App Store Closed
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: The patched Flash Player
Next: Prediction
From: eastender on 17 Jun 2010 08:51 In article <1jk97uc.g9xki9iy7xvkN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > The situation with the new Mac Mini appears to be that Apple wanted a > body redesign similar to their other models, based around Aluminium > Unibody (which pushed the cost up somewhat), and there is no way they > could fit a Core i5 plus dedicated graphics controller into anything as > small as the Mini without retaining the separate power brick. Plus it > would have pushed the cost even higher. > Thanks for the detailed post - it explains a lot. As a desktop machine I can't see the objection to the separate power brick, which I presume also takes some heat of a box. As the body of the new Mini does look wide and deeper but thinner, without the power unit it may well have taken the i5 architecture? E.
From: whisky-dave on 17 Jun 2010 10:56 "chris" <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hv81f2$lp3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > If you're in the market for a small, quiet, low-spec machine for doing > basic desktop tasks and/or streaming/playing media. Then both the mini and > the acer will achieve what you want IMO. Only, the acer does it for �400 > less. Well I was considering a mac mini but not the news ones, just too expensive for my use which is as a torrent machine and to run my webcam. But the biggest thing the acer won't do is run OS X . 10.6.x well it's an assumption it won;t run it.
From: David Empson on 17 Jun 2010 12:04 eastender <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > In article <1jk97uc.g9xki9iy7xvkN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, > dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > > > > The situation with the new Mac Mini appears to be that Apple wanted a > > body redesign similar to their other models, based around Aluminium > > Unibody (which pushed the cost up somewhat), and there is no way they > > could fit a Core i5 plus dedicated graphics controller into anything as > > small as the Mini without retaining the separate power brick. Plus it > > would have pushed the cost even higher. > > > > Thanks for the detailed post - it explains a lot. As a desktop machine I > can't see the objection to the separate power brick, which I presume > also takes some heat of a box. As the body of the new Mini does look > wide and deeper but thinner, without the power unit it may well have > taken the i5 architecture? I expect it would physically fit (logic board could expand to fill the area that is currently used by the power converter), but there could be thermal design issues due to the added graphics controller and memory and the more powerful processor, plus the cost increase would have pushed it into the realm of an iMac. Extremely unlikely that Apple even considered this - they want the Mini comfortably slotted below the iMac with no overlap in performance/price (assuming both series have been updated). The Mini would only be allowed an i5 if the entry level iMac had an i5. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: zoara on 17 Jun 2010 20:46 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article <nospam-4C4985.13515417062010(a)news.virginmedia.com>, > eastender <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> In article <1jk97uc.g9xki9iy7xvkN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, >> dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: >> >>> The situation with the new Mac Mini appears to be that Apple wanted > > > a >>> body redesign similar to their other models, based around Aluminium >>> Unibody (which pushed the cost up somewhat), and there is no way > > > they >>> could fit a Core i5 plus dedicated graphics controller into anything > > > as >>> small as the Mini without retaining the separate power brick. Plus > > > it >>> would have pushed the cost even higher. >> >> Thanks for the detailed post - it explains a lot. As a desktop > > machine I >> can't see the objection to the separate power brick, which I presume >> also takes some heat of a box. As the body of the new Mini does look >> wide and deeper but thinner, without the power unit it may well have > > >> taken the i5 architecture? > > I really hate separate power bricks for non-portable stuff. I've got 5 > > on my desk at the moment. I agree. The new mini really *is* small, whereas the precious generation (which I have) is more "small, but cheating". -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 17 Jun 2010 20:46
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-06-15, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Removable bottom panel for memory upgrades. >>>> >>>> w00t! >>> >>> Base price is now 649UKP - for comparison an iMac starts at 969UKP. >>> >>> The prices feel like they're heading in the wrong direction, to me. >> >> Weren't they once under three hundred quid? > > Wasn't the UK Pound once worth more against the US Dollar? Yup, very much so. > If you look at the entry level US price, it has increased from the > original $499 (PowerPC Mini) to $599 (Intel Mini) and now $699 (Mid > 2010 > Mini). > > i.e. the US price has increased 40% since the start of 2005. > > According to MacTracker, the UK price was originally £339, so it has > gone up 91% from the original Mac Mini. Aha - that £339 price was what I was thinking of. Not *under* £300, but close enough that I'd filed it away in my brain as "about £300". -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |