# Disappointed in available configurations on new Mac Mini



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sigh, once again Apple let us Mac Mini enthusiasts down by deliberately limiting the processing power so that if we want more we have to go to an iMac or a Mac Pro. Cripes you can only go to a quad core i7 in the server version and it is only at 2.0GHz. 

There is no reason they couldn't have had a BTO option of a quad i5 at 2.5GHz even in the none server version except to make us have to go for an iMac or Mac Pro. Very disappointed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If the mac userbase expands further, they're just going to have to relax their "here's 2 options, and 2 crappier options" stance.

A big yawn on the minis here too.


----------



## SnowX (Feb 16, 2010)

At least they finally moved away from the C2D!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I do not have the same technical know-how that most have here, but I was surprised at the new mini. Newer processors and hard-drive are fine, but I was surprised to see a lack of super-drive. If you don't cloud you don't count I guess. And one wonders how long the super-drive attachment will last in Apple's mindset? Too me it just looks like an upgraded version of the old style Apple TV, only you can do more things with it. Anyone thinking of upgrading theirs to a newer one? But I do have a question, does the newer one have fewer moving parts.... if so then it may be fine to transport from location to location ( which I do know but I'm always concerned about movement with the HD ) also I wonder how cool the thing will run?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

isn't the hard drive the same one in a macbook pro that I carry around daily?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

At least the pricing is at parity...finally.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I'm a little surprised to see the optical drive being dropped but then again this is Apple so I shouldn't be surprised  I wonder how long we'll see an optical drive on the MacBook Pro's and iMac's?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

jimbotelecom said:


> At least the pricing is at parity...finally.


No it's not. I don't want to be *that guy*, but the Canadian dollar has been above parity continually since January of this year.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

crawford said:


> No it's not. I don't want to be *that guy*, but the Canadian dollar has been above parity continually since January of this year.


You're right. I stand corrected. But at least we're not charged say $620 CDN for the entry level.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I wonder if the portable air drive can be integrated with these driveless updates.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

please for the love of god go and do some reading and educate yourself as to why there are discrepancies in pricing between the US and canada above and beyond simply the exchange rate

honestly the idea of grown adults not grasping this simple concept even though it has been explained ad nauseum in print, online and on tv is infuriating.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> I wonder if the portable air drive can be integrated with these driveless updates.


surely it can. the usb superdrive has always been compatible with the mini server, which never had an ODD...stands to reason the same would apply here.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

> I wonder if the portable air drive can be integrated with these driveless updates.


Apparently the MacBook Air's external drive works fine with these new Mini's


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

screature said:


> Sigh, once again Apple let us Mac Mini enthusiasts down by deliberately limiting the processing power so that if we want more we have to go to an iMac or a Mac Pro. Cripes you can only go to a quad core i7 in the server version and it is only at 2.0GHz.
> 
> There is no reason they couldn't have had a BTO option of a quad i5 at 2.5GHz even in the none server version except to make us have to go for an iMac or Mac Pro. Very disappointed.


Don't forget that these new cpu's have turbo boost, so they will be better, plus adding the Radeon HD 6630M to the $799 is a step in the right direction.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

broad said:


> please for the love of god go and do some reading and educate yourself as to why there are discrepancies in pricing between the US and canada above and beyond simply the exchange rate
> 
> honestly the idea of grown adults not grasping this simple concept even though it has been explained ad nauseum in print, online and on tv is infuriating.


there's medication for that.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Sigh, once again Apple let us Mac Mini enthusiasts down by deliberately limiting the processing power so that if we want more we have to go to an iMac or a Mac Pro. Cripes you can only go to a quad core i7 in the server version and it is only at 2.0GHz.
> 
> There is no reason they couldn't have had a BTO option of a quad i5 at 2.5GHz even in the none server version except to make us have to go for an iMac or Mac Pro. Very disappointed.


Sounds to me like you were expecting a mini Mac Pro tower or something similar. The Mac mini is not, and has never, been supposed to compete with the iMac or Mac Pro line. Why do we still expect differently?

I'm personally pretty happy with the Mac mini update - happy to see discrete graphics on the high-end model. Time to upgrade to the 2.7 i7 model this fall I think. (From a C2D 2.0 Early '09.)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> surely it can. the usb superdrive has always been compatible with the mini server, which never had an ODD...stands to reason the same would apply here.


Its a BTO option when you go to buy... $79.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> Don't forget that these new cpu's *have turbo boost*, so they will be better, plus adding the *Radeon HD 6630M* to the $799 is a s*tep in the right direction*.


I know they do, they still could have easily made a quad core i5 2.5 GHz as a BTO option, deliberately under powering them... baby steps maybe but they could have given quad cores as an option *now*. 

They also could have given us the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB as BTO option and they didn't do that either.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> *Sounds to me like you were expecting a mini Mac Pro tower* or something similar. The Mac mini is not, and has never, been supposed to compete with the iMac or Mac Pro line. Why do we still expect differently?
> 
> I'm personally pretty happy with the Mac mini update - happy to see discrete graphics on the high-end model. Time to upgrade to the 2.7 i7 model this fall I think. (From a C2D 2.0 Early '09.)


Nope not at all, I didn't expect the form factor to change or to have expansion slots. Did I make any mention of them? They easily could have given us the option of a quad core CPU and more powerful graphics chip, the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB.

Simply by doing that the Mini would still not be competing with the iMac or MP.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Nope not at all, I didn't expect the form factor to change or to have expansion slots. Did I make any mention of them? They easily could have given us the option ofa a quad core CPU and more powerful graphics chip, the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB.
> 
> Simply by doing that the Mini would still not be competing with the iMac or MP.


Sure, but the Mac mini - competing with the iMac or not - is meant for users with smaller demands from their computing experience. That's pretty much the bottom line. It's the users on ehMac who want to buy a Mac mini but want it to do what an high-end iMac does. It's just not a realistic expectation. And, I'm sure that with higher-end processors and video cards, the price would increase which no one wants on a Mac mini. The cheap(er) price is also what makes it attractive to a certain group of buyers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation at all. Gone are the days where apple has a tiny marketshare and need to keep a limited number of systems.

People are going to expect far more options now, and if apple doesn't offer it, they'll get something else.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

groovetube said:


> People are going to expect far more options now, and if apple doesn't offer it, they'll get something else.


Right - because people on ehMac here are going out to buy a PC instead because a Mac mini isn't offering a quad-core i7. 

Don't worry - there won't be a shortage of customers who will buy the new mini.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

right and the entire demographic is right here on ehmac... 

I'm sure the 200 regulars or so here will buy a mac.

How about the other 500 milion plus or minus a billion? You think they give a crap?

pffft.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> Sure, but the Mac mini - competing with the iMac or not - is meant for users with smaller demands from their computing experience. That's pretty much the bottom line. It's the users on ehMac who want to buy a Mac mini but want it to do what an high-end iMac does. It's just not a realistic expectation. *And, I'm sure that with higher-end processors and video cards, the price would increase which no one wants on a Mac mini. *The cheap(er) price is also what makes it attractive to a certain group of buyers.


That's why I said they could be BTO options and the base price would still stay the same. I would personally be willing to pay more for such a configuration and I know many users who would as well. There is no reason why there couldn't be such options other than as I said to force people to buy iMacs (which I will never own) or a Mac Pro. So for those of us who want a headless Mac the option continues to be bottom of the line or top of the line, they continue to ignore the middle.

There used to be good reason for ignoring the middle because it would mean changing the form factor of the Mini but with the advancements in CPUs and graphic chips the reason no longer exists. Mac Minis could also be the middle ground for those who want a headless Mac if they only were to offer better CPU and graphic chip options... and I bet they would sell a ton of them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this foisting of that horrendous shiny glass monitor if you want a decent consumer desktop, is BS.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

screature said:


> That's why I said they could be BTO options and the base price would still stay the same. I would personally be willing to pay more for such a configuration and I know many users who would as well. There is no reason why there couldn't be such options other than as I said to force people to buy iMacs (which I will never own) or a Mac Pro. So for those of us who want a headless Mac the option continues to be bottom of the line or top of the line, they continue to ignore the middle.
> 
> There used to be good reason for ignoring the middle because it would mean changing the form factor of the Mini but with the advancement in CPUs and graphic chips the reason no longer exists. Mac Minis could also be the middle ground for those who want a headless Mac if they only were to offer better CPU and graphic chip options... and I bet they would sell a ton of them.


people, in general, dont want headless macs. i would bet you the mini makes up at most about 1/15th or so of overall mac sales. ehmac users aside, the few people who do want desktops these days overwhelmingly want the sexiness of the imac


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> this foisting of that horrendous shiny glass monitor if you want a decent consumer desktop, is BS.


you said it though."consumer". thats the key word. consumer.


----------



## iLabmAn (Jan 1, 2003)

I am quite excited about the new Mini. I think all the upgrades to this little amazing device are fabulous and I will be sure to invest in one soon.

I suspected that the optical drive would be removed as the demise of the CD/DVD/BD disk was inevitable. We have a 2.0 GHZ Mac Mini that serves as our main computer at home. I've probably used the optical drive a handful of times opting to use external drives and now the Cloud to store video and audio media. 

Having bought an iPad 2 a little while ago, I am working to get my files and applications more organized so that my iPad serves as a portal to access them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> *people, in general, dont want headles*s macs. i would bet you the mini makes up at most about 1/15th or so of overall mac sales. ehmac users aside, the few people who do want desktops these days overwhelmingly want the sexiness of the imac


Who says? Maybe if they weren't needlessly under powered more people would want them. Not ehMac users aside... you mustn't get around the Mac world much as there are web sites like 123MacMini.com dedicated to the Mini that have been around since the Mini came out for Mini enthusiasts.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

screature said:


> I know they do, they still could have easily made a quad core i5 2.5 GHz as a BTO option, deliberately under powering them... baby steps maybe but they could have given quad cores as an option *now*.
> 
> They also could have given us the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB as BTO option and they didn't do that either.


