I would accept twice the size if apple would put a SB 2600K and room for a 3.5 inch hard drive and a ssd. But apple will probably use the slowest SB processor so it won't compete with the iMac line. If they do, my current mini will be my last apple computer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2" bigger macmini a big deal?
- Thread starter christophermdia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if this is in the new mini as the better cpu i am in for it.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52231
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52231
so you mean they do what they always do with the mini ..give the customer some % more processor speed and the customer keeps quiet
which would mean the 2.66ghz which is now optional made baseline and maybe a downclocked i3 as optional upgrade and the obvious price increase
Last edited:
No reason that the mac mini cannot have at least the same specs as the 13" MBP. I would be very happy with those specs.....
The Core 2 Duos will most likely be replaced by the Sandy Bridge i5 inside the 13 inch MBP. If you look at the 2010 MB, 13" MBP, and Mini they all have exactly the same specs minus a few things here and there. There'll probably be an option to boost the speed a bit from 2.3 to 2.X but it'll still be the same i5.
The graphics will be the 320M's successor but far weaker than the Intel 3000.
not good enough , i like to see a mini that can really compete
1x 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor
3GB memory ..3 Banks x 1GB as base , upgradeable to 12 GB
a ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB GDDR5
place for 2 expansion PCIe slots
basically a small half sized MacPro 12 core
sorry but thats my idea of a Mac mini top model and i bet it would sell really well , because not everyone wants to buy a iMac if he needs a bit more processing power then the mini offers at the moment , but a MacPro is for most just overkill , so there is definitely a big Gap in the Mac range that could be filled
and my idea is not to get rid of the mini like it is completely ,its fine for the basics so keep it there , but that gap is annoying me that i need to buy a AIO system if i only would need a small desktop for a bit more then just the basics ..call it "Mac maxi "or "Mac mini Pro " placed above the mini server
sure it would steal some sales in MacPro's and iMac's , but would create profits on its own in return
1x 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor
3GB memory ..3 Banks x 1GB as base , upgradeable to 12 GB
a ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB GDDR5
place for 2 expansion PCIe slots
basically a small half sized MacPro 12 core
sorry but thats my idea of a Mac mini top model and i bet it would sell really well , because not everyone wants to buy a iMac if he needs a bit more processing power then the mini offers at the moment , but a MacPro is for most just overkill , so there is definitely a big Gap in the Mac range that could be filled
and my idea is not to get rid of the mini like it is completely ,its fine for the basics so keep it there , but that gap is annoying me that i need to buy a AIO system if i only would need a small desktop for a bit more then just the basics ..call it "Mac maxi "or "Mac mini Pro " placed above the mini server
sure it would steal some sales in MacPro's and iMac's , but would create profits on its own in return
Last edited:
I like the way you think. If you do a bell curve the mini is at one end and the Pro is at the other. Apple seems to think that all in ones are all that is needing to fill the normal distribution. Trouble is not everyone wants an all in one.
I've been wanting a Mac Mini Pro since the beginning of the Intel Macs, but I seriously doubt that there will ever be one. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a non-AIO machine that could actually hold itself against some of the iMacs. Having the specs be similar to the 2nd or 3rd tier iMacs would be lovely.
I'd be up for it!
But why stop at 2'', if Apple wanted they could make the Mini a bit cheaper with lower end intel i3 and intel graphics to cut costs, in the current size. Then Mac a G4 cube sized Mac with the ability to upgrade the CPU, GPU and HDD(and makes room to opt out of a DVD drive for a custom built model...or if it was largest enough have two HDD slots to start with)
But Apple seems scared off from the G4 Cube, but I don't think the form factor from that device was the reason for failure, it was the other things such as a price of 1699. Why not make it lower, something like 1199, because while the PowerMac during the G4 launch where using desktop parts, the Mac Pros of today are using server grade parts. We don't have a headless Mac that can be upgrade that is has full desktop computer parts inside. The only issue might be beating out iMac sales, because it would be cheaper and/or have better specs. But I suppose it could be lower end in the CPU department when but level room for user upgrades. I can't imagine your average joe would upgrade it, but use, Macrumors users would be very interested in doing so.
But why stop at 2'', if Apple wanted they could make the Mini a bit cheaper with lower end intel i3 and intel graphics to cut costs, in the current size. Then Mac a G4 cube sized Mac with the ability to upgrade the CPU, GPU and HDD(and makes room to opt out of a DVD drive for a custom built model...or if it was largest enough have two HDD slots to start with)
But Apple seems scared off from the G4 Cube, but I don't think the form factor from that device was the reason for failure, it was the other things such as a price of 1699. Why not make it lower, something like 1199, because while the PowerMac during the G4 launch where using desktop parts, the Mac Pros of today are using server grade parts. We don't have a headless Mac that can be upgrade that is has full desktop computer parts inside. The only issue might be beating out iMac sales, because it would be cheaper and/or have better specs. But I suppose it could be lower end in the CPU department when but level room for user upgrades. I can't imagine your average joe would upgrade it, but use, Macrumors users would be very interested in doing so.
It won't beat out iMac sales because there ae too many consumers. Consumers buy things because they work not because they are necessarily the best. The Cube was too little capability for too much price. I don't believe size or shape was an issue. Certainly not size since the mini is fairly popular. Count me in for a mid range Mac that isn't an all in one. I'd even pay $1500 for it.