Apple polishes its desktop line

Related coverage:
• Apple overhauls iMacs, 24-inch models more affordable
• Apple finally refreshes Mac Mini with updated specs

Updated 8:25 a.m. PST with analyst note.

As expected, Apple announced desktop updates on Tuesday with a focus on energy efficiency.

There are new Mac Pro high-end desktops powered by Intel's Nehalem-based Xeon processors, new and more graphics-intensive Mac Mini machines, and updated iMacs that offer the lowest price yet on these consumer desktops.

Here are the new ports on the updated Mac Mini.

(Credit: Apple)

All the new machines meet the requirements for Energy Star 5.0 certification, which kicks in this summer.

The new Mac Pro is priced at $2,499 for the quad-core version and at $3,299 for the eight-core version, with the Nehalem-based Xeon processors running at up to 2.93 GHz. The interior of the machine has been cleaned up to make physical expansions easier.

The new iMac all-in-one desktop offers a 24-inch screen and is priced at $1,499, the cost of Apple's previous 20-inch iMac. The 20-inch model now costs $1,199.

The 20-inch version comes with a 2.66 GHz processor, a 320GB hard drive, and 2GB of RAM expandable to 8GB. The 24-inch model offers processor speed options of 2.66 GHz, 2.93 GHz (for $1,799), or 3.02 GHz (for $2,199). The 24-incher comes with a 640GB hard drive and 4GB of RAM expandable to 8GB.

As for the new Mac Mini, the big upgrade: the Nvidia GeForce 9400M integrated graphics chip, which Apple says will improve graphics performance as much as fivefold. The machine (sans a monitor) costs $599 for a lower-end edition (1GB RAM, 120GB hard drive) or $799 for the higher-end (2GB RAM, 320GB hard drive).

The Mac Mini is the "world's most energy efficient desktop computer," Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook claimed in a statement. Cook is currently at the helm of the company while CEO Steve Jobs is out for six months for health reasons.

Analyst Maynard Um at UBS offered this assessment of Tuesday's news:

Not surprisingly, Apple unveiled a much anticipated refresh to its desktop line, though the timing was earlier than we expected. Updated iMac & Mac mini are available immediately with the new Mac Pro available next week. Though the new Macs may provide some boost to end of qtr Mac units (enthusiasts and reseller channel), investors may have been hoping for greater price cuts at the low end.

Rumors of new Apple desktop computers were first reported at AppleInsider.

[ckh1272]

First off, beware. Trolls are lurking about. Second, while the Mini update was sorely needed, a $100 price drop to go along with it would have been what the doctor ordered. The Mac Pros' are nice, although the 8GB of RAM limitation on the entry model is kind of odd on the surface. The iMacs are a decent upgrade, but I have to question the integrated graphics on the 24" model. $1499 is a bit steep for a computer with integrated graphics! A Quad core option would have been nice as well, but oh well. Better luck next time, although I still plan on purchasing a Pro model in the next year. Maybe the RAM upgrade limit on the entry model will be higher (at least 16GB, because "yes" I am power hungry)! Just my two cents.

[xcal78]

Trolling in a Microsoft or Apple thread? Never! <br /> <br />On a side note I wonder if Apple sells sales info since it would fetch a nice price. Lots of companies would love to know who spends $1,500+ bucks on a PC in this recession so they can market them more expensive toys.

[rocketjam--2008]

Where do you get integrated graphics on the 24inch model? According to Apple's site the $1499-24inch model has "NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics".

[DrtyDogg]

9400m is a notebook GPU

[seven7dust]

intergraded or not<br />I've been very impressed by the performance of the 9400M in my macbook !<br />it surprisingly can play even crysis at low fps on bootcamp !<br />but ya for 1500$ I'd expect better atleast a 9600m

[tipoo_]

What? the last gen Imacs could be upgraded to geforce 8800 graphics, i realy doubt they would take such a big step backwards.

[tcr071]

Please tell me you won't actually have the ram upgraded by Apple. Please tell me there aren't any idiots out there who actually do that...

[DrtyDogg]

tcr: It does appear though that they have dropped the price for the ram upgrades, which is really weird to me as they have switched to the more expensive ddr3.

[monkeyfun14]

@tcr<br /><br />Doesn't matter they still overcharge for it<br /><br />The average consumer doesn't know how to pull out ram or a harddrive and is most likely not going to learn how.<br /><br />So they're still overpriced.

[sting7k]

Apple too slow to adapt, where are the i7 processors? Core 2 Duo is played out. Although the price changes on the iMac is pretty nice, only $1500 for a 24" model is a pretty good price.

