# New Mac Mini Updates Have Arrived



## fuel156 (Jun 19, 2002)

I ordered a mini 1.42 Ghz model

I got and updated one with a 1.5 Ghz 64 mb video card.sweeeet


----------



## zarquon (May 24, 2005)

fuel156 said:


> I ordered a mini 1.42 Ghz model
> 
> I got and updated one with a 1.5 Ghz 64 mb video card.sweeeet


Excelent! but the webstore still showes the 1.42g w. 32m video - I wonder when they will start advertising this change?

Z.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Silent change.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

Oh. Does this mean Coreimage support on the Mac Mini?


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

i stole this name said:


> Oh. Does this mean Coreimage support on the Mac Mini?


If its still a Radeon 9200 then no, Core Image still wont be supported, regardless of how much VRAM it has.

Core Image needs some specific programmable APIs that the card needs to support before Core Image will work. The 9200 series doesn't support those APIs, unfortunately.

Trev


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

Is this machine in your hands or shipping?

Thanks for the heads up. Anything official from Apple yet?


----------



## fuel156 (Jun 19, 2002)

yea started it up last night..its in my posession.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Any specs on the hard drive? People are wondering if it's a 5400rpm drive.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Any specs on the hard drive? People are wondering if it's a 5400rpm drive.


Chances are yes, and a couple other things, if the rumor sites speak true... fuel, can you confirm or deny any of that stuff?


----------



## fuel156 (Jun 19, 2002)

i'll check the drive speed tonight


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

Question: Why do Apple.ca and Apple.com still list the old specs?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Probably because there are still a few of the old machines in the chain (i.e. Apple Stores and resellers.)

If Apple officially announced new models, they would have to offer price protection to the resellers, potentially losing a pile of coin. For every day that an old model can be sold at the newer model price, Apple makes more money.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050921185901.shtml

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0509macmini.html


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

dolawren said:


> http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050921185901.shtml
> 
> http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0509macmini.html


Yup. That's been the rumour. But I'm wondering what Apple is actually shipping. For example, fuel156 states that the ATI card has 64MB. Yet, neither of the rumour reports predicted that. I would be really surprised if Apple _didn't_ bump the drive speed to 5400rpm. So, I'm really curious to see if they addressed this performance bottleneck -- which is why 64MB VRAM is awesome news!


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

I will let you guys know what we get. We ordered the 1.42 80GB on Sept 13 from Apple. On the 23rd got an email saying there was an "unexpected delay", with the order. It then shipped on the 24th. Now waiting...

All of the sales documentation s/a the receipt indicates that it is the 1.42 model, but if rumours are true then it could be a nice surprise.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

I only hope that my iBook won't become obsolete right away. I bought it on august 17th. Pleaaaase don't update the iBook till january!!!


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

Wish the video upgrade bumped from 9200 to 9550 or 9600....


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

According to MacNN, the upgraded video card is still a 9200, but the vram is now 64 megs. I belief this was a top of the line Mini because the buyer who got it received the 1.5 gig processor and a superdrive.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

So if you want the ATI 9600 video card then the eMac is still the better buy,
Maybe Apple will secretly bump the eMac to 1.5 ghz when no one is looking.



> eMac Spec's:
> 17-inch flat CRT display
> 1.42GHz PowerPC G4
> 512MB DDR333 SDRAM
> ...


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

A system is not obsolete because a new release is out... It still works doesn't it?

And also - it's very very unlikely that they update the iBooks soon.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0509macmini2.html

Note the last paragraph. If that's true, I'm glad I'm not working for a reseller as there are going to be people who will not be happy campers. Not to mention that a reseller can't tell the difference between a 1.42 and a 1.5 from the outside of the box.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

That SUCKS!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Hopefully the resellers (or even the Apple Store itself) won't have to deal with pissy customers...

"I want you to open it and power it up. If it's the newer model, I'll but it. If not, you can keep it."

Once Apple officially announces the bumped-specs, whatever is left in stores will see a price drop I'm sure.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> "I want you to open it and power it up. If it's the newer model, I'll but it. If not, you can keep it."


Oh god. That brings back memories. I had to hear that 10 times a day every time a new OS came out and people wouldn't buy a computer with the previous OS and pay the $20 or whatever it was to get the new OS on CD. 

