Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple - what is wrong with you (why not more choices?)?!

Have any of you people bagging on the Mini actually tried using it?

Don't look at the specs. Look at what you can do with the machine. My primary work machine is a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo mini with 8 GB of RAM.

I'm doing heavy duty Java, PHP, and Flash programming, running MAMP, running Windows 7 under Parallels, running Photoshop, running Illustrator. Never a single problem. Running three screens (2 full size, via HDMI + MDP, 1 mini USB screen).

Other than gaming or heavy duty video encoding, I doubt there's anything this machine can't do.

What aren't people able to do on a mini? Or is, as usual, this a typical specs male anatomy-measuring contest.

By the way, make sure to check out my signature before you criticize me - I have several high-end Macs, and have for a long time -- I know what you can do with the very high-end of the market. I also know that the VAST majority of people never need anywhere near the specs offered by the high-end of the market.
 
Last edited:
its a bit of spec worship, I agree. The current mini will do normal tasks just fine. but it is old tech now, and sandy bridge should be what they are looking to introduce.

I find it a little frustrating that most expansion (eyeTV etc) needs to be via USB, so you have this little computer but then all these tentacles running off it. It would be nice to have even low profile PCI expansion for DVBS cards for instance, or some esata expansion.

in my case I want to transcode 1080p content to a remote appleTV. the 2.66 should just about be ok for that, but then what if I want to stream something to that machine too? Even with GPU support you're now borderline. Add another appleTV and you have no chance. Rather than 'make do' I'd prefer to have some headroom and confidence to build a system around.

I already have a 2007/8 2.0 C2D which is ok for plex but doesn't have GPU acceleration and isn't quite enough for transcoding to the appleTV. So I want to upgrade soonish, but want the confidence that my next machine will last another 3-4 years. And I find it hard to swallow spending so much to have almost the same CPU as I had three years ago
 
mrklaw said:
its a bit of spec worship, I agree. The current mini will do normal tasks just fine. but it is old tech now, and sandy bridge should be what they are looking to introduce.

I find it a little frustrating that most expansion (eyeTV etc) needs to be via USB, so you have this little computer but then all these tentacles running off it. It would be nice to have even low profile PCI expansion for DVBS cards for instance, or some esata expansion.

in my case I want to transcode 1080p content to a remote appleTV. the 2.66 should just about be ok for that, but then what if I want to stream something to that machine too? Even with GPU support you're now borderline. Add another appleTV and you have no chance. Rather than 'make do' I'd prefer to have some headroom and confidence to build a system around.

I already have a 2007/8 2.0 C2D which is ok for plex but doesn't have GPU acceleration and isn't quite enough for transcoding to the appleTV. So I want to upgrade soonish, but want the confidence that my next machine will last another 3-4 years. And I find it hard to swallow spending so much to have almost the same CPU as I had three years ago
Click to expand...

your needs exceed the 2.66 mini. so you are talking a 2011 macbook pro 13 inch at 1200 or the 21 inch iMac. the long wait for a mini update in your case is tough.

personally apple has a chance to do something cool they can issue a macmini retro a 2009 type model for about 400 bucks. put in a basic 2.0 GHz c2d a 1gb stick of ram and a 120gb hdd. let it be taken apart and modded easily.. even let the cpu swap out. the motherboard in the 2009 can use a 3.06GHz c2d. this machine would appeal to some but due to the cpu limit it would not compete with higher end models and a lot of people would switch to mac at a 400 dollar entry price.

you can also make a better mini with sandy bridge and t-bolt at a higher price point. give it the 2010 aluminum look
 
bpaluzzi said:
Have any of you people bagging on the Mini actually tried using it?

