Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Mini update proves that the Mini was ill conceived...

Mini update proves that the Mini was ill conceived...
Thread Tools
sodamnregistered2
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 04:48 PM
 
First off, I have a 1.42GHz mini with 1GB ram and I put a 60GB internal drive in it. I have it hooked up to 2 external hard drives and an external DVD burner. So, I am having the mostest bestest possible Mini experience.

That said... I think the Mini was just an ill conceived computer from the get go.

Desktop v. Laptop

Desktops should perform a little bit better than their laptop counterparts. A laptop is portable, so, you can expect to make some perfomance compromises in the name of portability. The reasons to use a desktop hard drive in the mini are the following:

1. Cheaper
2. Faster (7200 vs. 5400 vs. 4200)
3. More reliable
4. Larger capacities

The reasons not to use a desktop hard drive are the following:

1. Louder
2. More energy draw
3. Larger

Advantage: Desktop drives. Even if it means making a slighty larger, louder Mini, the desktop drive would have gone a long way towards making the Mini a better more powerful and capable computer.

Video capability

The 9200 was old and obsolete when the Mini was brand new. 8 months have done nothing to change this situation. The dim video is for real. I have a 21" Sony CRT that is connected to both my Mini and my dual Athlon. Simply put, there is a dim video issue with the mini. It's just a fact.

Ram

Many people are applauding the move to put 512MB ram in all Mini computers. Meh. Now a lot of people will not bother to upgrade to 1GB ram thinking, gee, well, I guess I have enough ram. And for every user that fully intends to upgrade to 1GB, the 512 goes to waste and sits on the kitchen counter for 4 months until it get's listed on Craigslist and sold for $15. I have always hated the ram game that Apple and Dell play. They give you ram in units that are not really suitable, and then when you go to upgrade, you end up with a lot of useless, worthless and wasted ram. Personally, I'd love to see a BTO option for 128MB ram. Just enough to boot the computer to make sure everything works before I toss that ram in the trash and install a 1GB chip, or just do the right thing and add a slot so I can keep the 512 (that I ALREADY paid for) and then add an additional 1GB or 512MB.

Leadership

A little esoteric, but, I always wondered why car makers don't just make every car with power windows. Just eliminate the manual window. No need to design manual window parts, no need to cultivate manual window expertise in parts or service departments. Prolly cheaper, or at the very least, the same price, just to make every car with power windows. The parts are cheap and there are scale advantages to manufacturing every car in the same way with the same components.

Every Mac should represent leadership beyond it's solid OS. Every Mac should have gigabyte ethernet, Firewire 800, USB2, wireless internet and bluetooth. Seriously, these components are cheap now. Apples remain somewhat price premium computers and as such should exemplify leadership, especially in these technologies that they help to pioneer. Especially when these technologies are really just commodities. Especially when a lot of their computers use old CPUs with bus speeds from another era.

====

These are just my gripes and the largely reflect my way of thinking. My ideas would result in a better, more powerful, uniform and capable computing experience across the board.

I'm largely out of Apple now anyhow. I've been using Macs since the Centris ran at 25MHz and ram cost as much as used small car. I'm not at all convinced that they care about building substantial computers designed for pro use. Odd since OS X and FCP and DVDSP and all that are pretty nice software packages. Apple is more concerned with being more like a Sony type company all enmeshed in gadgets, devices and entertainment. That's fine they are free to develop anyhow they see fit, a more or less, they are making money. They just won't be making money of me for too much longer.

I sold my dual G5 and got a Mini just to keep using OS X for some things. It's a cool OS. But, my work is pretty much now done on Windows computers. C'est La Vie.

What would you think about these Mini configs:

1.42GHz
Combo Drive
512MB ram with 1 free slot
160GB 7200rpm drive
USB2, FW800, GigaE, Airport Extreme, BT
ATi 9600 64MB

$600

1.42GHz
Superdrive
512MB ram with 1 free slot
160GB 7200rpm drive
USB2, FW800, GigaE, Airport Extreme, BT
ATi 9600 64MB

$700
( Last edited by sodamnregistered2; Jul 27, 2005 at 05:27 PM. )
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:19 PM
 
Mac mini is all about the price point. $499, baby, and everything that comes with (or doesn't) that number.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by atlauren
Mac mini is all about the price point. $499, baby, and everything that comes with (or doesn't) that number.
OK. I guess you're right.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
outsourced
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 05:34 PM
 
I deleted my entire response. It was too sarcastic.
( Last edited by outsourced; Jul 27, 2005 at 05:49 PM. Reason: removing sarcasm)
Did Schroedinger's cat think outside the box?
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:00 PM
 
I think you're missing the point of the mini.