Like I said earlier, I'm glad I'm no longer working for a dealer.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Well, there's NO WAY IN HELL I'd buy a Mac Mini blind right now. If these specs are true (mainly, 32Mb VRAM->64MB, 4200rpm->5400rpm drive), they are too crucial to improving the Mini's performance to take a blind shot at. Apple is being VERY SLIMEY here. VERY SLIMEY!


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> Apple is being VERY SLIMEY here. VERY SLIMEY!


You can that again! I'm glad we only have 1 in stock. Although we are still sitting on some Rev A's we are having a hard time getting rid of


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I wouldn't say that it is slimey of Apple.

Slimey would imply that Apple is somehow deceiving customers into buying a lesser machine than the one they intend to buy. There is no such deception here.

Apple is actually getting you a BETTER machine than you are expecting to buy. Customers will go shopping for a 1.25 or a 1.42, and will either get what they were expecting, or a better machine. Nope. Nothing slimey about that.

And this most likely won't be that last time Apple will do this. With Intel machines coming next year, and having to compete with PC makers who update their equipment every two months, Apple will have to do the continual, gradual, upgrade thing. No more waiting for 8 months and a keynote to get new equipment.

One thing that resellers will have to make sure of is that they adhere to the FIFO inventory system. First in, first out. Be terrible if an older machine got stuck at the back of some shelf for months after an update.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Not to mention that a reseller can't tell the difference between a 1.42 and a 1.5 from the outside of the box.


The specs are posted on the box. If Apple changes the Mac mini, the specs on the upgraded models' boxes will reflect the change.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

You know, I'm FINALLY starting to see past my passion to recognize that, not only is it a potential hazard to buy some Rev. A devices from Apple (B&W G3, "Yikes!", G5 iMac, iPod Nano, to name a few) on account of "unforseen QC issues", but Apple seems to sometimes also underspec their initial releases. The kool-aid drinkers (I obviously count myself among them) go for the bleeding edge, and then Apple releases updates that the originals SHOULD have been (Mac Mini, and the "blind" iPod shuffle, when compared to the nano and it having a display).


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Lars said:


> The specs are posted on the box. If Apple changes the Mac mini, the specs on the upgraded models' boxes will reflect the change.


I would hope so and think so. But according to the web page referenced in this thread, the current specs will become "minimum specs", and you _might[/i[] get "bonus specs" until the channel gets fully cleared of the old version. That seems highly unusual and dishonest. but Apple KNOWS the Mini has some poor aspects to it and they'll be left with a load of unsold stock if they made the differences in specs blatantly ascertainable._


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> I wouldn't say that it is slimey of Apple.
> 
> Slimey would imply that Apple is somehow deceiving customers into buying a lesser machine than the one they intend to buy. There is no such deception here. Apple is actually getting you a BETTER machine than you are expecting to buy. Customers will go shopping for a 1.25 or a 1.42, and will either get what they were expecting, or a better machine. Nope. Nothing slimey about that.


They won't be getting what they're expecting if they KNOW something better is "out there". Anybody who might KNOW of the improvements would be insane not to WANT THEM at the same price as the old stuff. And, using the FIFO rule, can you imagine how pissed off a customeris going to be buying a Rev A at small, low volume "Mac shoppe" when his friend tells him he got a Rev.B on the same day at the high-volume BestBuy??

Nothing you buy these days gives you "free volume" by random chance. BIG BAGS of chips are half empty because they are "sold by weight; not by volume", and you can bet your ass that the weight is as EXACT AS POSSIBLE _as indicated on the bag_. It will be convenient of Apple to all of a sudden START listing the improved specs once they KNOW the channels have been cleared of the old ones. What? The cartons are back-ordered? yeeAH! RIGHT! 

Even a bonus 10 grams of a chocolate bar is plastered on the wrapper.

No. This smells bad. Very bad. And it is something I cannot recall Apple -- or any other manufacturer -- ever doing before.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> ...go for the bleeding edge, and then Apple releases updates that the originals SHOULD have been...


Perhaps, but this really isn't a valid argument, considering it's based solely on ones' opinion of what something _should_ have been. How do you determine what something *should* have been? What _you_ think the Mac mini _should_ have been originally probably differs from my opinion, which probably differs from someone else's opinion. Anything else you want to add?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Lars said:


> Perhaps, but this really isn't a valid argument, considering it's based solely on ones' opinion of what something _should_ have been. How do you determine what something *should* have been? What _you_ think the Mac mini _should_ have been originally probably differs from my opinion, which probably differs from someone else's opinion. Anything else you want to add?


