Mac mini with least

[Fastball32]

So consistently, the Mac Mini forums have the least viewers, even less than the White MacBook forums.

The Mac mini is a great piece of hardware, but it has the least profit of margin ($20 for education discount), and I'm pretty surprised. I believe the people who purchase Mac Mini's are not "true" Apple afficianodos, if it's the only Mac they own.

Any one one only one Mac Mini and NO other Mac?

The Mac Mini is often considered a step-child - HTPC or seldom used desktop.
Just curious...

 

[Gav2k]

I own a mini, MacBook, iPad and iPhone and I disagree with you. The latest mini's are beasts!

 

[Jazper]

The new Mac Mini's have great specs, just most people want something with a screen... and the pro's will buy a Mac Pro. Tbh all the apple line at so similar I would say there all great, just depends on what you use it for.

 

[mdgm]

I have a dead white 07 MacBook.

I currently have an Early 09 Mini, Late 09 Mini and a 2011 Mini Server.

Currently debating which new Mac laptop to get to replace my dead MacBook.

I use my Minis as HTPCs. I see them as supplementing having other Macs. I don't think Apple would mind me doing this especially when they're far more expensive than the feature crippled AppleTVs.

 

[radiogoober]

I wonder what keeps people from buying the mini. I'd guess it is either that they want an "all in one" solution, or they are perhaps concerned about having to buy the extra hardware (monitor, etc.)

To me, the Mac mini is a good deal. You can buy a monitor or two, plug them into the mini, and when you upgrade to a new mini, you get to keep the monitors.

I have 2 minis right now, they're fantastic. One is a home server that does everything - downloads, converts, files, backups, iTunes streaming, etc.

I actually have 3 monitors on my primary Mac mini, and I've offloaded so much work to the mini server that I'm about to get rid of a monitor because it stays blank most of the time.

 

[paulrbeers]

I'm not even sure what the OP is stating here.... Are you stating that anyone who only owns a mac mini isn't a Mac aficionado? That is straight up trolling. There are many Mac crazies with only minis (especially those who don't need the power of a Mac Pro but want to use their own monitor). And to the point about the Mac Mini forum getting less visits than the MacBook.... That used to be true but not really anymore especially now that apple no longer makes MacBooks. In fact many times I visit these forums there will be no new posts in the MacBook forum but there will be in the Mac mini. Straight up trollin....

 

[philipma1957]

So consistently, the Mac Mini forums have the least viewers, even less than the White MacBook forums.

The Mac mini is a great piece of hardware, but it has the least profit of margin ($20 for education discount), and I'm pretty surprised. I believe the people who purchase Mac Mini's are not "true" Apple afficianodos, if it's the only Mac they own.

Any one one only one Mac Mini and NO other Mac?

The Mac Mini is often considered a step-child - HTPC or seldom used desktop.
Just curious...

While I get your theory. this site Is not going to agree with you.

Most people on this site are into mac and will have multiple mac gear.

Most people in the real world may have 1 or 2 devices ,

but they just won't hangout on a site like this.

 

[NewbieCanada]

I think minis are great, and here's why:

Monitors are a huge component of the price of an iMac, but advances in display technology don't come around very often and the monitors themselves tend to last for years and years without any need for maintenance.

I bought my mini in the spring. If the next generation makes me want to buy a new one, I won't feel bad. If I'd bought an iMac instead, I'd want it to last a few years.

If Apple offered something in between the mini and the pro, (quad-core, great graphics), I'd probably go for that though.

 

[Fishrrman]

"I wonder what keeps people from buying the mini."

Probably the fact that it "doesn't look like a real computer"....

If Apple would just put this into a more "PC-like" enclosure, I'll bet more folks would buy it, just for appearance's sake.

I think the Mini case should be a bit larger, but for different reasons:
- Cooling - more air in, more heat out.
- Accessibility - easy access to the drive bays. All it would take is 4 screws and a removable top plate. The product would make adding/replacing the hard drive easy, without having to disassemble the entire computer (and risk damaging the fragile motherboard connectors).

Having said that, I expect to buy a 2012 Mini when they get released, to replace my 2004-vintage PowerMac g4 MDD. The old tower has served me well for more than eight years, but I suspect the Mini will be 'way faster, and a WHOLE lot more quiet!

 

[lilsoccakid74]

I believe the people who purchase Mac Mini's are not "true" Apple afficianodos, if it's the only Mac they own.