It is not your standard "desktop," it is not even your standard Small-Form-Factor desktop. It was conceived as a secondary computer for PC users, something to draw them in to the Mac fold. It came about when the "halo" effect was peaking, spyware and viruses were raging, OS X had a clear advantage over Windows, and more people than in the last 15 years were at peeking curiously at the Mac. The main thing holding them back was price, Macs were "expensive" and too few PC users were willing to spend 1K+ to go jumping off that cliff.

So Apple came up with a fantastic platform to take advantage of the situation.

They knew that consumers contemplating the Mac likely already a monitor, mouse and keyboard, they figured they likely didn't have enough space to slap another desktop down and likely weren't even necessarily down with AIO paradigm that Apple is all about.

So they created the mini, a far cheaper option than anything they had offered before that could use your existing peripherals and would hardly take up any space. It also was a beautiful example of the industrial design of Apple that operated at a hushed whisper and while you could slip it into a drawer if you wanted, you damn well wanted to show off the lil' desktop jewel.

It would sit there in its quiet, little shiny way, wooing you with its superior OS and effortless "maintenance," wooing you with its charms and slowly work its way into your routine.

Say hello to Apple's Trojan Horse (immune to all Trojan's...heh heh).

A 7200 desktop drive would not work considering these design principles, it would be loud and noisy. The 9200 was a necessity given budget constraints as it was the only cool graphics card at the necessary pricepoint. The RAM situation is industry standard and is that way because most non-geeks don't give a hoot. There is absolutely no need for FW800 or Gigabit ethernet, these are specialized high-end protocols that basically no consumer even knows about, let alone needs. Wireless internet and Bluetooth are more "pedestrian" (Bluetooth increasingly so) but were not necessary and are now included in the mid and upper models now anyway. I do hope they improve the GPU (it is all that is keeping me from buying one), not because it is "necessary," but because it would go a long way towards extending the useful life of a mini simply because it is a non-upgradeable part.

The mini is wonderfully conceived for what it is. People to need to realize that just because it doesn't fit their needs or conception (you are basically asking for a Cube, which was a fantastic machine, but failed miserably because it wasn't what the "market" wanted, geeks be damned) doesn't mean it is ill-conceived.
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
The reasons to use a desktop hard drive in the mini are the following:

1. Cheaper
2. Faster (7200 vs. 5400 vs. 4200)
3. More reliable
4. Larger capacities

The reasons not to use a desktop hard drive are the following:

1. Louder
2. More energy draw
3. Larger

Advantage: Desktop drives.
Wrong. Larger/heavier drives, while cheaper as component, bring a larger enclosure, more robust cooling needs and increased packaging costs and LOWER yield (higher cost) of units/shipping container. The total end-user cost would have been GREATER with the "cheaper" drives.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by atlauren
The total end-user cost would have been GREATER with the "cheaper" drives.
I seriously doubt that.

A desktop drive would have precluded the current form because of size and heat, but I hardly think they would be MORE expensive. If that's the case, they why doesn't every budget PC come with laptop drives?
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
I seriously doubt that.

A desktop drive would have precluded the current form because of size and heat, but I hardly think they would be MORE expensive. If that's the case, they why doesn't every budget PC come with laptop drives?
I know for a fact this is the case. In a total-cost analysis, laptop drives were cheaper.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:18 PM
 
link?
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
link?
Sorry, there is none. But it's a fascinating lesson in the macro- and micro-economics of overseas manufacturing, packaging and shipping.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by outsourced
I deleted my entire response. It was too sarcastic.
I hang out in teenage infested car forums, I think I can take the heat from the Mac weenie crowd.

The core of my message is, Apple has very limited computer offerings, they owe it to themselves and to the computing world to make these offerings to the best of their ability.

GigE is, what, $10-15 at the component level? Include it. Why wouldn't you?

I was sort of hoping to replace my mini with a new one that addressed at the very least, the dim video and the video card. All they did was effectively cap the ram at 512 since few will now upgrade to 1GB and that means a more substandard computing experience across the board.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
I was sort of hoping to replace my mini with a new one that addressed at the very least, the dim video and the video card.
It remains to be seen whether those problems still exist, or have been corrected. We know they changed the logic board because of the 512MB RAM. We don't what other changes may have been slipstreamed in.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by atlauren
It remains to be seen whether those problems still exist, or have been corrected. We know they changed the logic board because of the 512MB RAM.
The ram is just a DIMM. Why would that be proof that the motherboard has been changed?
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
The ram is just a DIMM. Why would that be proof that the motherboard has been changed?
:brainfart:

WHOOPS!

Put it this way: we won't know until we have them in our hot little hands if the logic board changed or not. Considering that seven months have elapsed since the mini's introduction, I'd certainly hold out hope that the video issue has been addressed. But we won't know until units are in people's hands.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by atlauren
Sorry, there is none. But it's a fascinating lesson in the macro- and micro-economics of overseas manufacturing, packaging and shipping.
Hmm, well, I don't buy it. Perhaps your source was full of hot air. I simply can not see how one part that is, on average, 50% more than another ends up being cheaper after incorporating it into its platform.

