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.
Mac Mini: Really Worth It?
- Thread starter Cormier6083
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Consumer Reports disagrees with you. All the PCs they reviewed in this month's mag are just under a grand or thereabouts and they give every single one of them the worst score they have for gaming. Most of them had integrated graphics, some were Pentium Ds, some C2Ds.
They did seem to think they could all handle Word, though.
hmm well I put together a roughly 600-700 dollar Pc 4 years ago to play mmorpgs and it still works fine. Better than my 1700+ $ G4 mac. If you research the parts you can make a very nice inexpensive PC for 3D.
With being able to run xp on macs now the difference mostly comes down graphics cards now though i think, or soon...
You are now comparing self-built machine with an OEM-machine.
Yep you can. But you don't have one single warranty for the machine. And you are also spending quite a bit of time looking for suitable components and putting them together.
Tell that to the people who would buy a $1000 PC, which is what you said above. You didn't say, "I can build a computer for $1000", you claimed a PC at that price would beat a $3000 Mac. A "PC" is an off-the-shelf consumer product, probably delivered in a box. Comparing a DIY Windows box to a high-end Mac is just silly.
Really, if you don't even understand what you are saying, how is anyone else supposed to?
Having a Core Duo isn't a bad thing. And people don't (or shouldn't) buy a Mac Mini for gaming anyways.
You guys sometimes amaze me. One year later, a hot product becomes crap...
You guys sometimes amaze me. One year later, a hot product becomes crap...
A good value + 1 year of technological development - any change in price = bad value.
The mini isn't nearly as good a deal as it once was, it's a simple fact. It's still perfectly fine for many users, but that doesn't mean it's a good deal at this point, and of course it will be outdated faster than any of Apple's other current offerings. If apple lowered the price a few times along the way it'd still be a good value, maybe $500 for a 1.66/1gb/combo/60gb and $600 for the 1.86/1gb/superdrive/80gb model.
any regular PC will come with a 3.5" HDD, normally ~250gb at this point, plus room to put in another drive or more for far less than any external option. I agree the mini makes a great home theater option if you want more than the
tv, but you should just keep your media on a home server with lots o' storage.I like having a low end headless product in the lineup, especially so I can point it out to folks who say "no way, i'm sure macs are nice, but i'm not rich". Unfortunately the price just hasn't dropped enough to make it a good value. the 17" imac is quite a bit better in terms of value, as is the MB.
this is at least largely off-topic, but best buy has really annoyed me with their weekly flyers advertising special deals that just crush Apple's value. The hitch with best buy is that in the fine print each store has "a minimum of 3 per store" or similar (can anyone say "bait and switch"???), but nonetheless, anytime anyone asks me about computer recommendations they immediately respond to my 'well, apple has some big advantages...' with "but I can get twice as much for less at best buy!!!".
Beyond their questionable business practices, one can't deny the fact that you can buy a whole lot more than a mini with your money...in this week's local best buy flyer, you can get a gateway desktop with athlon x2 6400 (a good processor, probably around equal to a c2d E4400 or similar...definitely faster than the notebook yonah chip in the mini), 17" 1280x1024 LCD, wireless keyboard and mouse, 320gb HDD, 1gb ram, wireless card, dual layer 'superdrive' and nvidia 6150LE integrated graphics (about the top end of integrated, definitely better than GMA). Only negatives are the vista OS and ugly box, all for $649. most people i know would much rather get a better deal in an ugly box than a lesser deal in a pretty box.
I also get tired of saying 'well, i guess you should quit the job you enjoy and get one that pays more so you can shell out $2k just to get a laptop with a screen large enough for over-50 eyes'. I hold out hope that Apple will fill in some gaps in the product line as sales improve though, sub-compact for the mobile professional, 15" MB for regular users who want a decent sized screen, improved or new mini that's a genuine value, and something expandable for ~$1500 (i personally hope they make a wider range of mac pros with the cheapest being ~1800 (~$1600 refurb)).
It's not hard to convince folks that mac has a better system, but it is quite hard to convince them to pay more for it.