I agree, it just seems that apple always treats the mini as the ugly cousin, I would love to have seen a quad as a BTO


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> you said it though."consumer". thats the key word. consumer.


Yeah and consumers get quad core i5 2.5GHz CPUs in the low end iMac right now.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Here you go, all the options you ever wanted ... Thank me later. Inspiron Zino HD Desktop Details | Dell Canada


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

It sure is purty... XX)


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

screature said:


> Sigh, once again Apple let us Mac Mini enthusiasts down by deliberately limiting the processing power so that if we want more we have to go to an iMac or a Mac Pro. Cripes you can only go to a quad core i7 in the server version and it is only at 2.0GHz.
> 
> There is no reason they couldn't have had a BTO option of a quad i5 at 2.5GHz even in the none server version except to make us have to go for an iMac or Mac Pro. Very disappointed.


If its any consolation, you can bump up the $799 Mac Mini with a 2.7 dual-core i7...

As well, why don't you just get an iMac if you wish to get more horsepower from a Mac?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Tech Elementz said:


> If its any consolation, you can bump up the $799 Mac Mini with a 2.7 dual-core i7...
> 
> As well, why don't you just get an iMac if you wish to get more horsepower from a Mac?


I will never own an iMac I don't need a mirror for a monitor and I don't need an all in one that will be toast when the monitor dies. 

If you read my signature you will see I already have a quad 3.0 GHz Mac Pro, I have plenty of horse power. This is about deliberately not offering options for the Mini that could easily be offered.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Who says? Maybe if they weren't needlessly under powered more people would want them. Not ehMac users aside... you mustn't get around the Mac world much as there are web sites like 123MacMini.com dedicated to the Mini that have been around since the Mini came out for Mini enthusiasts.


i say. lars says. anyone who has ever been involved in the apple retail world can say. 

you need to learn to set aside your personal biases (and the biases of others like you) and look at things objectively. 

the people on "mac mini enthusiast forums" are not representative of the general mac buying public. by your logic should honda be selling all their civics lowered with huge rims, neon, giant rear wings and crazy exhausts just because a subculture exists who want to do that to their cars and has an online forum where they talk about it? 

reality check dude. you are the minority, and a significant, significant minority at that


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> i say. lars says. anyone who has ever been involved in the apple retail world can say.
> 
> you need to learn to set aside your personal biases (and the biases of others like you) and look at things objectively.
> 
> ...


Oh ok... you and Lars say so... sorry I didn't realize you were the definite go to source for what people want in a Mac. 

Dumb analogy re Honda BTW.

The reality is the quad i5 is in the low end iMac, the reality is the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB is available and both could easily be BTO options for the Mini. 

Again the Mini could easily fill the middle gap between low and and high end headless Macs with current hardware that Apple already has in their supply chain. 

If you want to be all fanboy about why they aren't doing this fine but you have yet to offer any practical real world reasons for why they couldn't be offered as BTO options other than because "I say so".

Geeze I guess in your opinion selling more Minis would be a bad thing.

As for being in the minority, dude *you *need a reality check we are talking about what people want in a *MINI*, your argument relative to how Mini sales stack up to other Macs is irrelevant we are talking about what is and could be made available in a *Mini*, so get off your high horse.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Yeah I was disappointed to that only the Mini server had a quad core cpu. I had been waiting to see what would happen because I needed to replace a Mac with a quad core for a small server I am running. I don't need the Lion server SW, on the positive side I also have to replace an old web server so buying the previous SL Mac Mini server for $749 was deal.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

screature said:


> I will never own an iMac I don't need a mirror for a monitor and I don't need an all in one that will be toast when the monitor dies.
> 
> If you read my signature you will see I already have a quad 3.0 GHz Mac Pro, I have plenty of horse power. This is about *deliberately not offering options for the Mini that could easily be offered*.


How do you know it is easy to offer? Have you ever built a Mac Mini before?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Tech Elementz said:


> How do you know it is easy to offer? Have you ever built a Mac Mini before?


The parts are already in Apples supply chain that's how. You don't have to build Mini to know that it could easily be possible.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

screature said:


> The parts are already in Apples supply chain that's how.


Yes, but do you really expect the Mac Mini to have a quad-core i7? I mean, for an iMac it is fine because of the form factor. but the Mac mini is freaking small. I think the upgrades were quite fair. Maybe you just need to wait for another refresh...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

One of the sad things about the new mini is that I used the optical drive to play DVDs, so I guess it's on to streaming now ... I would bet the portable superdrives are quite noisy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Tech Elementz said:


> Yes, but do you really expect the Mac Mini to have a quad-core i7? I mean, for an iMac it is fine because of the form factor. but the Mac mini is freaking small. I think the upgrades were quite fair. Maybe you just need to wait for another refresh...


Sigh... did I ever say quad i7 I said quad i5 which is standard even in the low end iMac. The die size is the same in the dual and quad core CPUs form factor has nothing to do with it.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

screature said:


> I know they do, they still could have easily made a quad core i5 2.5 GHz as a BTO option, deliberately under powering them... baby steps maybe but they could have given quad cores as an option *now*.
> 
> They also could have given us the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB as BTO option and they didn't do that either.


While the graphics chip might have been possible, (But probably the 6750 that's in the MBPs) the Quad 2.5Ghz BTO would definitely not be possible due to the thermals inside the Mac Mini.

The Quad processors in the iMac are desktop processors - they consume 65W or power or more and generate a lot of heat. (Do you want to use your Mac Mini as a cooktop?  )

The Quad processor in the 15"/17" MBP and the new server Mac Mini is a laptop processor that consumes 45W of power, and generates less heat than the 65W version.

What Apple *could* have technically done is given you the same 2.2Ghz and 2.3Ghz quad-core options as the larger MBPs, but the 2.3Ghz chip would have added ~$750 to the cost of the mac mini (the i7-2820QM 2.30 GHz chip costs Apple ~$568.00 and then they add their ~30% markup.)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I will never own an iMac I don't need a mirror for a monitor and I don't need an all in one that will be toast when the monitor dies.
> 
> If you read my signature you will see I already have a quad 3.0 GHz Mac Pro, I have plenty of horse power. This is about deliberately not offering options for the Mini that could easily be offered.


we disagree on many things and fling jabs often, but on this we are in solid agreement.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

screature said:


> Sigh... did I ever say quad i7 I said quad i5 which is standard even in the low end iMac. The die size is the same in the dual and quad core CPUs form factor has nothing to do with it.


I was talking about the enclosure form factor (Something like the case...) The iMac's enclosure is way bigger than the Mac Mini, so its easy to put something more powerful in a bigger case than say the Mac Mini's casing without any overheating issues and such...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hmmm. quad core i7s seem to run fine in the even thinner macbook pros, am I wrong?


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

groovetube said:


> hmmm. quad core i7s seem to run fine in the even thinner macbook pros, am I wrong?


Well, If Apple can do that for the Macbook Pro's, then they can obviously get them to without overheating your lap (unless they actually do). Look, can we not agree on waiting for another refresh if the refresh now is not good enough for some people?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> ...and I don't need an all in one that will be toast when the monitor dies.


This is true of any Mac with any internal component dying except the power supply, hard drive and RAM as all replacement parts besides those mentioned cost a fortune out of warranty.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> While the graphics chip might have been possible, (But probably the 6750 that's in the MBPs) the Quad 2.5Ghz BTO would definitely not be possible due to the thermals inside the Mac Mini.
> 
> The Quad processors in the iMac are desktop processors - they consume 65W or power or more and generate a lot of heat. (Do you want to use your Mac Mini as a cooktop?  )
> 
> ...


Thanks fryrefly for the excellent post that all makes sense. 

So to clarify and to eat humble pie.  They could have offered BTO CPU options the same as in their laptops. If they are offering $600 SSDs as a BTO option I don't see why adding more powerful and expensive CPUs at a similar upgrade cost would be out of order.

*Edit:* do you know what the heat output difference is between the 45W and 65W CPUs is?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Lars said:


> Sure, but the Mac mini - competing with the iMac or not - is meant for users with smaller demands from their computing experience.



I'm certain that the new Mac minis use the same mobile processors that are found in the MacBook Pros. This means we can assume Mac mini performance will be similar to MacBook Pro performance.

In which case I find it funny that a computer with more processing power than an entry-level Mac Pro is described as something for users with smaller computing needs.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

jfpoole said:


> I'm certain that the new Mac minis use the same mobile processors that are found in the MacBook Pros. This means we can assume Mac mini performance will be similar to MacBook Pro performance.
> 
> In which case I find it funny that a computer with more processing power than an entry-level Mac Pro is described as something for users with smaller computing needs.


The Computer Market is changing as we know it. Looks like their going to have to refresh the Mac Pro's with the Sandy Bridge CPU's... You know, they should be adding a lot more for the price they are at. Maybe the AMD Radeon 6000 series and 4-8 GB RAM standard would be more helpful.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

jfpoole said:


> In which case I find it funny that a computer with more processing power than an entry-level Mac Pro is described as something for users with smaller computing needs.


For now...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> we disagree on many things and fling jabs often, but on this we are in solid agreement.


Thanks gt... so it would seem.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Oh ok... you and Lars say so... sorry I didn't realize you were the definite go to source for what people want in a Mac.
> 
> Dumb analogy re Honda BTW.
> 
> ...


where did i say that it would be a bad thing? i also don't know why you are pulling specs and BTO options and all that crap on me either...i am not arguing any of that stuff with you. my whole point was that, in general, people dont want headless macs. i am basing this on hundreds of real world conversations with hundreds of real world mac users, not opinions culled from other users on a mac mini enthusiast forum, a tiny little super-specific subsection of the general mac buying public 

i think you might be a little hysterical. might be time to go for a little walk or something?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> While the graphics chip might have been possible, (But probably the 6750 that's in the MBPs) the Quad 2.5Ghz BTO would definitely not be possible due to the thermals inside the Mac Mini.
> 
> The Quad processors in the iMac are desktop processors - they consume 65W or power or more and generate a lot of heat. (Do you want to use your Mac Mini as a cooktop?  )
> 
> ...


Question for you fryefly... When I go to the Intel site they show the quad i5 desktop CPUs power requirements as being both 45W and 65W just wondering how you know it is the 65W version in the iMac.

Source: 2nd Generation Intel® Core™ Processor and LGA1155 Socket Thermal Mechanical Specifications and Design Guidelines [pdf]


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> where did i say that it would be a bad thing? i also don't know why you are pulling specs and BTO options and all that crap on me either...i am not arguing any of that stuff with you. my whole point was that, in general, people dont want headless macs. i am basing this on hundreds of real world conversations with hundreds of real world mac users, not opinions culled from other users on a mac mini enthusiast forum, a tiny little super-specific subsection of the general mac buying public
> 
> i think you might be a little hysterical. might be time to go for a little walk or something?


We are talking about the Mac Mini which is a headless Mac and people still want them. If they didn't why would Apple sell them and continue to upgrade them... Hmmm? 

Maybe you should just drop out of this thread as you seem to have no interest in the product, plenty of others here and elsewhere do.

Hysterical? Where have I been hysterical...? 

Too friggin' hot to go for a walk right now...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Question for you fryefly... When I go to the Intel site they show the quad i5 desktop CPUs power requirements as being both 45W and 65W just wondering how you know it is the 65W version in the iMac.
> 
> Source: 2nd Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Family Desktop Specification Update [pdf]


The 21.5-inch iMac has the i5-2500S (a 65W part) and the 27-inch iMac has the i5-2500 (a 95W part). 

You can find out the processors used in each Mac model from my Mac Benchmark chart. You can find out the "max" TDP from the Intel website (for example, here's information for the Sandy Bridge i5s, and the information for the Sandy Bridge i7s). Note that the max TDP numbers are misleading; the processors can exceed the max TDP when Turbo Boost 2.0 is active (i.e., when one or more cores are operating above the stock processor frequency).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> The 21.5-inch iMac has the i5-2500S (a 65W part) and the 27-inch iMac has the i5-2500 (a 95W part).
> 
> You can find out the processors used in each Mac model from my Mac Benchmark chart. You can find out the "max" TDP from the Intel website (for example, here's information for the Sandy Bridge i5s, and the information for the Sandy Bridge i7s). Note that the max TDP numbers are misleading; the processors can exceed the max TDP when Turbo Boost 2.0 is active (i.e., when one or more cores are operating above the stock processor frequency).


Thanks jfpoole...

So do you know where the 45W version of the quad i5s (Intel® Core™ i5-2000 desktop Processor Series (Quad Core 45W)) are used? Just curious...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

*Thoughts*

Right, they should've just made a 12-core Xeon BTO option on the Mini's to appease the 5% of complainers... 

If you max out the BTO otions on the new ones, you get up to almost $2000 before taxes! Add an i7 Quad Core from the MBP's and that would be at least $2500 for sure. I think that's getting a bit excessive and obscene for a Mini. 

Mini enthusiasts are typically those that want to use it as an HTPC. And for an HTPC, this has more than enough juice. The C2D 2.4 I had as an HTPC ran everything smooth. The only bottleneck was the platter hdd which Apple has addressed finally in a (albeit pricey) BTO option. Apple has always put the Mini upgrade path on the bottom of their priority list as sales justified it so I was pleased to see this. 

Personally, I think it's a solid upgrade. Up to 2x better cpu and graphics performance. Thunderbolt. SSD option. Lower price point (for Canada). Lion. It's woth the upgrade IMO. ( I can't remember the list time I used a DVD drive on any of my Macs ). To make this a solid HTPC, i would love to see a BD player but hey... it is what it is. 

And for the "mirror" on my new iMac, it don't bother me. In fact, after I turn it off, I am able to stare at it and re-affirm myself that "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough and gosh darn it, people like me!"


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

broad said:


> i say. lars says. anyone who has ever been involved in the apple retail world can say.
> 
> you need to learn to set aside your personal biases (and the biases of others like you) and look at things objectively.
> 
> ...


I guess we must bow down to the almighty forum gods that spend their lives fixing other people's broken iMacs because they know what's best. You think that IS the "Apple Retail World" ?? If no one wants a headless mac then why did Apple just release new mac minis oh-mighty-all-knowing-forum-god-of-everything-that-is-apple?

I've said this before and I'm sure I will say this again, it's extremely obvious that you have no idea of the scope of the required demographic. You talk about setting aside bias and talking objectively and then post this right in the same breath?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MACinist said:


> *Right, they should've just made a 12-core Xeon BTO option on the Mini's to appease the 5% of complainers*...
> 
> If you max out the BTO otions on the new ones, you get up to almost $2000 before taxes! Add an i7 Quad Core from the MBP's and that would be at least $2500 for sure. I think that's getting a bit excessive and obscene for a Mini.
> 
> ...


Yeah there is a well reasoned, cogent and relevant statement. Thanks for your contribution. 

Maxing out the options means adding two hard drives one of which is a $600 SSD... I think most Mini users would be happier to pay $600 for a quad core CPU as opposed to a $600 SSD.

So you know for a fact that most people who use Mini's use it for a HTPC... you psychic?

You even ever own a Mini?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

absolutely. The peecee crowd are the ones who are more likely to look at numbered specs since that's what they do, so to gaining more traction with the 'oh this one has more GHz crowd', and I don't mean the smart nerdy types who even know what the heck a GHz is... it's gonna matter.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

Mac mini's are even less appealing to the HTPC market now that they have no more optical drive, it was bad enough without the ability to play blu-ray, but now no optical media at all means less sales to the HTPC enthusiasts .. and before anyone says you can buy an external optical drive ... what's the point ... you could also buy an external dvd player (for less money that's probably more capable). The whole nice thing about the mini's for HTPC was the all-in-one aspect.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> *Mac mini's are even less appealing to the HTPC* market now that they have no more optical drive, it was bad enough without the ability to play blu-ray, but now no optical media at all means less sales to the HTPC enthusiasts .. and before anyone says you can buy an external optical drive ... what's the point ... you could also buy an external dvd player (for less money that's probably more capable). The whole nice thing about the mini's for HTPC was the all-in-one aspect.


Agreed. Apple wants you to buy into the iTunes/Apple TV ecosystem. XX) They don't want you to have the option not to... unless you pay an extra $79 buck for an external super drive.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

mguertin said:


> Mac mini's are even less appealing to the HTPC market now that they have no more optical drive, it was bad enough without the ability to play blu-ray, but now no optical media at all means less sales to the HTPC enthusiasts .. and before anyone says you can buy an external optical drive ... what's the point ... you could also buy an external dvd player (for less money that's probably more capable). The whole nice thing about the mini's for HTPC was the all-in-one aspect.


The external ODD is smaller than the base of the Mac mini and can sit underneath it if you want - it's really a non-issue but obviously gives some people a reason to complain because they can. And the Apple external Superdrive is far smaller than a commercial DVD player in physical size and connects to the Mac mini directly, not the TV/receiver, keeping everything integrated happily.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> The external ODD is smaller than the base of the Mac mini and can sit underneath it if you want - it's really a non-issue but obviously gives some people a reason to complain because they can. And the Apple external Superdrive is far smaller than a commercial DVD player in physical size and connects to the Mac mini directly, not the TV/receiver, keeping everything integrated happily.


Personally I don't have that much of a problem with them removing the superdrive, it does make it a little less attractive as an all in one unit for a HTPC on the downside, but on the upside it makes room for an added HD or SSD for using it as a headless computer.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

groovetube said:


> I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation at all. Gone are the days where apple has a tiny marketshare and need to keep a limited number of systems.
> 
> People are going to expect far more options now, and if apple doesn't offer it, they'll get something else.


I thought the limited number of systems was part (maybe just a small part, but still a part) of the strategy for growing the Mac's market share. Fewer options, clearer choices compared to the bad old days when there were scads of numbered models, Performas, etc. 

There are now more options than when they ditched all that for iMac/G3 tower/iBook/PowerBook, but I don't see any reason why the basic "keep it simple" idea would be any less effective now. Including "people are going to expect more options." Maybe the painful truth is that most consumers are happier and spend more when they have a relatively limited set of clear choices.

Personally, I'm not at all opposed to more BTO options, or even a third completely different headless Mac. Just not seeing how this particular range of options is too narrow for the market as a whole. It seems to be working quite well for them.



screature said:


> We are talking about the Mac Mini which is a headless Mac and people still want them. If they didn't why would Apple sell them and continue to upgrade them... Hmmm?


My hypothesis: even with the non-server variants, a hefty proportion of minis are used as servers, and it is mainly those customers who have kept the mini alive. 

My scrap of evidence: Xserve was not doing well so they killed it, and server customers are now supposed to go with a Pro or a mini.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> So do you know where the 45W version of the quad i5s (Intel® Core™ i5-2000 desktop Processor Series (Quad Core 45W)) are used? Just curious...


Apple doesn't use the 45W version (at least as far as I can tell). I don't think Apple could use the i5-2500T in the Mac mini. Desktop processors have a larger physical footprint so they might not fit inside the Mac mini case.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> ... Personally, I'm not at all opposed to more BTO options, or even a third completely different headless Mac.* Just not seeing how this particular range of options is too narrow. It seems to be working quite well for them.*


Sure it is working well for Apple as if you want a headless Mac you either buy a low end Mini or buy a Mac Pro, so either spend a few hundred or at least a couple of grand.

I don't know why they are so afraid to address the middle of the market segment. They do with the iMacs and laptops... why not give us headless Mac owners an option in the middle as well?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Apple doesn't use the 45W version (at least as far as I can tell). I don't think Apple could use the i5-2500T in the Mac mini. Desktop processors have a larger physical footprint so they might not fit inside the Mac mini case.