[timber2005]

i7 --&gt; Expensive, new, but high performance. <br />C2D --&gt; Inexpensive, older, greater profitability &#38; reliability.

[cg0def]

actually you are the one who's slow since Apple uses mobile CPUs for the iMac series and there is no i7 mobile just yet.

[tech_junky48]

They are using i7, at least in the pro.<br /><br /> Sure, it may be marked as "Xeon", but it is a Nehalem, just the same. It is essentially a core i7 which has been rebranded. They are using the same architecture, and, at least on the quad core one, the same number of cores. The 8-core is actually better for multitasking than a standard core i7. Can you imagine 16 threaded apps running at once (8 hyperthreading cores=8x2=16 threads) <br /><br />@ timber<br />Core 2 Duo processors do offer greater performance when not multitasking, in some cases. There are 3.33 GhZ Core 2 Duo's, while i7 only goes up to 3.2. There is no real difference in reliability, and the i7's do overclock better.

[mmntech]

The new MacPro uses"Gainstown" Xeons, which are i7 based. The Core i7 is not a consumer grade processor BTW so it doesn't make sense to put it in consumer grade systems (iMac). The Intel Core i5 is the consumer level replacement to the C2D, but it's not due out until Q3 2009.<br /><br />I think the updates overall are pretty good. Apple has moved it's entire line to use DDR3 and has moved away from Intel's poor GMA series IGPs. Still, I can't help but feel these systems are lacking something. Apple really needs to get a Blu-ray drive in something, regardless of whether they think it's a "world of hurt" or not.

[pithenumber]

@mmntech<br />uhhh, i7 is a consumer CPU, the lowest end model falls right into the high end mid range category which Apple sells the iMac to<br /><br />the reason i7 isn't the the iMac is its 130watt tdp, way too hot and power consuming for an all in one

[kzb75]

uhhh the i7 processor is a 64bit cpu that splits to 32bit when Hyperthreading, Mac OS X Leapord 10.5 is a Fully 64bit OS inside and out with 32bit support for older APP's <br />technically the i7 is not a viable chipset for Apple when Xeon's will still blow the i7 away on the shorter pipeline stages and more stable n faster Fpu's

[DrtyDogg]

Actually 10.5 is 32bit with 64bit it launches into the 32bit kernel with "long mode compatibility mode." Though 10.6 is supposed to have a 64bit kernel too and bring this transfer all the way.

[DrtyDogg]

I love the inclustion of the 4870 in the mac pro. Going to order one now for my hackintosh!!!!

[seven7dust]

lol!

[ubnyan]

$1499 starting price for the 24" is decent price for all you get with it. A similar Dell All-in-one is $100 more. Car keys, check. Wallet, check. Cya at the Apple Store :)

[sanenazok]

Go for it! It's pretty awesome that you can't reuse the monitor from your previous computer with this one, isn't it? Oh but it's so it's worth it to get last year's graphics. Also, the Dell for $100 more is a QUAD Core system so it's like comparing Apples and Pomegranates.

[seven7dust]

@sanenazok<br />you can it has mini-display port so a adaptor will cost you 20$ extra<br /><br />and macs never competed on Price, it's all about OSX and build quality<br />not to mention reliability and re-sale value<br />I don't know how much that dell will be in another 2 yrs<br />but I'm petty sure this Imac will sell in the 900+$ range

[sanenazok]

@dusty: Plug in one iMac into another, that sounds like a complete waste of the first Mac which isn't really a monitor. Well when Mac specs are much much worse than PC's then all of the sudden Macs don't compete on price, oh ok. Expensive computers stay expensive over time...no way.

[pcfish]

@sanenazok<br /><br />The display port is an output port or an input port.<br /><br />If your previous computer is an iMac, then you cannot connect your new iMac to the old one to use as a dual monitor. Basically, you will have to throw away your old one (the whole all-in-one thing). Even though apple says their computer is green, I see it as tremendous waste because you cannot use your good old monitor from your previous iMac.<br /><br />I wouldn't mind replacing my entire computer once a couple years, but I don't want to throw away my monitor once a couple years .... unless Apple offers a trade-in credit for old iMac (dreaming).

[sobishop]

"I don't know how much that dell will be in another 2 yrs<br />but I'm petty sure this Imac will sell in the 900+$ range"<br /><br />And this is exactly why Apple has just a small slice of that computer market pie. Pushing 2 year old depreciated technology at 4 times its worth.

[seven7dust]

@pcfish<br />if your replacing a iMac how about selling it to someone else of ebay etc.<br />{you'd be surprised by how big the used Mac market is}<br /><br />that way you're being 10 times more Environment friendly than Apple is !

