No, the 2005 Mini was the best value - As much power as the PowerBooks of the time for 330 quid. I wish Apple could put a i7 in the Mini and sell it for 330 quid/$499. But they wont.
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.
Next mac mini
- Thread starter chris98vf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, the 2005 Mini was the best value - As much power as the PowerBooks of the time for 330 quid. I wish Apple could put a i7 in the Mini and sell it for 330 quid/$499. But they wont.
for a i7 in a mini unibody ..no chance even underclocked the i7 would melt the internals inside this mall case uless apple fits a very effective wind tunnel fan on the outside to cool the unibody case
hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper since the days of the G4 1.5 ghz mini , and wasn't that the reason apple had chosen to go intel because intel was cheaper then PPC , there is no argument , a bit faster hardware or a fancy box and apple can make big profits ,
customers are happy anyway and apples customers usually have no relation to money anyway
the dell zino which offers more , esata ports hdmi, blueray and a nice thing a proper sata3.5 inch hdd ,very similar performance ,and far easier to upgrade ,just way better value for money ,
the only downside is no OSX really
and thats the only argument that speaks for the apple mini it offers OSX , otherwise the iMac even a older one offers more value for money
btw hdmi works on a G4 mini too just needs a dvi to hdmi cable thats all
hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper since the days of the G4 1.5 ghz mini , and wasn't that the reason apple had chosen to go intel because intel was cheaper then PPC , there is no argument , a bit faster hardware or a fancy box and apple can make big profits ,
customers are happy anyway and apples customers usually have no relation to money anyway
the dell zino which offers more , esata ports hdmi, blueray and a nice thing a proper sata3.5 inch hdd ,very similar performance ,and far easier to upgrade ,just way better value for money ,
the only downside is no OSX really
and thats the only argument that speaks for the apple mini it offers OSX , otherwise the iMac even a older one offers more value for money
btw hdmi works on a G4 mini too just needs a dvi to hdmi cable thats all
Last edited:
Just not true, I'm sorry. The Mac Mini in 2005 had a G4, C2D destroys that CPU(not to mention the GPU performance).
Even the Core Solo(or Core Duo) just don't stand up to the C2D Mac Mini of today. Each generation Apple loves to tell us "CPU is 20% faster" or "GPU is 3x the speed!" And while a lot of that is marketing, the real world difference between the G4 Mini and the C2D Mini is huge
err Im pretty sure he was referring to "if we take the Mac Mini for what it was at introduction in 2005 compared to the models then and do a similar comparison now, you see the original mac mini was better value than the current one, not my much, but it still was due to it sharing a CPU with the PowerBooks of the time (Todays Mac Mini vs Current MBP - not as close as then, but still similar)"
Anyone have any idea's what the next mini will look like? I'm really hoping on a Core i3,i5,i7 option instead of the Core 2 Duo. I would like to get one as a 2nd mac but don't want to deal with the Duo. A bigger hdd would be nice too but I'm sure that's a given. Any upcoming Apple Media events?
They just gave it a redesign, so it's safe to say that it'll look exactly the same externally for both the normal and server models. I'd say that if Sandy Bridge's IGP has support for OpenCL, then we'll see an i3 or an i5 in the mini with that for graphics. Otherwise, we'll see another round of (marginally faster) Core 2 Duo and the NVIDIA GeForce 320M. Same exact prediction goes for the white MacBook for the exact same reasons.
OpenCL will be the dealbreaker. If Intel doesn't have that in tow in Sandy Bridge's IGP, Apple likely won't adopt them as they've invested so much into it.
There IS a difference between your iMac's Core 2 Duo, which is from the Merom family, and the Core 2 Duo currently in the Mac mini, which is from the Penryn family. It's not much, but it is a generational difference.
Wrong, the Early 2006 iMac (which you and I both have) had a Core Duo, while the Late 2006 iMac used the exact same logic board but with a Core 2 Duo. That particular Core 2 Duo, Merom, is only 10% faster than the Core Duo that we have, Yonah, and is 64-bit capable. Otherwise the two are practically similar.
Doubtful, the average has upped in recent years anyway. My guess is that we'll see it in March.
Fusion is actually slower than Core 2 Duo. It's only 90% the speed of AMD's original Athlon 64 processor. It's also more geared to Netbooks. AMD's other APUs do sound interesting, but it'll be a while before we see one fit for non-Netbook notebooks and, therefore, the Mac mini.
I'm the same way, the PC tower I'm building will have a Phenom II X4 and with one or two exceptions, every PC desktop I've owned has had an AMD processor and I've loved it. Though unfortunately, most of their tech is behind Intel's (Pre-Sandy Bridge) Core i architecture and is more on par with what we and it won't be given its long due refresh until later in the year than Apple will be refreshing the computers that need it most. On the bright side, AMD's chips are substantially cheaper, and even if we only crossgraded in terms of performance, it could result in a cheaper Mac.
Your logic makes no sense at all. The Mac mini currently has an HDMI port, giving it HDTV capabilities.
