That's different then. I would never recommend a Hack for someone whose income is dependent on the computer, meaning that the computer must be as reliable as possible. Those can usually afford the Mac Pro as well.
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.
Why is the Mac mini so expensive?
- Thread starter matt3839
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's different then. I would never recommend a Hack for someone whose income is dependent on the computer, meaning that the computer must be as reliable as possible. Those can usually afford the Mac Pro as well.
the mini is a entry level Mac , and while its popular and apple is refusing to top up the prices on the iMac's they compensate by topping up the price on the mini frequently with every refresh , and the excuse that its more powerful now then it was when the mini was first released does not count for me , the iMacs did get more powerful too and the price since the first iMac has even dropped (base models )
2005 Mac mini G4 1.25 ghz : $499
2010 Mac mini c2d 2.4 ghz :$699
while the
1997 iMac g3 233mhz :1299
2010 iMac 21.5 core i3 3.06ghz :1199
so while the iMac in 13 years got even 100 dollar cheaper
the mini got within 5 years a 200 dollars more expensive and cost now more then half the price of a iMac and i even did not took into account the inflation of the dollar, but i'm sure you all understand the mini is cheap , think of it , you get less that could break , no display, no keyboard, no mouse and the mini weights less and is smaller too , and you get hardware thats a couple years behind the iMac's and you save $500
so now you got prove the mini is cheaper then a iMac , what more do you need
2005 Mac mini G4 1.25 ghz : $499
2010 Mac mini c2d 2.4 ghz :$699
while the
1997 iMac g3 233mhz :1299
2010 iMac 21.5 core i3 3.06ghz :1199
so while the iMac in 13 years got even 100 dollar cheaper
the mini got within 5 years a 200 dollars more expensive and cost now more then half the price of a iMac and i even did not took into account the inflation of the dollar, but i'm sure you all understand the mini is cheap , think of it , you get less that could break , no display, no keyboard, no mouse and the mini weights less and is smaller too , and you get hardware thats a couple years behind the iMac's and you save $500
so now you got prove the mini is cheaper then a iMac , what more do you need
Last edited:
For many tasks, "a smaller package" is usability, more than any hopped up spec in the machine itself is. For example, I've often considered the Mac Mini potentially the ideal machine for lab-bench work connected to a cluster - where the small footprint and enough powerful that it's stronger than a dumb terminal but isn't expected to do spec-intensive stuff on its own - is ideal.
Or for myriad other uses where you don't want a several foot *tower* worth of computer, and don't need it to handle the tasks at hand.
Why do you have peripherals but no actual computer? Most people just sell their old computer, (monitor, keyboard, and mouse included,) when they buy a new one. I'd suggest you do you the same and get the iMac. It's the best value out there right now.
If you don't want to believe that then build your hackintosh. I have yet to find a better way to sell an Apple branded computer then to let someone build a hackintosh.
Personally, I think the Mini is hideously overpriced. I mean, seriously... but hey. It's a free market. People wanna buy it? Up to them.
It's very small, it's very pretty, it's very quiet and, now that there's an HDMI socket, the connectivity's not bad - and that's enough for some folks. But don't expect £612's-worth of computing power, because you won't get it. You're paying, in large part, for its design. Which, yes, is very groovy.
That you're even asking the question, OP, makes me think it's not for you.
It's very small, it's very pretty, it's very quiet and, now that there's an HDMI socket, the connectivity's not bad - and that's enough for some folks. But don't expect £612's-worth of computing power, because you won't get it. You're paying, in large part, for its design. Which, yes, is very groovy.
That you're even asking the question, OP, makes me think it's not for you.
Nah, it's not really for me; if anything I generally dislike all of Apple's product lines. But it's still the cheapest way to get an OS X box. And as of yet, hackintosh builds are still pretty meh.
Still looking for a really nice deal on a used mini, but for now I'm just focusing on my new custom build. It's all a matter of patience.
well.....it is, technically, considering the open source portions of OS X's underlying technology are from FreeBSD, which began in the nineties.
My peripherals are very new though, my mechanical keyboard (a gift, before somebody stabs me about the price) isn't even a month old.
Also, I don't like selling old equipment unless I have absolutely no use for it. My old Dell Optiplex tower is kicking along nicely as a FreeNAS box.