[wolivere]

I just priced out a dell with similar specs and came in almost $300 under the price?

[pellets007]

I have nothing against Windows, and I'm certainly not an Apple fanboy, as I don't have a Mac. But, have you guys ever called Dell and talked to them? Disregarding the fact that they're outsourced, they don't have a clue as to computer issues unless it's on the screen in front of them. Perhaps the same with Apple, but I at least speak with someone who is easily understandable and if it needs to be sent in for repairs or a replacement, it is a speedy turn around. That said, I actually contacted the Better Business Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General, and several stockholders to get a refund on my Dell. Still, nothing has been done and I'm highly considering a small courts claim. If you're going to price a PC, at least go to Hewlett Packard. I plead you.

[b_baggins]

@sanenazok,<br /><br />why do you care? It's his money, it's what he wants to buy. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[sanenazok]

@bilbo: hey my first comment was "go for it!" Just don't want anyone ELSE to think the rest of the post is unassailable truth. The comment community is all about dialog and exchange of ideas. Nobody's forcing anyone else to read or respond.

[terminalblue]

i dont see the big deal with the specs on these machines either. but for mac users it doesnt matter. as usual you can do better with a windows machine, but mac users arent paying for performance.

[xcal78]

I'd buy a Mac just for the the right to skip anti-virus software and brag about that fact even though the first virus ever was on a Mac.

[TornadoRed]

xcal78: what is thus anti-virus software you speak of?

[xcal78]

ClamXav is a free virus checker for Mac OS X. It uses the tried, tested and very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end. <br /> <br />http://www.clamxav.com/

[myles taylor]

I pay for performance and I get it. When you buy a crappy PC for cheap running Vista you're not paying for performance either.

[pentest]

" I'd buy a Mac just for the the right to skip anti-virus software and brag about that fact even though the first virus ever was on a Mac."<br /><br />There were Macs in 1973?

[jay.butler]

@xcal: &lt;&lt; that fact even though the first virus ever was on a Mac.&gt;&gt; <br /><br />If only that were the fact. The first virus was the Creeper virus on ARPAnet a few years before Macs even existed.

[Francky B]

Argg, this is pathetic, I was waiting for the new iMacs, thinking they Finally would come out with quad cores, as they "had too" at this point. Since anyone could build cheap quad core machines for more than a year now, meaning performance wise the iMacs was so outclassed it's ridiculous...<br /><br />But NO, these guys are expecting us to buy sub par machine that are years behind performance wise ?!<br />They seem to forget that some people buy computers for work, where performance is crucial?!<br /><br />I guess I'll have to stick with PCs for my business, as I wanted to finally switch to Macs, but since I can get a quad core machine for less than a grand, there's no justification for iMacs. I just don't get that Apple is to blind to see this.

[cg0def]

Well when Intel makes a mobile CPU that has 4 cores and runs cool enough I'm sure Apple will include it in the iMac line. Plus I don't care how many cores you get in a windows machine the os feels like it's fighting with the hardware all the time. Oh and I urge you to find me a windows machine with a a 24" high quality display and comparable to the iMac specs for under $1000. And we are not even talking about craftsmanship and footprint.

[xcal78]

We need more posts like these. Let's get the Microsoft people pushing PC's then the Apple people defending the underpowered overpriced new Macs. Brilliant!

[cg0def]

so I did a quick check and a 24" monitor alone ( NEC ) costs over $1000. Apple sells the whole computer for $1500. Still think Apple's overpriced?

[xcal78]

@cg0def <br /> <br />Very very expensive. <br /> <br />Dell 24" with the same specs as the Apple monitor is $249. <br /> <br />Dell S2409W Full HD Monitor <br />http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&#38;l=en&#38;s=dhs&#38;cs=19&#38;sku=320-7345

[xcal78]

Where'd you manage to find an NEC for 250% of the going rate? <br /> <br />NEC ASLCD24WMCX-BK 24-inch Widescreen Black Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand - $449.99 <br />http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&#38;l=en&#38;s=dhs&#38;cs=19&#38;sku=A1274951 <br /> <br />This same monitor was $419.99 on neweggs site. <br />http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002359

[thelemurking]

cq0def - let's be realistic. I see 24" monitors all the time in the $250-500 price range. Finding an overpriced NEC monitor does not set the bar for what they cost. Nice try though. HP, Samsung, Acer etc all have monitors way way below the $1000 mark.

