[stwain2003]

Hmm... What could that mean?

[uicandrew]

hmm, last time the mini ship times were both increased to 5-7 days, nothing happened. but thinksecret.com says that new ibooks are imminent, yet their ship times are still "same business day." perhaps thinksecret.com's source got it mixed up.

i just bought a used mac mini from a fellow forum member so i'm selfishly hoping that there isn't a mac mini revision. but the deal i got was great, so it definitely helps my psyche.

if there is a revision, i think it'll be a 64mb radeon 9200 video card. and more ram standard. hopefully there isn't a built in ipod dock. then i'd be really jealous.

[macpredict]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

Hmm... What could that mean?

That Apple has had trouble keeping up supply to match demand on the Mini, as they have since it first shipped.

[buggsuperstar]

*fingers crossed*

[uicandrew]

www.appleinsider.com reports that apple is going to use overstock.com to get rid of the remaining mac minis (brand new) and refurbished imacs and powermacs.

[Agent69]

If they speed bumped the Mini to a 1.67ghz G4 with a Core Image compatable video card, I would consider one.

[eddiecatflap]

me too !

[hakstooy]

Can they really bump the minis? They are 1.42 and the PowerBook starts at 1.5; what are they gonna do, make their bargain desktop the performance equivalent of the pro laptop that costs 3-4 times as much?

I guess I could see a new video card, but I really don't think Apple can bump the iBooks or minis without bumping the PowerBooks as well.

Man the PowerBook is hurting right now.

[uicandrew]

i could see apple making more features standard, like standard 512 ram, standard airport extreme, standard bluetooth, and maybe adding an extra port or built-in ipod dock.

were there any G4 processors made for the desktop line that faster than 1.67ghz

but i agree with hakstooy, they don't have that much further to move without stepping on the toes of the powerbook.

[thereubster]

probably the Mac mini will stay on the 167Mhz bus (using the 7447) and the powerbooks will move to the 7448 G4 with 1Mb L2 on the 200Mhz bus. Remember that Freescale only need to be able to produce 7448's with the same multiplier (9x and 10x) as they have at the moment to get the powerbooks up to 1.8 and 2.0Ghz. That will allow the Mac mini to go to 1.5 and 1.67 without stepping on any toes. Also the GPU will stay much slower/older in the Mac Mini. My guess is the powerbooks will also get 7200 rpm HD options next time round, combine that with double the max ram support (2Gb vs 1Gb for Mac Mini), all will help the Powerbooks stay ahead performance-wise.

[uicandrew]

check out thinksecret.com, they are saying that along with new ibooks, there will be 3 mac minis at $500, $600, and $700 pricepoints. next week.......

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

hmm, last time the mini ship times were both increased to 5-7 days, nothing happened. but thinksecret.com says that new ibooks are imminent, yet their ship times are still "same business day." perhaps thinksecret.com's source got it mixed up.

i just bought a used mac mini from a fellow forum member so i'm selfishly hoping that there isn't a mac mini revision. but the deal i got was great, so it definitely helps my psyche.

if there is a revision, i think it'll be a 64mb radeon 9200 video card. and more ram standard. hopefully there isn't a built in ipod dock. then i'd be really jealous.

If they want to put in a Core graphics capable GPU they will need to put at least a 64MB ATI 9600 Radeon as it's not only the ram amount that holds the Mac Mini back in that department but the GPU chip it'self.


Anyway, if they are going to sell iMac's at 500 dollars I don't see why they can't do some good upgrades to the Mini. A major reason why the other Macs such as iMac, eMac and Powerbooks are more expensive than it is because they include keyboard, mouse, display and speakers (depending on which model you are getting of course) where with the Mac Mini you just get well, the Mini. People will still desire those things even if the Mac Mini is upgraded.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

If they want to put in a Core graphics capable GPU they will need to put at least a 64MB ATI 9600 Radeon as it's not only the ram amount that holds the Mac Mini back in that department but the GPU chip it'self.

I'm expecting a 64 MB GeForce FX 5200. It might not be any faster than the Radeon 9200 in a lot of stuff, but it supports Core Image, and with 64 MB it would support Exposé better too.

I'd also like to see the base model Mac mini come with 512 MB RAM stock.

