Is 2012 new mac mini coming?

[Poki]

Right, some of us use it for video editing, which many apps require a decent dedicated GPU for SFX rendering.

Exactly. Every bit of power is great to have when working on big movie projects ...

 

[blanka]

The mini is the same price as iMac once you make them comparable.

No, it isn't. Price is not what you pay at the counter, but what you pay over the years you use it. The Mini is way cheaper in that aspect as an iMac.
You can Mini for 100$ a year (the average price drop second hand in the 1.5 year between itterations is 150$), and get a decent 27 inch display for 100$ a year (Dell 27 inch going from 599 to 100$ in 5 years). Mice and keyboard are say 5$ a year, so it is 205$ a year in total. You are NEVER going to iMAC 27 inch for that, not even iMac 21 inch. It cost you at least 400-500$ if you want to upgrade to the next when it is released.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

No, it isn't. Price is not what you pay at the counter, but what you pay over the years you use it. The Mini is way cheaper in that aspect as an iMac.
You can Mini for 100$ a year (the average price drop second hand in the 1.5 year between itterations is 150$), and get a decent 27 inch display for 100$ a year (Dell 27 inch going from 599 to 100$ in 5 years). Mice and keyboard are say 5$ a year, so it is 205$ a year in total. You are NEVER going to iMAC 27 inch for that, not even iMac 21 inch. It cost you at least 400-500$ if you want to upgrade to the next when it is released.

You are confusing cost of entry with cost of ownership. The upfront cost of a Mini is on par with similarly equipped iMac. It's simple math & indisputable.

 

[philipma1957]

No, it isn't. Price is not what you pay at the counter, but what you pay over the years you use it. The Mini is way cheaper in that aspect as an iMac.
You can Mini for 100$ a year (the average price drop second hand in the 1.5 year between itterations is 150$), and get a decent 27 inch display for 100$ a year (Dell 27 inch going from 599 to 100$ in 5 years). Mice and keyboard are say 5$ a year, so it is 205$ a year in total. You are NEVER going to iMAC 27 inch for that, not even iMac 21 inch. It cost you at least 400-500$ if you want to upgrade to the next when it is released.

You are confusing cost of entry with cost of ownership. The upfront cost of a Mini is on par with similarly equipped iMac. It's simple math & indisputable.

If I don't want them to be comparable the mini is far cheaper. Keyboard don't buy mac buy logitech

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Wireless-Solar-Keyboard-K750/dp/B005L38VRU/ref=sr_1_1?
s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1350822406&sr=1-1&keywords=logitech+mac+keyboard

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Wire...=1-3-fkmr1&keywords=logitech+white+mouse+m310

75 for mouse and keyboard.



http://www.amazon.com/JVC-JLE32BC30...50822596&sr=1-1&keywords=jvc+32+inch+tv+1080p


388 for a tv/monitor


http://www.amazon.com/H-Squared-Min...350822656&sr=1-2&keywords=mac+mini+wall+mount

50 for a wall mount

http://www.amazon.com/Cheetah-ALAML...&qid=1350822689&sr=1-4&keywords=tv+wall+mount

25 for a wall mount

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC270LL/A

469 for the mini remember not equal


http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...19&sr=8-1&keywords=8gb+1067+ram&condition=new


32 for ram

total 1100

gives you a dvr via eyetv

a tv a dvd player

and a computer for surfing the net itunes lite duty.

you get a bigger screen and since it is wall mounted you sit a bit further and that makes up for the 1080p vs 1440p


the low cost 27 in imac is 1699 plus a few bucks for ram and 30 for a wall mount total 1775 a 675 dollar difference which allows me money for a newer 2012 mac mini in a second room.

 

[Poki]

you get a bigger screen and since it is wall mounted you sit a bit further and that makes up for the 1080p vs 1440p


the low cost 27 in imac is 1699 plus a few bucks for ram and 30 for a wall mount total 1775 a 675 dollar difference which allows me money for a newer 2012 mac mini in a second room.

Problem is, the screen isn't nearly as good. When it comes to color critic work you're left out. And you loose not only resolution, you loose also usable space. I personally would never use a TV as a computer monitor - there are simply so many better options out there ...

And the Apple keyboard is the best I ever had - makes me much more productive than a cheapo logitech one ...

 

[Abazigal]

The idea of the mac mini is precisely for people who happen to have a cheapo logitech keyboard, lenovo mouse and vga display lying around, and want an inexpensive OSX option.