Not to mention (again) that no budget desktop offering comes with notebook drives, so that would seem to imply they aren't cheaper.

Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
The core of my message is, Apple has very limited computer offerings, they owe it to themselves and to the computing world to make these offerings to the best of their ability.
OK, well I just told you numerous ways in which the mini is a sensational design when you view it from the perspective that Apple did, and not your own.

Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
GigE is, what, $10-15 at the component level? Include it. Why wouldn't you?
What if including it precludes you from hitting the $499 price point (marketing necessity) with an adequate profit margin? Especially when only, what, maybe 2% of the consumer market (I'm being REAL generous there) would even use it at all and it is absolutely not necessary, considering the target, regardless.
( Last edited by hakstooy; Jul 27, 2005 at 06:42 PM. )
     
jasong
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:40 PM
 
How does the update prove the Mini design is ill-conceived?
-- Jason
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
Hmm, well, I don't buy it. Perhaps your source was full of hot air. I simply can not see how one part that is, on average, 50% more than another ends up being cheaper after incorporating it into its platform.
It's distinctly non-obvious how it works out this way.
Not to mention (again) that no budget desktop offering comes with notebook drives, so that would seem to imply they aren't cheaper.
But is the mini just another budget PC? Does it use a mini-ATX board or commodity power supplies or anything else? Of course not, that wouldn't be a Mac now would it?

Clearly Apple chose to build a $499 Mac, not just another cheapo PC. Other factors indicate that some of the product cost is in making it a Mac -- styling, engineering and all that.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by jasong
How does the update prove the Mini design is ill-conceived?
Becuase the update is basically no update. It's just a dead end toy of a computer.

Mind you, getting OS X in front of people's face is a great idea, but given Apple's limited offerings I just don't know why they did not think some of these design considerations through a little more.

They went for quiet and small when they could have made pretty quiet and pretty small and made a much better computer. Frankly, until I put a 7200rpm drive in it, I pretty much was hating it.
( Last edited by sodamnregistered2; Jul 27, 2005 at 06:51 PM. )
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:53 PM
 
Well, yeah, Apple does put an emphasis on ID, which is why they decided to go with the notebook drive. It let them make the small, quiet, sexy machine they wanted to. One that embodied their design philosophy.

But that has nothing to do with cost. I suppose you could say that trying to cool and quiet a desktop drive in the SAME form factor as the mini would be more expensive than a notebook drive; but Apple would never had tried to do that. So its hardly fitting to say that using desktop drives would have been more expensive because of design considerations.

A desktop drive was essentially an impossibility because of the laws of physics, given the design goals. Since the design was paramount to the concept, it was given priority over economics.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
They went for quiet and small when they could have made pretty quiet and pretty small and made a much better computer. Frankly, until I put a 7200rpm drive in it, I pretty much was hating it.
Dude, you are not getting it.

You are asking for a Cube. The computer that, while every geeks best friend, was a TREMENDOUS FAILURE!!!
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
You are asking for a Cube. The computer that, while every geeks best friend, was a TREMENDOUS FAILURE!!!
IIRC, the Cube priced WAY to high and was not expandable at all. The changes I'm proposing might require changes in the form factor, but do not impact the price very much.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
OK, well I just told you numerous ways in which the mini is a sensational design when you view it from the perspective that Apple did, and not your own.
Because Apple makes the mini it is the reality, however, it does not make it "right."

Seriously, a desktop HD and a 9600 64MB and the mini is a true killer, as it is now, it's typical Apple. A little too cute for its own good.

ID (form) has it's place, but so does function.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
capuchin
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:13 PM
 
Writing off the mini as a toy is misguided at best. It's horses for courses - I use a stock 1.25Ghz mini as my work box. I'm the IT guy at a 60-person design agency, and the mini is perfect for day to day use. I have a 16x DVD-R drive and 300GB External Firewire drive hooked up, and the thing works great for disk mastering, posting and retrieving via ftp, word processing, remote server access, ssh, writing scripts etc etc etc.

It's no Dual G5, but it's more than responsive, fast, and snappyâ„¢ enough for use in a professional environment. Sure, if I wanted to be teh r0xxoR with Doom3 I'd be out of luck, but it's no "toy"
All opinions are entirely those of my employer. It's not my fault.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by capuchin
Writing off the mini as a toy is misguided at best.
I use mine for work as well. I'm convinced it would be a much beter day to day experience with a proper hard drive.

The dim video thing truly blows, it makes it hard to use for even simple web graphics. I don't think a 9600 64MB makes the Mini a Doom killer by any stretch.

