Regardless off what people say about desktops as it would kill off a lot if c desktop sales if it had sli video as people would use bootcamp.
Time to get with the time and stop BEng afraid of losing you 2% pro market.
I doubt if Apple wants to take marketing advice from someone who can't even write simple English sentences.
What's wrong with your mind?
The Mini configured that way costs approximately $1450.00 without a keyboard or mouse. The Pavilion costs just under $1000.00 and comes with a newer Core i3 processor, a full size 7200 RPM hard drive, a keyboard and mouse. That's a huge difference.
Configure a basic Mini and a basic Slimline HP and the HP is less expensive.
Yes, they're both desktop computers. And an office desk and HDTV are both furniture.
The point that you keep ignoring is that while the Mini and your HP Pavilion are both desktop computers, they're designed with entirely different objectives in mind and are targeted at different audiences. The Mini is designed with the objective of being as small and unobtrusive as possible while using as little energy as possible. That requires a number of trade-offs such as the use of more expensive laptop parts and lower energy components.
But if you are unable to understand analogies, let me make it as simple as possible for you. A Timex and a Rolex are both watches. How does Rolex get away with ripping people off by charging more?
A BMW and a Kia are both 4 passenger autos. Why does BMW charge so much more.
You can get a hamburger at my local 4 star steak house and at McDonald's. How does the steak house get away with charging so much more?
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?
SlashGear, "Mac mini 2010 review" certainly needs perusing if one is really serious about the Mac Mini 2010:
Still, we?re big fans of the Mac mini in its current form. Yes, the price has seen a roughly $100 boost over the last-gen model, but if you consider a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter is currently around $35, plus the CPU and GPU boost, and throw in the SDXC card reader too, that doesn?t sound like too bad a deal to us. At $699 we?d certainly pick it over the white entry-level MacBook for home use, and it would make for an ideal family PC in the living room: showing multimedia content one minute, browsing the internet the next. If you?ve already amassed a huge Blu-ray collection ? rather than, say, HD-quality digital content ? then the absence of a suitable optical drive may be a deal breaker, but the majority of people will find a whole lot of their boxes ticked by, ironically, a very small Apple box.
http://www.slashgear.com/mac-mini-2010-review-1890519/
It's really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apple's trying to grab as much market as they can within their business model, which is vastly different from MS'. If licensing OS X to all OEMs is their goal or they would have done it. Until they start doing that there is no way their focus is to grab Windows share of desktop OS sales. You're again failing to understand what Apple's market it, but instead projecting MS' goals with Windows on Apple's goal with Mac OS X.
PS: 1 in 10 people is not even close to the truth. There are nearly 7 billion in the world. Is Apple marketing Macs to all of these people?
No body is out there grab all market segments (not mention 7 billion). Apple must has its target market with a willingness to pay number in their head. Of course you can target the lowest denominate to get a mass appeals like "American Idol" or "XYZ got Talent", but the profit margin would be so low - see where land Nokia in today. Better not be that silly for Jobs. "For the rest of us" ? the one that can find own way to Appleinsider... ?
I see. So you have some magical power to be able to determine what computer hardware someone needs for their application without having any idea whatsoever what their requirement is?
Amazing.
Please stop this trolling.
Interesting, no? What does all that extra money get you beyond a nice metal case, a faster CPU, a smaller hard drive, and a missing BD drive? (and also no equivalent for Windows Media Centre) I'm not really seeing much reason to choose the Mini over the Zino...
The target customers will value the nice metal case more highly than better specs. They won't even understand the differences in the specs. And they won't be comparing the box against a PC, but instead, against other Macs.
Configure a basic Mini and a basic Slimline HP and the HP is less expensive.
That is irrelevant. Macs never ever win on bang for buck.
If you are looking for raw power at a good price, you need not even consider a Mac. Macs stress other attributes, not raw performance.
Apple's trying to grab as much market as they can within their business model,
I think that is incorrect.
Apple is duty-bound to grab as much total profit as they can, and to adjust their business model as required to meet that goal.
My guess is that Apple figures their current business model is most effective, given all other factors, to maximize total profits.
But if they figured that another model would work better, they would jump ship in an instant.
As an example, they used to stress high-end desktops and they used to promote them heavily. Now they have switched focus to mobile devices.
If they thought that something else would maximize total profits, they would switch to that.
Please stop this trolling.
Sorry, but showing how inane your arguments are isn't trolling. Look it up.
That is irrelevant. Macs never ever win on bang for buck. .
They're not?
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
They're not?
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
If you think that pieces of paper are what is generally referred to as "bang for buck", then you think that you are entirely correct in your refutation of my statement.
I concede. Bye.
What's wrong with your mind?
No, actually they aren't both "desktop computers". The HP Pavilion is a desktop tower. The mini is a Small Form Factor PC. They are different categories. HP hasn't made a direct Mini competitor like Dell has with the Zino. Even the slimline is more of a slim tower than a SFF competitor.
For me the 25% power reduction in the new mini is one of the more useful enhancements to me given the nature of a living room PC. That it lacks a BD option is less important to me given I have a BD player and probably will pick up a PS3 soon anyway.
I think that is incorrect.
Apple is duty-bound to grab as much total profit as they can, and to adjust their business model as required to meet that goal.
My guess is that Apple figures their current business model is most effective, given all other factors, to maximize total profits.
But if they figured that another model would work better, they would jump ship in an instant.
As an example, they used to stress high-end desktops and they used to promote them heavily. Now they have switched focus to mobile devices.
If they thought that something else would maximize total profits, they would switch to that.
