Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 9:23 pm, Chance Reecher cha...@reecher.net wrote: t...@io.com wrote: Does the Mini still have support for only one monitor? If they'd add dual monitor support (the video chip almost certainly supports it), I'd buy one in an instant. I don't need slots, but I want dual monitor support. Jeff Walther It's had dual monitor support for over a year now! Wow. Thanks. Now I guess I need to look at the old model and the new model and compare. I can probably figure this out at everymac.com, but if someone knows off the top of their head... how many models have had dual monitor support? Are we talking one model a year ago and the new one now, or has there been another rev. in between? Jeff Walther -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: All in all continuing to make the H word we cannot use here more and more attractive. There's a place for both. Where absolute compatibility is required, over a great many applications, irrespective of performance, I use Product M. Where highest performance is required, over comparatively few applications, most of these being mission specific and mission critical, I use Product H. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 16, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Peter Haas wrote: Where absolute compatibility is required, over a great many applications, irrespective of performance, I use Product M. Where highest performance is required, over comparatively few applications, most of these being mission specific and mission critical, I use Product H. Where End User != hacker (in old school sense) go with a real Mac. While it's gotten VASTLY easier to set up a Hack, it's still very much a 'work ON your computer, not WITH your computer thing.', at least while getting it up and running, and if anything goes wrong. With a Mac, running System Updater is a normal course of action, with a Hack it can turn into a real 'adventure'. Example 10.6.4. Won't know what it breaks until it's pried apart and examined under a microscope. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
Peter Haas wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: All in all continuing to make the H word we cannot use here more and more attractive. There's a place for both. Where absolute compatibility is required, over a great many applications, irrespective of performance, I use Product M. Where highest performance is required, over comparatively few applications, most of these being mission specific and mission critical, I use Product H. I find both H and M very attractive. In the portable realm, I greatly prefer Product M, due in part to the unmatched hardware design and the fact that I can rely on it to just work. However, in the desktop realm, Product H is a much better option both in price and performance. My current H, which is over a year old, cost me less than what the current Mini would, and is still a superior machine. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
I hope others realize how humorous this Product M and H discussion is :P On Jun 16, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Chance Reecher wrote: Peter Haas wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: All in all continuing to make the H word we cannot use here more and more attractive. There's a place for both. Where absolute compatibility is required, over a great many applications, irrespective of performance, I use Product M. Where highest performance is required, over comparatively few applications, most of these being mission specific and mission critical, I use Product H. I find both H and M very attractive. In the portable realm, I greatly prefer Product M, due in part to the unmatched hardware design and the fact that I can rely on it to just work. However, in the desktop realm, Product H is a much better option both in price and performance. My current H, which is over a year old, cost me less than what the current Mini would, and is still a superior machine. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
Dan wrote: I'm disappointed. IMO, this seems to be yet-another overpriced Mini that goes into the why bother category. It should be a fast machine, but then it's got older i/o technology, circa 2005ish, bolted on. Only one Firewire port. The 4 USB ports are probably again all the same bus. No eSATA. No USB 3. You can't use I/O as an argument against the Mini when the iMacs have _less._ No Blu-ray. Adding Blu-ray to the mini would be pointless, as there is no playback software available for OS X. Can't tell - is there a wi-fi antenna port? If not, how does the signal escape that pretty all metal enclosure? Maybe through the Apple logo on top? And, on the server version, no dual ether or even 10 Gb ether. If one needed dual ethernet, they could buy an Xserve. I don't think Apple intended for the