The mini started off with pretty much obsolete parts and they did not do a whole lot to help out the situation.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:27 PM
 
I'd certainly agree that Apple has the tendency to put too emphasis on ID at times, but hey, that's their thing.

They are a boutique company, and that approach occasionally has compromises. In this case they could have made the mini faster while sacrificing some size and sound, but they decided that speed wasn't worth the design impact.

Maybe they were planning on 5400 and 7200 notebook drives to be cheap enough in the coming year or two to be worth the one year of 4200 drives. Who knows?

But regardless, when one looks at for what it was intended to be, its a great machine (considering the compromises that had to be made regarding the GPU and the HD w/ respect to cost). It just isn't the geek-box that many were hoping it to be.

BTW the Cube is actually quite upgradable, I know people that have Cubes with a 300 GB 7200 HD, Radeon 9800 and DUAL 1.7 G4s. Never underestimate the power of the love of the geek.
     
atlauren
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by sodamnregistered2
The dim video thing truly blows, it makes it hard to use for even simple web graphics.
Once properly identified, it can be worked around easily enough.
http://www.modmini.com/mod/howto/dimvideo.php

But, yeah, it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
-Andrew

www.modmini.com -- In-depth Mac mini solutions and analysis.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 09:58 PM
 
I just don't think there is any value to selling the same hardware for the same or more money at every "refresh". If they continue to do that I am not suprised if everyone stopped buying it. To me it's more about progress and value than anything else. And people wonder why Apples marketshare is lower than others. =X
I just hope the intel mini if they make one will be worthwhile as an upgrade. I mean I really like the formfactor but I can't stand by it as a good buy for ANYONE if the spec's stay the same forever no matter what the excuse is. Just being apple isn't going to cut it forever. I know about intended market and all that junk but when the computers from other companies spec's go up for the same or lower price and the mini stays the same there is something wrong with that picture.

Hopefully though my fears are premature.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 27, 2005 at 10:25 PM. )
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 10:28 PM
 
sodamn,
It really seems as though you are misunderstanding the market for the mini. What you seem to be saying quite clearly is that the mini is not for you. Fine, but to extrapolate from that and say the mini was ill-concieved in general is a bit presumptious. Mac created the mini for a niche market, and judging from what I've seen of its sales, I think there was a market.

The things you seem to want are all available in the iMac or the G5, but you seem to want to use a small Mac with a separate screen.

So basically, it seems as if you're upset that Apple hasn't addressed your market niche...which is, frankly, kind of a silly complaint.
     
sodamnregistered2  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
So basically, it seems as if you're upset that Apple hasn't addressed your market niche...which is, frankly, kind of a silly complaint.
If I want to use a monitor of my choosing, there is the Mini, and there is the dual G5 lineup.

I have screens, so, why would I want an iMac?

I bought the mini new, and with the 7200rpm hard drive, which I pulled from one of my Dell laptops, the performance is not that bad. But since it's not a laptop, the reason to not use desktop hard drive seems kinda weak. The stock mini was pretty painful to use. The hard drive was truly the weak link, and in a laptop, I would be more willing to overlook it, since the device would have the portable thing going for it. The mini just sits there. I have not really moved it since I hooked it up. Seems stupid that it's stuck with a 40GB or 80GB laptop hard drive when for the same or probably even less money, Apple could have used much faster 160GB desktop hard drives.

I expect the laptop drive to have a somewhat shorter life as well. I'd think laptop drives are somewhat less reliable than desktop drives.

Plus, ooh! the Mini is so pretty. And the first thing I did was hook external drives up to it.

I like the Mini. I have one, I use one, it's my only Mac. I used to use G5 computers for my work, so I'm fully aware that there are other Macs out there, it's just my opinion that if the Mini had a desktop drive, it would be better.

Also, on the ram thing great, but either solder that ram to the motherboard or add an extra slot. To go to 1GB, you just totally waste the spiffy new 512MB chip.

The dim video of course is it own problem. I have not been able to fix it via calibration, and the monitor I used has a dual Athlon hooked up to it, so I can't really cheat and crank the brightness way up, and that did not look all that great anyhow.

So, yes, basically it is a toy. A processor from 2 years ago, 512MB ram, a painfully slow 40GB hard drive and a video card that can't even use all the features of the OS.

I have pretty much moved away from the Mac anyhow for a whole slew of reasons not related to the Mini. I just think the Mini is symptomatic of the contemptuous attitude Apple takes towards it's loyal (or ex-loyal) computer using base.