Thanks again jfpoole.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> Sure it is working well for Apple as if you want a headless Mac you either buy a low end Mini or buy a Mac Pro, so either spend a few hundred or at least a couple of grand.
> 
> I don't know why they are so afraid to address the middle of the market segment. They do with the iMacs and laptops... why not give us headless Mac owners an option in the middle as well?


The standard answer to that used to be "fear of cannibalizing iMac sales." But I don't think that's true anymore, if it ever was. Looking at the mobile side of the company, the philosophy seems to be "let's cannibalize our own sales before someone else does."

So if that isn't the reason, I suspect there really isn't enough demand to justify it, and/or the profile of most people who want that machine coincides largely with those willing and able to put together a Hackintosh.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

mguertin said:


> Mac mini's are even less appealing to the HTPC market now that they have no more optical drive, it was bad enough without the ability to play blu-ray, but now no optical media at all means less sales to the HTPC enthusiasts ..


I use a "server" Mac Mini as my HTPC - I can rip my DVDs with my iMac, or if I don't want to wait, I can share the DVD-RW drive to play movies from it as well. I just like having the 2x500gb of storage on my Mini more than having 500GB plus an optical drive.

I have several friends who've got the Optical-drive-less Mac Minis as HTPC's (again, not a statistically valid survey, but shows that even with Optical-Drive models were available, people still chose the ODD-less versions.

As John Gruber and others have said today: "Optical Drives are the new Floppy Drives".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> The standard answer to that used to be "fear of cannibalizing iMac sales." But I don't think that's true anymore, if it ever was. Looking at the mobile side of the company, the philosophy seems to be "let's cannibalize our own sales before someone else does."
> 
> So if that isn't the reason, I suspect there really isn't enough demand to justify it, and/or the profile of most people who want that machine coincides largely with those willing and able to put together a Hackintosh.


I think there would be plenty of demand if they just made the options available... they are forcing people who want quad core processors and to stay with Macs to go either to iMacs, MacBook Pros, the Mac Pro or the used market. 

I have never owned a new Mac... never. Closest thing would be refurbs, because I can't afford one for my needs when they are new.

I also don't see how there would not be a demand for quad core Minis when there is a demand for quad core laptops... it makes no sense IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

Gruber may have a valid point for data purposes, but not for movies. iTunes movie downloads are excessively locked down and under-quality and aside from Apple's reality distortion field the rest of the world still uses optical media for movies.

I see where you're coming from and personally I don't mind the loss of the optical drive for _my_ HTPC (I've ripped all my DVD's already and there's pretty much no hope that we'll ever see blu-ray playback on Apple hardware) but our needs don't account for the whole HTPC market.

Maybe it's just me but I think Apple is taking things too far in the whole "dumbed down" approach to just about everything, hardware, software, etc. I think they are honestly getting a bit big for their britches so-to-speak ... if Apple leads everyone must follow. Sadly it seems to have been the case so far. Next up will be them taking away keyboards in favour of some sort of gesture based interface and telling us that it will be the future and that there's really no need to type because the computer will just do what we want it to do (read: what they want us to do with it).

Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter, but I really do like to have _choice_ when it comes to computing and we get less and less all the time on both the hardware and software arenas from Apple.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> gruber may have a valid point for data purposes, but not for movies. Itunes movie downloads are excessively locked down and under-quality and aside from apple's reality distortion field the rest of the world still uses optical media for movies.
> 
> I see where you're coming from and personally i don't mind the loss of the optical drive for _my_ htpc (i've ripped all my dvd's already and there's pretty much no hope that we'll ever see blu-ray playback on apple hardware) but our needs don't account for the whole htpc market.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

*New Mac Mini Sucks*

Doesn't have a DVD drive,
Now you can pay more for less.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

You can understand appe removing the DVD drive from this model, they are going to the cloud and there is no absolute need for a DVD drive on a mac these days. These are designed as the low cost macs and correct me if I am wrong, but they didn't get more expensive did they and there is a significant processor bump.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> I think there would be plenty of demand if they just made the options available... they are forcing people who want quad core processors and to stay with Macs to go either to iMacs, MacBook Pros, the Mac Pro or the used market.
> 
> I have never owned a new Mac... never. Closest thing would be refurbs, because I can't afford one for my needs when they are new.
> 
> I also don't see how there would not be a demand for quad core Minis when there is a demand for quad core laptops... it makes no sense IMO.


I'm pretty much with you on options for the mini. If it's possible, why not offer it? Here, upselling must be the reason unless there are technical reasons we aren't aware of.

But when it comes to the "third headless Mac" I do think my guess may not be far off. Why build a machine to cater to enthusiasts who can't justify the price of a Pro, find the mini too anemic, but (in many cases) *are* the sort of people with the know-how to build a Hackintosh? Such a machine would have to compete with all kinds of beige boxes, whether name-brand or not, and it's unlikely it could be priced low enough to bring the Hackintosh user back into the fold anyway.

If you want to look at it from another angle, starting at $600, the mini is pricy for a low-end PC but it's justified by the small form factor and silent operation. Now what about the mid-range headless Mac you want? If it's priced to not look outrageous next to comparably specced non-Mac PCs, it'll kill the mini. Net result: Apple has a new low-end box that lacks the mini's versatile, discreet form factor and *still* can't compete with competing PCs on price.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Lawrence said:


> Now you can pay more for less.


Technically incorrect since the price on the Mac mini dropped.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

No DVD Drive? That is a* HUGE FAIL*.

jwootton: That is not the point. What if he had an older ilife or something that he wants to install? Now he cannot unless he purchases an external.....MORE money out of his pocket.

What Apple needs to realize is that they do NOT make the choices for us. Let the CUSTOMER decide.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Yes, reminds me of how leaving the floppy drive out of the iMac completely backfired.

Seriously... if the mini is your sole computer you may need to buy an optical drive. If it isn't, you can use disk sharing (as with the Air, the computer uses another computer's drive over the network).

The mini isn't for everyone and never has been. Some will hate the new one. But surely this can't be a surprise.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Apple turned around there business by reducing their SKU's. They had so many models before the iMac/iBook era. They dropped floppy's then as well and a lot of people complained. There is also software to use another computer to read DVDs. They have options for this. Any 3rd party DVD player will likely work as well. If you need the DVD drive then, the mac mini is not the computer for you, they have created these Limited SKUs to make the buying decision easier. Once someone has decided on a mac, their choices are few and that has helped their mac business grow over the last 10 years. (I understand that the iPod iPhoone has driven a lot of business as well)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

You are getting more processor but less hardware,
You can have an i5 or an i7 processor, But you can only have 8 gb's of ram.

Still, You need to have an external for DVD.

I like have an internal,
But if that's the way of the future and Apple wants it,
Then it's easier to toss a bad external DVD drive than a bad internal DVD drive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> I'm pretty much with you on options for the mini. If it's possible, why not offer it? Here, upselling must be the reason unless there are technical reasons we aren't aware of.
> 
> But when it comes to the "third headless Mac" I do think my guess may not be far off. Why build a machine to cater to enthusiasts who can't justify the price of a Pro, find the mini too anemic, but (in many cases) *are* the sort of people with the know-how to build a Hackintosh? Such a machine would have to compete with all kinds of beige boxes, whether name-brand or not, and it's unlikely it could be priced low enough to bring the Hackintosh user back into the fold anyway.
> 
> If you want to look at it from another angle, starting at $600, the mini is pricy for a low-end PC but it's justified by the small form factor and silent operation. *Now what about the mid-range headless Mac you want? If it's priced to not look outrageous next to comparably specced non-Mac PCs, it'll kill the mini.* Net result: Apple has a new low-end box that lacks the mini's versatile, discreet form factor and *still* can't compete with competing PCs on price.


But it would not be a 3rd headless Mac it would simply be the 2nd headless Mac with the option of a quad core CPU. I wasn't trying to suggest a 3rd option just filling that middle headless gap that currently exists. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Again it would be a BTO option, it wouldn't do anything to the initial price. If Apple is offering an SSD that doubles the initial price, why not do the same for a quad core option that would do the same thing in terms of price increase?

I would happily pay $1200 for a 2.2 or 2.3 quad core Mini with Thunderbolt. As it is now with the limitation of dual cores regardless of it being a 2.7 GHz CPU the new Minis are a non-starter for me, as it would not suit my needs.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Gotcha. I may have skimmed some posts; thought you were talking about the long-discussed "xMac", not something that could be done BTO in the mini form factor.

Given that the server version is quad core (but slower than you'd like, right?), maybe you're only a speed bump away from getting what you want?


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

Optical has been dead for a while now....get used to it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Gotcha. I may have skimmed some posts; thought you were talking about the long-discussed "xMac", not something that could be done BTO in the mini form factor.
> 
> Given that the server version is quad core (but slower than you'd like, right?), maybe you're only a speed bump away from getting what you want?


Hopefully so.  Re: the server, that is why I don't get it. They clearly could have offered the same CPUs as the BTO options that they do for the laptops, it doesn't seem to be a technical limitation so why not?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

IMO it's not a great move. A lot of people buy the mini as an HTPC or media centre. The lack of a DVD drive takes away from that function.

I guess since apple *still* doesn't support blu-ray those people can use their blu-ray players to play DVDs....

I don't think it's a *huge* issue, since most people have other devices that have optical drives, but i rather they have kept it in there.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Maybe it's all about cooling? It's down to that or upselling. Does the difference between 2.0 GHz and 2.2 GHz quad really make that much difference? (Not trying to imply it doesn't, just wondering.)


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

The only market that I can really see this being bad for the the htpc crowd... And as mentioned for that market it really should be a blueray drive... I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever used the optical drive on my iMac... I LONG ago moved to the Internet as my primary source of media and software... And switched to hard drives for backups a few years ago...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

perhaps there'll be a quiet update in the future.

I'm ok with no optical, I rarely ever use it anymore.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

Andrew Pratt said:


> Optical has been dead for a while now....get used to it.


Sorry but I disagree. Optical is not dead. There are loads of Movies and software still out of various optical sources.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm confused or did I misread/misorder something just now on the Apple Store.