Don't look at the specs. Look at what you can do with the machine. My primary work machine is a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo mini with 8 GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. My current Mac Mini with the 2.4 C2D is doing everything I want/need it to do and then some. I did upgrade to SSD and extra RAM and I'd put my mac mini up against any Winblows 7 HDD computer anytime. IMHO the Windows Market has people buying computers that are way to powerful for what they need to do with them, it's a marketing trick that Apple just don't get into. I mean really, Quad Core i7's CPU's are great for crunching Video and maybe stuff like AutoCAD 3D rendering, however the masses do not need this kind of power. I can relate it to a statement made by another Macrumors member not long ago in a related post, it's like taking a F-15E Strike Eagle jet fighter to a KNIFE fight. I understand that the iMac has to have good specs so that the media guys can do the things mentioned above however the mini is directed towards a home based market.
 
Apple is willing to have the Shuffle, Nano, Classic and Touch in the iPod line but is not willing to have a mid range desktop computer. Doesn't make any sense.

And I've been holding off for a long time replacing my old Mac because of the gap in Apple's line up. I simply have no desire for an all in one no matter how great the iMac ever becomes. It is not a product I want. That leaves the $699 Mini and the $2499 Mac Pro. No one can say that there isn't a gap between those two products. A gap by size, capability, expansion, ease of use and price.
On my curent Mac I have two internal hard drives and an optical drive. Just to get that now I would have to go to the even bigger, even heavier and definitely even more expensive Mac Pro over the PowerMac I have now.
But the Mac Pro is the only Mac that seems to have been designed for actual use. In this day and age having jacks on the front is a no brainer but Apple refuses to put them on the Mini or the iMac because it would detract from the looks of the product. Or I guess that's the reason. Ego.
But then, by not offering a consumer level computer with a little bit of internal expansion Apple forces users to clutter up their desk and hide that same great looking product behind third party external devices. Remember this is the same great looking product Apple doesn't want to disgrace with easy to use jacks on the front.
So Apple won't change its form over function mantra but then is fine with the end user hiding or detracting from the form by going with external non matching third party function.

I'd much rather buy a $1500 mid range desktop Mac that has room for two easy to access hard drives and an optical drive in a good looking case that has the same attention to ease of use that the Mac Pro case has than to sully the smaller Mini with a bunch of tacked on cables everywhere external drives.

What I want is a Mac that has a good balance of form and function. I'm not seeing that in any Apple computer other than the Mac Pro and $2499 just to get that sensible balance is too much.
 
Last edited:
Newfiebill said:
I understand that the iMac has to have good specs so that the media guys can do the things mentioned above however the mini is directed towards a home based market.
Click to expand...
And what are the rest of us who hate glossy screens yet want the power of an iMac supposed to do?

I've seriously considered buying an iMac, turning it toward the wall and connecting my own display. But it would look kinda stupid and take up a lot of desk space. I've also considered doing the same with a MacBook Pro, but that's a pretty expensive way to go.

As for being a spec whore, I understand that argument. Much of what I do does not require a lot of power. But it's frustrating when I run iMovie, or encode video from EyeTV, or fire up Aperture 3, that Apple is holding me back so they can sell more iMacs. I owned a Mac Pro for a while and it was too big and noisy so I sold it.

:confused:
 
Undo Redo said:
And what are the rest of us who hate glossy screens yet want the power of an iMac supposed to do?

I've seriously considered buying an iMac, turning it toward the wall and connecting my own display. But it would look kinda stupid and take up a lot of desk space. I've also considered doing the same with a MacBook Pro, but that's a pretty expensive way to go.

As for being a spec whore, I understand that argument. Much of what I do does not require a lot of power. But it's frustrating when I run iMovie, or encode video from EyeTV, or fire up Aperture 3, that Apple is holding me back so they can sell more iMacs. I owned a Mac Pro for a while and it was too big and noisy so I sold it.

:confused:
Click to expand...

I haven't used EyeTV, but iMovie, Aperture, and Handbrake all run fine on my Mini... just a statement :)
 
Bernard SG said:
And why would a MacBook Pro connected to the display of your choice not be a reasonable solution?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you'd even ask that question. A Macbook Pro is much more expensive than a modern desktop computer should be and it would be a waste of the built-in LCD if I'm never going to use it (have a Macbook Air, don't need an optical drive just like I don't need a floppy drive, thank you).
 
G4er? said:
Apple is willing to have the Shuffle, Nano, Classic and Touch in the iPod line but is not willing to have a mid range desktop computer. Doesn't make any sense.

