If the mini is "not bad" as is, then so are the PowerMac, PowerBook, iMac, eMac, iBook, and most Windows machines, too. That doesn't seem like good criteria for whether a machine should be updated.
Most here have read John Siracusa's review of Tiger. He mentions that lines can be drawn nine times as fast under Quartz 2D Extreme w/ hardware acceleration versus Q2DE w/o hardware acceleration. That's just one example (others ranged from 2.3X to 236X). When Apple finally enables Q2DE acceleration, wouldn't it make sense for every shipping Mac to be able to use that hardware acceleration? Why leave iBooks and minis behind at all when the cost of changing them to compatible GPUs is pretty darn low?
More broadly, for the longest time people have been commenting that the perceived interface speed (snappiness?) of OS X has been poorer than OS 9 and Windows. Sure, 10.2 rectified some of that but now that Apple appears to be on the verge of some terrific technology to address the gap, it would be great if all shipping machines can benefit.
if they don't update the specs, it needs to be advertised alot more heavily. And I still don't know why they havn't yet updated the mac mini site to include Tiger.
If the mini is "not bad" as is, then so are the PowerMac, PowerBook, iMac, eMac, iBook, and most Windows machines, too. That doesn't seem like good criteria for whether a machine should be updated.
You are using a false premise, that all of those computers are aiming at the same application. Apple (and other companies) make computers with a range of performances and prices. Choose what you need and what you are willing to pay.
To say that the Mini is not bad is to say that for most document preparation, browser use, email and such the Mini has a very useful combination of performance, features and price. If the Mini can't be used for some particular application that is not a hit on the Mini.
It is very difficult for companies to design "downscale" and come out with products that have lesser specs than the star products. Usually management is terrified of cannibalizing sales from the high end products so they water down the specs to such an extent that the low end product is nearly useless. I have some quibbles but overall the Mini is a very nice product.
You are using a false premise, that all of those computers are aiming at the same application. Apple (and other companies) make computers with a range of performances and prices. Choose what you need and what you are willing to pay.
I certainly didn't intend that to be a premise. If it was, I'd try to make the case that the mini needs dual 970's just like a PowerMac (G4 is fine).
If Apple thinks it's appropriate for an eMac to get a CoreImage utilizing GPU then surely the same logic applies to the mini as well. What applications do you run on an eMac that you don't on a mini? Besides, aren't all applications, low end to high end, going to benefit from Q2DE hardware acceleration? That can start with just scrolling in a browser or word processor. In other words, every application, including the Finder, should benefit not just Photoshop or Motion.
I didn't follow the cannibalizing issue at all. Is Apple worried about iMac sales by putting a R9600 in the eMac? There can't be a concern of losing PowerMac sales from an upgraded GPU in the mini. Everything else has a monitor built in.
I certainly didn't intend that to be a premise. If it was, I'd try to make the case that the mini needs dual 970's just like a PowerMac (G4 is fine).
If Apple thinks it's appropriate for an eMac to get a CoreImage utilizing GPU then surely the same logic applies to the mini as well. What applications do you run on an eMac that you don't on a mini? Besides, aren't all applications, low end to high end, going to benefit from Q2DE hardware acceleration? That can start with just scrolling in a browser or word processor. In other words, every application, including the Finder, should benefit not just Photoshop or Motion.
I didn't follow the cannibalizing issue at all. Is Apple worried about iMac sales by putting a R9600 in the eMac? There can't be a concern of losing PowerMac sales from an upgraded GPU in the mini. Everything else has a monitor built in.
I agree.
The Mini needs to be upgraded, period.
All the posturing done on this board to cover Apple's ass is silly.
I never see a PC maker fail to upgrade its computer when it needs it, not on some silly 3 or 4 month basis.
Tiger requires an upgrade-the eMac got it, the iMac and G5 got it, and so should the Mini and every product Apple puts out.
All the posturing done on this board to cover Apple's ass is silly.
I never see a PC maker fail to upgrade its computer when it needs it, not on some silly 3 or 4 month basis.
Tiger requires an upgrade-the eMac got it, the iMac and G5 got it, and so should the Mini and every product Apple puts out.
It's not posturing to enjoy the Mac mini for what it is. Nor is it the action of an Apple apologist! The mini doesn't require an upgrade to run Tiger. These kinds of statements are silly. It is likely that the Mac mini will get a better GPU and more memory the next time it is upgraded. I just don't think that the need for that upgrade is as dire as some suggest. I also don't think that the niche that the mini fills requires full Core Image capabilities right now. Next time around will be soon enough. September... January... Whenever!