Mac Mini Server
2.0GHz : Dual 500GB
2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
4GB memory
Dual 500GB 7200-rpm hard drives1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
OS X Lion Server
OS X Lion
Ships: Within 24hrs
Free Shipping
$999.00

It's slower GHz wise then the dual core i5's but it's saying quad core i7 so a quad core i7 seems possible in a Mac Mini for $999. Difference is the extra 500GB hard drive and OSX Lion Server so you are paying $200 more for that and a hard drive and the different cpu. Graphics spec seems a bit different too, ok so what am I missing here?

Guess the other thing is the case on the i5 minis, can you shoehorn a second drive into them since they appear to be a similar case to the server? Suppose the only way to know for sure is to take one apart.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Ok you guys just covered it, am interested in hearing about cooling issues since I'm about to place an order for one...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> *Maybe it's all about cooling?* It's down to that or upselling. Does the difference between 2.0 GHz and 2.2 GHz quad really make that much difference? (Not trying to imply it doesn't, just wondering.)


I was just about to make a post regarding this. To be fair to Apple it may be not about up selling at all but an issue of heat as fryrefly and jfpoole alluded to earlier.

Perhaps a quad 2.0 is as high as they can go with the current form factor of the Mini. The laptops are aluminum unibody so they are large (relatively speaking) bodies that act as a form of heat sink.

This is, I think, may be why they can't go up to the 2.3s especially with turbo boost... the Mini would just get too hot without the additional aluminum to dissipate the heat... I just wish they would figure out a way to allow for faster quad cores and then I would stop griping.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Andrew Pratt said:


> Optical has been dead for a while now....get used to it.


Time to bring on the dangling extra's I guess, Just like with my old LC475
Funny how Apple has decided to bring back the old days.

I remember buying an external CD drive for my LC475 for $300., Man that was a drag.
Then along came DVD and the need for a decoder...Anyways, It's still stupid,
I bet this creates a demand for refurbished Mac Mini's now, Just watch.


----------



## thegoat54 (Nov 20, 2007)

I burn movies regularly for friends and family. I still need my optical.

I'm going to be mad when the drop it from the macbooks.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

Optical is far from dead. Not only for movies, but there are these things ... if anyone remembers them ... called audio CD's. For anyone who likes good quality content optical is a must. Sorry, but the lossy offerings from iTunes don't cut it for me for either music or video. Convenient, yes, a replacement for optical media, nope. If you want the best quality from your audio/video you pretty much must purchase it on optical disc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

Lawrence said:


> Time to bring on the dangling extra's I guess, Just like with my old LC475
> Funny how Apple has decided to bring back the old days.


Yep it's a bit of a surprise ... with Apple's fetish for all things nice and sleek and clean design wise .. but I guess that only counts with the computer end of things. With the push for all things external now they just assume you will ignore the spaghetti of cables attaching all of your mishmash of external devices that you need to attach to the sleek looking computer.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

No surprise there, Just looked at the refurbished section for Mac Mini's,
All of the available refurb's are non optical drive server Mac Mini's

I bet the optical drive mini's are being gobbled up as fast as they can post them.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

screature said:


> Yeah there is a well reasoned, cogent and relevant statement. Thanks for your contribution.
> 
> Maxing out the options means adding two hard drives one of which is a $600 SSD... I think most Mini users would be happier to pay $600 for a quad core CPU as opposed to a $600 SSD.
> 
> ...


Have you ever used a real SSD in your system? I'd prefer the SSD gain (combined with platter for storage) versus a single platter drive then an SB i7 DC vs SB i7 QC. Check the performance gains (outside of rendering an encoding which the Mini is not for) genius. And if you got the sarcasm in my 12-core comment, the performance gain in such a fantasy device would be almost equal to that of putting a SB i7 QC in a mini. 

I am probably less psychic then you are with all your claims, "rationolized" complaints and statements on this forum. 

I've had more macs in one year then you probably had in your life. Nothing to be proud of or to show off about, but it's what I do for a living. And as per my post, there were Mini's in the mix (including the C2D 2.4 i mentioned). 

Your wine and cheese aside, it's still a solid upgrade in my opinion. 

To a further comment, in my years of using my Mini as an HTPC, I did not use the drive more than once for HTCP purposes. Content is all Digital and downloaded. You can't game on it. Nor did I hardly use iTunes. Ever hear of Boxee? XBMC? Plex?



screature said:


> ... I would stop griping.


Amen!


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

I have to agree with Andrew, optical is dead for computers, maybe not for entertaiment, but even there they are on life support, they will go the same way the 8" floppy, the 5 1/4" and finally the 3 1/2". Permanent or semi permanent storage is over. Storage will happen n the cloud, and to some minor extent on the local user interface, not more lugging around and exchanging media via disks. Use USB (re-useable media) for that or airwaves. Lion can be downloaded, put on a USB stick and re-installed on any machine. The disks are dead, they just do not know it.....


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. Physical media is going the way of the dodo. Not accepting it because you have a lot of CDs/DVDs in your collection (I'm in this camp) doesn't mean it isn't happening. The drive in the Mini won't be the only casualty of this, I would expect to see it across the entire Mac product line eventually.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Now how does the new Mini suck? Faster processor faster ram faster bus. Price bottom $599 plus optical drive for $79 this price point is selling for price less the old lesser Mac Mini with built in optical drive. How is this less? How is this suck?

Is it, some folks are emotionally attached to the idea of the built in Superdrive and or hate to see change. We got over the loss of floppy drives I think we shall get over the loss of optical drives. If your nostalgic for the name Superdrive Apple may once again recycle the name after all the 1.5 Mb floppy drive was first christened the SuperDrive.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Lawrence said:


> Doesn't have a DVD drive,
> Now you can pay more for less.


Unboxing of Stupid Macbook Air - YouTube
Your comment is like this video.... 

FWIW, It's a DVD Drive for pete sake. Just buy the external. It's not even expensive... Even if you were to buy it, it would still cost ess than the last refresh of Mac Minis. Besides, you get the Sandy Bridge processors and better graphics.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Niteshooter said:


> Guess the other thing is the case on the i5 minis, can you shoehorn a second drive into them since they appear to be a similar case to the server? Suppose the only way to know for sure is to take one apart.


I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Now how does the new Mini suck? Faster processor faster ram faster bus. Price bottom $599 plus optical drive for $79 this price point is selling for price less the old lesser Mac Mini with built in optical drive. How is this less? How is this suck?
> 
> Is it, some folks are emotionally attached to the idea of the built in Superdrive and or hate to see change. We got over the loss of floppy drives I think we shall get over the loss of optical drives. If your nostalgic for the name Superdrive Apple may once again recycle the name after all the 1.5 Mb floppy drive was first christened the SuperDrive.


AND I forgot to mention thunderbolt.

More/Better for less is your definition of suck?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

ertman said:


> I was wondering the same thing.


You can. They can hold dual drives.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

mguertin said:


> Optical is far from dead. Not only for movies, but there are these things ... if anyone remembers them ... called audio CD's. For anyone who likes good quality content optical is a must. Sorry, but the lossy offerings from iTunes don't cut it for me for either music or video. Convenient, yes, a replacement for optical media, nope. If you want the best quality from your audio/video you pretty much must purchase it on optical disc.


Oh no for sure, and I try to buy everything on CD's and actually support my local mom and pop cd store.

Even if optical is just dead for computers, and not home entertainment and music, how exactly do I get my music onto my mac, if I can't put my cd into it?

I said it before, my new MacBook Pro has a superdrive, and so do my other 3 Macs shared in my house. I'm hoping for at least a few years left with it...


----------



## racewalker (Sep 20, 2010)

I am confused, I just received my new mini Monday. It comes with a dvd burner. The server does not have the dive but this one does. Am I missing something?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

racewalker said:


> I am confused, I just received my new mini Monday. It comes with a dvd burner. The server does not have the dive but this one does. Am I missing something?


Your new mini is now the old mini.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

If the (new) Mac Mini is your ONLY computer, I can understand you needing an optical drive. 

But how many of you out there have the Mac Mini as you sole computer? Just as I thought, just a handful. Go buy an external drive, if the new Mini will be your sole computer.

For the rest of us the Mini is a 2nd (or later) computer. While I use the optical drive in my Mini (purely to rip CD's - all my Mini does is hold music to stream everywhere), I would not miss it much if it did not have one, as long as some other computer in my household has an optical drive.

And, yes, one day when none of them have built in drives, I'll just buy an external one for my CD ripping. Perhaps we will see music available in loss-less formats in the future, and then even I will not need an optical drive.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

racewalker said:


> I am confused, I just received my new mini Monday. It comes with a dvd burner. The server does not have the dive but this one does. Am I missing something?


You bought the old version just days before the new one came out -- which was released today. Return your mini and get the new one.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

Lars said:


> You bought the old version just days before the new one came out -- which was released today. Return your mini and get the new one.


IF you do not want an internal DVD Drive. I recommend that you keep the one that you ordered.


----------



## psycosis (Mar 29, 2005)

If you feel that you need an optical drive, you are not entrenched enough in the Apple universe. Get your media from itunes, install your apps from the app store, and backup to icloud. Who are you to disagree with Steve?


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

psycosis said:


> Who are you to disagree with Steve?



I never laughed as hard as I did when I read this. Thank you for that joke. :lmao:


----------



## racewalker (Sep 20, 2010)

I will keep the one I have and keep the dvd drive.


----------



## Digikid (Jun 22, 2010)

racewalker said:


> I will keep the one I have and keep the dvd drive.


Excellent choice. If it suits YOUR NEEDS then it does not matter what others think or say. :clap:


----------



## psycosis (Mar 29, 2005)

Digikid said:


> I never laughed as hard as I did when I read this. Thank you for that joke. :lmao:


Joke?

Seriously, the future is not optical drives, but those clinging to the past can always buy the external drive. No one said buying an Apple product would be cheap.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I've merged the Mac mini threads together since they were discussing the exact same thing.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

psycosis said:


> Joke?
> 
> Seriously, the future is not optical drives, but those clinging to the past can always buy the external drive. No one said buying an Apple product would be cheap.