Well, there's nothing that says Apple is _liable_ for what *I* think the original Mac Mini should have been. But when comparing to the performance on the PC side at near the same price-point, and knowing how sluggish the Mac Mini is (the drive in particular), these new specs give the mini a more viable set of tools to go about its chores. And REALLY, we're talking a (true) desktop form factor. Such a form factor typically possesses better video-ram than 32MB and certainly more than a 4200rpm drive.

But this discussion is secondary to Apple's coy approach to their new specs. THAT is underhanded. maybe not illegal, but its underhanded nevertheless.

As for the Shuffle, who else but APPLE can (or would try to) spin a feature deficiency (no display) into an actual "PLUS"; so much as to actually name it ("shuffle") after the workaround for that lack of a display??


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

I wonder whether Mac Mini owners with the 32 meg video cards will be able to upgrade these, as they can with the HD and RAM. I think that the extra VRAM will make a fair bit of difference, and I would gladly pay to upgrade mine.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Fox said:


> I wonder whether Mac Mini owners with the 32 meg video cards will be able to upgrade these, as they can with the HD and RAM. I think that the extra VRAM will make a fair bit of difference, and I would gladly pay to upgrade mine.


It won't happen, and it can't happen, just like the iMac G5, eMac, iBook, and PowerBook G4 which have logic board soldered graphics chips.

The only way I think of is swapping the logic board from a newer model into an older Mac mini model, but even then, knowing Apple, there will be some connector which differs the two logic boards, making a swap impossible.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I think the GPU is soldered to the Mini's mobo, or integrated across it in some way. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

here are quicktimes and PDFs on open and taking the Mini apart:

http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/01/taking-apart-mac-mini-how-to.php


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> I think the GPU is soldered to the Mini's mobo, or integrated across it in some way. But I could be wrong.


The GPU/CPU is completely integrated into the logic board.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

That's one hefty quote there, Lars! We get "the picture"!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Here's a roundup of resh and recycled news about the update:

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2005-09-28/#4544

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12017

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/09/27/1.5ghz.mac.minis

http://www.macintouch.com/#other.2005.09.28

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=12750


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

Here's yet another story on this. 

http://beta.news.com.com/Apple+offers+Mac+Mini+grab+bag/2100-1042_3-5885485.html?tag=nefd.top

The Apple PR hack couldn't explain why Apple was doing this.


----------



## interact (Mar 11, 2004)

Macaholic said:


> No. This smells bad. Very bad. And it is something I cannot recall Apple -- or any other manufacturer -- ever doing before.


I agree that this is not a good direction, but it's happened before. I bought an Acomdata 160GB USB 2.0 external HD and opened it up to find it was USB 2.0 and Firewire. There was a note that explained they ran out of USB 2.0 stock, so they upgraded my purchase.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

interact said:


> I agree that this is not a good direction, but it's happened before. I bought an Acomdata 160GB USB 2.0 external HD and opened it up to find it was USB 2.0 and Firewire. There was a note that explained they ran out of USB 2.0 stock, so they upgraded my purchase.


Well, that's a little different. That's a "perk" because what you KNOWINGLY ordered was temporarily unavailable. That wasn't a permanent feature revision. Right?

The same thing happened to me when I ordered Frankenmac's CPU upgrade. I ordered from Other World Computing in the USA the dual 1.2GHz upgrade. It took SO LONG for it to come that Gigadesigns (the maker of the upgrade) sent me a dual 1.3GHz.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

8127972 said:


> The Apple PR hack couldn't explain why Apple was doing this.


I can.

*Greed.*


This is MONDO LAME-O!


----------



## lick (Jun 27, 2005)

Yes very bad Apple, even though I can understand why you're doing it from a business standpoint. This is more in line with what I'd expect from MSFT or Dell. Apple is supposed to be a premium manufacturer (the BMW of the computer world, right?), so I expect a premium sales experience, not a game of russian roulette with the mini I buy. For knowledgeable shoppers this making buying a system (and planning for various accessories to augment it) difficult.