It's because Apple has not merely thought in terms of a lucrative business model that it is the success that it is. Seems to me the stress is on providing products and services that enhance the lives of customers, which in turn is profitable because Apple is selling a lot of product and at a premium.
Think in terms of what is in the best interests of the customer and you will most likely succeed.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice.
No, you're an AI troll because you describe Apple customers as "content with whatever Cupertino sees fit to send their way" and those that disagree with this statement as "Apple Fanboi"s...
Please show me where I can get a Windows server with unlimited client licenses for less than the $999 Mini server.
Why must they be running Windows for? I can get a Linux based server with unlimited clients for less than the Mac Mini Server, US$699 for the standard mini isn't it?
It's because Apple has not merely thought in terms of a lucrative business model that it is the success that it is. Seems to me the stress is on providing products and services that enhance the lives of customers, which in turn is profitable because Apple is selling a lot of product and at a premium.
Think in terms of what is in the best interests of the customer and you will most likely succeed.
You're ignoring the fact that Apple actually chooses to stay away from certain customers. They aren't addressing "the customer" (the catch-all version). They are focusing their efforts on a certain type of customer: the very affluent ones. They deliberately do not to compete in the low-margin, low-end market.
They are perfectly capable of pumping out a $399 netbook that yields them a 3-4% net margin. They don't want this business. They are willing to concede that market to others.
Remember, iPhone's market share is something like 3%, yet Apple rakes in 30% of the industry's total profit. Same thing with computers: Apple has over 90% of the >$1000 home computer market.
Not valid or a nice thing to say...
You can get a hamburger at my local 4 star steak house and at McDonald's. How does the steak house get away with charging so much more?
The steak house burger is better.
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?[/QUOTE]
Mini uses same general PC parts. Doesn't mean quality. "Get it?"
I doubt if Apple wants to take marketing advice from someone who can't even write simple English sentences.
Not valid or a nice thing to say...
Why is it not valid? Do you really think Apple takes marketing advice from illiterates?
Not nice? Who knows. But if the person takes my advice and gets an education before leaving his parent's basement, I'm actually doing him a favor.
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?
Mini uses same general PC parts. Doesn't mean quality. "Get it?"
Really? Which PC uses the same mother board as the Mac Mini?
Which PC uses the same case as the Mac Mini?
Which PC uses the same power supply as the Mac Mini?
And that doesn't even get into specifications - it has been well documented that Apple's purchase specs are tighter than the industry average - for example, their RAM is made to tighter tolerances than the cheap stuff you're always advocating.
Of course, if Apple IS using the same components as everything else, then you are left with the problem of explaining how Macs are almost always more reliable, on average, than any other vendor's computers. Must be magic.
Why must they be running Windows for? I can get a Linux based server with unlimited clients for less than the Mac Mini Server, US$699 for the standard mini isn't it?
Yes, you can get cheap stuff if you wish.
But for the overwhelming majority of users, Windows is the nearest equivalent to Mac OS X in terms of usability. More importantly, Macs and Windows computers together make up 98-99% of the computer market. So the fact that there might be some niche machine that's cheaper doesn't negate the fact that the Mac Mini server is a bargain - compared to the 98-99% of the market.
If you think that pieces of paper are what is generally referred to as "bang for buck", then you think that you are entirely correct in your refutation of my statement.
I concede. Bye.
So in your view licenses 'pieces of paper' are meaningless? Sorry, I prefer to pay for things that I use rather than stealing them. The fact that you think stealing is OK says a lot about your posting here.
Yes, they're both desktop computers. And an office desk and HDTV are both furniture.
The point that you keep ignoring is that while the Mini and your HP Pavilion are both desktop computers, they're designed with entirely different objectives in mind and are targeted at different audiences. The Mini is designed with the objective of being as small and unobtrusive as possible while using as little energy as possible. That requires a number of trade-offs such as the use of more expensive laptop parts and lower energy components.
But if you are unable to understand analogies, let me make it as simple as possible for you. A Timex and a Rolex are both watches. How does Rolex get away with ripping people off by charging more?
A BMW and a Kia are both 4 passenger autos. Why does BMW charge so much more.
You can get a hamburger at my local 4 star steak house and at McDonald's. How does the steak house get away with charging so much more?
QUALITY COSTS. Get it?
You're so wrong in so many ways.
Dude, I buy computers to do computing. That is my objective when I buy them. I don't buy them because they look cute. I bought my Apple computer for functionality, not because it came in white. Black cost more. To me the color didn't matter one bit. If I wanted a box that is small and looks good I'd buy a cool clock radio with an MP3 player dock. There are many quite stylish models out there.
When tower computers (even the small HP Slimline) are too big to fit on a desk there is always the option to put them on the floor on a stand. That gives plenty of room for more crap on the top of the desk. If I were living or working in an extremely tiny place I wouldn't be buying a Mini. I'd get a laptop. The Mini is just a laptop without the screen, keyboard, track pad, microphone, or camera.
I don't know a lot of BMW owners these days, but a few years back there weren't any BMW owners I knew who didn't have their air conditioners fail more than one time. Everything electronic was a bit screwy too. Anybody that buys a Range Rover will experience one of the least reliable vehicles on the road, and they cost over $85,000.00. High prices don't always equate to high quality. Maybe that's a lesson you haven't learned yet.
A friend of mine drove his family sedan, a Nissan Sentra, into the ground at over 250,000 miles. It worked very well until the end.
I found the parts on my $400 bicycle lasting much longer than my $1000 bicycle too. Go figure.