123Macmini.com
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   GalleryPhoto Gallery   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Apple Updates Mac mini
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dan__
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Texark wrote:
Who is Apple kidding here? The price of the Mac mini should have fallen at least $100 if they are going to continue using the Core Duo. I'm very disappointed!


I'm disappointed too. The lower bump is pretty good, and a nice improvement. But I'm bummed by the lack of the increased speed and 64 bit capability that could have been had at the same price point, by moving to Merom.

Prices of components have fallen in the 8 months or so since the Intel introduction, so more could easily have been done.

Quote:
[http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MjA4NDEsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=]
The Core 2 Duo T5500 and the Core 2 Duo T5600, entry-level offerings in Intel's upcoming Merom notebook CPU line, will respectively be priced at US$209 and US$241


Same prices as the original chips. It's hard to find out what the new chips go for.

I'd have looked for a 2MB cache Merom processor in at least the upper model. The lower model looks ok, but I would have liked if the existing model, or a quicker solo was able to make it into a sub $500 model.

Also, I'd like to have seen the drive sizes boosted - to 80 and 100MB - at the current prices.

Very disappointed.

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
g5g5
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2767
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Re: modest Reply with quote

247 Photography wrote:
I've noticed that Intel now has a new low-power variant of the core duo at 1.83 GHz, the L2500. I'm guessing that this is what they are using in the Mini, not the T2400. I wouldn't expect any processor upgrade other than this without changes to the Mini for better cooling.


I thought about that, but you got to figure the mini's cooling system is sufficient enough when compared to other Merom laptops out there. If cooling was the major issue you got to wonder about the MacBook Pros and MacBooks. Oh no the G5 syndrome again! Time to switch back to PPC. Wink
_________________
1.25GHz Mac Mini / 1.8GHz iMac G5 / 2.0GHz C2D Mac mini (2009)
4GB iPod mini / 2G iPod shuffle / 16GB iPhone 3G
Apple TV 2
iLife's a Bitch!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
max
New Member
New Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't really understand why the top spec Mac Mini requires the L2500 processor. The quoted power of the T2400 is 31W the same as the the 1.66GHz T2300, while the other L Core Duos have a power of 15W (the L2500 doesn't seem to have appeared yet on Intel's processor specifications list). The Mac Mini doesn't seem to run as hot as the MacBook so I don't see why it needs the low power option.

Anecdotal evidence from those who have upgraded the processor in their Minis seems to indicate that a higher speed chip doesn't significantly affect the Mini's temperature.

My suspicion is that Apple has gone with the T2400 as it is the cheaper option and there is really no need to decrease the power by such a degree.

Of course, once people start taking the new Minis apart I could be proved completely wrong!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
247 Photography
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 875
Location: Oakland, CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: L processors Reply with quote

max wrote:
I don't really understand why the top spec Mac Mini requires the L2500 processor.


All of the intel Minis have come with L processors, which are rated at half the power (15W) of the T processors. The fact that some people have put T processors in their Mini without apparent problems doesn't impress me. I'm sure that Apple engineers designed the Mini assuming it would contain an L processor, and would do things a little differently if they used a T processor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 2684
Location: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm getting confused by this L and T business and it matters to me because I may be buying. Which did the first round of Intel minis have in it and which are we presuming the second round have? If I bought the lowest mini now and upgraded it to a Merom, would I be putting in a higher watt T?

As an aside, I'm now seriously considering an iMac over an Intel mini. I really wanted a headless model, but the difference between the two in performance and value is increasing enough to get my attention.
_________________
Mini 1 (2012): 2.3 ghz Core i7; 10 gb RAM, Corsair 240gb SSD, 500 gb Seagate XT
Mini 2 (2009): 2.26 ghz Core 2 duo, 8 gb RAM, 500 gb Seagate used as HTPC
Also a 13" MacBook Air, 21.5" i5 iMac & 11.6" Acer 1810TZ running Ubuntu & Manjaro
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sunspot
New Member
New Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OH NOOOO !!!!!! No more £30 Superdrive BTO on the cheaper Mini. You have to pay £529 if you want a superdrive in the mini... crap. Apple are so cheap lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
247 Photography
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 875
Location: Oakland, CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:08 pm    Post subject: processors Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Which did the first round of Intel minis have in it and which are we presuming the second round have?