[Strix]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

check out thinksecret.com, they are saying that along with new ibooks, there will be 3 imacs at $500, $600, and $700 pricepoints. next week.......

Thinksecret says three new mac mini models, not iMac's.

[uicandrew]

yes, quite right. sorry about the typo. i have already edited my post.

[Rumor Addict]

I hope whatever they come out with, it is able to play HDTV mpeg 2 .ts and quick time hdtv files without dropping frames. Sorta works, not bad only drops a few frames etc doesnt cut it. I would really like to use it as a media center hooked up to a flat screen.

[brother337]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm expecting a 64 MB GeForce FX 5200. It might not be any faster than the Radeon 9200 in a lot of stuff, but it supports Core Image, and with 64 MB it would support Exposé better too.

I'd also like to see the base model Mac mini come with 512 MB RAM stock.

Wouldn't it be easier for them to upgrade the mini to an ATI gpu (9600 with 64 megs of vram)? Would the geforce be difficult to drop onto a mainboard that was designed for an ATI chip?

This is an actual question. I'm not an engineer so if anyone knows the answer I'm very curious.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by brother337

Wouldn't it be easier for them to upgrade the mini to an ATI gpu (9600 with 64 megs of vram)? Would the geforce be difficult to drop onto a mainboard that was designed for an ATI chip?

This is an actual question. I'm not an engineer so if anyone knows the answer I'm very curious.

The 12" PowerBook already uses the 5200. I don't see an iBook design with the 5200 being such a big deal, especially since the iBook team designed the 12" PowerBook. Plus, the 9600 costs a lot more. What you suggest is a GPU that competes with the iMac's CPU, and the iMac only just got the 9600, having graduated from the 5200 (an nVidia --> ATI switch).

[brother337]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The 12" PowerBook already uses the 5200. I don't see an iBook design with the 5200 being such a big deal, especially since the iBook team designed the 12" PowerBook. Plus, the 9600 costs a lot more. What you suggest is a GPU that competes with the iMac's CPU, and the iMac only just got the 9600, having graduated from the 5200 (an nVidia --> ATI switch).

But are the interconnects the same? If the current mini board is built for an ATI chip, would you have to rewire the board to accomodate an nVidia chip?

[fleaplus]

Originally Posted by brother337

But are the interconnects the same? If the current mini board is built for an ATI chip, would you have to rewire the board to accomodate an nVidia chip?

It is not beyond apple's capabilities to do such a rewire, but chances are it will only a 32MB FX5200 so this GPU upgrade won't solve the real problem.

A speed bump and maybe dual ram slots if possible would be the best upgrade they could do for the mini. I overclocked my mini to 1.5ghz and the tiger experience on it only get closer and closer to as smooth as butter.

[smoke-tetsu]

I suggest is if they want to put in a core graphics capable GPU they should look at what it requires and go by that. It still wouldn't compete with the others for those who weren't in the market for a mini because it doesn't include a KB, Mouse & most of all a display. The price of those things add up. Do you suggest holding it back because the other Mac's have better GPU's & you think everyone would just get a mini thus killing sales of their other computers? I don't think so. At $700 for a base model with no KB, Mouse & display it better have a decent GPU and it better have at least 64MB as part of that. Plus the iMacs still would have other things going for them like the fact that they have a G5 where the mini still has a G4. eMac is only 99 dollers more & include a KB, Mouse & display & a 64MB 9600.

[theTechyDork]

For a Mac Mini, I would like to see 512MB RAM standard, a slight processor speed bump, and 64MB of video RAM. Other things would be nice, but that is what I really want.

As for adding ports and such to the Mini, I don't think it will happen, but if it did, to free up some space, Apple could ditch the VGA/DVI port and replace it with a vertical mini DVI port. Then, in the package, they could include a mini DVI to DVI and mini DVI to VGA adapter. That would free up some space. Then they could put maybe another USB port. I think there is enough room on the current model to put an audio in/mic in port. You move the audio out port down a bit, and put the audio in port above it. The more ports the better, IMO, but I can just buy a hub for around 40 bucks if I have to. My main wants for the Mini are what I stated above..