I gotta disagree here, solely because of the daily whining on these forums about upgrading...hell, 6 weeks after C2D machines were showing up, people were thinking they were out of date.
I believe it depends on how the purchaser intends to use the machine. Think about it. The Mac Mini is a 1st Gen Macbook in another package. I do all sorts of things with my Macbook (unorthodox things, compared to most Macbook users). A version of BSD is underneath the skin...it can do anything my BSD servers can do (well, ALMOST anything). With a dual core CPU and cutting-edge hardware (yeah, I said it...there truly isn't all that much of a difference from a C2D Macbook and a CD Macbook...really), running a BSD-based OS, even in Mac Mini packaging, it's a pretty strong machine. Will it play Doom 3 or Farcry? No, but neither will a Macbook C2D.
The Mac Mini is an entry-level system that is designed for simple tasks. Don't compare it to a MBP. Compare it to something with similar specs.
Exactly!
I really wish people would start to realise that going from a Core Duo to a Core 2 Duo is not the same as going from a G3 to a G4 or a G4 to a G5. Yes there is some better performance but its not *nearly* as big a jump as there was between the PowerPC generations.
Newer model chips are going to be coming out pretty fast these days too, so people had better get used to it. Soon there'll be Core 2 Quads in laptops. Then probably Core 3 Quads then Pentium -3.14s etc etc.
Yes there was a massive leap in CPU performance from the jump from PPC to Intel. However, the current MacBooks are not *that* much faster than the first gen MacBooks and they are not *that* much faster than the CD minis.
I'm not saying the mini should stay as it is, I'm just saying its not that slow. A 1.83GHz Core Duo Mini will perform roughly on a par with (if not better than) a PowerMac G5 Dual apart from 3D intensive tasks and a hell of a lot of people on these forums would bash anyone over the head with a saucepan if they claim the G5 Duals are slow.
Have a look at: http://db.xbench.com/compareindex.xhtml
Although not the best benchmarking tool in the world, the average score for MacBook CDs (all speed models) is 84.88. For MacBook C2Ds (averaged over all speeds again), 95.53. That's hardly a massive step in performance. The Mac Mini (Intel) (averaged over all models, i.e. Core Solo and Core Duos) gets 89.40 which if you look down, beats two ranges of G5s and isn't far behind the rest.
You know what - the next logical buy if you want to get a Mini is a MacBook. If you already have a screen and keyboard the Macbook does exactly the same but better the the Mini. You can hook it up to your existing screen and keyboard as the Mini but in addition you can as well carry it around.
My opinion: get a Macbook!
My opinion: get a Macbook!
I would have to say "yes" and "no"! I recently bought two Minis for the myself and a colleague at work (2Gb RAM 1.83MHz CPU, 120gb hard disk, wireless keyboard and mouse - and mine has the 23" cinema display) and they are great machines. They do everything i need them to do and are great to use. I personally don't like the imac and the mac pro was too expensive so the Mini was perfect.
However, later in the year I plan to buy a Mac for home, but I wouldn't spend my own money on a Mini just now, when it seems a replacement is just round the corner...
I think the point I'm trying to make might be better explained in terms of consumer products (and a bit of capitalism) as a whole. Let's pretend there is 1 car company that makes new models every 2 years, while every other manufacturer makes them every year. the 2 year cycle manufacturer makes a great car, but the problem is that everyone else releases a new model every year. Perhaps there aren't huge improvements every year with the other manufacturers, but sometimes there are complete redesigns. New technology might be released in those 2 years, and won't be integrated by this company until the next revision in 2 years. When most manufacturer's 2007 models were released, the 2006 models were discounted significantly. The 2 year manufacturer though doesn't change anything, neither product nor price. They are therefore at a disadvantage, namely in the second year when their cars are essentially 'last year's model' without the discount.
Do the 2006 models work fine for pretty much everyone? of course! but it doesn't matter, time has passed and it's not 2006 anymore, so charging the same price for the 2006 model simply isn't part of a modern pricing strategy. The marketplace insists on an improved model or a lowered price for any technology product, be it a car or computer, but Apple hasn't done either for the mini.