I wish them well in their move to take on Sony.
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz 2GB 120GB OSX 10.4.9, Boot Camp 1.2, Vista Home Premium
mac mini 1.42, 60GB 7200rpm, 1GB (sold), dual 2GHz/G5 (sold), Powerbook 15" 1GHz (sold)
dual G4 800MHz (sold), dual G4 450MHz (sold), G4 450MHz (sold), Powerbook Pismo G3 500MHz (sold)
PowerMac 9500 132MHz 601, dual 180MHz 604e, Newer G3 400MHz (in closet)
Powermac 7100 80MHz (sold), Powermac 7100 66MHz (sold)
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 11:14 PM
 
It's not a toy, its a budget computer that mom and pop use to check email, surf the web and maybe dabble in iMovie or rip their CD collection to. The equipment is more than capable for that, and the price is commensurate with that.

It's not the xMac so many (apparently you included) wanted, that was more like your typical PC box, allowing modification and upgrading. I am sure Apple would rather it have a more powerful CPU and GPU, but right now, that's all they've got. When they switch to Intel they will have much better low-power options and its likely the first Intelmini will smoke the pants off a current PowerBook.

I too think Apple missed the boat on what certainly seems to be a fairly large segment of people who wanted a DVR capable box, or what have you, but I really don't think its because they wanted to, its because they had no way of capitalizing on it.

Apple's low-power offerings are in all kinds of pain right now, from mini through iBook and PowerBook. And there simply aren't enough G5 CPUs to go around. Yeah it sucks, but its the reality of the situation right now. It's not Apple trying to screw anyone.

If you are enamored with the form factor of the mini and want something with some more grunt that you can use as a media-hub or as a pound-for-pound compliment to your x86 boxes then wait for Intelmini. But don't hold your breath for a desktop drive, ITS AN IMPOSSIBILITY IN THAT DESIGN. But maybe they will create an xMac or iHome that will deliver the power you want. For while you deride Apple's "gadgeteering" that is where the market is going as computers are becoming more media-centric, and Apple is, again, responding to the market before everyone else.
     
uicandrew
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2005, 11:57 PM
 
i am proof that the mac mini is a well conceived idea that works. I have always been a pc user, and the only time i used an apple was in grade school with the apple IIe.

i recently bought a mac mini specifically because it was relatively inexpensive, but it had enough oomph to give me the "mac experience." it is more powerful than my mac addict friend who bought his ibook 2 years ago.

another thing is that the size is perfect to counter the excuse of "oh, i don't have enough space for another computer." if you don't have enough space for a mac mini, you need to clean up your place.

can it run tiger? yes
do i have to waste money paying for a new keyboard/mouse? no

i know it isn't everything for everyone. If you want to go back and watch Steve Jobs introduce the mac mini, you'll see what the intentions of the mac mini were.

i think too many people were expecting a shuttle-type mac with that kind of expansion.

sodamnregistered2, the system specs you proposed are that of a shuttle pc, which is more expensive. In the wintel side of the world, those systems command premium prices for their size and relative upgradability. Those cases and mobo ALONE cost at least $150-200. I currently have a shuttle pc with a tv tuner/recorder card that acts as my tivo. would i put it in the same category as a mac mini? No, because the mac mini was designed to go head to head with the cheapest of the dell/hp desktops.

that's my 2 cents....coming from a former non-mac user. apple won me over the way they wanted to. i started with an ipod.....was impressed.....then i got the mac mini. i "fell for it" hook, line and sinker.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 02:19 AM
 
6-8 months ago the mini was a novelty and other macs where slower like the eMac which hadn't been upgraded yet it was a better deal for those who have a KB, Display, and Mouse like me.

But that's the thing, it's been 6-8 months and the eMac has since been upgraded and Tiger has come out and yet the mini in it's "revision" was not. I myself don't care if it becomes a shuttle I just want a REAL revision to keep up with the times. Being that it is not as upgradeable as a shuttle we are more reliant on Apple to provide them in Revisions.

Bottom line is they missed the boat this time. I would have considered upgrading to the new model if they upgraded it but for whatever reason they chose not to. The Intel Mini better be faster or I will not buy another mini again. If they don't make one the mini must be "dodo'ed" I certainly don't expect people to settle for the current spec forever anymore than sticking with a G3 regardless of the market. If apple won't offer a compelling new model of this type you can bet someone else will and how would that be a winning situation for Apple? How does that benefit them in the long run?

6-8 months ago I would have agreed about the whole reasoning of the intended market but as time goes by it is harder and harder to. My parent's budget PC which was about ~$500 has 64mb of ram set aside for video & 2.4Ghz. I was willilng to overlook this 6-8 months ago but those PC's are upgrading http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=3942780
DAMN!! 64-bit & 128MB video system with a DVD burner.... more everything.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...3A3951%3A41937
Granted those are towers but still, look what you get for the prices. Just going by hardware alone it is more for the money objectively speaking.