...but in this case the Mac Mini without and with external DVD drive is cheaper granted only by a few dollars but it is cheaper, for more/better.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

racewalker said:


> I will keep the one I have and keep the dvd drive.


As some people have mentioned, you could swap for a better computer with an external drive for the same price. Of course there's the hassle of doing the exchange...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Have you ever used a real SSD in your system? I'd prefer the SSD gain (combined with platter for storage) versus a single platter drive then an SB i7 DC vs SB i7 QC. Check the performance gains (outside of rendering an encoding which the Mini is not for) genius. And if you got the sarcasm in my 12-core comment, the performance gain in such a fantasy device would be almost equal to that of putting a SB i7 QC in a mini.
> 
> I am probably less psychic then you are with all your claims, "rationolized" complaints and statements on this forum.
> 
> ...


You presume to know a lot about me with zero knowledge. No I am a running a fake SSD.  I am running an Mercury EXTREME™ Pro 3G SSD 120 GB SSD right now. It is terrific but it does nothing more than add throughput it doesn't add any more simultaneous processes which is what extra cores do and what I need most.

Big whoop about how many Macs you have had in a year and you're right it isn't anything to be proud of and completely irrelevant to the discussion other than for you to try and somehow inflate your own sense of self importance.

The rest of your post is pure drivel and has noting to do with the thread, if all you have ever used a Mini for is in a HTPC set up then you will have no reason to comment re upgrades to the CPU of a Mini because you can do just fine with a Mini from 2008.

I was using the earliest betas of both Boxee and Plex smart ass... so what, who cares it is again irrelevant... but go on with your irrelevant rant by all means.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Now how does the new Mini suck? Faster processor faster ram faster bus. Price bottom $599 plus optical drive for $79 this price point is selling for price less the old lesser Mac Mini with built in optical drive. How is this less? How is this suck?
> 
> Is it, some folks are emotionally attached to the idea of the built in Superdrive and or hate to see change. We got over the loss of floppy drives I think we shall get over the loss of optical drives. If your nostalgic for the name Superdrive Apple may once again recycle the name after all the 1.5 Mb floppy drive was first christened the SuperDrive.


I don't think the new Mini sucks but it could be quad core (other than the 2.0 server, which is quite a slow clock speed) if they could figure out a way to deal with the heat, which is what I think the problem most likely is as to why there aren't more CPU options and it could have faster graphics.

TBolt: probably good although there is so little available for it now it is hard to know.
Discreet graphics: yep that's good too although it could have been faster or again at least offered as a BTO option
i7 at 2.7 GHz: good, just wish they could have had more BTO options in the CPUs
No internal superdrive: depends on who you ask bad and good depending on whether you want an extra internal drive instead.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

BigDL said:


> ...but in this case the Mac Mini without and with external DVD drive is cheaper granted only by a few dollars but it is cheaper, for more/better.


Seems the drop in price is about the cost of a non Apple external USB DVD writer.....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> Seems the drop in price is about the cost of a non Apple external USB DVD writer.....


Yep that was pretty much what I was thinking as well.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Chealion said:


> I've merged the Mac mini threads together since they were discussing the exact same thing.


I was a little lost there, Trying to find out where I last posted,
Guess I'll just read the whole thread from the beginning and see whether it's worth replying.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

screature said:


> Perhaps a quad 2.0 is as high as they can go with the current form factor of the Mini. The laptops are aluminum unibody so they are large (relatively speaking) bodies that act as a form of heat sink.
> 
> This is, I think, may be why they can't go up to the 2.3s especially with turbo boost... the Mini would just get too hot without the additional aluminum to dissipate the heat... I just wish they would figure out a way to allow for faster quad cores and then I would stop griping.


This could very easily be the case. In Anantech's review of the 2011 MBPs they note that while the i7-Quad Mobile CPUs have a TDP of 45W, they can easily pull upwards of ~90W of power while turbo boosting under load. That means one hot computer! And the Mini's enclosure is so tightly packed, I bet it would have been hard for them to keep the thermals of the higher clocked chips in check.



racewalker said:


> I will keep the one I have and keep the dvd drive.


I would at least go and try to get some $$ back. The old ones will have dropped in price (as a clearout) so you should be able to at least get some $$ back - the Base Model 2.4Ghz Core2Duo went to $449 at BestBuy on clearance.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

well it looks like the geekbench scores are trickling in,

Quad core server 9401 64bit and 5873 for the base model.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

psycosis said:


> If you feel that you need an optical drive, you are not entrenched enough in the Apple universe. Get your media from itunes, install your apps from the app store, and backup to icloud.


I assume this is meant to be a joke although I gert the feeling some people take that seriously.

I have hundreds of unique CD's and DVD's from all over the world that will never ever be on iTunes and that won't change in the future.
An external drive is a pain - moves in the opposite direction that Apple has established with the iMac.
The bottom line I think is that the Mini is too popular and Apple is trying to stifle its sales and are trying to move people up to more expensive Macs.
Did any other Mac model loose their integrated optical drive?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> well it looks like the geekbench scores are trickling in,
> 
> Quad core server 9401 64bit and 5873 for the base model.


That's not bad at all actually...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

krs said:


> I assume this is meant to be a joke although I gert the feeling some people take that seriously.
> 
> I have hundreds of unique CD's and DVD's from all over the world that will never ever be on iTunes and that won't change in the future.
> An external drive is a pain - moves in the opposite direction that Apple has established with the iMac.
> ...


call any reseller and ask their top sales guy what his ratio of minis/imacs/macbook pros is. sit outside an apple retail store for 5 hours and count the customers who leave with minis vs the customers who leave with imacs

i dont know why this is so hard to grasp...despite how much some of you may love it, the mini is not out there burnin' up the airwaves and breaking sales records. 

reasons i would say the ODD is gone:

a)to rent more itunes movies
b)to sell more itunes music
c)perhaps to allow space to fit an extra fan to cool the dedicated GPU and quad core? i havent taken one apart yet, but that is certainly a distinct option


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> call any reseller and ask their top sales guy what his ratio of minis/imacs/macbook pros is. sit outside an apple retail store for 5 hours and count the customers who leave with minis vs the customers who leave with imacs
> 
> *i dont know why this is so hard to grasp...despite how much some of you may love it, the mini is not out there burnin' up the airwaves and breaking sales records.
> *
> ...


I would say that these are all part of the reason for sure. Personally being that you can get an external super drive for $80 the lack of an integrated super drive is not a big deal for me... I understand that it is for others.

Re: your comment, "i dont know why this is so hard to grasp...despite how much some of you may love it, the mini is not out there burnin' up the airwaves and breaking sales records."

It is not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about a product that Apple offers and that they continue to upgrade, for those of us who are interested and to whom those upgrades matter we have every right to discuss the issues without these kinds of comments. 

We get it, you aren't interested in the Mini and it doesn't matter to you, it does to the rest of us who are discussing it. I don't know why you feel the need to keep chiming in and telling us that our interest in the Mac Mini effectively doesn't matter to Apple or that our interest in the product is irrelevant.

BTW, here's a reality check for *you*, for a product that people and Apple aren't interested in the thread has had 2,124 views and 134 posts in 36 hrs... 2nd most viewed thread (2nd only to views about Lion) and most discussed topic here on ehMac in that time frame... But you're right no one is interested in or cares about the Mini.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

The mini is/was my media centre. With no ODD, the new one can't be for me 

Is there a way to upgrade the ***** out of the previous Gen to make it last more than 3 years?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Elric said:


> The mini is/was my media centre. With no ODD, the new one can't be for me
> 
> Is there a way to upgrade the ***** out of the previous Gen to make it last more than 3 years?


_Get an external for $79._

And no, you can't upgrade the old one, and if you could, it would cost a heck of a lot more than $79.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> The mini is/was my media centre. With no ODD, the new one can't be for me
> 
> *Is there a way to upgrade the ***** out of the previous Gen *to make it last more than 3 years?


Yes you can upgrade the previous one with a faster HD or to an SSD as well as RAM if you aren't maxed out now... nothing you can do about the CPU.

The HD isn't as easy to upgrade as in the previous Minis but there are videos on how to do it.

Here is one at OWC:

Mac mini 2010
Hard Drive Install Video


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dumb but serious question (as I have a mini that I'll either sell or turn into a media-centre machine): is there something about the previous gen that would prevent it from serving indefinitely as a media centre a/v machine?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Dumb but serious question (as I have a mini that I'll either sell or turn into a media-centre machine): is there something about the previous gen that would prevent it from serving indefinitely as a media centre a/v machine?


Nothing that I can see... I use one of my Mini's as a HTPC and is still does the trick perfectly well and it is "old as the hills" in terms of technology. No HDMI but I use a DVI to HDMI converter cable and it still works great. Digital audio out to my Yamaha HT receiver for full 5.1 surround.

That is why I think the commentary about the Mini as being only or mainly a HTPC is bogus... if that is all you are interested in it for then an old one will serve you well. No *need* to upgrade at all.

As an actual computer that you do your day to day work on less so and thus why quad cores would be very welcome indeed and the faster quad cores all the better.


----------



## Mac_100x (Mar 12, 2010)

Great Discussion going on here! I was looking at the fact the new Mac mini has no Optical drive, and the fact that many people might not like this.. but it kinda reminded me of the fact that Apple had done away with Firewire on some of their previous Macbook's. But then managed to bring it back the next refresh.. do you think that might happen with a Mac mini refresh? Or is the drive permanently gone?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mac_100x said:


> Great Discussion going on here! I was looking at the fact the new Mac mini has no Optical drive, and the fact that many people might not like this.. but it kinda reminded me of the fact that Apple had done away with Firewire on some of their previous Macbook's. But then managed to bring it back the next refresh.. do you think that might happen with a Mac mini refresh? Or is the drive permanently gone?