As for stepping on the toes of the Powerbook, ok, that can't happen. The PowerBook is a laptop. The Mac Mini is a desktop. They are two different machines shot to two different types of consumers. Plus, aren't desktops supposed to be more powerful than laptops anyway? Laptops are just to bring a computer with you, not neccessarily have power.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by theTechyDork

As for stepping on the toes of the Powerbook, ok, that can't happen. The PowerBook is a laptop. The Mac Mini is a desktop. They are two different machines shot to two different types of consumers. Plus, aren't desktops supposed to be more powerful than laptops anyway? Laptops are just to bring a computer with you, not neccessarily have power.

I think that is an obsolete interpretation of the current market, and completely out of touch with current hardware and most certainly upcoming hardware. There are reasons that Intel is going to be putting their P-M chips in desktops and laptops are most certainly not simply for toting along to work on presentations and documents any longer, they are primary machines for a significant (and growing) portion of the market. The only people that *need* desktop power anymore are certain professionals and hardcore gamers, and wireless internet has changed how most "average" consumers (email, word and surf) view the attractiveness of laptops.

In addition, having the mini be a performance equivalent to the PowerBook while being 1/5 the price would cause a good deal of hesitation and confusion by any prospective PB purchasers (that kind of cost/benefit discrepancy is hard to justify), and Apple would do practically anything to keep from cannibalizing PB sales.

[theTechyDork]

But you pay for portability. Whether the Mac Mini or PB are the same or not doesn't matter. If someone wants portability, they will pay for the PB.

[hakstooy]

Maybe, or they might decide that portability isn't worth a 5-fold increase in price and get a mini (less profit for Apple) or they may decide that Apple's portable offerings are horribly overpriced and underperforming and get a Thinkpad. A scenario that has played out quite often of late, I've seen people deadset on a "beautiful" PowerBook decide to buy a Dell because after researching they decided it was a poor value. You make the numbers equivalent and you make this discrepancy patently obvious.

Regardless, you are approaching this from the perspective that most people go shopping for either a laptop or a desktop, and that is simply not the case. Many people I have helped buy computers had no predilection for either a desktop or laptop but simply were looking for a good value that would do what they wanted to do. Portability is just a feature to them, like a DVD-R drive or an extra 256 MB of RAM.

Remember that the "non-geeks" still make up the majority of the market.

[smoke-tetsu]

And then they would add 800 dollars for a apple display & another ~50 for a KB & mouse. Then it would end up being ~1300 dollars. Can you justify that when at 800 dollars you get an eMac & have the same or more hardware + peripherals and maybe even a faster HD? Even if you toss in a less expensive monitor it is more expensive & extras even more so. Like memory, bluetooth, airport, superdrive, etc. which (at least partly) you probably get with a PB. The suggested upgrades would bring it more in parity with the eMac but still not in price if you factor in the other things. You simply are overlooking that.

It's simply ludicrous to think that a base model with less hardware than an eMac while costing more when you add it all up is some kind of value. It seems you suggest ripping people off because they don't know any better. The only reason why mine was any value to me is I happened to already own all the neccesary peripherals. Plus it being a gift doesn't hurt either (lol) But you can't count on that with many average people. Plus the top of the line PB wound still have 128MB of vram which is more than the new top of the line mini at 64MB anyway.

I have (non geek) friends who like the mini a lot but chose to get a PB anyway because they travel a lot. To them the specs on the mini aren't important even if they where like a top of the line PB. Believe it or not there are people who have priorities.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

Believe it or not there are people who have priorities.

Really? Holy crap, I had no idea!!!

Look, the Apple display cost argument is asinine, the Apple display is serious hardware and is not even a consideration for the mini's target market. Nor is even including the cost of ANY monitor and peripherals; the whole point of the mini is to go after the potential switchers who already have a PC and for whatever reason are considering a Mac. If someone is without a computer altogether, Apple wants them to buy an iMac, not a mini.

The mini is supposed to be a taste of the Mac life that entices people into the fold, the idea of the mini is to get people to buy Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs. It is a bare bones, low cost budget box that doesn't break the bank, thus encouraging PCers experimentation.

The PowerBook is supposed to be a mobile platform for the professional and serious user, it is advertised as a powerhouse capable of handling most any intensive use. To have its core performance componentry be equivalent to a budget "give 'er a whirl" box is absurd. Bells and whistles do not make a premiere platform.