It's time we stop settling for less. Apples move to Intel should be proof that they don't want to stagnate any longer like with the current mini situation.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 28, 2005 at 03:08 AM. )
     
uicandrew
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 03:14 AM
 
i actually went back and rewatched steve jobs introduction of the mini. he said that people were always asking "why don't you have a cheaper stripped down mac?" yes, the words "stripped down" were used.

i completely understand and agree with smoke-tetsu that apple should be more "forward thinking" and improve on the features rather than just keep the same specs. the ibook got better trackpad, hard drive protection, and the better video card. the mac mini actually got the option of removing the modem

i think the title of the thread is what i find the most wrong. mac mini being ill conceived from the get go? whatever. apple made its case why the mini was made. and all the news reports about the "halo effect" backs up apple's reasoning/claims. it seems like the thread's author was more about having an attention grabbing controversial title rather than actually understanding why the mac mini was made.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 10:19 AM
 
smoke, you're forgetting that Apple had nowhere to bump the mini too (well, except for the GPU, but we have no clue as to what supply or economic constraints there may be behind that. perhaps they only could get enough 9550s for either the iBook or the mini and they chose the iBook) without wrecking their product delineation.

Maybe this is simply a stop-gap, meant to move stock for a month or two so that when they announce the bumped PowerBooks they can upgrade the mini's CPU and GPU simultaneously. Yes, that does make for a long time between revisions, but look at all of Apple's low-power platforms, they are ALL hurting: the PowerBook has been at about 8-9 months between revisions for the past 2 years, the iBook has been about 7 and it and the mini are nipping at the heels of the "glorified crown jewel of Apple's lineup" PowerBook.

Until the switch, this is the reality.
     
gadster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 10:21 AM
 
The mini is a laptop. Put it on your lap. See? It fits. In fact it could almost fit in your pocket. Try that with a desktop.

See? It doesn't fit. It's all a bit wobbly and a tremendous strain on your concentration while spending all this time online bitching about a rather small gadget that very many have actually found to their liking. Despite your protestations.

If you wish to swap your beloved 7200 rpm drive back to your Dell, please do so and put this mini, this object of your scorn back on eBay and stop your whining. You'll get good money for it. You could even spend the proceeds on an anti-virus insurance policy (bundled with Vista "****s Up For Sure" – check the EULA though) in preparation for 'The Operating System Formerly Known As Longhorn'.
e-gads
     
hudson1
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 11:21 AM
 
I truly believe that the Mini as we know it will be gone within the next 8 to 12 months. Why?

1) Since Tiger was released, every Mac model was given a better GPU as part of its upgrade -- except for the Mini.

2) Contrary to what a poster above presented, laptop components are less capable and more expensive. Aside: If not true, then why don't we find laptop drives in the iMac and eMac, not to mention a whole bunch of desktop PCs as well? If nothing else, the "more expensive" aspect runs completely counter to the mission of the Mini.

edit:

3) As much as we talk about the Mini being the model that most requires low prices, it's really the eMac and iBook that fall into that catagory. Those models are the ones that Apple pitches to the K-12 education market and that is the most price sensitive market of any that Apple goes after. As has been mentioned many times, those machines now have Q2DE capable GPUs.

/edit

Put these three basic facts together and it adds up to, IMHO, that Apple knows it made a mistake by designing the Mini to require laptop components. They've decided to not waste any engineering effort to change a single component (making BTO upgrades standard is not a component change) but rather put that effort into designing a truly new Mini that we'll see at some point down the road. Probably bigger still smaller than the Cube. Maybe as quiet. Properly designed so that it can provide a low cost model and a higher cost model that can bridge the huge chasm that exists between today's Mini and the PowerMac. Call it the "Cube for the rest of us".
( Last edited by hudson1; Jul 28, 2005 at 11:33 AM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 11:51 AM
 
Was it a mistake to use the components they used in the first flat-panel iMac? Is it a mistake to use specific "laptop" or "desktop" components in any design that is not a "laptop" or a "desktop" I don't think so. It is a design decision based on the overall design of the product. Since the aparently driving criterion of the Mini was its small size, then of course there were specific components that HAD to be used to stay inside that envelope-laptop drives (both optical and hard drives) are examples. And contrary to the way we see it in the retail market, laptop drives are not inherently that much more expensive than desktop drives (either hard or optical). If you buy by the shipping container load, you probably get BIG discounts...

On the other hand, they used desktop RAM, not because it is smaller, but because it is less expensive and very available. Integrated video is not an issue, since there are a lot of computers with integrated video-what most people compain about is the small amount of VRAM, or the relative lack of performance of the 9500 video system compared to newer systems. Gee, why would one expect to get cutting-edge performance out of a bargain-priced computer's video system? I really don't understand that.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 12:00 PM
 
hudson, I would bet you a zillion ker-blillion dollars that there will be a Intelmini.