Well there still is a FW 800 port on the new one and if you need FW 400 you just need an adapter. If you need more than one port you can get a FW hub (hard to find these days) or if your FW device has an input port as well as output you can always daisy chain them.

Apple is putting all their eggs in the Thunderbolt basket, that is pretty clear, but we have yet to see hardly any Tbolt products. Theoretically Tbolt should (via adapters) should be able to handle virtually any form of bus (i.e., USB, Firewire, (e)SATA, etc.) we have yet to see any of this or indeed if it will come to pass... we are all pretty much holding our breath when it comes to TBolt and to see if it is always true that if "you build it they will come."


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

screature said:


> I would say that these are all part of the reason for sure. Personally being that you can get an external super drive for $80 the lack of an integrated super drive is not a big deal for me... I understand that it is for others.
> 
> Re: your comment, "i dont know why this is so hard to grasp...despite how much some of you may love it, the mini is not out there burnin' up the airwaves and breaking sales records."
> 
> ...


its perfectly relevant to the discussion. KRS' post that i quoted mentions the mini "selling too well" and alludes to the fact that this new iteration could be part of some diabolical plan by apple to cripple sales of the mini, which is simply absurd. personally i dont care if you like your mini, i just think some of you need a tap on the shoulder from reality when stuff like that "mac mini conspiracy theory" gets posted. 

134 posts in the thread probably 3/4 of them are from you..lol


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> its perfectly relevant to the discussion. KRS' post that i quoted mentions the mini "selling too well" and alludes to the fact that this new iteration could be part of some diabolical plan by apple to cripple sales of the mini, which is simply absurd. personally i dont care if you like your mini, i just think some of you need a tap on the shoulder from reality when stuff like that "mac mini conspiracy theory" gets posted.
> 
> 134 posts in the thread probably *3/4 of them are from you*..lol


I knew this or something like it would be your come back and I was waiting for it... not even close BTW and it doesn't account for the views... Why don't you crawl back into your Miniless hole and leave the rest of us alone. 

I really don't think anyone here who is actually interested in Mini developments are the least bit interested in what you have to say on the subject. 

You have made your opinions known since your first post and have had nothing new to offer since, time to give it a rest by now I would think.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2011)

I just realized something else ... the Mac Mini server used to come with a $499 piece of software (Snow Leopard Server) and was $999 It now comes with a $49 piece of software (Lion Server) is still $999. The value somehow doesn't translate up like it used to.


----------



## Mac_100x (Mar 12, 2010)

mguertin said:


> I just realized something else ... the Mac Mini server used to come with a $499 piece of software (Snow Leopard Server) and was $999 It now comes with a $49 piece of software (Lion Server) is still $999. The value somehow doesn't translate up like it used to.



Wow, you bring up a good point! Never thought about it that way..


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2011)

Mac_100x said:


> Wow, you bring up a good point! Never thought about it that way..


Neither did I until I was looking at the configurations a few minutes ago.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Mac_100x said:


> Wow, you bring up a good point! Never thought about it that way..


+1 the hardware cost certainly doesn't make up the price difference...


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2011)

screature said:


> +1 the hardware cost certainly doesn't make up the price difference...


I guess it goes to show what Apple felt the value of Snow Leopard Server really was to them at the end of the day ... I doubt we'll see them drop the mini server price.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I predict a day is coming in the not too distant future when Apple will no longer offer a headless mac in any form....

That way they can have complete control over display manufactures if they want to do business with Apple... brilliant for them... bad for the rest of us.


----------



## Mac_100x (Mar 12, 2010)

screature said:


> I predict a day is coming in the not too distant future when Apple will no longer offer a headless mac in any form....
> 
> That way they can have complete control over display manufactures if they want to do business with Apple... brilliant for them... bad for the rest of us.



Man I hope that doesn't happen.. The Mac mini is one of my favs..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I doubt it.

I regard the quality and choice of my display as more important than running OS X. I'll run windows before apple defines my display as that glass shiny pile of metal.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

mguertin said:


> I just realized something else ... the Mac Mini server used to come with a $499 piece of software (Snow Leopard Server) and was $999 It now comes with a $49 piece of software (Lion Server) is still $999. The value somehow doesn't translate up like it used to.


I doubt software licenses ever made up a large part of the Mac mini server's price.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I doubt it.
> 
> I regard the quality and choice of my display as more important than running OS X. I'll run windows before apple defines my display as that glass shiny pile of metal.


Well for me it isn't more important than my OS but it certainly is a very major consideration. However, based on some of the opinions expressed here and elsewhere, I am somewhat fearful and the business model of Apple is more and more closed so I am really, really suspicious as to the ultimate plan.

I hope you are right and I am wrong... I just think with some of the recent developments the writing could be on the wall.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

broad said:


> KRS' post that i quoted mentions the mini "selling too well" and alludes to the fact that this new iteration could be part of some diabolical plan by apple to cripple sales of the mini, which is simply absurd.


Not so absurd if you try to buy one - they are always short in supply and getting a refurbished one is next to impossible.
I get email notification from refurb.me every time Minis are put up for sale and the good deals are always gone before I even get the email.
Demand certainly seems to outstrip supply compared to other Macs.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

New Mac Mini Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains - Mac Rumors.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2011)

jfpoole said:


> I doubt software licenses ever made up a large part of the Mac mini server's price.


On Apple's side apparently not given this. To end-users it did for sure!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

jfpoole said:


> I doubt software licenses ever made up a large part of the Mac mini server's price.


I agree.



mguertin said:


> On Apple's side apparently not given this. To end-users it did for sure!


Apple's software licences have been getting cheaper in general, everything from Aperture and OS upgrades to server software. iLife and iWork don't seem to have dropped much, but the Family Pack has disappeared, and every licence is now good for five authorized machines. (Except when bundled with a new machine, I assume.)

Last year, I picked up a refurb Mac mini server even though I didn't really need the server software. The reason: when I compared the hardware to non-refurb units, my refurb mini was cheaper than a similarly configured non-server mini -- even after adding an external optical drive to the server unit. 

I'd guess Snow Leopard Server was being included for somewhere around $100-150. There's no way it came close to adding $499 to the cost of the machine. And if you buy a server mini now, you get iLife. That was not the case with the previous gen.

Apple's direction with server software has to be a good thing as long as users are happy with the software itself. As a $49 add-on, now anyone who wants it can easily add it to any machine they want. I'm sure some people are deeply inconvenienced by the end of the Xserve hardware line, but maybe this makes up for it in a small way?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

The 2.5 GHz i5 would totally blow away my antique Rev A G5 dualie, n'est-ce pas? 

Hmm.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> The 2.5 GHz i5 would totally blow away my antique Rev A G5 dualie, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> Hmm.


Totally. Even the previous gen Mini is faster than a dual 2.5 GHz G5 Power Mac, the power Mac scores only 3284, whereas the previous gen Mini at 2.4 scores 3332 and at 2.6 scores 3782.

But if Apple could figure out a way to get better heat dissipation in the new Mini so it could run the same 2.2 and 2.3 i7s that are in the MacBook Pro based on the Geek Bench scores for them then it could score over 10K. I would happily pay $1400+ for a Mini that scored like that especially it they also gave you the option of the AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB graphic chip. That is once some more TBolt peripherals are available.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

mguertin said:


> I just realized something else ... the Mac Mini server used to come with a $499 piece of software (Snow Leopard Server) and was $999 It now comes with a $49 piece of software (Lion Server) is still $999. The value somehow doesn't translate up like it used to.


$200 jump from the middle model for the i7 processor, the second hard drive and Lion Server.

You can BTO the middle of the line Mac mini with the i7 processor for $100 extra so with buying server you're looking at $850 without the second hard drive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Chealion said:


> $200 jump from the middle model for the i7 processor, the second hard drive and Lion Server.
> 
> You can BTO the middle of the line Mac mini with the i7 processor for $100 extra so with buying server you're looking at $850 without the second hard drive.


Huh? The i7 BTO in the non-server version is a dual core not a quad core as is in the server and adding the i7 makes the non-server version $900 ($899) not $850. Really not sure what point you are trying to make here?


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Yup only a dual core not quad, if it had been that would have been nice. Hmm but the cores are hyper threaded so does that mean the sw I need to run with a 'quad' core might be fooled into thinking it's running on a real quad? Ok dumb question #2, were the Core 2 Duo's also hyperthreading?

Oh yeah I love the markup on memory, just picked up two 4GB DDR3 SODIMMS for $26 each from Canada Computers and they are Apple approved.

Turbo Boost 2.0 — a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload, giving you extra processing power when you need it.
_Hyper-Threading — a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a dual-core Mac mini has four virtual cores, all of which are recognised by OS X. This enables the processor to deliver faster performance by spreading tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores._

2.5GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5
2.7GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7 [Add $94.00]


4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB [Add $197.00]


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

mguertin said:


> I just realized something else ... the Mac Mini server used to come with a $499 piece of software (Snow Leopard Server) and was $999 It now comes with a $49 piece of software (Lion Server) is still $999. The value somehow doesn't translate up like it used to.


That speaks more to the value of SL Server being heavily reduced in the 2010 Mini Server update vs. the value of the Mini Hardware.



jfpoole said:


> I doubt software licenses ever made up a large part of the Mac mini server's price.


This.

Besides, when looking at Hardware, the $999 mini is basically an ODD-less and screen-less base-model 2011 15" MBP. Same CPU, Faster GPU (6630m is 480 [email protected], 6490m is 160 [email protected]) More storage, more ports.

