Eerie Silence: new Mac Mini is worse value than previous revision

[jjahshik32]

Wow comparing $40,000 to $2,000 is a good ratio from a $100 difference? Alot of exaggerations on these threads forsure.

Its funny how even with irrefutable proof, people continue to deny that the GPU is that much faster. Thats what synthetic benchmarks are for, if you disregard the one about the nvidia 320m vs. 9400m, you might as well disregard the core 2 duo vs. i5/i7 or even i5 being only 10% slower than the i7. Sheesh.

 

[TennisandMusic]

What are you guys doing on those 9400m's that making it appear sluggish? On my MBP15, I never switch to the 9600m GT unless I'm playing game which demands the better GPU. In normal usage, I never switch to the 9600m GT. On the 9400m, I've played back 1080p .mkv Blu-ray rips with no problems.

The question is what am I NOT doing? Everything is framey in OSX on that machine. Expose, the dashboard, etc. Anything that uses any kind of animation. Even the bouncing dock icons are choppy. OSX feels quite different when the GUI is rock solid and smooth.

 

[ValSalva]

The new Mac Mini is overpriced. Whoever thinks it isn't has imbibed too much of the Apple koolaid.

Sadly you are right. It's a great machine and I'd get one if I had the need. But it's at least $100 too expensive. Either the base configuration needs 4GB of RAM or the CPU should be the 2.66GHz chip. By the time you add enough RAM and get the faster CPU and add a decent monitor the price is way out of whack.

 

[jjahshik32]

The question is what am I NOT doing? Everything is framey in OSX on that machine. Expose, the dashboard, etc. Anything that uses any kind of animation. Even the bouncing dock icons are choppy. OSX feels quite different when the GUI is rock solid and smooth.

Yup, also try connecting the macbook pro to a 52" hdtv or even a 40" hdtv with the nvidia 9400m and see how it performs especially with the plex player or any gui animation for that matter. Even dragging windows around lags in speed.

I also connect the 9400m mac mini to my 23" external monitor and while using 4-6 spaces, it makes everything feel like its missing 5-8 frames per second under OSX, lol.

If you want rock solid and smooth performance under OSX, get the 320m upgrade!

 

[Kebabselector]

The new Mac Mini is overpriced. Whoever thinks it isn't has imbibed too much of the Apple koolaid.

Very true, looking at your computer list you seem to know about overpriced kit

In the UK the price is cheaper than previous top spec model (£663 - £649),

But in the process of saving money you loose 2gb of Ram and a bit of CPU power, so it really doesn't make sense. I could probably live with the processor drop if the memory was 4gb. But to update it costs another £80 from Apple (which is actually cheaper than 4gb from Crucial! 80 vs 96).

As an upgrader I at least have my early 09 model to sell (base - but updated to 4gb) - so I might get £450 back, but then it's still going to cost another £280.

 

[jjahshik32]

The question is what am I NOT doing? Everything is framey in OSX on that machine. Expose, the dashboard, etc. Anything that uses any kind of animation. Even the bouncing dock icons are choppy. OSX feels quite different when the GUI is rock solid and smooth.

Sadly you are right. It's a great machine and I'd get one if I had the need. But it's at least $100 too expensive. Either the base configuration needs 4GB of RAM or the CPU should be the 2.66GHz chip. By the time you add enough RAM and get the faster CPU and add a decent monitor the price is way out of whack.

I do however agree that if you buy a equivalently priced Dell or PC, you do get far better performance and better GPU under Windows.

But to me and most others, the size of the mac mini, design, OSX, plex player is worth buying the mac mini over the PC as an HTPC.

If gaming is more important, the $700 PC would be a much better choice of course.

On a side note, I've seen threads of people overclocking the mac mini's 320m to get a 3dmark06 score of 5700 points. They were running crisis on medium settings and runs without any issues (on the lower 1280x800 resolution of course). I still find it pretty impressive for an integrated GPU.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CwyW9585Iw Of course the base mac mini has the same specs as the 13" base model macbook pro.