All this "needs an upgrade to run Tiger" stuff is rubbish. It's GPU doesn't support CoreImage, but that's all. For $499 you still get a damn good computer which *has* been improved by 10.3.
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
All this "needs an upgrade to run Tiger" stuff is rubbish. It's GPU doesn't support CoreImage, but that's all. For $499 you still get a damn good computer which *has* been improved by 10.3.
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
Thats the bottom line, My Mom just got one after years of me telling her Macs are better. Funny thing is I got my first Pc this past year and yes its an Aurora. It dont play. But I sure would like OSX on this Aurora. Macmini is a very sweet little machine, once it gets a 64mb video and 1.5 G4 it will be 5 stars. At the moment it only gets 4. My wife has the 1.42 and yes she loves it.
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
Well, I dont really need Core Image, yet, but Im pretty sure that QE2D will be really useful to me, and the machines that it will have the most impact one are the low end ones, and the mini is the only one left which cant support it.
I still think that Apple has manufacturing commitments which mean that the mini will be upgraded when it is possible, and not before. The interesting bit it is that when Apple does upgrade may tell us a lot about what sort of commitments they have to make go get manufacturing capacity.
Well, I dont really need Core Image, yet, but Im pretty sure that QE2D will be really useful to me, and the machines that it will have the most impact one are the low end ones, and the mini is the only one left which cant support it.
I still think that Apple has manufacturing commitments which mean that the mini will be upgraded when it is possible, and not before. The interesting bit it is that when Apple does upgrade may tell us a lot about what sort of commitments they have to make go get manufacturing capacity.
What commitments? Apple outsources everything they make. They are about as American as sushi. Of course, that goes for most 'American' companies.
What commitments? Apple outsources everything they make. They are about as American as sushi. Of course, that goes for most 'American' companies.
You dont think you can go to a manufacturer and say "Oh, guys, we needs a few machines this month" and get a good price do you? Apple will have commited to minimum numbers of machines, and rates of manufacture, and either Apple or their manufacturer will have commited to purchase components from their suppliers. Just because they are outsourcing manufacturing doesnt mean they havent entered into contracts regarding those machines.
You dont think you can go to a manufacturer and say "Oh, guys, we needs a few machines this month" and get a good price do you? Apple will have commited to minimum numbers of machines, and rates of manufacture, and either Apple or their manufacturer will have commited to purchase components from their suppliers. Just because they are outsourcing manufacturing doesnt mean they havent entered into contracts regarding those machines.
Point taken.
Right now, i think I may just wait until Apple gets the Intel Inside underway. I would feel funny buying a Mac now with the PowerPC inside when i know they are dumping that architecture.
I'll be waiting for the fire sale. Come January, all Macs will be half price. As long as you never want to upgrade your software, you'll be ok buying a PPC Mac.
Quite possibly, this Intel Business is changing all these secret business stuff, if the Pandora is really the next MiniMac, then we can safely assume that the days of Apple Secrecy is gone, For example the past week there's unprecedented amounts of leaks
I'm sure it will. I am waiting for this upgrade with the same excitement and anticipation that I have for the next update to my Hamilton Beach 6800 blender or my B&D VersaBrew coffee maker! Jeez, I can't wait to blend or brew better, faster, cheaper! God, the future is so bright I gotta wear shades!
Get some perspecive, folks. SJ just announced the end of the harware wars. The hardware under the hood your computer is becoming IRRELEVANT. Unix based OS's are set to dethrone WinOS. Ding Dong the witch is dead. We should declare a national holiday.
If you are concered about upgrades, you are in the minority and should NOT concern yourself with buying a Mini. However, for the rest of the world, the 90% who currently own a PC, and 90% of the world that does NOT own a PC. The Mac Mini is what we need.
OK, it's kinda expensive for a coffee cup warmer, but, it has wireless ethernet/KB/mouse, bluetooth, airport, combo drive, 1gig mem, and it will launch a program WITH ONLY ONE CLICK. It works out of the box (although I had to borrow a USB keyboard to complete the startup:USB mouse not required). It does everything I need a PC to do, run a home business, suck in my digital photo's and MiniDV movies, create a spreadshet, dbase, digital presetations. And if like me you are a musican, with GB2 you can conquer the world.
The Mac Mini is the pc version of the VW BUG. This is the PC for my mom, your grandmother, the neophyte or Windows user. A PC for the masses that does not have the baggage that is associated with WinOS. Man, if SJ would just annouce that OSX will run on any hardware, then..... Oh, yea, he did.