BTW this isn't an update, its a reshuffling of the lineup. The available hardware is the same.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 02:00 PM
 
Don't get me wrong, the mini isn't the object of my scorn. In fact I love my mini. I just think it could stand some (real) updates. Especially when other computer makers are getting even more than we where hoping for in their budget line. Some of the above posters make it seem like better is too much for us to hope for. Repeating intel, Intended market, size constraints, satisfied people, yadda yadda I know all this and still my position stands. It's a sad state of affairs when we expect less than innovative from apple when other companies are offering 64-bit & 128MB VRam Xpress for the same or less price as a 32-bit system with 32mb VRam 9200. No need to get defensive against me for apple they had this coming and they probably know it. Why else would they be switching to intel. I just hope when they do finally come out with the intel model it's not too little too late. Companies like aopen have already made a Intel Mini Prototype with a Pentium M so it definetly is possible.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 02:15 PM
 
Dude, this is all Apple has got. Unless they want to use the same G4 chips and GPUs in the mini, iBook and PowerBook they have to spread it out a little.

Also, realize that all their hardware is Apple-ized, so they can't get components as cheap or as readily as other manufacturers. As a result, they have never updated as often as the rest of the industry (Christ man, you are bitching after only 6 months! An entirely NORMAL Apple update period.) Though the switch to Intel should change that.

Yes the G4 situation is lamentable, yes the low-power lines have fallen behind the industry but GET OVER IT. Apple is risking a lot in trying to alleviate this anchor on its mobile and mini lines by switching to Intel. They are abandoning their entire hardware base to maintain parity.

Sheesh.

And NO CRAP you can put an M in a mini. What do you think they are going to be doing?
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
Dude, simmer down some. What I said still stands, GET OVER IT. =p You expect me to "get over it" and continue to give them my money? No, not until Intel at the very least.

In fact I didn't expect an update right now but if there is one I expect at least something like a GPU bump. I don't have to like the current situation no matter how it is defended.

I will just have to wait, period.

Sheesh.
     
power142
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 04:08 PM
 
I think that expecting a $499 computer to be all things to all people is a little too much to expect. I have a mini. I love it. I also have a PowerMac G5. I love that too, for different reasons. The mini is $499 (and up). The mini is quiet. The mini is, well, mini

The mini doesn't need lots of accessories to be a complete computer, but Apple likes to open up the accessories market to its pals.... just look at the iPod accessories industry as an example.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 04:41 PM
 
No I expect a 700(+ after a 1GB RAM upgrade) dollar top of the line mini to be more than it currently is in a refresh. I don't accept any excuses I have no reason to "upgrade".

Once again I do love my mini however.
     
hudson1
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
hudson, I would bet you a zillion ker-blillion dollars that there will be a Intelmini.
Who's to say what will be but my point is that when the mini gets an Intel chip, the computer will be extensively redesigned so to not rely exclusively on laptop components.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:33 PM
 
No one ever said you have to buy the thing, cripes, I even agreed with you that this "update" is nothing more than an attempt to clear house (prelude to an impending update perhaps?).

But what you won't do is stop whining about how the mini doesn't match specs with budget PC towers when several of us has elucidated why that is. It's like talking to a wall. I get that your disappointed with the mini's power (just look at the whole lineup and check out the other forums where the PB folks, the PM folks, etc. are all lamenting their stagnating machine o' choice), why don't you get that there is nothing practical that Apple can do about it?

At least PM people have some real solid ground to complain on when their $2500 tower comes with a freakin 9600.
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by hudson1
Who's to say what will be but my point is that when the mini gets an Intel chip, the computer will be extensively redesigned so to not rely exclusively on laptop components.

Again, another zillion ker-blillion.

--

edit: sorry for double post
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
No one ever said you have to buy the thing, cripes, I even agreed with you that this "update" is nothing more than an attempt to clear house (prelude to an impending update perhaps?).

But what you won't do is stop whining about how the mini doesn't match specs with budget PC towers when several of us has elucidated why that is. It's like talking to a wall.
Funny, I feel the same about you. I'm not whining I am trying to explain rationally because you keep saying the same thing. If I am whining so are you about your position. I don't owe you anything for agreeing with me once especially how you continue to try to discredit me.

Originally Posted by hakstooy
I get that your disappointed with the mini's power (just look at the whole lineup and check out the other forums where the PB folks, the PM folks, etc. are all lamenting their stagnating machine o' choice), why don't you get that there is nothing practical that Apple can do about it?

At least PM people have some real solid ground to complain on when their $2500 tower comes with a freakin 9600.
Maybe not now but in the future. That's the point. That they better in the future. I don't want to repeat myself and I don't want you to repeat the intel stuff again or what I said is not credible again.