sever mini to be an Xserve replacement. And huh? 10Gb ethernet? The Xserves only have gigabit! They moved the power supply inside,,, so now there will be heat issues in enclosed spaces. I highly doubt Apple would've moved it inside if it caused heat issues. Why couldn't they have used all that extra space to provide better quality i/o? You know, the things that PCs have had available for a few years now! Then there's the SD slot -- ON THE BACK of the machine. So you have to pick up your computer, and turn it around - with cables attached - to plug in your camera card?? WTF! DItto for the four USB ports. IF they had all that space available,,, why couldn't they put the SD, FW and a USB port on the front That is stupid. I hated fumbling around on the back of my mini to plug in flash drives and other USB devices. - Dan. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Dan wrote: At 7:39 AM -0400 6/15/2010, Len Gerstel wrote: 2.4 GHz Mini with HDMI. And user friendly RAM slot. Plus a little better graphics, NVidia 320m. But also a $100 price bump. I'm disappointed. IMO, this seems to be yet-another overpriced Mini that goes into the why bother category. It should be a fast machine, but then it's got older i/o technology, circa 2005ish, bolted on. Only one Firewire port. The 4 USB ports are probably again all the same bus. No eSATA. No USB 3. No Blu-ray. Will Apple ever support eSATA? The last Intel machine I have that I can connect eSATA is a MBP 2008 with Express 34 slot other wise I have the MDD and PM G5 and Ti Books So my music and movie library transfers are done via eSATA. If I bend over for a new Unibody machine I feel like I'm going backwards. What's the deal on USB 3.0? will that be as fast as eSATA and FW? What may the SD port do other than a camera card, it seems a waste of port space when a two dollar USB SD adaptor will do it. JOHN CARMONNE Yorba Linda USA From TiBook 800 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
At 8:43 AM -0700 6/15/2010, JOHN CARMONNE wrote: Will Apple ever support eSATA? sigh. I doubt it. I think we'll see all the ports vanish, when Light Peak comes out. Then we'll be stuck buying expensive adapters. Regretfully, at the rate Apple has been adopting interfaces, the PC world will have LP for a few years, then maybe we'll get it. What's the deal on USB 3.0? will that be as fast as eSATA and FW? Raw USB 3 is 4 Gbps, with a 5 Gbps burst superspeed mode. It was standardized in 2008. Chip sets have been available for a while now - the first peripherals hit the market *six months ago*. I'm not a big fan of USB but at this point, since FW has stalled... sigh. What may the SD port do other than a camera card, it seems a waste of port space when a two dollar USB SD adaptor will do it. Exactly. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: Will Apple ever support eSATA? I tend to doubt it. My total wild-ass speculating guess is that this might be a Steve Jobs sort of thing. eSATA does not supply power to the external device and perhaps the Steve has deemed this to be as inappropriate as a two button mouse? Maybe they'll add support for eSATA with power (e-SATAP ?) at some future date? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: What's the deal on USB 3.0? I don't know what the deal is with USB 3.0. I would have expected it to be integrated into the motherboard chipsets by now. But it was pointed out to me in another thread that Intel is currently talking as though there is no need to incorporate USB 3.0 until sometime towards the end of 2011 or perhaps even 2012? PC motherboards currently support USB 3.0 by incorporating a non-Intel chip. The only response Intel appears to have to that is to announce plans to sell their own discrete USB 3.0 support chip. I think Intel has its corporate bureaucratic head up its butt. Apparently the planners expect they can do the transition to USB 3.0 the same way that the move to USB 2.0 was done i.e. pretty much on their terms. However, no one seems to have checked with the Chinese manufacturers. They don't seem to care one bit about Intel's plans and are tossing USB 3.0 devices at the market with what appears to be an increasing pace. The market may well move fast enough on its own to leave Intel behind (at least for a bit). What truly surprises me is that AMD has not tried to exploit this by integrating USB 3.0 into one of their chipsets. Oh, well. My Macish point here is that I don't see Apple adding USB 3.0 support until Intel integrates it. Maybe they'll go the separate chip support route if the market builds enough. And/or if there are enough competing USB 3.0 chips out there for Apple to pit one against the other and get them at close to cost. USB 3.0 on a Mac would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. -irrational john -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:25 AM, John Martz wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: Will Apple ever support eSATA? I tend to doubt it. My total wild-ass speculating guess is that this might be a Steve Jobs sort of thing. eSATA does not supply power to the external device and perhaps the Steve has deemed this to be as inappropriate as a two button mouse? Maybe they'll add support for eSATA with power (e-SATAP ?) at some future date? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: What's the deal on USB 3.0? I don't know what the deal is with USB 3.0. I would have expected it to be integrated into the motherboard chipsets by now. But it was pointed out to me in another thread that Intel is currently talking as though there is no need to incorporate USB 3.0 until sometime towards the end of 2011 or perhaps even 2012? PC motherboards currently support USB 3.0 by incorporating a non-Intel chip. The only response Intel appears to have to that is to announce plans to sell their own discrete USB 3.0 support chip. I think Intel has its corporate bureaucratic head up its butt. Apparently the planners expect they can do the transition to USB 3.0 the same way that the move to USB 2.0 was done i.e. pretty much on their terms. However, no one seems to have checked with the Chinese manufacturers. They don't seem to care one bit about Intel's plans and are tossing USB 3.0 devices at the market with what appears to be an increasing pace. The market may well move fast enough on its own to leave Intel behind (at least for a bit). What truly surprises me is that AMD has not tried to exploit this by integrating USB 3.0 into one of their chipsets. Oh, well. My Macish point here is that I don't see Apple adding USB 3.0 support until Intel integrates it. Maybe they'll go the separate chip support route if the market builds enough. And/or if there are enough competing USB 3.0 chips out there for Apple to pit one against the other and get them at close to cost. USB 3.0 on a Mac would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. Well that leaves the MacPro for those of us that want to buy a new machine, And a good reason not the sell the older dogs that are more suited to all the methods of large and fast data transfer. I keep sticking up for Ap,le on the SD front because I think maybe that will become a new universal transfer port other than a camera, like maybe the new SSD drives are?? Like any day there'll be a brand new device come out that will plug into the SD port on all the Apple units and be a super connection to all systems. JOHN CARMONNE Yorba Linda USA From TiBook 800 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
There are no USB or eSATA or SD or any such ports on the front because they don't look as nice. Illirik Smirnov On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:25 AM, John Martz wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: Will Apple ever support eSATA? I tend to doubt it. My total wild-ass speculating guess is that this might be a Steve Jobs sort of thing. eSATA does not supply power to the external device and perhaps the Steve has deemed this to be as inappropriate as a two button mouse? Maybe they'll add support for eSATA with power (e-SATAP ?) at some future date? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, JOHN CARMONNE carmo...@aol.com wrote: What's the deal on USB 3.0? I don't know what the deal is with USB 3.0. I would have expected it to be integrated into the motherboard chipsets by now. But it was pointed out to me in another thread that Intel is currently talking as though there is no need to incorporate USB 3.0 until sometime towards the end of 2011 or perhaps even 2012? PC motherboards currently support USB 3.0 by incorporating a non-Intel chip. The only response Intel appears to have to that is to announce plans to sell their own discrete USB 3.0 support chip. I think Intel has its corporate bureaucratic head up its butt. Apparently the planners expect they can do the transition to USB 3.0 the same way that the move to USB 2.0 was done i.e. pretty much on their terms. However, no one seems to have checked with the Chinese manufacturers. They don't seem to care one bit about Intel's plans and are tossing USB 3.0 devices at the market with what appears to be an increasing pace. The market may well move fast enough on its own to leave Intel behind (at least for a bit). What truly surprises me is that AMD has not tried to exploit this by integrating USB 3.0 into one of their chipsets. Oh, well. My Macish point here is that I don't see Apple adding USB 3.0 support until Intel integrates it. Maybe they'll go the separate chip support route if the market builds enough. And/or if there are enough competing USB 3.0 chips out there for Apple to pit one against the other and get them at close to cost. USB 3.0 on a Mac would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. Well