That is some serious lack of information there bud. You must not own a mini.

 

[Poki]

Do you really think people want their computers to look like "computers" nowadays? I can't help but liking the unoffensive design of the current Mini. And honestly, I don't have one right now (waiting for the update), but after trying a Quad-Core Mini, I can just say this thing is a beast! Never saw something comparably fast in a package as small as the Mini. Great machine!

 

[Oracle1729]

The new Mac Mini's have great specs, just most people want something with a screen... and the pro's will buy a Mac Pro. Tbh all the apple line at so similar I would say there all great, just depends on what you use it for.

Really? And who died and let you speak for "most people"

Because of the shiny screen, the iMac is worse than useless to me. I'd have to have it facing the wall behind my real screen. I also have multiple computers sharing a screen through a kvm switch for dev work. The iMac is garbage in that configuration unless you ignore its screen. Another reason I won't buy the iMac is the difficult to reach HD with custom firmware.

I have a MBP and 2 minis (and an iPad, iPhone and touch). For me the minis are underpowered, the pro's are grossly overpriced and apple seems to hate them. I also don't need or want a server CPU, the Ivy Bridge i7 (desktop CPU) is perfect for me. The iMac is probably just about right power-wise but i will not buy it with a built in screen.

A bit off topic, but the MBP is an early 2011 with a 240 gig Corsair Force 3 SSD and 16 gig of memory. Total price for those upgrades was $350. I will switch back to a PC long before I own a computer with soldered ram, a glued battery, and non-standard non-volatile storage.

 

[Poki]

For me the minis are underpowered [...] the Ivy Bridge i7 (desktop CPU) is perfect for me. The iMac is probably just about right power-wise but i will not buy it with a built in screen.

You really think the Mini is underpowered? Okay, here some facts:

1. All iMacs use mobile CPUs, just like any Apple computer (except the Pro).

2. The current Mini with the Quad-Core i7 is even faster than the current 27" 3,1 GHz quad-core iMac. Sure, you can configure the iMac even faster, but for a machine with this price- and size, not too bad, eh?

3. The next generation Minis will probably have a Quad-Core CPU (i7-3612qm) and a discrete GPU (something like a GT 640M), so there's no need for something in between the Mini and the Pro - there's just not much room to grow power-wise.

After all, there are hardly any applications the Mini can't handle. And if it can't, you have to go with either a MacBook Pro, an iMac or a Mac Pro - these are some decent options. No reason to blame the Mini - the most powerful small-form-factor computer on the market.

 

[SR45]

OP...

Was there a point that makes sense in posting your dribble ? Why did you take the time to post ? Your immature rant does not mean a darn thing to anyone of us in the real world.

 

[Jazper]

Really? And who died and let you speak for "most people"

Because of the shiny screen, the iMac is worse than useless to me. I'd have to have it facing the wall behind my real screen. I also have multiple computers sharing a screen through a kvm switch for dev work. The iMac is garbage in that configuration unless you ignore its screen. Another reason I won't buy the iMac is the difficult to reach HD with custom firmware.

I have a MBP and 2 minis (and an iPad, iPhone and touch). For me the minis are underpowered, the pro's are grossly overpriced and apple seems to hate them. I also don't need or want a server CPU, the Ivy Bridge i7 (desktop CPU) is perfect for me. The iMac is probably just about right power-wise but i will not buy it with a built in screen.

A bit off topic, but the MBP is an early 2011 with a 240 gig Corsair Force 3 SSD and 16 gig of memory. Total price for those upgrades was $350. I will switch back to a PC long before I own a computer with soldered ram, a glued battery, and non-standard non-volatile storage.

I'm not talking for everyone else, it's a fact. People will want to buy an iMac or Macbook Pro since it has a built in screen...

 

[Oracle1729]

You really think the Mini is underpowered? Okay, here some facts:

1. All iMacs use mobile CPUs, just like any Apple computer (except the Pro).

Thanks for that info, like I said I've never owned an iMac and I didn't know they were mobile cpus. One more reason to avoid them imo.

2. The current Mini with the Quad-Core i7 is even faster than the current 27" 3,1 GHz quad-core iMac. Sure, you can configure the iMac even faster, but for a machine with this price- and size, not too bad, eh?