[sanenazok]

$1000 for a 24" monitor! Yes, sign me up. While I'm at it, I'll also buy http://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Coupling-Constants-Silicon-29-Landolt-Bornstein/dp/354045277X

[man_w_balls]

Francky: Just build your own Macs. It's easy now, and you will spend half the money that Apple would charge for the same spec hardware. Google "OSx86 vanilla" <br /><br /><br />[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]

[pcfish]

People, stop compare 24" iMac monitor with an IPS panel (possibly a LG LM240WU2) with cheap LCD made from TN panel.

[xcal78]

We compare Apples to apples I'm sorry to offend you. :P

[tipoo_]

You would think that a computer that starts at 2600 dollars would ship with a graphics card worth half a crap. And you cant use the "People dont buy macs for gaming" excuse anymore, with OpenCL around the corner and various image/video editing softwares using GPU's more extensively, its realy unforgiveable.

[myles taylor]

To say "starts" means the lowest configuration and the iMac starts at $1200.

[Seaspray0]

So, there's no way to do dual monitor support?

[DrtyDogg]

Seaspray: You can hav multiple monitors. The Mac pro can be configured from apple with up to 4 nVida 120s.

[pithenumber]

@DrtyDogg<br />the quad GT120 isn't included in your $2600<br /><br />if it was, I would be at the Apple store right now

[tipoo_]

Myles, i was talking about the Pro. If the Mac Pro started at 1200, i would be all over that, lol.

[DrtyDogg]

I was just pointing out that there is a way for multiple monitor support.

[jscott418]

Several comments about these new Mac's. Why does the Mac Mini still have a 120GB HD on the base model? Seems a bit small for a company that touts storing video and audio files. As far as the iMac the 9400M graphics are not going to set the gaming world on fire especially with the Mobile GPU version. iMac's usual problem with graphics is that its not upgradable. The only real flexible Mac is the Mac Pro and who has money for that! But Apple fan's will eat these models up and whip out their credit cards because they are sworn to the Apple cult. Their is no doubt that the PC's are offering much better deals then you will ever see Apple offer.

[ikramerica--2008]

The mac mini uses 2.5" HDs to save power and heat (though of course, that makes them slower). minis are not meant to be servers out of the box, though they are being used as servers around the world. Server disks are hooked up externally, which explains the FW800 switch. I am sure that the "mini farm" companies out there begged Apple for FW800 or eSATA on the mini update.

[tcr071]

2.5" is laptop sized hard drive. 120GB is pathetically small considering I can get 320+ for under $75 from newegg.

[streamline35]

Even $300 netbooks come with bigger hard drives (160 gig seems to be standard for HDDs in them at the moment)

[MrZook]

The apple page is confusing me on the mini. <br />It used to be the base model didn't burd dvds. <br />Now both "options" have the exact same upgrades available. <br />It is moderately flexible, but why have two "options" listed?

[tcr071]

What is it with Apple and making these "worlds" claims. This isn't the most efficient desktop... there are desktops running Via Nano and Intel Atom processors that are much more energy efficient.

[thelemurking]

I was wondering the same thing... but it's now cannon since Apple said it ;) Doesn't matter if there are other ones out there that are more efficient, the fact is now that Apple claims it, it must be true!

[pcfish]

Efficient != low power. It is more appropriate to measure efficiency with performance per watt, which shows Atom is not that great after all.<br /><br />source:<br />http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-efficiency,2069-12.html

[myles taylor]

How do you know that? Have you actually tested with one of these new iMacs? How do you know they are more energy efficient?

[lk335]

I have a mac mini now from a few years ago and love it! It's just a little too underpowered for things like Arperature, but it fits the bill nicely for a reliable desktop alongside my windows vista machine that PMS's more than my wife. <br /> <br />I wanted to replace my mac mini, but since I use Firewire quite a bit (sound applications) I will no longer be looking at mac for my new portable machines...

[seven7dust]

mac mini has firewire<br />white macbook has firewire<br />and macbook pros have firewire<br />So plzz do more research

[rudlavi]

A memory upgrade for iMac (2x4GB) is 1000$!!!! ***? Its cheaper to buy a Mac Pro for that amount of cash.

[streamline35]

It's a well known fact that apple ram upgrades are a ridiculous ripoff. On newegg, a 4gb stick goes for about $100 (still expensive, but certainly not $500 a stick). And it's not like they use special ram or anything - the extra 1gb stick of ram in my MSI wind is samgsung 667mhz ram, and guess where it came from? A dead one year old macbook pro (my friend's. He had no more use for the RAM since the computer died).

[myles taylor]

Memory is user upgradable. I never recommend anyone get the upgrade. Just buy the ram and do it yourself.

[DrtyDogg]

Just don't leave it in if you need it serviced.

