Ah, the tried and true "accept external drives or spend insane amount of money" excuse. Most are going to choose option C, a PC.
Most are going to pick C anyway. External drives aren't that big a heartache if they support the performance desired (ie no dropped frames). Those that need more drive space have one or more stacked items under thier mini. Those that don't, don't.
For the consumer the lack of expansion is most hurtful in the vid card arena.
You prefer a larger box full of air? Do I want a 5 drive bay media center computer or would I rather have a mini and a 1TB+ NAS tucked away somewhere accessed via 802.11n?
The Mac Pro with only 2 HD bays is small unless the form factor is more like the slimline workstations. Who knows, maybe it will have 5 bays.
The $100 change we were discussing is for the low-end, which is single-core.
The high end had that same price increase. Others have already listed the many improvements on the low end.
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The 400 seres AKA Yonah with less cache was just released it uses the came motherboard as its brothers the Core Solo/Duo.
If it was just released, apple couldn't really use it until now, could they? It could be a possibility for future minis or other budget models (maybe an edu config). But it obviously wasn't an option to use in cheaper intel macs from day one. As new intel chips ship and prices on older ones drop (and newer budget chips), apple will have the option of using them and lowering prices on the low end.
I don't think anything is more fatally pointless than dicussing the Mac mini. It doesn't merit discussion.
And Chucker is right, there have been numerous additions to the standard feature set of the Mac mini that used to be BTO-only options that warrant the extra price.
And arguing about processor prices is semantic when the price difference between the PPC G4 and Core Duo is of a value less than Apple's margins for the machine itself.
Which they don't, which was my entire fucking point all along, so can we just let it go?
Let me say it again: component prices vendors allegedly pay according to self-proclaimed "industry experts" or "analysts" are completely MEANINGLESS.
Maybe, but common sense will tell you that Apple most likely paid more money for Intel's brand new Yonah processor than they did for the 5 year old freescale g4 chip.
I mean come on, the Yonah has a least 2x the performance, lower power consuption and was brand new to market.
And Chucker is right, there have been numerous additions to the standard feature set of the Mac mini that used to be BTO-only options that warrant the extra price.
Actually, Chucker was arguing against the fact that the extra feature set warrants the price increase. (See the second half of posts on page 2 of this discussion.)
Actually, Chucker was arguing against the fact that the extra feature set warrants the price increase. (See the second half of posts on page 2 of this discussion.)
Yeah, I thought he was claiming the exact opposite of that.
No, I wasn't arguing that. I wasn't arguing anything, for that matter. I was merely posing the public, non-rhetorical question of "what happened". However, as it's severely off-topic to "Woodcrest to power Apple's next-gen Mac Pro desktops", I would really appreciate if we could move on.
As I have stated quite clearly a few posts ago, I find both the PowerPC Mac mini and the Intel Mac mini to be well-priced. Perhaps the Intel Mac mini should come in a lower-cost version with fewer premium features such as Bluetooth (which hardly any of the "PC converts" Apple is apparently looking for will use), WiFi (same, this is a desktop, after all) and IR / the remote / Front Row. This could then, perhaps, be sold at $549, or perhaps even $499, but I doubt that, because the per-unit price Apple pays for Bluetooth plus WiFi plus all Front Row software and hardware all combined is probably less than ten dollars.
Instead, one theory that's plausible to me is that the heavy R&D involved in the Intel Mac mini is the true reason they no longer wanted to offer a lower-priced option. This includes, for one, the fact that this was the first Mac to feature a GMA 950, which also requires Apple to optimize Mac OS X's interaction with non-dedicated graphics cards, something not previously available (and something that was quite buggy in 10.4.6 wrt/ window shadows, for one!). Another point is the mainboard design, which unlike that of the PowerPC Mac mini actually fits two SO-DIMM slots on there, rather than just one memory slot.
...And they do weird stupid stuff like soldering CPUs on some models for who knows what reason...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by minderbinder
...They only solder on the laptops. And the reason is because it saves space, nothing weird or stupid about that...
Okay, here I am confused. How does soldering a CPU onto a laptop motherboard "save space"? It doesn't make sense.
CPU goes into laptop motherboard socket. Put thermal paste onto CPU. Take heatsink, put onto CPU with thermal paste. Screw down heatsink tightly onto motherboard. Heatsink is connected to heatpipes/ small laptop fans, heat vented out of grills in laptop. Unless you're going to argue that the screws to tighten down the heatsink onto the CPU and motherboard "takes up more space and causes space issues in a laptop", then I don't understand why soldering is necessary.
edit: Additionally, soldering the CPU means having to swap out the whole motherboard if the CPU or heatsink/ heatpipes have problems. Not smart from a repairs and maintenance cost point of view. Maybe I'm missing something.
Comments
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Ah, the tried and true "accept external drives or spend insane amount of money" excuse. Most are going to choose option C, a PC.
Most are going to pick C anyway. External drives aren't that big a heartache if they support the performance desired (ie no dropped frames). Those that need more drive space have one or more stacked items under thier mini. Those that don't, don't.
For the consumer the lack of expansion is most hurtful in the vid card arena.
You prefer a larger box full of air? Do I want a 5 drive bay media center computer or would I rather have a mini and a 1TB+ NAS tucked away somewhere accessed via 802.11n?
The Mac Pro with only 2 HD bays is small unless the form factor is more like the slimline workstations. Who knows, maybe it will have 5 bays.