Comments
Most here have read John Siracusa's review of Tiger. He mentions that lines can be drawn nine times as fast under Quartz 2D Extreme w/ hardware acceleration versus Q2DE w/o hardware acceleration. That's just one example (others ranged from 2.3X to 236X). When Apple finally enables Q2DE acceleration, wouldn't it make sense for every shipping Mac to be able to use that hardware acceleration? Why leave iBooks and minis behind at all when the cost of changing them to compatible GPUs is pretty darn low?
More broadly, for the longest time people have been commenting that the perceived interface speed (snappiness?) of OS X has been poorer than OS 9 and Windows. Sure, 10.2 rectified some of that but now that Apple appears to be on the verge of some terrific technology to address the gap, it would be great if all shipping machines can benefit.
Originally posted by Blackcat
People forget a 2005 Mac Mini very nearly equals a 2003 Powerbook, for $1500 less.
Tiger runs fine on it too, complete with ripple effect.
Jezz, another Dec 2001-er.
has managed, no? Pretty zany.
Originally posted by Hudson1
If the mini is "not bad" as is, then so are the PowerMac, PowerBook, iMac, eMac, iBook, and most Windows machines, too. That doesn't seem like good criteria for whether a machine should be updated.
You are using a false premise, that all of those computers are aiming at the same application. Apple (and other companies) make computers with a range of performances and prices. Choose what you need and what you are willing to pay.
To say that the Mini is not bad is to say that for most document preparation, browser use, email and such the Mini has a very useful combination of performance, features and price. If the Mini can't be used for some particular application that is not a hit on the Mini.
It is very difficult for companies to design "downscale" and come out with products that have lesser specs than the star products. Usually management is terrified of cannibalizing sales from the high end products so they water down the specs to such an extent that the low end product is nearly useless. I have some quibbles but overall the Mini is a very nice product.
Originally posted by neutrino23
You are using a false premise, that all of those computers are aiming at the same application. Apple (and other companies) make computers with a range of performances and prices. Choose what you need and what you are willing to pay.
I certainly didn't intend that to be a premise. If it was, I'd try to make the case that the mini needs dual 970's just like a PowerMac (G4 is fine).
If Apple thinks it's appropriate for an eMac to get a CoreImage utilizing GPU then surely the same logic applies to the mini as well. What applications do you run on an eMac that you don't on a mini? Besides, aren't all applications, low end to high end, going to benefit from Q2DE hardware acceleration? That can start with just scrolling in a browser or word processor. In other words, every application, including the Finder, should benefit not just Photoshop or Motion.
I didn't follow the cannibalizing issue at all. Is Apple worried about iMac sales by putting a R9600 in the eMac? There can't be a concern of losing PowerMac sales from an upgraded GPU in the mini. Everything else has a monitor built in.
Originally posted by Hudson1
I certainly didn't intend that to be a premise. If it was, I'd try to make the case that the mini needs dual 970's just like a PowerMac (G4 is fine).
If Apple thinks it's appropriate for an eMac to get a CoreImage utilizing GPU then surely the same logic applies to the mini as well. What applications do you run on an eMac that you don't on a mini? Besides, aren't all applications, low end to high end, going to benefit from Q2DE hardware acceleration? That can start with just scrolling in a browser or word processor. In other words, every application, including the Finder, should benefit not just Photoshop or Motion.
I didn't follow the cannibalizing issue at all. Is Apple worried about iMac sales by putting a R9600 in the eMac? There can't be a concern of losing PowerMac sales from an upgraded GPU in the mini. Everything else has a monitor built in.
I agree.
The Mini needs to be upgraded, period.
All the posturing done on this board to cover Apple's ass is silly.
I never see a PC maker fail to upgrade its computer when it needs it, not on some silly 3 or 4 month basis.
Tiger requires an upgrade-the eMac got it, the iMac and G5 got it, and so should the Mini and every product Apple puts out.
Originally posted by steve666
I agree.
The Mini needs to be upgraded, period.
All the posturing done on this board to cover Apple's ass is silly.
I never see a PC maker fail to upgrade its computer when it needs it, not on some silly 3 or 4 month basis.
Tiger requires an upgrade-the eMac got it, the iMac and G5 got it, and so should the Mini and every product Apple puts out.