I do always get the base model, apple overcharges on upgrades and I'd rather save the cash for a future purchase. You do have a good point, I agree. The really time consuming stuff I do is photo editing, and a batch process can take 15-20 minutes from 1 shoot. A $600 windows PC will destroy a mac mini in performance for that kind of task. I'm much rather spend in the $1200 range (iMac price) and get that type of performance out of a mac.

3. The next generation Minis will probably have a Quad-Core CPU (i7-3612qm) and a discrete GPU (something like a GT 640M), so there's no need for something in between the Mini and the Pro - there's just not much room to grow power-wise.

After all, there are hardly any applications the Mini can't handle. And if it can't, you have to go with either a MacBook Pro, an iMac or a Mac Pro - these are some decent options. No reason to blame the Mini - the most powerful small-form-factor computer on the market.

Is the MBP any faster than a mini? My early 2011 MPB doesn't seem to be. For a notebook I've got no complaints about the performance on the pro (once I upgraded it), but for a desktop I want a lot more.

The mini can handle the applications, it's a question of how quickly it can handle them. I actually don't mind too much if I takes 15-20 minutes for a batch process, in my current setup, I switch away with the kvm and do something else. The iMac takes that option away too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm here because I like apple products and I didn't buy a second mini because I hated the first. I just hate their "use your computer the way we tell you" attitude and the poster I originally quoted for speaking for most people. So according to that poster, most people use computers the way he does. This forum is filled with people who think anyone not like them is a tiny minority who should go away.

 

[Poki]

Is the MBP any faster than a mini? My early 2011 MPB doesn't seem to be. For a notebook I've got no complaints about the performance on the pro (once I upgraded it), but for a desktop I want a lot more.

The mini can handle the applications, it's a question of how quickly it can handle them. I actually don't mind too much if I takes 15-20 minutes for a batch process, in my current setup, I switch away with the kvm and do something else. The iMac takes that option away too.

Which CPU does your MBP have? If it's a dual-core Sandy Bridge one, the next generation Quad-Core Ivy Bridge Mini should be about 60% faster. If you already have a quad-core CPU, it won't be a huge upgrade.

I'm very interested in Photo editing as well, and using Aperture I never really had complains with speed. I don't know how many photos you shoot a day, and I don't know how big the files are. As you can imagine, it's a huge difference if you're shooting a Nikon D800 or a D4 when in comes to processing speeds.

Also, with a quad-core CPU it shouldn't be a problem to switch away and surf the web on the same machine you process the images, so no real need to switch to another PC to do that.

 

[vastoholic]

I've owned a few different mac's just in the past 5 years. Pre unibody 15" macbook pro, white macbook (gift for girlfriend), 13" unibody macbook pro, C2D mac mini, iPads, and iPhones. The mini is the one thing that has remained constant. I sold off both macbook pro's eventually. I love this thing. Of course I wish I had low end Mac Pro simply for the HDD space, but the mini does everything I need. I don't see why we wouldn't be mac enthusiasts just because we own a mini. I had a need for a laptop a few times, I don't anymore. I don't want an all in one computer like the iMac, and the Mac Pro way too much machine for what I do. The mini was perfect for me. I suspect I'll continue to get the mini until they discontinue it as well.

 

[borostef]

I have a Mid Mac Mini with dedicated graphics, and it is the only Mac I have.
I work on iMacs but do not own any.
I think that new Minis are really great machines, I have considered buying an iMac but decided against it... I already had two IPS monitors, and was also worried about the issues with the dust in the iMac display.
Before buying the Mini I had my doubts, but decided to go for it... And I never looked back... Mini, with Sandy Bridge, is a true little beast, I even do video encoding on it, and the strange thing is that it finishes the job even faster then my PC which has an AMD six core processor and an AMD Radeon 6850 graphics card... I don't know, it might be attributed to better software or something...
Anyway... Mini rules

 

[paulrbeers]

You really think the Mini is underpowered? Okay, here some facts:

1. All iMacs use mobile CPUs, just like any Apple computer (except the Pro).

While I agree with most of your post, the iMac's do NOT use mobile CPU's. Intel does not make a 3ghz+ Quad core in their mobile Realm. The high end iMac's have a 3.1 and 3.4ghz processor. These are desktop processors.

Now the iMacs do use Mobile Graphics and laptop memory, but otherwise they use desktop hard drives and desktop processors.