Last edited by a moderator:
well.....it is, technically, considering the open source portions of OS X's underlying technology are from FreeBSD, which began in the nineties.
Actually its based in the 80s - (The Mach Kernel on which its actually based was developed at Carnegie Mellon from 1985 onwards), although if you want to be really technical you could say OS Xs roots are in the 70s with the Original BSD Project... but Windows is still definitely based on technology from 1835....
My old Dell Optiplex tower is kicking along nicely as a FreeNAS box.
That says it all about why you asked the question. Old Dell Optiplex... eugh, at least your not running Windows Server on it
. (Im sorry, but having supported them for a while, I slowly came to hate them, especially anything Beige or anything marked 210L...)I just don't like throwing out all hardware; I'll probably make a new NAS when it craps out. Windows Server doesn't run well on it at all, though if it did that would be fantastic. It's a wimpy 1.2GHz machine though so at most it's useful as a mail/file server. And thank goodness I don't have to look at it, because I love big tower cases and all that and even I think it's hideous.Actually its based in the 80s - (The Mach Kernel on which its actually based was developed at Carnegie Mellon from 1985 onwards), although if you want to be really technical you could say OS Xs roots are in the 70s with the Original BSD Project... but Windows is still definitely based on technology from 1835....
That says it all about why you asked the question. Old Dell Optiplex... eugh, at least your not running Windows Server on it
I do agree on the Windows thing though; I seriously hope Windows 8 is written from scratch with minimal legacy code. That they're making an ARM branch shows promise!
I just don't like throwing out all hardware; I'll probably make a new NAS when it craps out. Windows Server doesn't run well on it at all, though if it did that would be fantastic. It's a wimpy 1.2GHz machine though so at most it's useful as a mail/file server. And thank goodness I don't have to look at it, because I love big tower cases and all that and even I think it's hideous.
I do agree on the Windows thing though; I seriously hope Windows 8 is written from scratch with minimal legacy code. That they're making an ARM branch shows promise!
And it shows that perhaps finally someone in upper management there has realised that theyve been uninnovative for a decade and its catching up. Fast. Im still going ot be using my Macs over Windows machines though - they are so much less likely to just go "ummm NO" when Im doing something
I've used Windows 7 heavily before and it feels rock solid, never once had a crash, freeze (caused by Windows), blue screen or infection with it. I still prefer Debian and derivatives for regular use though.
Sadly thats not been my experience on my HP Tablet PC - It BSODs if you leave it after it goes to deep sleep (Some Driver issue I havent had the time to fix as its a 10 Minute Regular H/Ware Issue), and it also has done this while in OneNote 2010 - for reasons I am unsure of as it was a different BSOD.
just for the records the alternative to the mini is the dell zino (not the base model which some people take as benchmark when they compare it with the mini to make sure the mini wins )
Dell Zino HD 410 also offers the option of a built-in Blu-ray player, which you can't get from Apple at any price. 2.0 ghz AMD Phenom II X3 triple-core processor, 6GB of memory, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB graphics card !! ,750gb 3.5"Hdd and Blu-ray comes out at £579
compared to the mini which comes with 2.4 ghzCore 2 Duo (P8600) ,2 gb ram DDR3,GeForce 320M 256mb shared graphics 320gb 2.5 " hdd for £612
so the zino offers equal if not better hardware for less money , at least the graphics card gives the zino a big plus in the book and if you spend £10 more then the mini then you even get a 1.8ghz phenom x4, a proper quad core processor in the zino , and the zino is easier to upgrade too
comparing will be allowed now that all Mac's have PC internals , in the PPC days when officially the hardware was more expensive so apple could justify the price , one reason why apple made the transition was intel was cheaper , so the Mac mini G4 was way cheaper with more expensive hardware inside then the core 2 duo mini is today
so the question is if you ignore the design for a moment : do you need OSX or can you live with windows 7 or linux ubuntu
blueray support in linux is tricky due to drm , which means linux has no right to play a blueray movie from the shop , but you can download an burn a movie to blueray and then watch it even with the old feisty ubuntu (thats version 7 ,but ubuntu is on version 10 by now )