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you are going to round out a mac mini purchase with expensive add-ons like 27" cinema display and bluetooth accessories, then I feel you may as well get an imac.

 

[philipma1957]

Problem is, the screen isn't nearly as good. When it comes to color critic work you're left out. And you loose not only resolution, you loose also usable space. I personally would never use a TV as a computer monitor - there are simply so many better options out there ...

And the Apple keyboard is the best I ever had - makes me much more productive than a cheapo logitech one ...

Right you are for your needs, but as I said for the way I am using that particular setup it works better then the iMac it replaced.

In your case you need a high quality screen due to the usage ie work relating to color quality. Right now I am sitting at a higher quality 1900 by 1200 dell screen using a mac keyboard. This system is far better for higher quality color then my 32 inch hdtv system. Plus the keyboard is the old school mac keyboard from the 2005 era. Usb big keys and you can really type on it.

A lot of imac users need your setup due to the work they do.

A lot of iMac users don't need their iMac and should have a tv + a macMini.

They never use the power of their iMac's cpu plus the may want a bigger screen then the 27 inch for movies.

The some keys to needing an imac vs macmini are the screen size and distance you will sit from it.

The resolution of 1440p is not needed if you use a bigger screen and sit far from it. If you have very good distance vision a larger screen such as a 32 inch or even a 46 inch 1080p will work fine for all but the most color accurate work.


If you are doing graphic design and want good accurate color the imac is needed over a mac mini since you would need an expensive monitor .

 

[Poki]

The resolution of 1440p is not needed if you use a bigger screen and sit far from it. If you have very good distance vision a larger screen such as a 32 inch or even a 46 inch 1080p will work fine for all but the most color accurate work.


If you are doing graphic design and want good accurate color the imac is needed over a mac mini since you would need an expensive monitor .

Just to be clear, I'm going to buy a Mini with a Thunderbolt Display, not an iMac, but the result is the same.

I agree with most things you said, and most Mac users these days care much more about consuming than producing.

However, even if you are just a hobby photographer / videograhper or graphic designer, the higher resolution is important. Why? Because no matter how far you sit away, to be able to read text at a certain size (let's assume 12 pt) you need to zoom in enough to make the text multiple pixels big, which means you can get much more readable text on a 1440p display than on a 1080p one.

The same applies to photo processing - you'll need to work on pixel level, which works obviously better the more pixel you have because you can see more of the frame at the same time. I won't start for layouting and video production - I think you know you'll want the highest resolution possible for these tasks.

As for pure consumers, just about any setup works, as long as it's not too expensive and comfortable for the way they want to use it. In my opinion, simply use a high-end TV and Apple TV for TV things, and use a high-end display with a fast enough CPU and GPU for computer tasks. If money is very important, start with the thing that is more important to you and compromise the other, but don't get a hybrid thing that won't make you happy down the line.

 

[jjd]

I don't mean this as an insult, but if you are going to round out a mac mini purchase with expensive add-ons like 27" cinema display and bluetooth accessories, then I feel you may as well get an imac.

Unless you want dual displays. Mini plus 2xTB displays looks and works a lot better than an iMac plus a TB display. Different height, bezel ruin the seamless large desktop feel, IMHO.

 

[blanka]

I use the Minis with better-than-Apple peripherals. With the iMac you don't have the options:
We use a Mini + DELL U2711 for the basic graphic stations
We use a Mini + NEC PA271W for the proofing stations
All Mini's have a Wacom Large as input device with a thick DAS keyboard for typing (the apple is too low behind a WACOM).
Total price is comparable to a 27 inch iMac, but we can work in sRGB and AdobeRGB on demand on non-glaring screens.
Screens work fine for 4-5 years, and we get new Mini's halfway lifespan when we can still sell them for a decent price.

 

[Poki]

I use the Minis with better-than-Apple peripherals. With the iMac you don't have the options:
We use a Mini + DELL U2711 for the basic graphic stations

I quite like the Ultrasharp displays (except the newest, cheaper 24" model - the panel isn't usable at all ...), but for the design and Thunderbolt benefits I'll buy the Apple Thunderbolt display anyways.

 

[chiguy20002]

New Mac MINI is here today.

2.5GHz Mac mini
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
4GB memory
500GB hard drive
Intel HD Graphics 4000
OS X Mountain Lion

$599.00

Looks like the same basic hardware that is in my 13" MacBook Pro. I wouldn't mind having one.