 

[flopticalcube]

Wow comparing $40,000 to $2,000 is a good ratio from a $100 difference? Alot of exaggerations on these threads forsure.

Its funny how even with irrefutable proof, people continue to deny that the GPU is that much faster. Thats what synthetic benchmarks are for, if you disregard the one about the nvidia 320m vs. 9400m, you might as well disregard the core 2 duo vs. i5/i7 or even i5 being only 10% slower than the i7. Sheesh.

No one spends their day running benchmarks. For most things, there should be no noticeable difference between a 9400M and a 320M or a C2D and an i7 for that matter. Even my old GMA950 mini could play HD video as most of the work was done by the CPU and not the GPU. For most tasks, the improvements will not be noticeable, even in an HT environment. Obviously the 320M is faster but in day-to-day tasks it should not be noticeable unless your machine is running improperly. Furthermore, you should not have to pay more for the 320M. The 9400M was a truly vast improvement over the GMA950 but the price stayed the same. Technology moves forward while prices remain static.

 

[archipellago]

I do however agree that if you buy a equivalently priced Dell or PC, you do get far better performance and better GPU under Windows.

But to me and most others, the size of the mac mini, design, OSX, plex player is worth buying the mac mini over the PC as an HTPC.

If gaming is more important, the $700 PC would be a much better choice of course.

On a side note, I've seen threads of people overclocking the mac mini's 320m to get a 3dmark06 score of 5700 points. They were running crisis on medium settings and runs without any issues (on the lower 1280x800 resolution of course). I still find it pretty impressive for an integrated GPU.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CwyW9585Iw Of course the base mac mini has the same specs as the 13" base model macbook pro.

most others...???

Apple will be likely to sell a million minis per year...worldwide. (worldwide computer market is approx 300 million machines per year)

its a ridiculous machine (anywhere outside an Apple forum) at a ridiculous price.

 

[jjahshik32]

most others...???

Apple will be likely to sell a million minis per year...worldwide. (worldwide computer market is approx 300 million machines per year)

its a ridiculous machine (anywhere outside an Apple forum) at a ridiculous price.

Well what I meant to say is most others (here in this forum).

 

[costabunny]

well I for one think its all down to individual values - what I see as a good but differs from the next persons idea.

I agree you get a little less CPU compared to the previous gen, but for me at least, the new form factor, ram access and hdmi makes up for it. Its exactly the mini I've been waiting for to go in the lounge.

This is the same as I love the Aston Martin; and if I could afford one; I'd buy it tomorrow. Yes I can get the same performance and features elsewhere for a lot less money; but its what I want.

Each person should view any purchase with that in mind - if an item is what you want and you can afford to pay the price; then its value is inherently good for you.

Thats my opinion on this anyways.

I bet the sony forums have similar arguments each time a new item is released...

 

[jamesryanbell]

Then don't buy it. Problem solved.

But he has to convince everyone else that they're wrong for buying one first.

Lol. Kidding.

 

[Jawnathin]

Because you are ignoring the time aspect. The old $599 and $799 models were those prices with those components a year ago. The new model is $699 today. Computer technology has significantly improved in the interceding year. For example, the 320M is the new version of the 9400M. And actually, Core i5 has replaced Core 2 Duo but I can agree on that one around the graphics issue. As I said before, there's a reason we don't pay $80,000 for a new computer when they may very well be 40x more powerful than a $2,000 computer was some time in the past. Performance improves while prices stay the same or go lower.

You're right, I am ignoring the time aspect of when the older model was launched. Yes, the older Mini may have been a better value than the new Mini upon their introductions. And again you're right, the older model was released a year ago, but I have to ask, why is the value of something a year ago important today? For someone ordering something today, who cares what happened a year ago? Was it a good value at the time? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean its a better value TODAY. Using the time argument, you could say that the older Mac Mini should have dropped in price from its release date to now, but it didn't. It still remained at its $599/799 price points even if I wanted to buy one today.