that leaves the MacPro for those of us that want to buy a new machine, And a good reason not the sell the older dogs that are more suited to all the methods of large and fast data transfer. I keep sticking up for Ap,le on the SD front because I think maybe that will become a new universal transfer port other than a camera, like maybe the new SSD drives are?? Like any day there'll be a brand new device come out that will plug into the SD port on all the Apple units and be a super connection to all systems. JOHN CARMONNE Yorba Linda USA From TiBook 800 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Dan wrote: At 7:39 AM -0400 6/15/2010, Len Gerstel wrote: 2.4 GHz Mini with HDMI. And user friendly RAM slot. Plus a little better graphics, NVidia 320m. But also a $100 price bump. I'm disappointed. IMO, this seems to be yet-another overpriced Mini that goes into the why bother category. It should be a fast machine, but then it's got older i/o technology, circa 2005ish, bolted on. Only one Firewire port. The 4 USB ports are probably again all the same bus. No eSATA. No USB 3. No Blu-ray. Can't tell - is there a wi-fi antenna port? If not, how does the signal escape that pretty all metal enclosure? And, on the server version, no dual ether or even 10 Gb ether. They moved the power supply inside,,, so now there will be heat issues in enclosed spaces. Why couldn't they have used all that extra space to provide better quality i/o? You know, the things that PCs have had available for a few years now! Then there's the SD slot -- ON THE BACK of the machine. So you have to pick up your computer, and turn it around - with cables attached - to plug in your camera card?? WTF! DItto for the four USB ports. IF they had all that space available,,, why couldn't they put the SD, FW and a USB port on the front ...and probably a slow 5,400 rpm drive... JT New Car Invoice Pricing Get Multiple Dealer Price Quotes! You Could Save Thousands! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4c17c4feaa5652c253st03duc -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:27 AM, James Therrault wrote: ...and probably a slow 5,400 rpm drive... Undoubtedly true. One way to conserve unit power is to dumb-down the HD from 7200 to 5400 rpm, and from 16 MB cache to 4 MB cache. Also, special firmware can be installed, and which further economizes on power, at the expense of performance, by artificially increasing latency time by slowing down the acceleration of the drive's voice- coil positioning mechanism. Apple has done this in the past, and I would expect no less in the future. One positive outcome of this anti-consumer initiative of Apple's is Mac-oriented retailers, such as OWC, seem to be right there with upgraded drives, which sport dramatically improved performance, and they accept these essentially new drives as trade-ins, which they promptly offer as pulls, at dramatic savings, usually advertising these as Apple-branded drives. Its a good way to get a drive for testing purposes, as the price is usually very low, yet the performance is not THAT bad, for a testing drive. And, all this policy essentially does, to the end-user, is to increase the effective cost of a Mac, that is, the cost to get a Mac which one REALLY wants v. the cost of a Mac which Apple EXPECTS us to make-do with. Is it any wonder that the OSx86 crowd is operating Snow machines which cost one-fourth, yet deliver four-times the performance? -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Peter Haas wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:27 AM, James Therrault wrote: ...and probably a slow 5,400 rpm drive... Undoubtedly true. One way to conserve unit power is to dumb-down the HD from 7200 to 5400 rpm, and from 16 MB cache to 4 MB cache. Also, special firmware can be installed, and which further economizes on power, at the expense of performance, by artificially increasing latency time by slowing down the acceleration of the drive's voice-coil positioning mechanism. Apple has done this in the past, and I would expect no less in the future. One positive outcome of this anti-consumer initiative of Apple's is Mac-oriented retailers, such as OWC, seem to be right there with upgraded drives, which sport dramatically improved performance, and they accept these essentially new drives as trade-ins, which they promptly offer as pulls, at dramatic savings, usually advertising these as Apple-branded drives. Its a good way to get a drive for testing purposes, as the price is usually very low, yet the performance is not THAT bad, for a testing drive. And, all this policy essentially does, to the end-user, is to increase the effective cost of a Mac, that is, the cost to get a Mac which one REALLY wants v. the cost of a Mac which Apple EXPECTS us to make-do with. Is it any wonder that the OSx86 crowd is operating Snow machines which cost one-fourth, yet deliver four-times the performance? The guy that I bought my PowerBook, (G4, 2GB ram and 7,200 rpm 80GB drive), had the foresight to do this but he paid through the nose as he bought it from the Apple store... Fast HD makes a BIG difference! JT TODAY: iPads for $23.74? Special Report: Apple iPads are being auctioned for an incredible 80% off! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4c17cee6884a13f919fst02duc -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Peter Haas wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:27 AM, James Therrault wrote: ...and probably a slow 5,400 rpm drive... Undoubtedly true. One way to conserve unit power is to dumb-down the HD from 7200 to 5400 rpm, and from 16 MB cache to 4 MB cache. And to reduce heat. And, all this policy essentially does, to the end-user, is to increase the effective cost of a Mac, that is, the cost to get a Mac which one REALLY wants v. the cost of a Mac which Apple EXPECTS us to make-do with. The Mini has always been a price point Mac. Yes, compromises are made to hit that point and that is the decision the end user needs to make. Yes, Apple could offer the mini with a 320GB SSD and 8GB of ram, but not at the same price. Is it any wonder that the OSx86 crowd is operating Snow machines which cost one-fourth, yet deliver four-times the performance? In the same form factor as the mini? Len -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Chance Reecher wrote: Dan wrote: I'm disappointed. IMO, this seems to be yet-another overpriced Mini that goes into the why bother category. It should be a fast machine, but then it's got older i/o technology, circa 2005ish, bolted on. Only one Firewire port. The 4 USB ports are probably again all the same bus. No eSATA. No USB 3. You can't use I/O as an argument against the Mini when the iMacs have _less._ But the iMacs were not just refreshed. It would have been the perfect time to offer an i/o upgrade. The Firewire is 800, not too shabby. No Blu-ray. Adding Blu-ray to the mini would be pointless, as there is no playback software available for OS X. Wouldn't that be a good way to introduce it? Since the mini now has an hdmi port it would make sense to introduce it. There was a comment on slashdot about this. Basically it says Apple looks ahead a few years and they think blu-ray is dead end, streaming is the way to go in the future. Can't tell - is there a wi-fi antenna port? If not, how does the signal escape that pretty all metal enclosure? Maybe through the Apple logo on top? or the bottom? They moved the power supply inside,,, so now there will be heat issues in enclosed spaces. I highly doubt Apple would've moved it inside if it caused heat issues. Naw, Apple has never designed a computer with physical issues before. Road Apples anyone? Upgrade a 9500's ram? Why couldn't they have used all that extra space to provide better quality i/o? You know, the things that PCs have had available for a few years now! Then there's the SD slot -- ON THE BACK of the machine. So you have to pick up your computer, and turn it around - with cables attached - to plug in your camera card?? WTF! DItto for the four USB ports. IF they had all that space available,,, why couldn't they put the SD, FW and a USB port on the front That is stupid. I hated fumbling around on the back of my mini to plug in flash drives and other USB devices. Agreed on both the current and previous. Overall, for me the only drawback on the refurb 2.26MHz I just got delivered yesterday compared to these is the graphics chip. Overall, I think I got the better deal at $499. Even with these becoming refurbs in 2 months at $599. Yes, I knew a refresh was coming soon according to Macrumours. But I was able to splurge now and could not guarantee the funds would not be diverted to something else. Len -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
I know alot of the macs don't have peripheral ports in the front, but why not hide them behind a tab or slider like the Dell optiplex series computers or the Hp a418x computer? How about Alienware towers? -- Sent from my Power mac G4 Sawtooth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Len Gerstel wrote: Is it any wonder that the OSx86 crowd is operating Snow machines which cost one-fourth, yet deliver four-times the performance? In the same form factor as the mini? Of course not. But who, in reality, really cares about form factor. One usually cares about price/performance. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Peter Haas wrote: On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Len Gerstel wrote: Is it any wonder that the OSx86 crowd is operating Snow machines which cost one-fourth, yet deliver four-times the performance? In the same form factor as the mini? Of course not. But who, in reality, really cares about form factor. A famous quote No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame. This is referring to the Nomad MP3 player compared to the first iPod. You see how many Nomads are out there today. Pure specs killed that Apple attempt at an MP3 player called the iPod. Form factor and user interface do matter to a lot of people. The noise and heat generated by my DA with Dual processors (both Apple dual 533s and OWC 1.2s is significantly higher than the mini with an external dual HD enclosure. Since my computer room is right next to the kids bedrooms and I use it mostly at night when they are asleep, the form factor (and resultant noise) played a part in my decision to get the mini. A generic Dell box built by the lowest bidder will have better specs, but how much is Dell spending on OS development? Remember, Apple is a software company. The hardware is just the (officially) only way to run the software. One usually cares about price/performance. That is why there is everything from the Minis to the dual quad core pros. And most of the comparisons I have seen over the last couple of years place most Macs not too far off of equivalent quality name brand windows boxes. Sometimes cheaper, sometimes more, but almost always within a reasonable amount. Ask Bruce how many boxes of band aids he has used over the years working on various low cost (but brand name) windows boxes compared to Macs. Len -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Len Gerstel wrote: But who, in reality, really cares about form factor. A famous quote In my MANY years as a Mac user (since at least the Apple IIcx days, with NO Gates/Windows machines, of ANY TYPE, whether a true Mac or a Mack, I have had three Mac Minis, but I have ALWAYS gone to OSx86 machines for price-performance. NO Mac has yet equalled or exceeded the price-performance of an (OSx86) Mack. Case closed, at least for me. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Len Gerstel lgers...@gmail.com wrote: Remember, Apple is a software company. The hardware is just the (officially) only way to run the software. That one mad me laugh. No, Microsoft is a software company. Apple is ... well, Apple is whatever it is they are. But they are certainly not just a software company. Maybe you could say Apple is a product company. They don't really sell either hardware or software per se. They sell the premise that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And they do this quite successfully, no? -irrational john -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
Len Gerstel wrote: The Mini has always been a price point Mac. Yes, compromises are made to hit that point and that is the decision the end user needs to make. Yes, Apple could offer the mini with a 320GB SSD and 8GB of ram, but not at the same price. Does the Mini still have support for only one monitor? If they'd add dual monitor support (the video chip almost certainly supports it), I'd buy one in an instant. I don't need slots, but I want dual monitor support. Jeff Walther -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
t...@io.com wrote: Does the Mini still have support for only one monitor? If they'd add dual monitor support (the video chip almost certainly supports it), I'd buy one in an instant. I don't need slots, but I want dual monitor support. Jeff Walther It's had dual monitor support for over a year now! I also wanted to add some info from a Macworld article that answers some questions posed earlier today: 1) The wifi antenna location - there's one on the bottom near the front, and one on the back near the ports. 2) The USB ports are NOT on one bus, they are on two. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: New unibody Mac Mini (was Re: Apple Store closed for update)
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Chance Reecher cha...@reecher.net wrote: t...@io.com wrote: Does the Mini still have support for only one monitor? If they'd add dual monitor support (the video chip almost certainly supports it), I'd buy one in an instant. I don't need slots, but I want dual monitor support. Jeff Walther It's had dual monitor support for over a year now! I also wanted to add some info from a Macworld article that answers some questions posed earlier today: 1) The wifi antenna location - there's one on the bottom near the front, and one on the back near the ports. 2) The USB ports are NOT on one bus, they are on two. __ All in all continuing to make the H word we cannot use here more and more attractive. Adrian D'Alessio aka; Fluxstringer fluxstrin...@gmail.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/fluxstreamcommunication/ http://www.youtube.com/fluxstringer http://www.facebook.com/FluxStringer http://www.linkedin.com/in/fluxstreamcommunications http://flux-influx.blogspot.com/ http://fluxdreams.designbinder.com/ -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