L1300 1.50 GHz Solo
L2400 1.66 GHz Duo
L2500 1.83 GHz Duo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ecking
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bishopdonmiguel wrote:
Now that the $599 model is CD, it is very appealing for those not interested in extra HD space or the SuperDrive (I don't need either). So Apple just saved me $200 and I certainly appreciate that. Thanks, your Steveness. Very Happy


And if you need a superdrive later you can buy one from OWC or something so you actually have internal options, unlike the the macbook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heulenwolf
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: I'm sold Reply with quote

I've been eyeing the $600 model for some time but have been uncomfortable with the Core Solo when every other model of Mac now has a dual core. Now that the base model has a dual core, I'm sold.

The speed benefits of Core 2 Duo over Core Duo have been shown to be significant but not revolutionary. The feature benefits, 64-bit and hardware-based virtualization, would be largely wasted on the low-end market segment they're trying to appeal to. They've hit their target, which was to get people like me to pony up their dollars. I'm getting one as soon as I get back from my vacation (assuming I have any dollars left at that point).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ghris
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i know we're at appples mercy when it comes to pricing but i'm stoked! i was just about to get a solo and now it has two cores (and faster ones) SWEET! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FlintMic
New Member
New Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a shame that Apple keeps holding back the Mac mini. I guess the iMac will always be Steve J's baby, but it would be nice to see them expand the Mac mini's power and capabilities. This Mac mini update today was an absolute joke. All they did was pop in slightly faster chips that cost them less money than the ones they put in the original Intel Mac mini when it came out. I'll never ever ever buy an iMac, so I'm back on the fence. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CcAgan
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not happy with this update at all. And here is why.

a) disk capacity. If they sell you a 60gb ipod, you should have enough disk space on your mini for your OS, Apps, AND 60gb of data that you put on your ipod.

b) combo drive. What is up with the stinking combo drives? Again, I dont see where they are saving more than two bucks by using the combo drive. You would think that they would want a standard DVD-RW that would be found in their entire line with the exception of the Pro.

I am happy about several things regarding the mini.

a) Size. This thing is tiny, there is no doubt about it. Even using an external disk with it.. its still smaller than anything else on the market.

b) Price. I dont think the current configurations are correct, but I don't have any problems with the price points. Sure $100 off would put them in direct competition with dell low end systems, but this is apple we are talking about.

So all in all, this does not turn me away from apple, it does not turn me away from buying a mini, other than the fact that I realize that by the time I buy a mini, drop in a merom, 2gb of ram, change the disk drive out for 100+gb @ 7200 rpm... well, I am half way to a MacPro... and I have an Acer 24" monitor, so I have no desire to buy an iMac.. So for the time being my MacBook will continue to look like some strange creature on my desk with the 7 cords connected to one side of it.. Maybe I will make a nice stand for it, or a mount for the back of my monitor.
_________________
Macmini: 2.16 CD / 2GB / 8x DVD-RAM / 100GB @ 7200rpm
Mackbook Pro: 2.16 C2D / 2GB / 6x DL-SD / 120GB @ 5400rpm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Tenex
Veteran Member
Veteran Member


Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CcAgan wrote:
I have an Acer 24" monitor, so I have no desire to buy an iMac..


Why on earth not? The extended desktop would look great!
_________________
iMac intel CoreDuo 17" 1Gb
WD My Book Premium fw320Gb x2
Logitech S530, iPod Nano 2Gb

& a PPC Mini bought for my Mother
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacWaffler
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 459
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CcAgan wrote:
I am not happy with this update at all. And here is why.

a) disk capacity. If they sell you a 60gb ipod, you should have enough disk space on your mini for your OS, Apps, AND 60gb of data that you put on your ipod.

b) combo drive. What is up with the stinking combo drives? Again, I dont see where they are saving more than two bucks by using the combo drive. You would think that they would want a standard DVD-RW that would be found in their entire line with the exception of the Pro.


a) Perhaps they are assuming (and rightfully so) that the majority of the market buys smaller capacity iPods and those that do buy the higher cap models rarely fill them. Of course this is somewhat anecdotal, but I'll bet there are a lot more iPod nanos attached to Mac minis than anything else.