I guess I'm expecting too much to think that the new rev.B mac minis Best Buy just listed on their website last week to be the 1.5Ghz models. Does anyone think BB just bought up the leftover stock of the old models?


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> Does anyone think BB just bought up the leftover stock of the old models?


There would be no way for them to tell even if they did. The packaging and the part numbers are exactly the same. Even they are rolling the dice on this one.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Well, the solution is to wait it out and let the suckers clear up the channels. The CPU speed increase is minimal. But, the new 64MB GPU is great, and the faster hard drive is MOST great. And to boot there are upgraded wireless specs, too. All in all, these improvements are most welcome.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> Well, the solution is to wait it out and let the suckers clear up the channels. The CPU speed increase is minimal. But, the new 64MB GPU is great, and the faster hard drive is MOST great. And to boot there are upgraded wireless specs, too. All in all, these improvements are most welcome.


How is the new GPU great (other than having 64MB)? Correct me if i'm wrong, but it doesn't support core image. So how good is that?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Well, maybe "great" was going a bit over the top  Although it _still_ doesn't support Core Image, Quartz Extreme can still use the extra VRAM when usage gets high, as can anybody gaming on a Mac Mini...

did I just use the words, "gaming" and "Mac Mini" in he same sentence??!  Well, my kid certainly games on it (Jedi Academy and the like).


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

i don't think i'll be buying another Apple product for a long time. dunno, seems a lot of things i've heard and are done by Apple, combined with my experience with the few products i own make me not want to buy any more products, or at least 2nd guess my decisions on looking at their products. Apple products seem to carry a premium, and the return value, at least in my case, doesn't seem to be worth it.

the Mac Mini purchase was okay. got it cuz it was priced low enough for me to justify it as an entry level Mac system. it was to supplement my PCs i use but i'm still struggling to find a real use for it.

also my iPod Mini purchase was also okay. bought that cuz of it's size and design, which was much better than anything else that was offered at the time. feature and function wise, i find it a bit lacking, and restrictive, being tied to iTunes. also accessories as with all Apple products, i consider expensive.

the Shuffle i got free but would never have bought myself. my wife is happy using it for commuting though. glad i didn't give in on the impulse to buy the Nano. weighing in the pros and cons after the dust had settled, as well as playing with my friends first hand, i think i would have regretted the purchase.

seems my decisions to buy Apple products are very superficial!


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Well, the solution is to wait it out and let the suckers clear up the channels.


I wouldn't be so harsh as to call them suckers, but yes, this is the solution. Actually I don't really see how this is worse than before - when savvy/patient buyers would find out that the channel was drying up and decide to "wait it out" until the inevitable upcoming revision. In the old system, if you were a "sucker" and decided not to wait, it was still risky that the update would come so late that you'd not be eligible for an upgrade. So for "suckers" and patient people, not much has really changed, except that Apple has saved themselves a lot of phone calls and shipping replacement systems. Please disillusion me if this does not add to the discussion.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MacMe:

But what about the OS and software? There are two roads to Macworld: hardware seduction and Windows frustration. Actually, there's three now, with the apparent "iPod Halo Effect" of Windows iPod users loving the iPod/iTunes combination so much that some find themselves curious about Apple's computers and software.

No matter how bone-headed Apple may be from time to time, it's Mac OS X that I work with every day. And I'm glad that I do, versus dealing with Windows and being under Microsoft's shadow. By comparison, Apple's "shadow" is a bit more of a sunny one than Microsoft's.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

elmer said:


> Actually I don't really see how this is worse than before - when savvy/patient buyers would find out that the channel was drying up and decide to "wait it out" until the inevitable upcoming revision... Please disillusion me if this does not add to the discussion.


Well, the BIG difference between then and now is that Apple ALWAYS made the distinction between old and new stock clear, providing the consumer with honest information. Come now; what company doesn't (even some mandated by law) clearly state the contents and nature of their products?? Apple's refusal to do so in this case is conspicuous beyond contempt.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

I can't see what people are complaining about. Everyone ordered a 1.42GHz mini, while some are getting a 1.5GHz mini. No one ordered a 1.5GHz mini and got a 1.42GHz mini, did they? Everyone got what they paid for, just some were luckier than others and got a bit more.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