Again you say I don't "get" something. But obviously you don't get me because you continue to argue. Quit being the apologist. I said my bottom line and it's just that. THE bottom line for me.
And that is that this is not a worthy update and that I have to wait. The fact that they too are "lamenting" just shows that there is some truth to what I say and that I'm not just speaking bunk.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 28, 2005 at 06:12 PM. )
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu
Funny, I feel the same about you. I'm not whining I am trying to explain rationally because you keep saying the same thing. If I am whining so are you about your position. I don't owe you anything for agreeing with me once especially how you continue to try to discredit me.



Maybe not now but in the future. That's the point. That they better in the future. I don't want to repeat myself and I don't want you to repeat the intel stuff again or what I said is not credible again.

Again you say I don't "get" something. But obviously you don't get me because you continue to argue. Quit being the apologist. I said my bottom line and it's just that. THE bottom line for me.
And that is that this is not a worthy update and that I have to wait. The fact that they too are "lamenting" just shows that there is some truth to what I say and that I'm not just speaking bunk.
Me, an Apple apologist? Methinks you never read the PowerBook forum.

And, my, what an creative recollection you have.

Ahh, so let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we? First you simply say the mini needs a better graphics card and that its lack of keyboard and mouse make it a bad value. You then go on to elaborate on how it is a bad value because of the GPU and how it won't compete with the likes of the iMac because it doesn't have a keyboard or mouse (from this post it seems you would rather the mini be more comparable, performance wise, to an iMac. Basically, you want an xMac, which the mini isn't and was never supposed to be). You then begin comparing the mini to the eMac in a "bang-for-buck" showdown, factoring them to be essentially equivalent save for componentry. You then completely discount the idea that people who already have a monitor, keyboard and mouse would not be dissuaded by the mini's lack of peripherals as "what if" conjecture (when in fact its the whole point of the mini's existence). You then again complain about their being no update. You then state again that it isn't a good value and that it needs an update. Then, you again state it needs an update and is a bad value compared to the eMacs, but this time include the spicy addition of a (disconnected) PC comparison. Then, you again state it needs an update, that it's not keeping pace with PC offerings. You then decry the update, twice.

So, to summarize, you make 4 basic points: 1, the mini needs an update/this update is lame (brought up 5 times), 2A, the mini is a bad value compared to other Macs (brought up 5 times), 2B, the mini is a bad value compared to PCs (brought up 2 times), 3, the mini doesn't compete with other Mac offerings (brought up 2 times).

Which brings us to your concluding "point" which is now that Apple needs to make sure they increase the performance in the future (mindblowing assertion there ).

As for me, I've addressed all your points, with insight you have completely shrugged off and instead simply repeated the same things over and over again.

It's clear that you want an xMac, something with iMac like performance but in a smaller enclosure, something more like a cross between a mini and a Cube. I agree with you, I'd like one also. However, this does not seem to be Apple's design philosophy, they want consumers that want a machine to buy an AIO. They are likely afraid that selling an xMac would not bring enough new people in to justify the iMac sales it would cannibalize. This may or may not be valid, but I'm sure they've done studies on the idea, and in the end have chosen to continue the AIO philosophy that has been their standard for the last 7 years.

But in the end, the mini is not what you wanted, and you need to realize that. Its a great value for the people it was intended for, just not you.

As for being updated, the languishing G4 has slowed updates all around and considering that, the mini is far from being ignored, its only at 6 months at current specs (the iBook just levitated for the last 10). And if the overstocks are true, then maybe Apple is just delaying an update until they can move enough of the old versions.
     
smoke-tetsu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 07:32 PM
 
Just as you shrugged me off this whole time almost entirely dismissing me with what could almost be considered disrespect simplyfying what I said. It wasn't just peripherals. I never said it was a bad value becuse of lack of that either. You misinterprate what I say. You completely dismiss some of my examples calling them disconnected even though they are computers and the same price is being charged for them.

They can't continue with this philosophy forever and just because it is their philosophy at the moment that doesn't make it right even if they did it for seven years.

I saw that you replied and I sighed with disgust thinking "what this time". For the n'th time I love my mini (for some reason you don't see that) but I am looking forward to an update. Plain and simple, take it or leave it. If the mini is meant to languish at every "update" then I think it's a mistake. Yes, yes yes, I know of the intel thing no need to sarcastically reply and mention it. I don't want a xMac though it wouldn't hurt. I just want a GPU upgrade at the least. THat is not too much to ask for 64MB. But I simply resigned to wait for Intel. Why can't you accept that? You act like it is 6 months ago & I'm complaining about the first minis so I shouldn't have one. That's not the case. Do I even have to explain more? I shouldn't have to.
( Last edited by smoke-tetsu; Jul 28, 2005 at 07:53 PM. )
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 07:59 PM
 
nevermind
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,