Its called product separation. It is very important in the contemporary marketplace and Apple has historically been very good at it.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by fleaplus

A speed bump and maybe dual ram slots if possible would be the best upgrade they could do for the mini.

I would say the best possible upgrade would be optical digital out and a regular SATA HD (yes--change the form factor if needed; it's completely arbitrary anyway). The HD will boost the Mini's speed more than any piddling chip upgrade. The optical digital out will allow the Mini to pursue its destiny as an HTPC/PVR.

-S

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Really? Holy crap, I had no idea!!!

Look, the Apple display cost argument is asinine, the Apple display is serious hardware and is not even a consideration for the mini's target market. Nor is even including the cost of ANY monitor and peripherals; the whole point of the mini is to go after the potential switchers who already have a PC and for whatever reason are considering a Mac. If someone is without a computer altogether, Apple wants them to buy an iMac, not a mini.

The mini is supposed to be a taste of the Mac life that entices people into the fold, the idea of the mini is to get people to buy Powerbooks, iBooks and iMacs. It is a bare bones, low cost budget box that doesn't break the bank, thus encouraging PCers experimentation.

The PowerBook is supposed to be a mobile platform for the professional and serious user, it is advertised as a powerhouse capable of handling most any intensive use. To have its core performance componentry be equivalent to a budget "give 'er a whirl" box is absurd. Bells and whistles do not make a premiere platform.

Its called product separation. It is very important in the contemporary marketplace and Apple has historically been very good at it.

So freaking what. The previous poster (you) was comparing them thinking the mini would cannibalize their market so I compared them similalrly equipped. The total cost even without an apple monitor or no monitor when you factor in software, etc. especially with extras & yes people would want them for a top of the line mini is still more than a better equipped eMac. So why even have a 700 dollar mini if it is "just a taste" and you can get more with an eMac for 99 more. Is a person supposed to just be like, "oh whoops I just spent over 700 closer to even over 800 let's spend even more to get what I really needed". You miss (or maybe skipped just so you can try to discredit me) my point entirely. It is you who are being "asinine" (if we are going to resort to that).

We are comparing VALUE. I say for the price they should make it comparable to an eMac or the person would be getting less for their money. Again the eMac is only 99 more than a top of the line base mini & is better equipped if people like you have their way. So then what's to stop eMac from cannibalizing Mini.

It's thinking like that that would hold apple back. Maybe you just can't stand that I have a point & you must feel superior with your PB at any cost. Did you protest the eMac upgrade?

BTW Upgrading the GPU is not "piddling". Core graphics & HD Video (for HTPC) NEEDS it.

[theTechyDork]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

And then they would add 800 dollars for a apple display & another ~50 for a KB & mouse. Then it would end up being ~1300 dollars. Can you justify that when at 800 dollars you get an eMac & have the same or more hardware + peripherals and maybe even a faster HD? Even if you toss in a less expensive monitor it is more expensive & extras even more so. Like memory, bluetooth, airport, superdrive, etc. which (at least partly) you probably get with a PB. The suggested upgrades would bring it more in parity with the eMac but still not in price if you factor in the other things. You simply are overlooking that.

What if they already have a keyboard/mouse/display from a precious computer or an old PC? That is my purpose for wanting a Mini. I just think the current specs can be updated, and at the same time Apple can keep it the low-end computer of the desktop line.

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by theTechyDork

What if they already have a keyboard/mouse/display from a precious computer or an old PC? That is my purpose for wanting a Mini. I just think the current specs can be updated, and at the same time Apple can keep it the low-end computer of the desktop line.

That is just what if though and doesn't detract from my point. Things like this are besides the point. Read my above post I think they should be read more carefully before responded to. Do you want the eMac people to get the better deal on the hardware?

Compare 700 bucks for a top of the line Mini with the detractors proposed lesser hardware to an eMac with higher specs + at 99 more with included peripherals & display. I call that spending more settling for less.

If that is how it's going to be I can't justify getting a new mini & an eMac sounds more and more like the better deal as the low end Mac.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

BTW Upgrading the GPU is not "piddling". Core graphics & HD Video (for HTPC) NEEDS it.