But what if I WANT the 1.5? I don't WANT 1.42, 32MB VRAM, slowest drive if i know i can have the 1.5GHz, 64MB and faster drive _for the same money_. maybe I'm the only one complaining about this, but I'd want full value for my money; not leaving me getting sub-standard specs to chance. My Mac Mini is fine, but _I know and can feel_ that the drive is an impediment to faster system response.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

While Apple is hoping that people take your view jfpoole, I agree with Macaholic. This is a pain in the butt for resellers, Apple store employees and anybody who has to sell this stuff. Plus while there are consumers who don't care either way, I would be BLODDY PI**ED if I bought one of the 1.42's and found out that by the luck of the draw I didn't get a faster and somewhat more capable computer for the same price.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's going to be a nightmare for resellers and the whole channel.

Look at Best Buy - every single one of the 1.42s will end up returned - Apple is going to get roasted over orders in the works.

There is already a "stuck" set of 1.42s now the entire production of anything without the 64 meg card is stranded product.
Very foolish approach by Apple.

It does not impact us at all but I'll be sure to explain clearly to potential clients that perhaps sitting out a Mini right now is the easiest course....if the details make difference to them.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> It does not impact us at all but I'll be sure to explain clearly to potential clients that perhaps sitting out a Mini right now is the easiest course....if the details make difference to them.


Keep in mind MacDoc that you're one of the few people who can do that. Direct and indirect resellers who carry stock (as not all indirect resellers do as you are aware) have already paid for their inventory and need to move it so they can't afford to do that. In effect, they're screwed twice. Once by Apple and once by customers who demand the rev b's and won't touch the rev a's with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm very aware of it and trying to help move the already stranded 1.42 stock in the channel and at dealers.
This is just going to make it far worse.

My point was that tho it doesn't impact us ( luckily ) it's a very bad situation overall and poorly handled.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> My point was that tho it doesn't impact us ( luckily ) it's a very bad situation overall and poorly handled.


Point noted. I wasn't trying to attack you or anything FWIW. 

On another note, I wonder if the Apple store has 1.5's in stock and they cleared out their 1.42's? That would be interesting to know....... I'm sure that resellers would love to know if that was the case. 

(To think that I was missing working full time in the Mac world after leaving it a few months ago. Thankfully the dumb stuff that Apple has a tendency to do (such as this situation) makes me see that I made the right decision to leave for the "dark side." That and my paycheque is MUCH bigger.  I think I'll be a Mac lover from the sidelines from now on. )


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> But what if I WANT the 1.5? I don't WANT 1.42, 32MB VRAM, slowest drive if i know i can have the 1.5GHz, 64MB and faster drive _for the same money_. maybe I'm the only one complaining about this, but I'd want full value for my money; not leaving me getting sub-standard specs to chance. My Mac Mini is fine, but _I know and can feel_ that the drive is an impediment to faster system response.


Then wait?

It's simple, really. Don't anticipate more than you're promised! And if new minis really are pouring into the channel, it won't be very long until the update is official.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MacDoc, I noticed that you've settled upon "the bundle" with your Mac Minis:

MacMini 1.25
512 RAM
40 gig
Combo
KB & mouse
17" CRT
all the software

_$700.00_

Sounds good to me! That package is _"Macaholic Approved"_!










PS: You've got a slight typo in your description of the package.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

As well, what about when (if) your new 1.5GHz Mac Mini fails? Your invoice shows you only bought a 1.42GHz so what happens when your logic board fails? How upset are you going to be when Apple sends you a replacement that is only a 1.42GHz w/32MB ram? Or if your hard drive fails and a 4200RPM drive gets sent? 

If they aren't changing the model numbers, this could very easily happen.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Commodus said:


> It's simple, really. Don't anticipate more than you're promised! And if new minis really are pouring into the channel, it won't be very long until the update is official.


Great. I'll let you know when I've convinced myself of this...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Digital_Gary said:


> As well, what about when your new 1.5GHz Mac Mini fails? Your invoice shows you only bought a 1.42GHz so what happens when your logic board fails? How upset are you going to be when Apple sends you a replacement that is only a 1.42GHz w/32MB ram? Or if your hard drive fails and a 4200RPM drive gets sent?
> 
> If they aren't changing the model numbers, this could very easily happen.



oh GOD, I hadn't thought of THAT one!