I do not believe a 2x faster computer is worth 2x more. That's silly. I am determining value based on the purchase price of the units that are available right now, this very second, and right now, its $599, $699, and $799, depending on the model you get. This is regardless of when they were first introduced or how much it cost Apple to build upon their introductions.

In my mind, the Mini is overpriced and expensive for what it is, last generation and the current one. I think the new model should have at least included 4GB at the $699 price point with all else being equal (it's about $100 too much). The price to performance value of the unit is indeed low. I won't argue or try to convince anyone otherwise of that, but the real question is, how is the older model any better of a value than the new one? Are you suggesting that you're better off buying the older Mac Mini instead of the new one if you ordered one today?

In my mind, the existing model's price to performance value is even lower than the new model. You suggest that the older model is a worse value proposition than the new one right now, and I disagree.

 

[Jawnathin]

The question is what am I NOT doing? Everything is framey in OSX on that machine. Expose, the dashboard, etc. Anything that uses any kind of animation. Even the bouncing dock icons are choppy. OSX feels quite different when the GUI is rock solid and smooth.

Very weird. I use my MBP15 with the 9400m active everyday and I haven't had an issue. I wonder if its actually the GPU or perhaps another bottleneck in the system.

 

[sdv5]

Vote with your wallet

Apple can charge $699 for the new Mini because they can. People should vote with their wallets (as they normally do), and Apple will undoubtedly get the message.

Computer manufacturers (including Apple) do not normally increase prices on new equipment because new parts have better performance. Everyone expects new parts to have better performance for the same money. Also, adding HDMI port or SXDC card slot cannot be used for price increase justification because those parts are dirt cheap. I suspect Apple felt justified in increasing the price by $100 because of the much more expensive CNC machined enclosure. Time will tell if consumers will approve.

Folks from European countries should really stop with currency conversions when analyzing how rotten a deal they are getting. WW sales just do not work that way. Also, wait a little, and your complaint might just go away on its own.

IMO, new Mini is a very poor desktop computer from the standpoint of price/performance ratio. However, new Mini will for many people be very attractive as HTPC primarily because of its exceptionally good looks. The base model is good enough for HTPC duties, and it will get only better when HDHomeRun releases new CableCARD capable network dual tuner. However, Mini looks considerably better than any other HTPC available for purchase. For many people, having a sleek looking device in the living room will be worth the undoubtedly high price.

 

[Jawnathin]

IMO, new Mini is a very poor desktop computer from the standpoint of price/performance ratio. However, new Mini will for many people be very attractive as HTPC primarily because of its exceptionally good looks.

...

For many people, having a sleek looking device in the living room will be worth the undoubtedly high price.

I couldn't agree more. Price to performance ratio is not in the Mini's favor, but for a certain demographic and market (the HTPC crowd), its worth the cost.

 

[dh2005]

We have yet to see how it will handle challenging 1080p video. The last model didn't play so well with Blu-ray. It would be a real bummer if the "HDTV" support on the new Mac Mini is still limited to be able to play the iTMS 720p h.264 video.

[cough]

Hey folks!


Actually, I was very pleased to see the specs of the new Mini. Sure, the value kinda sucks - but that's Macs for you (iMacs, less so...) - still, it's a very beautiful machine, and the graphics kit is appreciably better.

Good stuff, Apple. Continue in this vein, and I'll definitely buy another.

 

[dh2005]

I couldn't agree more. Price to performance ratio is not in the Mini's favor, but for a certain demographic and market (the HTPC crowd), its worth the cost.

Without wishing to bang my personal drum too hard...

... that all depends on what you consider acceptable in an HTPC - and, also, the scale of improvement that the 320M brings. Because, frankly, for people with my level of expectation, the 9400M wasn't good enough.

 

[iSpoody 1243]

this revision in the mac mini is definitely a step forward in the right direction.
when buying the mini you paying mainly for the size as appose to power.
the mac mini is the most powerful computer at its size(to my knowledge).
the dell has a max of 1.8ghz amd neo dual core.

