“The Apple Mac mini ($874 direct) is still a triumph of compact design and a cool alternative to the tower PC. Other mini PCs, however, are encroaching upon what was once the Mac mini’s sole domain and have worn down its edge a bit over the past year,” Joel Santo Domingo reports for PC Magazine as part of a “Vista Desktops Under $1,000” article. (Yup, that made us throw up in our mouths a little bit, too.)
“The Mac mini (Core Duo) targets the entry-level and mainstream computer user. The 1.66-GHz version with a combo drive starts at $599. The 1.83-GHz SuperDrive-equipped version I review here runs $799. (Apple added $75 for the tested 1GB configuration.) Both configurations are powered by mobile versions of Intel’s Core Duo processor. The rest of the dual-core, single-processor Mac line—the iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pro—uses the newer Core 2 Duo processors. In a ‘low-end’ desktop, this shouldn’t be an issue, but it’s nonetheless a nit,” Santo Domingo reports.
Santo Domingo reports, “With this iteration of the Apple Mac mini, you’re still buying a Mac, with all the benefits and drawbacks. It will have less security problems than a Windows machine, and probably run better. But you also have to learn the quirks of Mac OS X, and it’s less compatible with some programs and peripherals unless you install Boot Camp and Windows. Though the Mac mini still is a compelling choice, Windows systems in this price range are finally comparably compact, and they offer more or better features such as media card readers, larger hard drives, and faster processors. Steve Jobs better have something amazing in his pocket for the next announcement. The competition has caught up to the Mac mini.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Corinne” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Clearly, the Mac mini’s processor is an issue. Does Apple even care about this model anymore? We think it’s around $100 too much across the board and agree with Santo Domingo that a keyboard and mouse should be included. Still, we take exception with two of Santo Domingo’s conclusions:
• You have to learn the quirks of Mac OS X… What a Windows-only sufferer might regard as “quirky,” others understand that reaction is due to being trained only on a Microsoft OS. Having to unlearn Windows’ bad or nonexistent UI conventions does not make for “quirks” in Mac OS X.
• It’s less compatible with some programs and peripherals unless you install Boot Camp and Windows… In which case, of course, it’s the most compatible personal computer available on the planet. What was your point again, Joel?
Related articles:
QuickerTek debuts 802.11n wireless card upgrade for Mac mini – March 26, 2007
Apple ups Mac mini speeds, all models now feature Core Duo processors, prices unchanged – September 06, 2006
> Raise the base memory. Let’s stop pretending, OS X likes a minimum of 1GB to run properly.
That’s a myth, which is repeated by people who upgraded their Macs immediately after purchase. I have an old Mac (one of the oldest that can run Mac OS X officially). It was upgraded from a G3 to a G4 (at 467 MHz), but it only has 512MB of RAM. If it can run Mac OS X and be useable, a new Core Duo Mac mini can do it and “run properly.”
Now, for people who run high-end apps or run many apps concurrently, a Mac with 512MB of RAM will start hitting that virtual memory swap file quite often. Those people should upgrade their RAM.
Interestingly, I think the situation will improve as commonly used apps such as the MS Office suite get updated to be Universal, so that Rosetta is not needed.
Me>
You can’t actually make an unequivocal statement that these systems are all working fine, until you’ve compared a statistically valid sample of home-modified C2D systems with a similar sample of standard CD systems over the lifetime for which Apple might be forced to provide support (i.e. three years over AppleCare).
Given that C2D has only been around for around six months, you couldn’t possibly have an idea how many people have done the homebrew modification or indeed whether the modifications have been a long-term success since, as failure is an orphan, its arguable whether any failures were even reported, so you may be looking at a skewed sample.
If you want to buy a Mac Mini, butcher it and void its warranty, it would appear that nothing is stopping you and, given your confidence, maybe you should give it a bash: I’d prefer to put my faith in Apple’s product development teams who, in all honesty, probably have a better track record than either you or I at working out whether something is either technically or commercially viable (which may be the other factor in keeping the system bound to the CD processor).
If I can remember the line from the Ian Malcolm character in Jurassic Park: “you were so concerned with whether or not you could, you didn’t stop to ask whether you should”. And the other thing I would point you to is that story about the guy who strapped a couple of rocket boosters to his car and landed up smeared all over a mountain.
The Mac Mini definitely needs a little more horsepower under the hood. I’m still waiting for a Mac Mini Pro, which I predict would be snapped up by everyone who ever wanted one of Apple’s beautiful Cinema Displays but has absolutely no need for a monster Mac Pro tower. The Cube was a few years ahead of its time, but the Mac Mini could really kick some ass if Apple would make it “all that it can be.”
