MacMini/17" MBP question!

[Josias]

Check this out:

If you buy the following:
17" MBP with 100 GB 7.200 rpm. drive and 2 GB RAM'
Core Solo Mini with 2 GB RAM and 8x DL superdrive, Mighty Mouse and keyboard.

The MBP is $3099.
The Mini is $1027.

Then you buy a 2.16 GHz Core Duo and a 100 GB, 7.200 rpm. 2.5" HDD and put both in the mini, you have a Mini that is just as godd as the MBP, just as a desktop. You need to include a godd 17" monitor into the price, but that's small stuff.

Now, the only remaining problem is the graphics, is it possible to put a 256 MB X1600 into the mini? And how much would the mini be after including 2.16 GHz core duo, 100 GB HDD and an X1600?

 

[jeremy.king]

is it possible to put a 256 MB X1600 into the mini?

No.

PS. Where are you headed with this post? Trying to compare a small desktop form factor with that of a laptop? Questioning the price difference? What?

 

[QCassidy352]

whoa, desktops with similar specs to laptops are way cheaper!!

.... it's been true since laptops were invented and will continue to be true probably forever. So what?

 

[MacRumorsReader]

Desktop.... Laptop

While I realize that you are trying to show how cool it can be to get Core Duo power in a desktop machine let me point out a missing fact: You already have Core Duo power in a Desktop machine, it's called the Dual G5.

Now, the mini is a cooler version of that implementation but it lacks video RAM.

I've been saying all along that it was very smart of Apple to play this transition the way they did. First move the G4 product to intel and proclaim "My Goodness! Look it how super fast things are now!". But really, all they have done is get G5 power where they wanted G5 power.

When intel sends out their next batch of chips, they will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% faster than the Core Duo. What does that mean to us? The intel implementation into the tower machine will not have the same dramatic increases.

So imagine if Apple hadn't transition the way they had. We'd all be up in arms and chanting "AMD! AMD! AMD!" They couldn't've waited to transition because then the incentive for universal apps wouldn't've been there. They would have been releasing towers that were only 25% faster with no native support.

"Buy our new Desktops. 25% faster than the old ones and non universal apps run like crap!"

By moving their "old" G4 product into line, in terms of speed, with their G5 product and causing a buying "frenzy", if you will, they are trying to tell software manufacturers that "You'd better be ready." At the same time they are finding out which software vendors don't care (e.g Adobe "We'll get there when we get there" ).

 

[Josias]

I just wanna find out if it was possiblre to make a mini as goidd as a 17" MBP for lot less $$! After buying the Mini, you will have more than 2K to buy the new HDD, the 2.16 GHz Core Duo, the X1600 and a maxed out screen. Perhaps you should take a 20" ACD, same resolution, and around same specs as 17" MBP screen.

 

[Chundles]

You can't put an x1600 into a mini. It's impossible.

As far as everything else goes - I think it can be done. But why would you want to?

 

[QCassidy352]

You can't put an x1600 into a mini. It's impossible.

As far as everything else goes - I think it can be done. But why would you want to?

well, it would be a pretty sweet little mac. Though the integrated graphics can never be upgraded, so that sucks. And although I think it would be an awesome mini, i'm not sure where the appeal is in matching it to a 17" MBP... i'd just enjoy it for its own awesomeness, not because it's equivalent to another mac.

 

[balamw]

I just wanna find out if it was possiblre to make a mini as goidd as a 17" MBP for lot less $$!

Personally, I concluded that the best value for a Core Duo Mac is currently the iMac. The stock $1699 20" vs. the $2499 15" 2.0 GHz, or the $1299 17" vs. the $1999 15" MBP. Either way you save over $700, and get a faster performing desktop.

In terms of raw performance/price, you can't come close to it with a mini. Particularly by the time you add the CPU, faster hard drive, .... Shame too since I was originally planning on buying the mini. Just as you could upgrade the CPU in the mini to 2.16, you would have a better shot at it in an iMac, but you'd have a faster, larger HD and non-integrated video.

B

 

[Josias]

Oh right, iMac. I had just figured Mini would be cheaper even with the extra stuff, but yeah. I just tried to find a matching machine, but since the iMac has up 5 times bigger HDD at 7.200 rpm., it was a little superior. If you bought a 20" iMac with 256 MB VRAM and 2 GB RAM, it would be $2074 vs. $3099 for the 17" MBP with the same specs. The onyl differences are: MBP is 160 MHz faster (HA, miserable difference ), and the iMac has 250 GB 7.200 rpm. vs. 100 GB, 7.200 rpm. Of course the iMac's screen is bigger, but they have same res. and you sit a bit further from the iMac, so here you can save a good deal of $1025 on buying a cool 20" iMac instead of an also very cool 17" MBP.

 

[dr_lha]

Why not compare the 17" iMac to the 17" MacBook Pro.

Same screen size, close CPU speed, very similar graphics, yet $1500 less!

F*** that, next time I fly I'm taking an iMac on the plane with me!

 

[tnbizcards]

Go for the iMac

I just went through heck with my Duo Mini, after having it a month the Airport went terminally. Had it repaired at my Apple Store and they decided to replace it with a new logic board, since they said with the antenna it just wasn't working. Then I came back, they gave me a new one, that one was also bad. Then I went back again the next morning, before the store opened (they had a class). I luckily got the same manager I dealt with the previous day, and he gave me a GREAT Deal on an iMac 17 in. I just love it and the anntenna is at full strength. Good Luck!