I'm skeptical about the SSD, but you never know. This could be the year that Apple decides that every Mac should have the option of SSD, whether it be a 2.5" drive or a MacBook Air style blade SSD. End of March is likely. Core i3 isn't likely unless the IGP with Sandy Bridge is to have some sort of OpenCL support.
How do you figure that it was a step backwards? It is definitely their fastest Mac mini to date. As for the 2011 mini being faster, it'll definitely be faster. It'll only be a question of how much faster.
I don't think Apple knew what was going to happen as their gamble on NVIDIA chipsets was seriously in question at the time with the whole Intel/NVIDIA dispute. I think they knew that the GeForce 320M (with a Core 2 Duo chip) was a cow they could milk for a generation or two, but I'm sure that with options like that, AMD, and the potential for a future Intel IGP (with a Core i chip) that actually meets the expectations set by the 320M.
If by most expensive Mac mini, then I'll agree with you. Otherwise, I am not sure where you get that from.
It really depends on a lot of things. For one, the Mac mini was last refreshed in June 2010, so it could be anywhere from March to early June before we see a refresh. If what we're getting in the next refresh is another round of Intel Core 2 Duo and NVIDIA GeForce 320M, you're safe buying one now as the next one won't be all that different. If you can wait, waiting is only borderlining on silly right now. If we're getting some flavor of Core i3 or Core i5, waiting might be prudent. Tough call. I'd say if you can find one refurbished on Apple's online store, just get it and be done with it. Otherwise, weigh the pros and cons and decide accordingly.
I just bought a Refurbished Mac mini Server (Mid 2010; current generation) and pending the arrival of my Time Machine drive, I'll RAID 0 the two drives into a 1TB volume and run Snow Leopard Client and it'll replace the iMac I have in my signature. For $850, and for it replacing said iMac which cost me more than double that, I won't have buyer's remorse when the Mac mini gets updated in the next few months, not even if we see Sandy Bridge inside.
Thanks for the quick reply. That was actually my plan of attack, 2010 Mac Mini server, and at some point a time get a Time Capsule or some other NAS device.
It's really a great deal, especially when its refurbished. I'm getting an external (5.25" form factor) LG DVD burner, which (and I've done the math) is faster even when hooked in via USB than what the non-Server mini has with its internal optical drive. Certainly tons more reliable. More storage, more reliability with regards to the optical drive. It's gonna be a sweet set-up if I do say so myself!
Yebubbleman. Late 09 Mini was 2.53Ghz. Mid 2010 Mini has same CPU except slower @ 2.4Ghz. Also has less RAM pre-installed and slower SuperDrive. Personally I prefer improved performance to redesigns and performance going backwards. So after the 2010 Mini went backwards one would hope the 2011 mini will be a good step forwards.
Wrong! The higher-end CPU on the Late 2009 mini was a 2.53GHz. The higher-end CPU on the Mid 2010 mini is a 2.66GHz. Same speed superdrive (I don't know where you get the speed difference from there). Same RAM preinstalled. Basically the base model of Mac mini (Mid 2010) is the step up from the low-end model Mac mini (Late 2009), and the higher-end Mac mini (Late 2009) is succeeded by the Mac mini (Mid 2010) with customizations like the faster CPU, increased RAM. Also the Mid 2010 has a faster Chipset/IGP with the GeForce 320M, which brings increased performance all around by virtue of being the system chipset. It's about as major of a step forward as we're gonna get while we're still using a Penryn processor.
This was available in a standard config.
Not available in a standard config.
Macworld's Handbrake numbers showed that it was significantly faster on both the 09 models vs the 2010 model. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the DVD drive was the culprit.
4GB was preinstalled on the 2.53Ghz Mini. The 2.4Ghz Mini has 2GB installed.
Well it replaced both models and in Aus was originally priced not to far off what the 2.53Ghz machine had been.
That's still not a stock model.
Maybe I was being overly harsh, but different performance numbers matter more than others to different people.
The point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was that from a performance perspective the Mid 2010 was a disappointment and that I'd expect that the redesign having been done on the 2010 model, I'd expect the Mid 2011 update to give a good performance update.
Man, nitpicking much? So you had to customize it at Apple's online store, BIG FREAKIN DEAL! Point is that it was available; who cares if Apple offered it as a standard channel config?
Link it. I've read the Macworld review of the new mini and saw no mention of it there.
Again, the lower-end model in Late 2009 also came with 2GB installed, you don't have a higher-end model currently, but all of the options for it are available on Apple's online store.
They charged in between what the 2.26 model cost and what the 2.53 model cost for a 2.4 model. Makes perfect sense to me. Could it have been cheaper? Absolutely, but at least numerically, it makes sense as is. They had a rad 2.66 GHz CPU w/ 4GB of RAM option if you buy it from Apple's online store.
Again, DOES IT REALLY MATTER? YOU CAN ORDER A FASTER-THAN-STOCK MAC MINI ONLINE!!!
Again, I've yet to see those numbers. Every other review I've read of the 2010 minis rave about them as being an improvement in every way save for price of the lowest base model.
Again, it was a speed bump, which you are somehow failing to see. It wasn't Core i3 or Core i5. Bummer. Given that we stuck with Core 2 Duo on this one, I'd say it wasn't that terrible of an upgrade for what it was.