Actually, I was refering to the CPU, not the GPU. I agree that a GPU upgrade to support CG is a good thing.

-S

[hakstooy]

Well, for starters, if we are going to be massaging a superiority complex regarding gentlemanly discourse, it was you who referred to my position as "ludricrous", that I was suggesting "ripping people off because they don't know any better" and included an incomprehensible comment that "some people have priorities" that was simply dripping with snide pomposity.

And to be clear, I certainly did understand your post. You don't feel the mini should ever be considered a good value (I don't agree and told you why, only it had more to do with an intended market and I guess you got lost in there somewhere) and that there are people who would still buy PBs if they had the same specs as a mini (wow, thanks for the revelation).

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're blathering about with regards to the mini/eMac. The extra $99 only gives you a CRT, K/M a 9600 and an extra Firewire and USB port. All in a completely different piece of hardware that has an entirely different market appeal. So what exactly are you freaking out about?

Maybe I confused you with a reference to someone buying a mini instead of a PB into thinking that this angle was the crux of my position, well, it isn't. My point is that by making them performance equals you elucidate what is currently a somewhat incongruous performance relationship. Such a resulting equivalence destroys current marketing campaigns and product separation.

It is not the wave of people buying minis instead of PBs that is the issue, it is the wave of people simply NOT buying PBs that is the problem.

But whatever, we'll see when Apple decides to upgrade.

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Well, for starters, if we are going to be massaging a superiority complex regarding gentlemanly discourse, it was you who referred to my position as "ludricrous", that I was suggesting "ripping people off because they don't know any better" and included an incomprehensible comment that "some people have priorities" that was simply dripping with snide pomposity.

And to be clear, I certainly did understand your post. You don't feel the mini should ever be considered a good value (I don't agree and told you why, only it had more to do with an intended market and I guess you got lost in there somewhere) and that there are people who would still buy PBs if they had the same specs as a mini (wow, thanks for the revelation).

To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're blathering about with regards to the mini/eMac. The extra $99 only gives you a CRT, K/M a 9600 and an extra Firewire and USB port. All in a completely different piece of hardware that has an entirely different market appeal. So what exactly are you freaking out about?

Maybe I confused you with a reference to someone buying a mini instead of a PB into thinking that this angle was the crux of my position, well, it isn't. My point is that by making them performance equals you elucidate what is currently a somewhat incongruous performance relationship. Such a resulting equivalence destroys current marketing campaigns and product separation.

It is not the wave of people buying minis instead of PBs that is the issue, it is the wave of people simply NOT buying PBs that is the problem.

But whatever, we'll see when Apple decides to upgrade.

And where where you when they upgraded the eMac saying it would destroy current marketing campaigns and product separation?

You say I fail to understand you well you fail to understand me about the Mini compared to the eMac. What I said is not blather no matter if you dress it up that way. If you can justify putting that stuff in the eMac saying it's not worth much I can in the mini except for the display of course. A 17 inch CRT monitor is worth more than you think (at least 100$) and then add the price of the better GPU, peripherals (29 for both KB and mouse) etc.

But I will agree on one thing and that is that we will see what they do.

[theTechyDork]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

If that is how it's going to be I can't justify getting a new mini & an eMac sounds more and more like the better deal as the low end Mac.

I see your point. However, if that was the way EVERYONE thought, then not one Mac Mini would have sold to date.

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by theTechyDork

I see your point. However, if that was the way EVERYONE thought, then not one Mac Mini would have sold to date.

Maybe, but now it's upgrade time. Get my drift? Right now the eMac costs more and the spec's reflect that but not forever. Why bother upgrading if it's not an upgrade. You can't hold things back forever and expect people to come back for more especially those who want to use it as a HTPC.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

And where where you when they upgraded the eMac saying it would destroy current marketing campaigns and product separation?

I'm guessing I missed the part where the eMac has been equivalent to the PB...which, uh, is what I have been focusing on all along. The last bump only put them at where the mini was and is, a place I seem to not be hawking over.

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

You can't hold things back forever and expect people to come back for more...

Why not? They've done it just fine with the PowerMac and PowerBook.