[LOGANslade]

wuts up im just tryin to see if my account works so im leavin this comment (its my first one)

[shanx24]

Still no HDMI output?

[seven7dust]

a adapter is only 10$ and mini-display port is superior to HDMI !

[tcr071]

There is no mini-display port to HDMI adapter. You need a mini display port to mini DVI and a mini DVI to HDMI adapter. Going to run you at least $60. <br /><br />And who cares if mini-display port is better? I don't know a single person who has a monitor or television with mini-display port.

[seven7dust]

there is ! <br />here's the link-:<br />http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&#38;cp_id=10428&#38;cs_id=1042802&#38;p_id=5311&#38;seq=1&#38;format=2<br /><br />I'll be getting mine soon, you should too if you have a HDTV !

[pcfish]

@seven7dust <br /><br />The video is not the biggest problem. The problem is you cannot connect ur mini to the tv or receiver with a single HDMI for both video and audio. (but if they do have hdmi, they might as well get rid of the apple tv).

[seven7dust]

@pcfish<br />In my a case it's not a problem cause I don't have a fancy stereo<br />{plus I prefer the headphone jack to audio as it prevents other sources}<br /><br />but yea I can see how it's a problem for many people !

[Seaspray0]

@seven7dust. What you consider superior is completely useless when nobody makes televisions or monitors that support it. It's as superior as a gold plated power boat sitting in the middle of a desert.

[DrtyDogg]

How is it superior at all?

[viper396]

@DrtyDogg. It supposedly has the potential for greater bandwidth and thru-put then HDMI. (higher resolutions) But, as it stands today, even the handful of Apple displays that contain a display port don't actually use it's full potential. (An analogy would be like a car who's speedometer goes to 200 but you could never actually get it above 110) <br /> <br />Also, as many have already pointed out, superiority doesn't matter when nobody is using it.

[elllroy]

i was hoping for a redesigned mac mini with the power brick inside and a desktop hd. otherwise it looks fine to me. i was just making a short check with a comparable dell studio hybrid, and do you know what? the mini is a better value for the same price, with the dell you get a slower processor, slower ram and a lower grafics option.)<br /><br />the imac is fine feature and pricewise. the 24" model for $1500 is a great value. the mac pro is great value, too for a better price than before (and much cheaper than any windows workstation with the same features, a a comaparable dell workstation is around $1000 more). <br /><br />i was hoping for an 1/2 TB time capsule though. 500 gb for $299 is a bit lame.<br /><br />and as always: you get what you pay for. <br /><br />all you featuritis people here please put a price tag to those "apple features" included for free:<br />- iLife multimedia software<br />- no need for antivirus software<br />- high quality built, made of aluminium and glass instead of glued plastic<br />- free support at your local genius bar<br />- longer average life cycle, lower support costs<br />- integrated backup-system amd one click file- and settings-transfer from your old computer to your new one<br />- and most important to me: total silence (my windows pc sounds as if there was a jet engine inside)<br /><br />people just comparing feature-lists will never understand why there is so much value in owning a mac.<br />life is short, get a mac. ;-)

[sanenazok]

Keep on dreaming about a Dell not being able to match any Apple offering. With Apple you're paying for a brand and a lifestyle. A Dell is a computer, not something one uses as self-definition. FYI: A Dell Studio Slim Desktop beats the Mini in EVERY respect. Much faster processor (Dell has a 2.8, Apple's 2.0), more memory, larger hard drive, upgradeable to a TV Tuner. There's just no comparison. iLife is easily replicated with freeware software like Picasa, et al. <br /><br />You really need the aluminum case for a desktop...since everyone needs a convenient way to send a message of "I don't like money."

[hunkyboi69]