Have a read of http://www.macworld.com/article/151349/2010/06/macmini_mid2010.html
There is stuff about Handbrake, and there is reference to the DVD drive being the problem in the comments.
Anything in those comments is completely unreliable. Even if its by an expert, which its likely not to be, it takes 5 seconds to write nonsense. The DVD Drive is EXACTLY the same as the older Mini, thus whoever came up with that is talking rubbish if they claim its any worse than the previous model.
wrong the dvd player is different;
******************************************************
the 2010 has this one
hitachi pos
http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/14InY6khhjbR6xYu.huge
******************************************************************************************
the 2009 sometimes had this one
pioneer
http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/S3kP6LHWKDV1eIZf.huge
the 2009 also has a sony player looking for a photo better then below
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4955&d=1254772201
Attachments
Last edited:
The quoted specification remains the same. The internals dont matter, they are the same speed.
the specs are the same does not mean they are the exact same player.
try returning a hitachi item to sony for repair.
try returning a hitachi item to pioneer for repair.
that dvd player is known to be troublesome .
just google it and read about defects. in this case you are wrong. just admit it and get over it.
I will edit this just a bit of the three dvd drives {after spending about 30 minutes on google} the Hitachi may not rank last the sony got quite a few complaints. The pioneer was most liked. All three have the same specs.
the hitachi may need the correct firmware to eliminate rip stop feature. when rip stop feature is used by hitachi it slows handbrake a lot. there was a firmware on dells website that may or may not correct rip stop with macs. Of course if you don't use hand brake the new dvd should be okay.
try returning a hitachi item to sony for repair.
try returning a hitachi item to pioneer for repair.
that dvd player is known to be troublesome .
just google it and read about defects. in this case you are wrong. just admit it and get over it.
I will edit this just a bit of the three dvd drives {after spending about 30 minutes on google} the Hitachi may not rank last the sony got quite a few complaints. The pioneer was most liked. All three have the same specs.
the hitachi may need the correct firmware to eliminate rip stop feature. when rip stop feature is used by hitachi it slows handbrake a lot. there was a firmware on dells website that may or may not correct rip stop with macs. Of course if you don't use hand brake the new dvd should be okay.
Last edited:
Im not going to admit im wrong, because im not. If the specification is the same, the drive should give similar performance, whichever manufacturer makes it. And in fact because their OEM parts you need to return them to Apple for repair over the drive manufacturer, as its part of a built-computer, but nevermind.
the key word is " should " give similar performance.
go back to spring of 2009 and see what happened with the seagate 500gb 2.5 inch 7200 rpm hdd.
compare how reliable it was to the hitachi 500gb 2.5 inch 7200 rpm hdd specs were close yet the seagate had a 30 percent failure rate in less then 6 months of use compared to hitachi 5% failure rate. my flaw in the argument is the hitachi dvd in the new mini actually works pretty well. and the rip stop feature is supposed to help it last longer. in the case of hand brake there is a big speed reduction and in the case of longterm reliability well time will tell. I was only trying to point out the players were not the same. your point about specs has merit.
Last edited:
HDDs and DVD Drives are rather different, so I fail to see how that pertains to SuperDrives.
Weird about Handbrake, though I guess it'd make sense if the DVD player were still faulty, which I'm in doubt of. Though if it becomes an issue, I'd expect Apple to create a Repair Extension Program for it; they're pretty good about doing that sort of thing after enough people have a problem with it. Still, unless that drive finds its way, assuming claims against it are accurate, and unless it finds its way into either a current or forthcoming MacBook Pro, I can rest easy that I dodged a bullet by getting the server model Mac mini (which I'll run with SL client and use as a normal Mac) and an external optical drive.
What I'm really hoping for is a discrete video card with a decent ram size option and a standard 7200 rpm drive. Those two elements are what stays my hand right now.
I think if the next mini ends up anywhere close to a 3.2 i3 option with a tb drive and a stand alone video card (hell, I'd want an option to replace the optical drive with the video card), I will probably by buying one.
I think if the next mini ends up anywhere close to a 3.2 i3 option with a tb drive and a stand alone video card (hell, I'd want an option to replace the optical drive with the video card), I will probably by buying one.
I think if the next mini ends up anywhere close to a 3.2 i3 option with a tb drive and a stand alone video card (hell, I'd want an option to replace the optical drive with the video card), I will probably by buying one.[/QUOTE]
Currently, you can get a Mac mini with 1TB of storage on 7200RPM drives, though it's in the form of two 500GB 7200RPM drives, and it's the server model. But it's not like you can't use the server model as a normal Mac mini running Snow Leopard Client. That's what I'm doing sometime this week. A Core i3 would only make sense were it a Sandy Bridge Core i3. An Arrandale i3 really isn't worth sacrificing the GeForce 320M for. And as for the discrete GPU, they'd have to increase the total volume of the Mac mini to really be able to put in a large enough logic board to have a discrete GPU, and knowing Apple, it's unlikely. I'd say either it'll either be a faster Core 2 Duo and another round of GeForce 320M or a Sandy Bridge i3/i5 with the new Intel IGP.