“That’s a myth, which is repeated by people who upgraded their Macs immediately after purchase. I have an old Mac (one of the oldest that can run Mac OS X officially). It was upgraded from a G3 to a G4 (at 467 MHz), but it only has 512MB of RAM. If it can run Mac OS X and be useable, a new Core Duo Mac mini can do it and “run properly.”
Nonsense.. I have a iBook G4 1.2 with 512 and it’s sluggish, very very sluggish. I also have a G4 Digital Audio with 550 Mhz and 1.5 gig of Ram…
Guess which one is faster???
I upgraded my Mini to 1 gig and the difference is VERY noticeable… Trust me, there is no substitute for RAM..
Agreed. Mac mini is waaaaaaaay too expensive for what it is — about $200 too expensive. And it should come with at least a keyboard & mouse, if not a cheap monitor as well. The Mac mini really serves no purpose for anybody, because the iMac is clearly such a much better deal. At $600, you’re at 60% of the price of an iMac, but you have less than 25% of the machine. Apple, give us a REAL LOW-COST MACHINE, NOT A FAKE FACADE LIKE THE MAC MINI!!!
I think the design of the Mac mini is fantastic. It does need an update (like any model of computer from time to time) and the price of the high end model is getting a tad bit high…
But I would immensely sad if they through out the baby with the bath water. Guts are easy to change.
I’m sorry, but I’m the one holding up the Apple refresh of the Mac Mini. I’ve been holding off buying until they refresh the Mac Mini, and since Apple never refreshes a product line until AFTER I buy, they’re waiting for me to buy.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> So … I’m sorry … but I’ve determined to out-wait Apple this time. Pretty soon they’ll get tired of waiting for me to buy, and/or they’ll conclude that I’m not going to buy, and they’ll re-fresh the line … THEN I fool ’em and buy! hehehehe
So, I’m sorry … I’m holding up Apple’s refresh with my stubborn waiting for them to refresh.
“In which case, of course, it’s the most compatible personal computer available on the planet”
Yes but people buying low-end $700 computers are not going to fork out another couple of hundred dollars for another OS. In fact, theres a good chance people buying these computers don’t even understand or know how to run multiple OS’s, either through Parallels (which will add ANOTHER $50 or so) or Boot Camp.
For these types of buyers I don’t believe the ability to run Mac OS X AND Windows is even a factor.
Sorry to post again, but my point is that all of a sudden, a $799 Mac Mini becomes a $1199 Mac Mini (thanks in large to overpricing by MS) once you add in the cost of Windows and Parallels. And I’m guessing that for $1199 the comparative specs of a Mini fall well short of what else there is out there
The Mac Mini would receive:
1. Core 2 Duo
2. 7300 nVIDIA Graphics (Apple TV specs.)
3. HDMI port
4. Wireless n
5. Same pricing
This leverages the Apple TV for a huge upsell to the Mac Mini. Best of all the Mini is going to land in the same place an Apple TV would have landed; in the living-room.
The Mac Mini will spike in sales.
Marketing 101! Work with me people!!!
All I can say is I just got a spot bonus today and I have money to spend. Where are the new Macs? Hello Apple?
You people have it all wrong. The MacMini is perfect. It has the perfect price, with the perfect formfactor, and the perfect capablities …
for a perfect AppleTV.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool grin” style=”border:0;” />
MDN magic word = “worked”
If AppleTV only worked like a Mini easily could already in the same role, Apple would have a real winner on their hands.
> I upgraded my Mini to 1 gig and the difference is VERY noticeable… Trust me, there is no substitute for RAM..
Of course more RAM is better and you will notice a difference. Apple puts at least 1gb of RAM in the Macs they display at its stores.
But a base configuration Mac mini with 512mb will in fact “run properly.” Apple, the king of caring about user experience, would not sell a novice-user system like the Mac mini if the base configuration would not provide a good user for the typical non-geek user.
What Steven said, only with 1 gig RAM.
MW:looking, as in ‘that’s what I’m looking for’
The Mini ROCKS. My PPC Mini is 2 years old and runs 24/7 and IL LOVE IT.
@MCCFR
I’m glad you have such faith in Apple’s product development team and their engineers. They know best and they always do the best thing for us, the customers, right? Unfortunately I don’t share your naiveté. Common sense tells me they could put in a C2D if they wanted to and they will in the next iteration. Care for a wager? They are not doing it now because the C2D is a more expensive chip, not because of any technical difficulty. To raise the specs would lower the profit margin and they want to squeeze all they can out of the mini. The marketing team is saying no, not the engineers. That’s cool. I don’t fault Apple for that in principle. But I definitely think the Mini is overdue for a upgrade. They stretched this one out a little too far. But in a few months they’ll announce a new one and everyone will forget and I’ll say, “Finally.”
mm>
I could have sworn I said the same thing: my view is that the Mac mini will get more power when they can fit a Penryn-class processor (the 45-nm shrink of Merom/Gilo) into the damn thing. Which should be sometime in the summer.