I normally try to refrain from commenting, especially when someone comes across as a fool. The 'features' that Apple includes for 'free' really aren't particularly compelling. A Mac and Mac OS X have nothing particularly interesting to offer. OS X is designed by idiots, for idiots. It is fairly idiot proof but not particularly good at anything. <br /> <br />I would personally say to anyone considering buying a Mac, buy one by all means, because they do look nice, but install a proper operating system on it, unless you want to have headaches. Windows 7 works nicely on them and unlike OS X, it just works without any messing about and you get many more features out of the box with Windows without having to PAY for and install 3rd party software, that due to the fragile nature of OS X and Apples API's often has a habit of screwing up the system. <br /> <br /> <br />As regards your comments about so called 'features': <br /> <br />iLife multimedia software <br />- Most of the iLife suite is poor and non-productive at best and Windows Live Essentials covers most of what is contained there and is free. <br /> <br />no need for antivirus software <br />- At this point in time, perhaps not. But then, if you have half a brain, there isn't any need on Windows Vista and above either. <br /> <br />high quality built, made of aluminium and glass instead of glued plastic <br />- Bit unfair really I think, if you buy a decent spec PC you will get a decent case with it, or you can procure your own case if so desired so thats another load of nonsense. <br /> <br />free support at your local genius bar <br />- Yes, and the funny thing is, I knew a couple of the so called 'geniuses' and in all reality, they don't know a lot about anything. <br /> <br />longer average life cycle, lower support costs <br />- Tell that to the G5 owners that leaked coolant over the inside of their £3000 mac and hosed it, normally within a few months of the warranty expiring. Apples build quality is no better than anyones and the only reason the life cycle is longer is because people hold onto them for longer because they are so expensive. <br /> <br />integrated backup-system amd one click file- and settings-transfer from your old computer to your new one <br />- Time machine isn't the best, it doesn't create a true image of your system, it actually misses quite a bit out when you restore it. One click transfer...well, it's certainly more than 1 and have you not heard of Windows Easy Transfer? <br /> <br />and most important to me: total silence (my windows pc sounds as if there was a jet engine inside) <br />- Trouble with that, I have a Mac Pro, in which the RAM and the Chipset run too hot in my opinion, therefore the fans need to be turned up so I don't end up with a dead box. Also, I have a Sun workstation sitting here that is quieter than the Mac because it has variable speed fans. It isn't hard to have. <br /> <br />All your arguments suck, sorry. Macs are still overpriced for what you get. It's not like you even get a decent operating system with them, which is why my Mac Pro runs Windows 7. <br /> <br />Life IS short, I agree with you there, don't restrict yourselves and give yourselves a headache, if you are getting a Mac, buy a copy of Windows to go with it...

[seven7dust]

lol@ sanenazok<br />I just checked out a dell studio hybrid aka dell's mini <br />it's still using intel graphics that r 5 times slower<br />no VGA support for my old monitor <br />mini-display and HDMI r the same thing<br />the dell has more ram (duh vista) and a slighly bigger HD at 160 GB<br />and costs 699$ the mini is 100$ less with more software bundled {iLife}<br />ability to run both OSX and Windows<br />not to mention higher resale value and build quality !<br /><br />So plzz compare the similar systems and not a tower !<br />who buys dell towers n e way ? I build mine !

[sanenazok]

@dusty: Look at the Dell Studio Slim Desktop. You get desktop class discrete graphics and a much faster processor for $564. Apple Mini costs $599 and comes with a slow processor, less memory, less of everything, but the Apple brand and look. Really, is that worth bad performance?

[seven7dust]

@sanenazok<br />again show me something similar to a Mini not a tower <br />if I wanted a tower I can build mine with 3 times more performance then either the Dell or a Mini.<br />the mini is more like a compact HTPC for me<br />also OSX is better than Vista for HTPC purposes<br />and<br />also it's perfect for 80% of consumers IMO<br />don't be fooled by the specs OSX is not as bloated as Vista is<br />so it doesn't need 4 gb of ram or faster processors to multi-task<br />and it can do everything a average consumer expects of a computer <br />plus OSX is easier for newbie's and less tech savvy people too

[sanenazok]

@dusty: the studio desktop I'm talking about is a SLIM one, not much larger than the mini. For a few lousy inches of size, you're paying good money and get worse performance.

[Seaspray0]

Ellroy, I have posed just such a question to the editors at cnet concerning computer lifespans in the hope they will research and do an article on it. So far, there is no data to be found anywhere on the internet to support any claim you or anyone else makes concerning computer lifespans (the last such lifespan measurement I ever saw was in the 80's stating a computer should run an average of 15 years between failure). So, for your claim. I call you a liar. Either put up the data to support it, or retract your statement.

[seven7dust]

@ sanenazok<br />"not much larger" Hmmm<br />me thinks you need glasses !<br />the studio slim is a pathetic excuse for a desktop<br />it's neither small enough to keep in the living room <br />nor is it powerful enough to replace my desktop<br />I have zero use for it plus it looks ugly, <br />seriously wat were the Dell designers thinking ?

[sanenazok]

@dusty: you apparently sit and stare at your computers all day. I use them for work and am done with them. Seriously, post the size of the slim desktop. It's only slightly larger - 5-10" at the most in each direction. If you don't like the aesthetics of it, then I guess you're living the Apple Lifestyle(R) and that's fine for you. Most people need a computer not a lifestyle. A white computer would not fit into my entertainment center anyways.