And I've been holding off for a long time replacing my old Mac because of the gap in Apple's line up. I simply have no desire for an all in one no matter how great the iMac ever becomes. It is not a product I want. That leaves the $699 Mini and the $2499 Mac Pro. No one can say that there isn't a gap between those two products. A gap by size, capability, expansion, ease of use and price.
On my curent Mac I have two internal hard drives and an optical drive. Just to get that now I would have to go to the even bigger, even heavier and definitely even more expensive Mac Pro over the PowerMac I have now.
But the Mac Pro is the only Mac that seems to have been designed for actual use. In this day and age having jacks on the front is a no brainer but Apple refuses to put them on the Mini or the iMac because it would detract from the looks of the product. Or I guess that's the reason. Ego.
But then, by not offering a consumer level computer with a little bit of internal expansion Apple forces users to clutter up their desk and hide that same great looking product behind third party external devices. Remember this is the same great looking produce Apple doesn't want to disgrace with easy to use jacks on the front.
So Apple won't change its form over function mantra but then is fine with the end user hiding or detracting from the form by going with external non matching third party function.

I'd much rather buy a $1500 mid range desktop Mac that has room for two easy to access hard drives and an optical drive in a good looking case that has the same attention to ease of use that the Mac Pro case has than to sully the smaller Mini with a bunch of tacked on cables everywhere external drives.

What I want is a Mac that has a good balance of form and function. I'm not seeing that in any Apple computer other than the Mac Pro and $2499 just to get that sensible balance is too much.
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing some common sense to this thread. I couldn't agree more.
 
G4er? said:
What I want is a Mac that has a good balance of form and function. I'm not seeing that in any Apple computer other than the Mac Pro and $2499 just to get that sensible balance is too much.
Click to expand...

In the UK Used marketplace prices of Mac Pros have crashed and are about half price of new.
 
While I think we realize that it's not horrible and it's a very OK machine, for 2011 it's just unacceptable. Look at the Geekbench benchmark ratings for something like the new low end iMac (~7200), the Mini at at 3300. That is a BIG difference.
 
KurtangleTN said:
While I think we realize that it's not horrible and it's a very OK machine, for 2011 it's just unacceptable. Look at the Geekbench benchmark ratings for something like the new low end iMac (~7200), the Mini at at 3300. That is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Is there a site that collects all those ratings? Can't find it...
 
KurtangleTN said:
While I think we realize that it's not horrible and it's a very OK machine, for 2011 it's just unacceptable. Look at the Geekbench benchmark ratings for something like the new low end iMac (~7200), the Mini at at 3300. That is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

OK I found it. Something I can not believe is that the new quad core i7 iMacs have the same rating as the quad core Macbook Pros! That would be amazing!!!
Sorry for going slightly off-topic...
 
KurtangleTN said:
While I think we realize that it's not horrible and it's a very OK machine, for 2011 it's just unacceptable. Look at the Geekbench benchmark ratings for something like the new low end iMac (~7200), the Mini at at 3300. That is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Unacceptable?? For you, perhaps. If I needed a computer tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Mac Mini. Like most people, as long as what I'm buying will run the software I plan to run at a decent speed, I couldn't care less about Geek specs or performance. And the Mini has suited my needs just fine since the 2009 model.

What you would consider acceptable, I would consider a waste of money. If my needs are met for $700 or less, I'm not going to spend $1100 or more for a speed increase. Personally, I don't care about the speed increase because 90% of what I do on the computer is nearly instantaneous with my current Mini. Instead of wasting my money on a Mac Pro or iMac, I bought a Mini. I liked it so much that I bought a second one a few months later. I use one of them as a desktop, and the other records and plays video and audio in a home theater. A single Mini is a far better match for my needs than an iMac or a Mac Pro. Having two Minis just kills it. Neither the iMac nor the Mac Pro is suitable for my home theater usage.
 