Penryn will be a more power-efficient family of processors which means that you’ll get more bang, with less power consumption and, therefore, less heat which will put the entire package under less stress which may also mean you may get the ability to stick more RAM in there, which will improve the unit’s integrated graphics.
Given that Penryn allegedly packs around twice the number of transistors – including a minimum of 6MB of L2 cache – into 75% of the space occupied by Intel’s current C2D chips whilst consuming less or equal power, I would suggest that a sensible man would have the wit to be patient.
Like it or not: the Mac Mini is priced in a certain way and is also pretty densely packed in a manner which reminds me of some sort of electronic origami. So, whilst I’m not naive about Apple’s product development teams, I do think people should realise that they have their roadmap driven by motivations to which neither you nor I have access, including the level of long-term profitability delivered by equipping a unit which has to occupy a certain price point with a given set of components balanced against the commercial risk presented by how it would affect the company if that unit was to exhibit some unfortunate characteristics when there were 250,000 of them in the wild.
Ken1w and others,
Here’s the thing about the Mac Mini and RAM. I’ve found that a 1.42 GHz G4 Mac Mini can be faster than a 1.5 Core Solo Intel one because of one key thing…Rosetta. I believe 512 MB of RAM would be fine for everyday use, except that if you have an Intel Mac, you will need to occassionally run software through Rosetta, and there the lack of RAM will kill you. Safari, Firefox, Mail, iCal, iTunes, etc. running on a 512 Mac Mini is just fine. However, add Word or some other Power PC app and you’re screwed. Suddenly, the difference between 512 and 1 gig become astronomical.
I know this from experience. At my work, I’ve been replacing PCs as they die with low-end Mac Minis. We need to use Word at my job, and within a couple of hours, it became clear that 1 gig of RAM was absolutely essential to get any basic functionality with Word. Once the RAM got upgraded, everything was fine and everyone loves their Minis. Though every once in a while, I get asked if Microsoft has release a UB version of Word yet…sigh.
I have considered the Mini, but at the end of the day, its disadvantages compared with the iMac were just too prohibiting.
1. No built-in microphone or microphone jack. Hey, Apple, ever heard of Skype?
2. 2.5 inch hard drive, too expensive, too small.
3. needs extra speakers
4. clunky powersupply
My take: add two inches to the height, put in 3.5 inch hard drives and a full set of interfaces. And yes, make it user upgradeable! It’ll still look classy, and it will be a better bargain.
no issue with the mini here. I own 4 of them and upgraded 4 Sawtooth towers for them. Smaller, quieter, less energy, faster and has everything I need. These are general office machines but I still get what I need done in indesign, PS and illustrator without much issues.
gaming is done on the Wii and I really don’t play anything beyond casual games on my mini’s
as for long between updates, no real issues….everyone knows that the mini is upgradable
I doubt the mini sells that well now….rarely in the top ten on apple’s sales charts…..it actually MEETS many people’s needs for a headless mac in REAL WORLD use….but as a switcher tool, the value of a MacBook is undeniable…
I would love a MacPro but I always look at a minis for my real world needs
the PPC mini didn’t have audio input but the Intel mini does have audio input as well as output. the PPC had 2 USB and 1 FW. The Intel has 4 USB and 1 FW. Add a fast external hard drive.
Unrelated: i think Apple’s waiting for Leopard to release C2D-based mini. With the exception of the mini, all of Apple’s current offerings are 64-bit. Leopard is 64-bit. One piece is missing….
If I were Apple, I would wait until Mac mini sales start to drop off before releasing a revision. If people are still buying the thing at the current spec/price point, why release a newer revision that will have a lower profit margin (because it uses more expensive components)?
The thing everyone seems to forget is that today’s Apple operates on the basis of “What will sell well to a given target user profile and make us money?” In spite of the “Get a Mac” ad rhetoric, they don’t really care about besting every Windows PC out there, having the biggest/baddest HD or CPU or whatever.
“Marketing 101! Work with me people!!!”
Welcome to Milking 101. Apple Marketing knows that Mac fanboys will buy obsolete slow hardware. Why would they need to update ANY product. Fanboys will convince themselves it’s faster than anything else anyway.