Vinea
Originally posted by Chucker
The $100 change we were discussing is for the low-end, which is single-core.
The high end had that same price increase. Others have already listed the many improvements on the low end.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The 400 seres AKA Yonah with less cache was just released it uses the came motherboard as its brothers the Core Solo/Duo.
If it was just released, apple couldn't really use it until now, could they? It could be a possibility for future minis or other budget models (maybe an edu config). But it obviously wasn't an option to use in cheaper intel macs from day one. As new intel chips ship and prices on older ones drop (and newer budget chips), apple will have the option of using them and lowering prices on the low end.
And Chucker is right, there have been numerous additions to the standard feature set of the Mac mini that used to be BTO-only options that warrant the extra price.
And arguing about processor prices is semantic when the price difference between the PPC G4 and Core Duo is of a value less than Apple's margins for the machine itself.
Originally posted by Bigc
...assuming that the Published prices have anything to do what Apple pays.
Which they don't, which was my entire fucking point all along, so can we just let it go?
Let me say it again: component prices vendors allegedly pay according to self-proclaimed "industry experts" or "analysts" are completely MEANINGLESS.
Originally posted by Chucker
Which they don't, which was my entire fucking point all along, so can we just let it go?
Let me say it again: component prices vendors allegedly pay according to self-proclaimed "industry experts" or "analysts" are completely MEANINGLESS.
Maybe, but common sense will tell you that Apple most likely paid more money for Intel's brand new Yonah processor than they did for the 5 year old freescale g4 chip.
I mean come on, the Yonah has a least 2x the performance, lower power consuption and was brand new to market.
Originally posted by Placebo
And Chucker is right, there have been numerous additions to the standard feature set of the Mac mini that used to be BTO-only options that warrant the extra price.
Actually, Chucker was arguing against the fact that the extra feature set warrants the price increase. (See the second half of posts on page 2 of this discussion.)
Originally posted by solsun
Actually, Chucker was arguing against the fact that the extra feature set warrants the price increase. (See the second half of posts on page 2 of this discussion.)
Yeah, I thought he was claiming the exact opposite of that.
As I have stated quite clearly a few posts ago, I find both the PowerPC Mac mini and the Intel Mac mini to be well-priced. Perhaps the Intel Mac mini should come in a lower-cost version with fewer premium features such as Bluetooth (which hardly any of the "PC converts" Apple is apparently looking for will use), WiFi (same, this is a desktop, after all) and IR / the remote / Front Row. This could then, perhaps, be sold at $549, or perhaps even $499, but I doubt that, because the per-unit price Apple pays for Bluetooth plus WiFi plus all Front Row software and hardware all combined is probably less than ten dollars.
Instead, one theory that's plausible to me is that the heavy R&D involved in the Intel Mac mini is the true reason they no longer wanted to offer a lower-priced option. This includes, for one, the fact that this was the first Mac to feature a GMA 950, which also requires Apple to optimize Mac OS X's interaction with non-dedicated graphics cards, something not previously available (and something that was quite buggy in 10.4.6 wrt/ window shadows, for one!). Another point is the mainboard design, which unlike that of the PowerPC Mac mini actually fits two SO-DIMM slots on there, rather than just one memory slot.
...And they do weird stupid stuff like soldering CPUs on some models for who knows what reason...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by minderbinder
...They only solder on the laptops. And the reason is because it saves space, nothing weird or stupid about that...
Okay, here I am confused. How does soldering a CPU onto a laptop motherboard "save space"? It doesn't make sense.
CPU goes into laptop motherboard socket. Put thermal paste onto CPU. Take heatsink, put onto CPU with thermal paste. Screw down heatsink tightly onto motherboard. Heatsink is connected to heatpipes/ small laptop fans, heat vented out of grills in laptop. Unless you're going to argue that the screws to tighten down the heatsink onto the CPU and motherboard "takes up more space and causes space issues in a laptop", then I don't understand why soldering is necessary.
edit: Additionally, soldering the CPU means having to swap out the whole motherboard if the CPU or heatsink/ heatpipes have problems. Not smart from a repairs and maintenance cost point of view. Maybe I'm missing something.
Originally posted by Chucker
The bit you're missing is about the socket. When you solder on, you don't need a socket.
Exactly. It's a completely different way of connecting it, they have solder *instead* of a socket, which is a bit thinner.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....post1029623805
"Originally Posted by tsn | spazz
It is very possible. I even upgraded one myself with an engineering sample while at work.
side note: I work at Intel with a team of developers who work on the iMacs."
Next we will be looking as to whether (and how easy) the Woodcrests in the Mac Pro can be popped out for Clovertowns...!!
Originally posted by sunilraman
Cool. BTW there are rumors on the intarweb that Merom can be put in the iMac with some hard work.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....post1029623805
"Originally Posted by tsn | spazz
It is very possible. I even upgraded one myself with an engineering sample while at work.
side note: I work at Intel with a team of developers who work on the iMacs."
Next we will be looking as to whether (and how easy) the Woodcrests in the Mac Pro can be popped out for Clovertowns...!!
It isn't even that hard, they're pin compatible. All that's needed is a firmware update.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
It isn't even that hard, they're pin compatible. All that's needed is a firmware update.
If you read the linked post, the "hard work" comment refers to having to completely take the iMac apart, not the actual chip swap.
http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_inte..._intel001.html