KurtangleTN said:
While I think we realize that it's not horrible and it's a very OK machine, for 2011 it's just unacceptable. Look at the Geekbench benchmark ratings for something like the new low end iMac (~7200), the Mini at at 3300. That is a BIG difference.
Click to expand...

Again, those specs are totally useless wankery for 90% of use. What do you want to do with the Mini that you're not able to do? And "doing something better" isn't a good enough answer. If you want to do something better, buy the iMac or the Mac Pro. What can you really not do with a mini? Games, for example - it's not going to work for you. If you're a gamer, the Mini isn't an option for you. What else?
 
I would like a minitower from Apple, it's the only type of pc that's missing on their line-up. I don't like Imacs because of the glossy screen, at the end of the system's life you throw away a good screen and you are unable to add a HDD, ODD or graphics card if you would like it.
Macmini is underpowered for my needs, Macpro overpowered and I don't consider an Imac. So at the moment I'm forced to go the hackintosh route.
 
If someone doesn't want a Mini, they don't want a Mini. Or an iMac. This is an age-old argument. The fact is that Apple does not produce a computer for every conceivable use. They have, after years of trial and error (many errors) refined their computing strategy and they have a good one. That is, a good one as judged by sales (consistent growth, serious laptop marketshare) and stock value (who wishes they bought Apple stock the day before the iPhone was released?).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Apple did at one time pursue the midrange desktop market with the Powermac G4 Cube. It was a desktop, intended to be plugged into a monitor, with accessible internals. It tanked. If they released something like that again, it would probably do a bit better, but how much? Apple devotes significant resources to the design of each of their products. They aren't just going to pull a box off the shelf and throw it onto an Apple store shelf. Is it worth it to them to design and build a computer for the gaming market, when OSX doesn't even run all the games? When the target consumer likes to tinker and build their own machines? Is it worth it to address the sub-Pro level computer tinkerer?

It really isn't. If it were they would sell to it. Apple finds markets. The biggest market for their computers is the one that is not served by Windows machines. They targeted the iPod in large part because there was a real opportunity to succeed (watch the keynote from the original iPod presentation, Jobs describes why they thought it could work). They created the superphone and tablet markets. That's how they work.

And it seems to work. Got any stock?
 
pompidom said:
I would like a minitower from Apple, it's the only type of pc that's missing on their line-up. I don't like Imacs because of the glossy screen, at the end of the system's life you throw away a good screen and you are unable to add a HDD, ODD or graphics card if you would like it.
Macmini is underpowered for my needs, Macpro overpowered and I don't consider an Imac. So at the moment I'm forced to go the hackintosh route.
Click to expand...

Which computer do you recommend for the Hackintosh route? I'll go that way without hesitation if it's not illegal.
 
My previous post isn't meant to belittle people who want the midrange desktop tower, just to suggest that there aren't enough of them to sell Macs to for Apple to devote the effort to make one. I wouldn't mind one myself, but I am satisfied with my iMac and probably wouldn't switch.

For those individuals I think that going non-Apple is perfectly legitimate. Windows 7 is a fine OS, and there are plenty of solid options. If you want some beef in a tower and the ability to modify it without dropping $2500 or more for a Mac Pro, Windows or Linux is the way to go. Nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't presume to suggest that you'd be better off with a Mac Mini. If you don't want one of those, you don't want it.
 
macbook123 said:
Which computer do you recommend for the Hackintosh route? I'll go that way without hesitation if it's not illegal.
Click to expand...

I think it's a EULA violation, though others have better information than me. I strongly suspect that Lion's move to the App Store is due in part to Apple's desire to cut off the Hackintosh market, but that's only a suspicion. Think of that what you will. There's a lot of stuff on this site about it.
 
macbook123 said:
OK, so here I have been waiting for the last year or so for a reasonable Apple desktop solution, and it does not exist!
Click to expand...

Notebooks account for something like 75% of Mac sales according to this week's keynote.

Figure out what you want a computer for, exactly, and then get what you want. If a Linux box will do the trick then build it.
 
What most people tend to work with are MBPs connected to external displays. If you don't like that idea, you could just wait for the Mini refresh. I agree with you on the mirror-glass iMacs though :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back