I'm not suggesting Apple become a Dell or HP that constantly fiddles with the product line, but it would just be nice to get back to a pre-intel 'at least a speed bump twice a year plus relatively predictable redesigns' type updates. I'm not sure if it's the iphone that's screwed with the schedule or the intel transition, or the development of new models not yet released, but with the mini in particular Apple's really pushing their monopoly on OSX a bit far, and even non-technical consumers will notice that you don't get all that much for the cost of a mini compared to the competition.
I personally wasn't surprised at the 'end of the mini' rumors, but I doubt they're true...what i honestly hope for is a new case that's a bit larger and looks like the Airports/
tv, room for a 3.5" HDD so people get faster performance plus tons more storage without the need to immediately blow $ on an external drive, c2d in a MB type range...and in my fantasy, desktop components including the option of a super-cheap celeron 400-series (conroe in single core form that cost as little as $39) making for a ~$400 option for consumers who can't afford/don't need more (also great for media center type applications).
I used a Mini for 5 months while I saved cash for a G5, it was used mainly for Photoshop. It performed flawlessly.
Great little machine.
FJ
Great little machine.
FJ
This was across a stream of 32bit operating systems. We are at the line of 64bit now: 64bit CPUs and 64bit operating systems. That core duo chip is 32bit, so you will be limited to 32bit operating systems. The Core 2 Duo is 64bit.
There is a big difference. One is a 32bit chip, and the other is a 64bit chip. You may not see much difference now b/c Tiger running on the 64bit chip is a 32bit OS.
That's not a big jump right now and it won't be for years to come. The only real difference that will actually affect users in the next few years will be the RAM limit of 32bit chips. The Core 2 Duo might be 64 bit but its chipset is the same used for the Core Duo and as such all MacBooks currently have a RAM limit of ~3.2GB. 64 bit is not all that. Most vista packages ship as a 32 bit OS only, requiring users to order extra 64 bit disks from Microsoft.
64bit vs 32bit is more of a marketing thing than anything else. The C2D chips are not significantly faster than CD. If in five years time Microsoft and Apple do finally decide to go entirely 64 bit then a C2D chip would probably be too slow anyway to bother with. 64 bit vs 32 bit is 90% marketing, 10% RAM limit at this point. The latter is a problem that is still present in all current MacBooks, iMacs and MacBook Pros.
Here is a fact I don't know if people realize... The mac mini is the smallest computer you can get for $599 period. There are other small pc out there but for some reason they are super expensive. Even if you did get a small pc it doesn't run OS X.
The mini is the best micro pc to date. Its upgradable, silent, cheap and looks cool and there are tons of accessories for it.
Long live the mini.
The mini is the best micro pc to date. Its upgradable, silent, cheap and looks cool and there are tons of accessories for it.
Long live the mini.
You're talking quite a ways into the future. I believe the poster that you repsonded to wasn't factoring in 64-bit. We're talking usability. 64-bit architecture is far from commonplace now...it is more commonplace than it was 6 months ago, yes, but 64-bit software isn't commonplace either.
10.4 runs quite nicely on my iMac G3, but I don't think it supports Quartz Extreme or Core Image. How important is eye candy to you?
This is a good point. I mostly decided that for the next desktop machine I buy, I will pay a bit extra for quietness. So for me, that means the MacMini or something like a Shuttle SFF. To address the original "Is the mac mini a good buy?" query, it would be nice to know how Cormier6083 feels about size/noise issues.
If size/noise matters, then the Mini remains a good buy. Still, it probably makes sense to wait a couple of weeks to see if MacMini updates are coming. I think we can all agree that either (1) the Mini will be updated, or (2) the Mini will be discontinued, with or without another low-end or midrange desktop model to replace it.
Another option to consider is purchasing a MacBook and treating it like a Mini by leaving the lid closed. It's more capable (not in a huge way) but costs nearly twice as much.