[sanenazok]

@dusty: you apparently sit and stare at your computers all day. I use them for work and am done with them. Seriously, post the size of the slim desktop. It's only slightly larger - 5-10" at the most in each direction. If you don't like the aesthetics of it, then I guess you're living the Apple Lifestyle(R) and that's fine for you. Most people need a computer not a lifestyle. A white computer would not fit into my entertainment center anyways.<br /><br />Also dusty, an entertainment PC that doesn't play blu-ray and comes with awful laptop GPU? A PS3 is a better match for that and costs $399. Be honest, the Mac Mini is good for very few things.

[sanenazok]

I really like how Apple is using "green" technology as an excuse to use low-end laptop components. Really laptop-level graphics chips in a desktop computer? Better yet, ones that are not upgradeable? Nice gimmick.

[seven7dust]

not upgradeable ? Ram and HDs r upgradeable stop spreading FUD<br />only the graphic cards r not , but then again so are Dells and Hp's all in ones <br />and people don't buy Macs for gaming n e way<br />and again plzz find me something similar to a Mac mini <br />at a better price point !

[sanenazok]

@dusty: it's the graphics that are not upgradeable. What's the point of buying a desktop with laptop-like limitations. As far as the Mini, just look at the Dell Studio Slimline, there's like no comparison.

[seven7dust]

like I said it's the same for all All in one's <br />be it the Dell Xps one or the HP touchsmart<br />iMacs r no exception !<br />as for the Mini see my post above !

[Seaspray0]

@seven7dust. I can find PC's similar to the mac specs and for less (amazing how a sale price does that). Now, find me a mac similar to the base model Dell studio 15 specs (which is better than average specs for laptops being sold today) for less. What? It doesn't exist? Now you understand why I bought a dell studio 15. Unlike you, the rest of the world does have a budget and can only spend so much on luxury items. So, drop the snob superiority complex and come to the realization that most people aren't going to spend a fortune on something that's considered obsolete in 3 years.

[seven7dust]

lol! so buying a mac mini at 600$ makes me a snob ?<br />ok lets do a comparison shall we<br />comparing it to a dell studio hybrid it's first of 100$ cheaper<br />2nd it has nvidia graphics that smokes the dell's intel<br />next it runs OSX my preferred OS of choice and can also run windows if I ever need to , it also ships with iLife which to me is almost essential<br />on top of that it can drive dual displays which is perfect for me<br />the only trade off is the HD space {but I already have 1TB external drive}<br />the ram hardly makes a difference cause even with 1 GB OSX is plenty fast<br />apart from all this it's the still one of the smallest computers in the world <br />perfect for my living room as a HTPC<br />also I'm guaranteed good customer service <br />which I'm sorry to say dell doesn't have !<br /><br />and to end it all I'm guaranteed a resale value of 300-400$ in 2yrs time<br />So I ended up spending 300$ for 2 yrs of use saving about 400$ <br />by not choosing Dell<br /><br />So if saving money is wat it means to be a snob does, then that's fine !<br /><br />and as far as yr dell studio 15 goes thats good for you if it fits yr needs<br />and u did your research !<br /><br />but for me I always end up saving more buying from Apple !<br />So I'll continue being a snob if it means saving those 100s of dollars

[darnoldduck]

Nehalem is i7. Not sure what you're talking about. There is no dual core i7... If you want to meet the dual core price point, you need Core2.

[spicymustard]

I would find the Mac Mini more useful for myself if the video output had the capability to connect via HDMI rather then VGA or DVI. I can use VGA on my TV, but not DVI which would require the Apple Display cable to DVI then another conversion to HDMI. The ability to connect to a HDMI port would simplify a home theater integration directly to the TV or to a A/V Receiver.

[ClaBR]

How would you use your Mac in a home theater? Not to play Blue-Ray... MAC OSX is incompatible with BR and HDDVD playback in Full HD quality.

[seven7dust]

there's a adapter and here's the link for mini-display to HDMI<br />http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&#38;cp_id=10428&#38;cs_id=1042802&#38;p_id=5311&#38;seq=1&#38;format=2<br /><br />but if you really need bluray then it's better to build a HTPC yrself<br />BTW HD videos play fine in my macbook so mini should do just fine !

[ClaBR]

@seven7dust<br /><br />How do you play them? If it's a ripped file or a movie without copy protection, it will play. However, if you try to play a BR encrypted movie (99% of them are) from a BR disc, the MAC OS X will not play at 1080p. In order to do that, the drive, operating system, video card, sound card and monitor must all support the encryption standards otherwise only a lower resolution, when available, will play.