 

[Poki]

While I agree with most of your post, the iMac's do NOT use mobile CPU's. Intel does not make a 3ghz+ Quad core in their mobile Realm. The high end iMac's have a 3.1 and 3.4ghz processor. These are desktop processors.

Now the iMacs do use Mobile Graphics and laptop memory, but otherwise they use desktop hard drives and desktop processors.

Oh, thanks for the clarification! I honestly thought they use notebook CPUs, since most of their parts except the hard drives are notebook parts.

But either way, this doesn't change the fact that the 2.0 GHz i7 in the Mini Server is faster than the 3.1 GHz i5 in the iMac. No reason to blame mobile CPUs after all.

 

[Oracle1729]

Which CPU does your MBP have? If it's a dual-core Sandy Bridge one, the next generation Quad-Core Ivy Bridge Mini should be about 60% faster. If you already have a quad-core CPU, it won't be a huge upgrade.

It's the 2.3 GHz dual core. I wasn't prepared to pay a few hundred more for a CPU that was worth about $50 more and a HD upgrade. I intended to put the price difference towards my next mac.

I'm very interested in Photo editing as well, and using Aperture I never really had complains with speed. I don't know how many photos you shoot a day, and I don't know how big the files are. As you can imagine, it's a huge difference if you're shooting a Nikon D800 or a D4 when in comes to processing speeds.

I shoot raw on a D90, so the files are around 12 meg each. On a studio shooting day I can easily do 500 pictures. I have a 12 TB of NAS storage and also keep it all backed up to USB hard drives I store off site.

Also, with a quad-core CPU it shouldn't be a problem to switch away and surf the web on the same machine you process the images, so no real need to switch to another PC to do that.

Actually if I want to be honest, I'm probably switching away and playing games . A bit more demanding though.

 

[Poki]

It's the 2.3 GHz dual core. I wasn't prepared to pay a few hundred more for a CPU that was worth about $50 more and a HD upgrade. I intended to put the price difference towards my next mac.

Okay, then you look at a speed gain of roughly 70% compared to the current Mac Mini Server, and about 80% for the i7-3612qm, which is most probable for the next generation Mac Mini. That should make a world difference.

I shoot raw on a D90, so the files are around 12 meg each. On a studio shooting day I can easily do 500 pictures. I have a 12 TB of NAS storage and also keep it all backed up to USB hard drives I store off site.

First of all... "I shoot raw". Best sentence ever!

With 12 meg, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Trust me, the pictures load instantly* (if your storage solution is up on par) and processing is fast. I don't know about such big batches (I always avoid shooting any unneeded photos, so I end up with far less files), but it should be about double as fast as your MacBook, as the GPU is also much faster.

Oh, and nice to see somebody investing in lenses and not always hunting the latest and greatest camera body. GAS is just too common nowadays ...

*I tried raw files from a Canon 5D MKIII, so about double as big files, and they still load almost instantly. Can't imagine it needs to load for 12 meg files then.

Actually if I want to be honest, I'm probably switching away and playing games . A bit more demanding though.

Something you can do easily when using a Mini.

 

[CausticPuppy]

Obvious troll is obvious.

The two macs I use the most are an early 2009 macbook pro, and a 2011 mac mini server. The Mini replaced my windows desktop as my primary desktop workstation-- the one I use for music and photography. It now runs my iTunes server and everything else, so my macbook is only secondary (and will get replaced by a 13" Air at some point).

The quad-core server is a stout little machine, the only thing it's not good at is gaming-- not that I have time to game anymore.

Plus, in an age where Apple is making their computers less hackable and less upgradeable, it's refreshing to have a little box you can take apart and do all sorts of stuff inside it; add a second drive if it doesn't have one, or in my case, replace 1 hard drive with an SSD.

Plus, I leave it on 24/7 since it draws very little power, and I can use VNC over an SSH tunnel to use remote desktop from anywhere.

LONG LIVE THE MINI!

 

[JohnnyComeLatly]

Yeah, seems very toll'ish

It's like BMW owners saying 3 series drivers aren't driving real BMWs. Please.

I mostly use the Mini, even though I have an iMac, MBP and iPad. When I return, I'll still mostly use it because I'll throw it into a corner of my entertainment center and hook it up to my 48" LCD, using wireless trackpad/keyboard.

I'll see your troll post and raise you flame bait. Only a 'tard would think the mini isn't a real computer.