If you value the Screen at say $200 and the ODD at $~30, you're still saving a lot of money if you don't need the portability.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

krs said:


> Not so absurd if you try to buy one - they are always short in supply and getting a refurbished one is next to impossible.
> I get email notification from refurb.me every time Minis are put up for sale and the good deals are always gone before I even get the email.
> Demand certainly seems to outstrip supply compared to other Macs.


logic would tell you that since there are substantially fewer minis being sold than other models there would also be less refurbs available. 

look at the refurb section right now. look at which model has the most refurb units available. which model is apple's biggest seller? the macbook pro. stands to reason that the more units of something are sold the more units would enter the refurb pool, no? 

same thing with the white macbook. sales of that have pooped the bed over the last 2 years since the 13" pro was launched, so much so that the model was just axed. look at the refurb store. there is 1 unit available right now. 

do you see the trend? more units sold overall lead to more refurbs

*granted all this is overly simplistic as its based on one day of looking at the refurb store, but the trend is not difficult to see based on the huge disparity between popular and not


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

jfpoole said:


> I doubt software licenses ever made up a large part of the Mac mini server's price.


With the first Mac Mini server the SW price basically offset the cost of the Mac Mini so you basically bought the SW and got the HW for free. Then it got cut in half price wise and now down to $99. 

I guess my question is, is Lion server as good as SL for a moderately small setup eg multiple domains with email and web services. For $749 you can pick up Mac Mini SL servers based on the C2D hardware and you can also upgrade to Lion server for $49 though is it worth it? 

ISP's all over the place were snapping up Minis for a while, makes me wonder what they are doing now.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Niteshooter said:


> Yup only a dual core not quad, if it had been that would have been nice. Hmm but the cores are hyper threaded so does that mean the sw I need to run with a 'quad' core might be fooled into thinking it's running on a real quad? Ok dumb question #2, were the Core 2 Duo's also hyperthreading?


The $799 model only has dual-cores, but the $999 model has a Quad-Core (8 virtual cores). And if you're upgrading from the 2.5Ghz to the 2.7Ghz, you're only $100 away from the $999 model which has two hard drives (at 7200RPM) and the faster Quad Processor. Worth the $100 more IMHO.

Re: Core2Duo, they didn't have HyperThreading, or Turbo Boost. Which is one of the reasons that the I5/i7's can so handily beat them in CPU-bound scenarios.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> The $799 model only has dual-cores, but the $999 model has a Quad-Core (8 virtual cores). And if you're upgrading from the 2.5Ghz to the 2.7Ghz, you're only $100 away from the $999 model which has two hard drives (at 7200RPM) *and the faster Quad Processor*. Worth the $100 more IMHO.
> 
> Re: Core2Duo, they didn't have HyperThreading, or Turbo Boost. Which is one of the reasons that the I5/i7's can so handily beat them in CPU-bound scenarios.


Actually it is a much slower clock speed at 2.0GHz as opposed to 2.7GHz but it has the extra cores of course which give it a faster Geek Bench score. For those who are using non core aware software, the dual 2.7 i7 will be faster in the real world as opposed to artificial benchmarks. Just thought I should clarify your use of the words "faster quad processor".

Of course if you are using software that is core aware the quad 2.0 is faster.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> *logic would tell you that since there are substantially fewer minis being sold than other models there would also be less refurbs available.
> 
> look at the refurb section right now. look at which model has the most refurb units available. which model is apple's biggest seller? the macbook pro. stands to reason that the more units of something are sold the more units would enter the refurb pool, no? *
> 
> ...


This is true, but what is also true is that the Mini is and consistently has been one of the most reliable Macs Apple has ever offered, you can Google the reliability records to find out, so this also plays into the lack of number of Minis appearing in the refurb section. 

It is also true that for anyone who has ever been interested in the Mini and tried to buy them in the refurb section, you have to pounce of them right away because they go very, very fast indeed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> Yup only a dual core not quad, if it had been that would have been nice. Hmm but the cores are hyper threaded *so does that mean the sw I need to run with a 'quad' core might be fooled into thinking it's running on a real quad?* Ok dumb question #2, were the Core 2 Duo's also hyperthreading?


If you are running software that is core aware it should run hyperthreading and therefore have four threads running as opposed to 2.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

i wont dispute that. they do break less.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> i wont dispute that. they do break less.


Whew... something we can agree on.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

xoxoxxo


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> xoxoxxo


:lmao: back at ya!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

*review*

Macminicolo.net- Mac mini Hosting


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

fyrefly said:


> The $799 model only has dual-cores, but the $999 model has a Quad-Core (8 virtual cores). And if you're upgrading from the 2.5Ghz to the 2.7Ghz, you're only $100 away from the $999 model which has two hard drives (at 7200RPM) and the faster Quad Processor. Worth the $100 more IMHO.
> 
> Re: Core2Duo, they didn't have HyperThreading, or Turbo Boost. Which is one of the reasons that the I5/i7's can so handily beat them in CPU-bound scenarios.


I know, that's why my finger has been hovering over the add to kart button for the past couple of days. I did buy a refurb Mini server running SL in the mean time but I have two servers to replace hence the hesitation over the Quad Core server version. That and the fact that I don't need it to run Lion server though I am thinking of buying the upgrade for the SL server that is arriving today.

But I wasn't sure about the C2D so thanks for filling in that blank.

Ok so I wonder if I can get away with a non server mini for the other requirement....hmmmm


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Actually it is a much slower clock speed at 2.0GHz as opposed to 2.7GHz but it has the extra cores of course which give it a faster Geek Bench score. For those who are using non core aware software, the dual 2.7 i7 will be faster in the real world as opposed to artificial benchmarks. Just thought I should clarify your use of the words "faster quad processor".
> 
> Of course if you are using software that is core aware the quad 2.0 is faster.


Not necessarily. While there's a 35% difference in the stock frequency between the dual-core and the quad-core i7s, there's only about a 10% difference in single-core performance thanks to Turbo Boost. Considering that more and more software is multi-core aware (especially on Mac OS X), I wouldn't recommend buying a dual-core processor if you're interested in performance.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

screature said:


> If you are running software that is core aware it should run hyperthreading and therefore have four threads running as opposed to 2.


Double hmmm..... that makes the base Mini a possibility then. I don't think I need to spend $200 more for .2 GHz or a better video card since this is a server and won't even have a monitor attached to it other than the initial setup. Don't even need the memory since I'll have two 2GB strips from the other Mini. Oh boy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Not necessarily. While there's a 35% difference in the stock frequency between the dual-core and the quad-core i7s, there's only about a 10% difference in single-core performance thanks to Turbo Boost. Considering that more and more software is multi-core aware (especially on Mac OS X), I wouldn't recommend buying a dual-core processor if you're interested in performance.


Not by what I see. The quad 2.0 can turbo boost to 2.9 while the dual 2.7 can turbo to 3.4 which still makes it 15% faster for non multi-core aware applications.

Sandy Bridge Comparison Chart

But as for the last part of your statement, "I wouldn't recommend buying a dual-core processor if you're interested in performance." , that is why there should be quad core options for the non-server Mini.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Not by what I see. The quad 2.0 can turbo boost to 2.9 while the dual 2.7 can turbo to 3.4 which still makes it 15% faster for non multi-core aware applications.
> 
> Sandy Bridge Comparison Chart


Right, but the quad-core part has a higher TDW (45W vs 35W) meaning it can sustain higher speeds for longer. It's been my experience that the maximum turbo boost speed isn't always relevant.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jfpoole said:


> Right, but the quad-core part has a higher TDW (45W vs 35W) meaning it can sustain higher speeds for longer. It's been my experience that the maximum turbo boost speed isn't always relevant.


So in your experience it is a grey area, despite the published numbers... ok fine....

I was merely pointing a valid detail that even with your numbers invalidates the details of your post... perhaps less substantially in your anecdotal experience but true none-the-less.... I think it is probably time to move on....


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Niteshooter said:


> Double hmmm..... that makes the base Mini a possibility then. I don't think I need to spend $200 more for .2 GHz or a better video card since this is a server and won't even have a monitor attached to it other than the initial setup. Don't even need the memory since I'll have two 2GB strips from the other Mini. Oh boy.


If you're trying to use the memory from the 2010 (C2D) Server Model, it won't work in the 2011 model - they use different memory.

The 2010 C2D Models use 1066 MHz DDR3 SDRAM (PC3-8500) SODIMMS.

The 2011 Core iX models use 1333 Mhz DDR3 SDRAM (PC3-10600) SODIMMS.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

fyrefly said:


> If you're trying to use the memory from the 2010 (C2D) Server Model, it won't work in the 2011 model - they use different memory.
> 
> The 2010 C2D Models use 1066 MHz DDR3 SDRAM (PC3-8500) SODIMMS.
> 
> The 2011 Core iX models use 1333 Mhz DDR3 SDRAM (PC3-10600) SODIMMS.


How so? I was under the impression that 8500 and 10600 are compatible and this would be possible, you would just be running slower ram with lower bandwidth capacities.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

ertman said:


> How so? I was under the impression that 8500 and 10600 are compatible and this would be possible, you would just be running slower ram with lower bandwidth capacities.


No. The RAM will not work. Even if the unit did boot up, it could cause a slew of performance or reliability issues and just generally isn't worth the risk.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Lars said:


> No. The RAM will not work. Even if the unit did boot up, it could cause a slew of performance or reliability issues and just generally isn't worth the risk.


Called Apple Support who basically said the faster memory was not tested so they did not recommend it. If I were to use it and ran into problems I should install the original 1066 memory and see if that clears the issue. Fair enough, on the Mini Server system profile does see the memory as 1333 and seems to run. Long term reliability is a question.

I also found out that the refurbs qualify for the Lion up to date program so I can get a free upgrade to Lion Server though I might not do it since it appears mysql is not included in Lion server.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

looks like the new mini will accept up to 16gb of ram and it's only $1399.00


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

hahaha "only". 

if you shop around you could have 16GB of RAM in an imac for..what under $250?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Yeah I saw that today... OWC, but you can get 12GB for only $749.00... a steal compared to the cost of 16GB.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

broad said:


> hahaha "only".
> 
> if you shop around you could have 16GB of RAM in an imac for..what under $250?


Actually around $160 at OWC. That is because the iMac has four memory slots so you are buying 4 x 4GB modules. 2 x 8GB modules its what makes the difference.

If you want to max out the memory on a 2011 iMac at 32GB it is only $2,794.99.


----------