[seven7dust]

I wasn't talking about bluray movies<br />just clips of the web <br />I haven't jumped on the bluray bandwagon yet<br />I need a decent plasma first !

[Brian]

The Mac mini looks good, otherwise, I am not impressed.

[seven7dust]

my thoughts exactly

[Seaspray0]

My first impression: More USB ports... no surpise there. I'm surprised to see the firewire port is still there. I would rather see the power button on the side with the optical drive since the side with all the connections will be towards the back. A wireless keyboard/mouse option would reduce the cable clutter and improve appearance (consider using one of the USB ports for that). I like the size... it almost makes it seem portable like a laptop for that size (why a standard graphics plug would be better than the mini jack... take it to a friends house and plug it to the receptacle on the TV). Overall: suitable for someone looking for computer that can be somewhat portable and at a lower cost than a laptop.

[Brian]

I have an external drive with a FIREWIRE 400 connection.<br /><br />It connects to both my iMac and my (black) Macbook just fine.<br /><br />Today, if you buy a Macbook, Firewire 400 is not an option.<br /><br />Today, if you buy a Mac Mini, Firewire 400 is not an option.<br /><br />These new computers don't have the same ports anymore!<br /><br />Wake up, Apple!<br /><br />We want compatibility back !!

[seven7dust]

@brian<br />firewire 800 to 400 adapters r widely available<br />I wish people would do more research and drop the firewire rants<br />it's getting old and annoying !<br /><br />if yr looking for firewire in a Macbook the updated white macbook has one

[Jonnygthedrummer]

looks good , not mind-blowing though, but still good,<br /><br />with macs<br />you pay for the name<br />you pay for OSX which is far worth it<br />you pay for quality<br /><br />if u just need a cheap pc to do stuff great<br /><br />but if u would like a more expensive stable , better quailty machine <br /><br />you can get a dell with the same / more tech spec ... for about same price<br /><br />but the quailty is wat i want an why im going mac,<br /><br />i got a gateway and had so much trouble with it <br /><br />3 hard drives, 2 mother boards , fan, cd drive, keys fell off, touchpad, <br />machine replaced 3 times.<br /><br />no joke i can send you the geek squad / gateway repair papers. lol<br /> <br />so i was considering a Dell with XP but the xps only has vista that i know of, vista is ok, i prefer xp , read some reviews an some of the a lot people complained about <br />turned me to a macbook / pro ...<br /><br />been doing research bout OSX an been using it a when ever i get to a store...<br /><br />so im a mac

[Seaspray0]

"you pay for quality" - you pay for the same brand components used in PC's. <br />"you pay for the name" - can we say snob? <br />"better quality machine" - no, just higher specs, but the same brand components used in PC's. <br />Don't beleive me? Ok, open up that mac and tell me who makes the hard drive? Who makes the optical drive? Who makes the memory and graphics chip? Don't confuse higher specifications with quality.

[random truth]

@Seaspray<br />I looked, the hard drive is labeled with an apple symbol, the memory is labeled with an apple symbol, the optical drive was labeled with an apple symbol. I bet they are just rebranded regular parts. However apple does make the motherboard. The mother board and os would be the main part of machine reliebiltiy. You s

[Jonnygthedrummer]

@random truth<br /><br />haha, nice,<br /><br />"the mother board and os would be the main part of machine reliebiltiy"<br /><br />thats true.

[Mark_Anderson]

Apple don't manufacture the motherboards, Leopard is on it's sixth service pack and the word is 'reliability'.<br /><br />Still, never mind.

[random truth]

@Mark_Anderson<br />I never said anything about Mac OS X being superior. Since you brought it up what is better? An os that gets updated frequently or one that does not?<br /><br />Also yes apple does manufacture the motherboards. Almost all laptop boards are custom designed, also any one that has special form factor (all in one, mini) and ones requiring advanced specification. (find me a motherboard from any manufacturer besides apple, that supports 2 intel core i7 processors and 32 gb of ddr3 ram?<br /><br />Anyways, I'll show my logic. <br />Ok so the part of a computer that breaks the most often is the hard drive. Any one want to argue that? If an O.S. loads everything into the ram then the hard drive has less reads and writes extending the lifespan. If the processor is not stressed as much it too will have a longer lifespan, same with all peices of hardware in a computer.<br /><br />The motherboard would also matter, because of its relieability and how much voltage it spits into the rest of the hardware, also how it controls cooling.

[random truth]

@myself<br />1st post. Sorry about typo at end. I am still getting used to this dare.

[faboumen]

I'm simply baffled by the lack of UPNP support on the Time Capsule. Apple prides itself with media content and completely fails to deliver on that front.