 

[tuna]

but the real question is, how is the older model any better of a value than the new one? Are you suggesting that you're better off buying the older Mac Mini instead of the new one if you ordered one today?

No, I clearly stated from my first post that the new Mac Mini today is a worse value than the previous revision was when it was new. That has been what I was talking about. Macs have lifecycles. The Mac Mini is now at the beginning of a new lifecycle where it will not change specs and price for a ~year. Right now the Mac Mini is the best value that it is likely to be for the next year as its components become more and more outdated. But when the Mac Mini is fresh, either this week or when the last generation of Minis was new, it was a better value at the last revision.

BTW you'll see from earlier posts that I completely agree with your assessment of its price and agree that $699 would be the price you couldn't complain about if it came with 4GB RAM. Still more expensive than PCs, but it would represent a similar value as previous generations.

 

[dh2005]

this revision in the mac mini is definitely a step forward in the right direction.

BIG TIME.

But we need more. I'm not asking for a powerhouse - just give me a Mini with a true mid-range spec, and it'll be really something.

 

[Gov98]

To those who think the Mac Mini is overpriced...well what is new? It seems like the real way to go is to got for the Mac Mini Server and skip the mini. That being said the reason that Apple can increase the price for a seemingly minor upgrade is because they did upgrade the graphics. This was the bottleneck on the old mini. A 9400m is just so limiting, so yes they cut the processor speed, but the issue with the old mini was the 9400m.

Effectively, the new mini is paying a tax to apple to lift the hobble they placed on the mac mini's graphics. It's worth it from one to the other to pay it, and that's why they are charging it. Not because the cost justifies, but because the customer has to pay it.

 

[dh2005]

Well, the Mini Server does at least dispose with the dog-sh*t Super Drive. But it's a pricey upshift, just for the addition of a second HDD.

 

[flopticalcube]

To those who think the Mac Mini is overpriced...well what is new? It seems like the real way to go is to got for the Mac Mini Server and skip the mini. That being said the reason that Apple can increase the price for a seemingly minor upgrade is because they did upgrade the graphics. This was the bottleneck on the old mini. A 9400m is just so limiting, so yes they cut the processor speed, but the issue with the old mini was the 9400m.

It depends on what you want from it. The GMA950 served in the mini for years and still meets most users needs perfectly adequately. The 9400M is 10X faster than the GMA950, had hardware T&L, DX10 and hardware h.264 decoding. It was a true leap ahead. The 320M is about 2-3X faster than the 9400M and has DX11, while its an improvement I hardly think that the 9400M was really holding back the mini for most people. For some it was lack of hardware access, which appears to have been addressed somewhat. For others its the older C2D CPU, which remains. If you are looking for a decent gaming experience, the mini was never your ticket anyhow, and still remains so.

Effectively, the new mini is paying a tax to apple to lift the hobble they placed on the mac mini's graphics. It's worth it from one to the other to pay it, and that's why they are charging it. Not because the cost justifies, but because the customer has to pay it.

The 320M costs the same now as the 9400M did when it was released. Its simply the replacement. I suppose we should be glad they didn't go for the i3 and Intel's own brand of IGP pain but perhaps for some people that would have been an acceptable tradeoff as well. Interestingly, there was no "premium" in moving from the GMA950 (which was seriously old last year) to the 9400M.

 

[Sun Baked]

I think people would have been just as happy with a $50 drop in price and Apple making the same damn case out of injection molded plastic instead (like the MacBook) even if it would need to be slightly bigger by a couple millimeters.

Unless they do an education Mac Mini, likely this price increase might kill school orders.

However, this price increase may very likely make the iPad the machine to push down the education supply chain instead.

 

[flopticalcube]

Yes. There appears to be a focus shift going on here, particularly with the inclusion of HDMI. The iPad is now Apple's low-end "computer".