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> As well, what about when your new 1.5GHz Mac Mini fails? Your invoice shows you only bought a 1.42GHz so what happens when your logic board fails? How upset are you going to be when Apple sends you a replacement that is only a 1.42GHz w/32MB ram? Or if your hard drive fails and a 4200RPM drive gets sent?


Wouldn't GSX eliminate this possibility at the ASP level based on the serial number that you typed in?


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

8127972 said:


> Wouldn't GSX eliminate this possibility at the ASP level based on the serial number that you typed in?


Only time will tell. We've had a customer who received 5400RPM drive in their system as a bonus. After it failed, a 4200RPM drive was sent as a replacement. They complained to Apple and were told that since they paid for a 4200RPM, that is all they were entitled to.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Digital_Gary said:


> Only time will tell. We've had a customer who received 5400RPM drive in their system as a bonus. After it failed, a 4200RPM drive was sent as a replacement. They complained to Apple and were told that since they paid for a 4200RPM, that is all they were entitled to.


Given the recent developments regarding the Mac Mini, you must be referring to a different Apple computer. Powerbook, perhaps?


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

iBook actually 

I've PM'd fuel156 to see if he would send me his serial number. Once I have that, I can see what Apple has listed as a service replacement


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

> Only time will tell. We've had a customer who received 5400RPM drive in their system as a bonus. After it failed, a 4200RPM drive was sent as a replacement. They complained to Apple and were told that since they paid for a 4200RPM, that is all they were entitled to.


I'm suprised Apple didn't crap all over for you for not sending the part that they expected back (a 4200RPM drive). I've had that happen to me a few times and had to make a phone call or two to set things straight. 

To be fair, I've had it go the other way with those "Death Star" hard drives that were in G4's. The customer ended up getting a bigger and faster hard drive if their existing one died.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

If Apple is out of stock on a part, they sometimes send a "like" part to replace it. They will accept the correct defective part back because it is well documented. 

If they have tons of the 1.42GHz boards for service replacements, I am sure that is what will be sent out if the Mini was purchased as a 1.42Ghz. At the same time, if they don't have many 1.42GHz boards, customers may end up getting 1.5Ghz boards back as service replacements. 

I haven't received the serial number yet so i haven't been able to check to see what Apple lists as a replacement board.


----------



## fuel156 (Jun 19, 2002)

I haven't had a chance to check it because its over at my cousins house, i'll be heading over there on the weekend and I'll take snapshots of the specs


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Our mini SD finally arrived a month after ordering from Apple. I thought the delay might have been due to the processor updates but it shipped with the 1.42 processor. 

We're pretty happy with it so far. I'm really surprised at how quiet it is, and it seems fast enough for our purposes. 

The only thing is that there's no jack to plug my apple speakers into...there is one for headphones though...do I need some kind of adaptor or something to use speakers? 

Thanks,
E


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

The only one I know of is the Griffin iFire. I think they discontinued it becuase it isn't listed anymore. They are still listed at some resellers but I think you'd have to get lucky to find one in stock.

Here is what they look like...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/im...9637643?_encoding=UTF8&n=172282&s=electronics


BTW, I found out that Apple does have a separate category for the "new" Mac Mini's so if you get a 1.5GHz and have a logic board die, you will get a 1.5Ghz as a replacement.


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

I picked up the Griffin iMic, I'm quite happy with it. It seems to be the most recommended USB sound card.


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

The iMic won't help in Eukaryotic's case assuming he has the Apple pro speakers which use the Apple pro speaker jack.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Apple Pro Speakers are what I have. Thanks for the info!


----------



## PirateMyke (Jul 14, 2005)

iFire = eBay  TADA


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

Eukaryotic:

This might be an excuse to get new speakers. 

Creature II speakers in aluminum or red, anyone?


----------



## PirateMyke (Jul 14, 2005)

Creature speakers Thou they may look good... arnt quality for what you pay for!!! You could get some Logitech Z-2300's witch are more than DOUBLE the wattage of the creatures!!! And they only cost 50 bucks more then the creature's at future shop!!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I've a theory on how to identify the NEW Mac Minis:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=294612#post294612


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Commodus said:


> Eukaryotic:
> 
> This might be an excuse to get new speakers.
> 
> Creature II speakers in aluminum or red, anyone?


These fit into the mini? I thought they have the same input as the Apple Pro speakers? But an excuse to get some new swag is welcomed!


----------