ok i am biased towards OSX and Mac's, but no Mac mini sorry , it just offers middle class hardware for high price compared to other Mac's on offer, so for me in my opinion apple would have a winner on its hand that could sell millions more and make profits when apple would drop the price according hardware used to about £400 , but they cant do that because that would upset owners of older models who payed even more to receive less in terms of hardware
Dell Zino HD 410 also offers the option of a built-in Blu-ray player, which you can't get from Apple at any price. 2.0 ghz AMD Phenom II X3 triple-core processor, 6GB of memory, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB graphics card !! ,750gb 3.5"Hdd and Blu-ray comes out at £579
compared to the mini which comes with 2.4 ghzCore 2 Duo (P8600) ,2 gb ram DDR3,GeForce 320M 256mb shared graphics 320gb 2.5 " hdd for £612
so the zino offers equal if not better hardware for less money , at least the graphics card gives the zino a big plus in the book and if you spend £10 more then the mini then you even get a 1.8ghz phenom x4, a proper quad core processor in the zino , and the zino is easier to upgrade too
comparing will be allowed now that all Mac's have PC internals , in the PPC days when officially the hardware was more expensive so apple could justify the price , one reason why apple made the transition was intel was cheaper , so the Mac mini G4 was way cheaper with more expensive hardware inside then the core 2 duo mini is today
so the question is if you ignore the design for a moment : do you need OSX or can you live with windows 7 or linux ubuntu
blueray support in linux is tricky due to drm , which means linux has no right to play a blueray movie from the shop , but you can download an burn a movie to blueray and then watch it even with the old feisty ubuntu (thats version 7 ,but ubuntu is on version 10 by now )
ok i am biased towards OSX and Mac's, but no Mac mini sorry , it just offers middle class hardware for high price compared to other Mac's on offer, so for me in my opinion apple would have a winner on its hand that could sell millions more and make profits when apple would drop the price according hardware used to about £400 , but they cant do that because that would upset owners of older models who payed even more to receive less in terms of hardware
Last edited:
Eugh, HP products are terrible; they're the main reason I build my own computers, and most of my Mac-using acquaintances made a switch.
I JUST went through trying to build a small profile PC, which is exactly what the Mac Mini caters to, it was actually really difficult to get much cheaper than the Mac Mini.
Simply comparing any PC box to a Mac Mini is apples and oranges. They are two different markets.
My biggest issue was the price difference between trying to get small, silent parts that will still stay cool in a mini ITX, and even then you are talking about a good amount of sound from the necessary airflow.
Best I could make for around $800 was a 3.2 core i3 using the built in video with a tb hard drive in a mini ITX. It wasn't a world of performance difference from the 2.66ghz mini. Just building a run of the mill windows box you could build an i7 with a stand alone video card, but you are way outside the desire for a quiet and small profile.
Kinda depends on your needs really.
** As a side note, I've never heard of someone buying a Zino and it running flawlessly in the long run.
Simply comparing any PC box to a Mac Mini is apples and oranges. They are two different markets.
My biggest issue was the price difference between trying to get small, silent parts that will still stay cool in a mini ITX, and even then you are talking about a good amount of sound from the necessary airflow.
Best I could make for around $800 was a 3.2 core i3 using the built in video with a tb hard drive in a mini ITX. It wasn't a world of performance difference from the 2.66ghz mini. Just building a run of the mill windows box you could build an i7 with a stand alone video card, but you are way outside the desire for a quiet and small profile.
Kinda depends on your needs really.
** As a side note, I've never heard of someone buying a Zino and it running flawlessly in the long run.
You make a decent point, but again, the reason I am looking for a mini is because it is the cheapest, the form factor of the machine has nothing to do with it. All I want is the operating system, the other features do not really pique my interest much.
They might well be, but I needed a Tablet PC, and its uncrashable if I dont let it put itself past "sleep". Building a Tablet Laptop is something I didnt have the time or inclination to do, especially when I have my lovely collection of Macs to do just about everything else.
Well, since hackintoshing is a real pain you have 2 choices - hackintosh, or buy a Mac Mini and learn to live with the fact that aesthetic beauty and hardware/software integration costs.
Having installed Gentoo Linux from stage 1, I doubt hackintoshing will be much trouble at all.