And no, I understand you perfectly regarding the eMac, I just don't agree (an interesting perspective that when someone doesn't agree they simply must not understand...). The eMac and the mini are both "budget" offerings, only angled at different market segments (repeating for effect...doesn't seem to be working).

The mini, despite not having a CRT and peripherals (the cost of which to Apple is FAR less than the $160 you throw out as market value, they could include them for far less if they so chose...the reason they don't is because they are assuming you already have them, so why charge you for them?) uses notebook components (more expensive) was just introduced and is in an extremely small, quiet enclosure (significant engineering and design costs that need to be recovered...incidentally, this is likely the reason for the 9200, it is low-power and was likely necessary for cost and heat issues considering the only other options given the thermal specs are expensive mobile GPUs) and uses more expensive materials (aluminum).

The extra relative cost is justified and its value is quite comparable to the eMac in my eyes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the eMac goes dodo soon, the market has just passed it by.

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

I'm guessing I missed the part where the eMac has been equivalent to the PB...which, uh, is what I have been focusing on all along. The last bump only put them at where the mini was and is, a place I seem to not be hawking over.



Why not? They've done it just fine with the PowerMac and PowerBook.

And no, I understand you perfectly regarding the eMac, I just don't agree (an interesting perspective that when someone doesn't agree they simply must not understand...). The eMac and the mini are both "budget" offerings, only angled at different market segments (repeating for effect...doesn't seem to be working).

The mini, despite not having a CRT and peripherals (the cost of which to Apple is FAR less than the $160 you throw out as market value, they could include them for far less if they so chose...the reason they don't is because they are assuming you already have them, so why charge you for them?) uses notebook components (more expensive) was just introduced and is in an extremely small, quiet enclosure (significant engineering and design costs that need to be recovered...incidentally, this is likely the reason for the 9200, it is low-power and was likely necessary for cost and heat issues considering the only other options given the thermal specs are expensive mobile GPUs) and uses more expensive materials (aluminum).

The extra relative cost is justified and its value is quite comparable to the eMac in my eyes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the eMac goes dodo soon, the market has just passed it by.

The eMac upgrade wasn't just to Mini level they got a better GPU for Tiger & a faster hard drive it wasn't just peripherals I was talking about. Do you begrudge the mini that? I think you just don't want them to refresh the mini. Do you want them to charge more for the same hardware on a refresh?

"(an interesting perspective that when someone doesn't agree they simply must not understand...)" That's the way you've been talking to me. I guess we just can't agree.

[Makki]

why would the emac go dodoo or whatever you said? when Apple just did an upgrade to its hardware for tiger support.

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

The eMac upgrade wasn't just to Mini level they got a better GPU for Tiger & a faster hard drive it wasn't just peripherals I was talking about. Do you begrudge the mini that? I think you just don't want them to refresh the mini. Do you want them to charge more for the same hardware on a refresh?

Um, my first post in this thread contains my prediction that any upgrade will be a new GPU, but not a CPU bump unless they do the PBs too. I could expand on that to see them improving the HD too.

Neither of those improvements causes the conflict I have been elaborating on.

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

"(an interesting perspective that when someone doesn't agree they simply must not understand...)" That's the way you've been talking to me. I guess we just can't agree.

No, you thought I was I was preoccupied with the notion that a CPU equivalent mini would directly cannabilize sales from the PB which was never a focus of mine. I never had such misconceptions about your posts.

As for dodoing the eMac, I'm not presuming it to be impending; that would be premature. But I would not be surprised if it did happen. The 9600 lets it play in Tiger-land but as LCDs become "standard" I do not see the eMac surviving; at least in its current form.

[Agent69]

Don't assume that. A lot of people don't care for LCD screens.

[hakstooy]

Yes, well a lot of people prefer[red] vinyl too.

-----------

Well, looks like even my estimates for an update were too generous. All Apple did was was restructure the mini models, including some BTO options in the mid and higher models while subtracting the modem. The $600 version is a much better deal than it was before (especially if you don't need a modem), but this seems more like an attempt to move stock than anything else.

The state of the Mac is very sad indeed.

[smoke-tetsu]

I'm definetly not "upgrading" to this. I mean look at my sig. This is NO upgrade, I have to agree with you hakstoy. They are just trying to move stock.