Inversely, does this mean that no Mac needs a hard drive larger than approximately 120GB to hold your OS, apps and 60GB of music?

b) The Combo drive does fill the bill for some people, I think it is safe to say my dad will never burn a DVD in his life, and probably doesn't care. I'm sure he isn't alone either. And there is no logical reason why one optical drive should be standard on the entire product line, any more than one GPU or CPU should be standard across the whole line.

Almost everything I hear that is wrong with the Mac mini and todays speed bump comes from people who want high end features for the lowest possible price. Apple has never operated that way and likely never will, but here's to hoping...
_________________
| Mac mini 2011 | Apple Thunderbolt Display | Apple keyboard and Magic TrackPad | 2Tb Time Capsule | Apple TV (3) | iPhone 4s |

I have no idea where I'm going, but I'm making great time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
CcAgan
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MacWaffler wrote:
a) Perhaps they are assuming (and rightfully so) that the majority of the market buys smaller capacity iPods and those that do buy the higher cap models rarely fill them. Of course this is somewhat anecdotal, but I'll bet there are a lot more iPod nanos attached to Mac minis than anything else.

Inversely, does this mean that no Mac needs a hard drive larger than approximately 120GB to hold your OS, apps and 60GB of music?

b) The Combo drive does fill the bill for some people, I think it is safe to say my dad will never burn a DVD in his life, and probably doesn't care. I'm sure he isn't alone either. And there is no logical reason why one optical drive should be standard on the entire product line, any more than one GPU or CPU should be standard across the whole line.

Almost everything I hear that is wrong with the Mac mini and todays speed bump comes from people who want high end features for the lowest possible price. Apple has never operated that way and likely never will, but here's to hoping...


a) who would want to cap disk capacity? That is as silly as installing a smaller gas tank in your car so it costs less to fill your tank. I am saying that in this day and age an 80gb is the smallest that should ever be looked at for an non-portable. Look at $/GB. Street price difference on newegg between a 60 and an 80gb drive is $3. The jump from 80 to 100 will set you back a $30 difference. The 60GB mobile disk drive has seen its days. For clarification the mini does use a 2.5" "laptop" sata disk drive.

b) It's only good practice to use the same type of drive. Obviously you want several suppliers so you run less of a chance of failing to meet supply demands. If Colt firearms figured this out over a century ago, you would think that Apple could do the same.

I am not looking for "Highend" results from a mini. I do want these things

Disk capacity to fill my needs
RAM to meet my basic multitasking needs (firefox, ichat, itunes, widgets, bittorrent managing 300 inbound connections)
The processor power to not lag behind in these tasks
And a DVD burner to make a damn backup or burn a video to DVD

If I was looking for "highend" results I would be complaining about the GMA950, which runs my 1920x1200 display just fine.

Sure, the mini is great for your dad who wont do those things like burn DVDs, but for those of use who have LCD displays that we want to keep, or in my case dont have the room to set them next to a 23" ACD or iMac, then the mini at the current price points equipped as they are falls short. And all be it, I have not ruled out a MacPro. I would just like to have something I can sit down and use with out my macbook taking up so much desk space.
_________________
Macmini: 2.16 CD / 2GB / 8x DVD-RAM / 100GB @ 7200rpm
Mackbook Pro: 2.16 C2D / 2GB / 6x DL-SD / 120GB @ 5400rpm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    123Macmini.com - Forums Forum Index -> 123Macmini.com News and Reviews All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



      

Shop:  Apple Store  |  Refurbished Macs  |  Refurbished iPads  |  MacConnection  |  Mac Mini Vault  |  Other World Computing

MK 1 Studio Mac mini Racks  |  Crucial Mac Memory  |  Top Free Mac Apps  |  Top Paid Mac Apps



123Macmini.com is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or approved by Apple Computer, Inc.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2011 123Macmini.com. All Rights Reserved.