I'm just worried about losing any major features but I'm not sure if I'll need them. A bit of a tough decision.Having installed Gentoo Linux from stage 1, I doubt hackintoshing will be much trouble at all.
Well depending on your hardware, you can lose important things like Wi-Fi and even Sound
- And installing Linux doesnt make you super-qualified at computers, just to let you know (pah. Text based installer. Big-deal. Try persuading IRIX to install on a bodged drive inside a not-quite-so-OEM SGI box... , although UNIX/LINUX knowledge may well help you in hackintoshing)I've done much more advanced stuff than that, it was just a common example, but being able to get stuff done the hard way is an extremely vital tool in computing when you're trying to make code work the the way it's not intended to.Well depending on your hardware, you can lose important things like Wi-Fi and even Sound
So I am not a computer guru or anything but I have built 5 or 6 PC's, worked with a number of versions of Windows, Ubuntu, SUSE and RedHat, and FreeNAS and have supported a large group of family and friends over the years.
Frankly, I'm over it. There is definitely some satisfaction building a machine and making it work. But as I have gotten older, the time spent building and then the issue resolution (performance, bugs, driver conflicts, you name it) is just too great. There is always an issue to figure out when I have a proposal due or something.
For ME, it is not worth it. $200 extra to get a very solid system, OS and great overall experience is worth it. I think I am in the majority.
I have an AMD X3 with 4 GB Ram with Win 7 that I am using as my desktop right now and when the next iMac's come out, it is gone. It cost me less than $500 to build and I will replace it with a $1700+ system. It will be worth it.
Frankly, I'm over it. There is definitely some satisfaction building a machine and making it work. But as I have gotten older, the time spent building and then the issue resolution (performance, bugs, driver conflicts, you name it) is just too great. There is always an issue to figure out when I have a proposal due or something.
For ME, it is not worth it. $200 extra to get a very solid system, OS and great overall experience is worth it. I think I am in the majority.
I have an AMD X3 with 4 GB Ram with Win 7 that I am using as my desktop right now and when the next iMac's come out, it is gone. It cost me less than $500 to build and I will replace it with a $1700+ system. It will be worth it.
I've done much more advanced stuff than that, it was just a common example, but being able to get stuff done the hard way is an extremely vital tool in computing when you're trying to make code work the the way it's not intended to.
Nice to meet another coder who (if youre anything like me at least) spends far too much time persuading the coding tools to do things they werent always designed to do - (Maintaining software for IRIX was an entertaining experience, as well as driving me up several proverbial walls) - In that case youll be fine hackintoshing so long as you check the hardware (Because losing Sound or WiFi definitely sucks).
I've seen a few databases online with lists of parts that are compatible with hacked OS X, so it shouldn't be too hard.
I just bought and built a PC and the cost for an Intel i3 came to about $590 w/ Win7 Pro. that didn't include keyboard or monitor. I know that some PC's are cheaper, but you really are getting the bottom of the barrel with the cheap brands. The Mac Mini was never designed to be a power house and it works great for my needs. I just sold my old Mac Mini Intel 2006 for $350 & paid $599 for it.
No, it probably isnt, just be warned for anything more than messing about (Serious Mac App Coding for a Commercial Business, get a Mac, just to save any possible headaches and to get support from Apple).
I just bought and built a PC and the cost for an Intel i3 came to about $590 w/ Win7 Pro. that didn't include keyboard or monitor. I know that some PC's are cheaper, but you really are getting the bottom of the barrel with the cheap brands. The Mac Mini was never designed to be a power house and it works great for my needs. I just sold my old Mac Mini Intel 2006 for $350 & paid $599 for it.
That's why I don't buy from the cheap brands; if I need components they're usually from great brands like MSI, OCZ and ASUS. More expensive but I'd rather pay twice as much for components that last ten times longer.
And yeah, I know it's not supposed to be a powerhouse, but it's pretty disappointing how much they sacrifice to get it into such a tiny case.
I doubt I'll be doing anything commercial on it so that's not going to be an issue, and it's going to be using a wired connection so Wi-Fi is unnecessary as well. If I'm going to be coding it's probably going to be for free and open source programs for OS X.