It's not posturing to enjoy the Mac mini for what it is. Nor is it the action of an Apple apologist! The mini doesn't require an upgrade to run Tiger. These kinds of statements are silly. It is likely that the Mac mini will get a better GPU and more memory the next time it is upgraded. I just don't think that the need for that upgrade is as dire as some suggest. I also don't think that the niche that the mini fills requires full Core Image capabilities right now. Next time around will be soon enough. September... January... Whenever!
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Jezz, another Dec 2001-er.
has managed, no? Pretty zany.
Yep
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
Originally posted by Blackcat
All this "needs an upgrade to run Tiger" stuff is rubbish. It's GPU doesn't support CoreImage, but that's all. For $499 you still get a damn good computer which *has* been improved by 10.3.
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
Thats the bottom line, My Mom just got one after years of me telling her Macs are better. Funny thing is I got my first Pc this past year and yes its an Aurora. It dont play. But I sure would like OSX on this Aurora. Macmini is a very sweet little machine, once it gets a 64mb video and 1.5 G4 it will be 5 stars. At the moment it only gets 4. My wife has the 1.42 and yes she loves it.
Originally posted by Blackcat
I wonder if people know what they need CoreImage for, or if it is just buzzword lust.
Well, I dont really need Core Image, yet, but Im pretty sure that QE2D will be really useful to me, and the machines that it will have the most impact one are the low end ones, and the mini is the only one left which cant support it.
I still think that Apple has manufacturing commitments which mean that the mini will be upgraded when it is possible, and not before. The interesting bit it is that when Apple does upgrade may tell us a lot about what sort of commitments they have to make go get manufacturing capacity.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Well, I dont really need Core Image, yet, but Im pretty sure that QE2D will be really useful to me, and the machines that it will have the most impact one are the low end ones, and the mini is the only one left which cant support it.
I still think that Apple has manufacturing commitments which mean that the mini will be upgraded when it is possible, and not before. The interesting bit it is that when Apple does upgrade may tell us a lot about what sort of commitments they have to make go get manufacturing capacity.
What commitments? Apple outsources everything they make. They are about as American as sushi. Of course, that goes for most 'American' companies.
Originally posted by steve666
What commitments? Apple outsources everything they make. They are about as American as sushi. Of course, that goes for most 'American' companies.
You dont think you can go to a manufacturer and say "Oh, guys, we needs a few machines this month" and get a good price do you? Apple will have commited to minimum numbers of machines, and rates of manufacture, and either Apple or their manufacturer will have commited to purchase components from their suppliers. Just because they are outsourcing manufacturing doesnt mean they havent entered into contracts regarding those machines.
Originally posted by mmmpie
You dont think you can go to a manufacturer and say "Oh, guys, we needs a few machines this month" and get a good price do you? Apple will have commited to minimum numbers of machines, and rates of manufacture, and either Apple or their manufacturer will have commited to purchase components from their suppliers. Just because they are outsourcing manufacturing doesnt mean they havent entered into contracts regarding those machines.
Point taken.
Right now, i think I may just wait until Apple gets the Intel Inside underway. I would feel funny buying a Mac now with the PowerPC inside when i know they are dumping that architecture.
I'm sure it will. I am waiting for this upgrade with the same excitement and anticipation that I have for the next update to my Hamilton Beach 6800 blender or my B&D VersaBrew coffee maker! Jeez, I can't wait to blend or brew better, faster, cheaper! God, the future is so bright I gotta wear shades!
Get some perspecive, folks. SJ just announced the end of the harware wars. The hardware under the hood your computer is becoming IRRELEVANT. Unix based OS's are set to dethrone WinOS. Ding Dong the witch is dead. We should declare a national holiday.
If you are concered about upgrades, you are in the minority and should NOT concern yourself with buying a Mini. However, for the rest of the world, the 90% who currently own a PC, and 90% of the world that does NOT own a PC. The Mac Mini is what we need.
OK, it's kinda expensive for a coffee cup warmer, but, it has wireless ethernet/KB/mouse, bluetooth, airport, combo drive, 1gig mem, and it will launch a program WITH ONLY ONE CLICK. It works out of the box (although I had to borrow a USB keyboard to complete the startup:USB mouse not required). It does everything I need a PC to do, run a home business, suck in my digital photo's and MiniDV movies, create a spreadshet, dbase, digital presetations. And if like me you are a musican, with GB2 you can conquer the world.
The Mac Mini is the pc version of the VW BUG. This is the PC for my mom, your grandmother, the neophyte or Windows user. A PC for the masses that does not have the baggage that is associated with WinOS. Man, if SJ would just annouce that OSX will run on any hardware, then..... Oh, yea, he did.
Paz