Talk:Mac mini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mac mini article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] Article name

I've moved the article back to Mac mini because that is the name of it (with a little "m"). I've not seen the M of mini capitalised anywhere, including the official Apple site linked to in External links. violet/riga (t) 23:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the time of the move, all the literature I'd seen capitalized the M per the rules by which we English speakers (sometimes) abide, and the image in the article still bears the majuscule. I see that Apple itself lowercases the m, however, so I'll go with it. ADH (t&m) 00:11, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have heard on Slashdot, that the word mini was not capitalized because an automotive company had thr rights to that word (Can't recall if it was BMW or Volkswagen)
Sorry but Slashdot is NOT a good source of information. AlistairMcMillan 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

Should there be a section about mac mini criticisms? Such as only 1 slot for RAM, expensive upgrade fees, and no microphone port?

Well, two of those have been addressed: There are now 2 slots, and the audio port is both input and output. The 2 main grievances are currently the limited 64MB video card, and the upgrade fees. I don't think it'd be enough to make a section for it. Slokunshialgo 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture :)

Image:Mac mini.png

Gosh! Steve Jobs is placing a pirated copy of The Incredibles VCD wrong side up! See that blue CD-R! -- Toytoy 06:13, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

As long as it isn't Shark Tale then I'm not bothered by it :) MicahMN | Talk 17:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it counts as piracy when it's your company. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not piracy if it's your copy and for backup purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.35.114 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Actually the RIAA recently said even if you own a CD, if you make a copy of a song to put on your iPod it's piracy, which I think goes against "fair use"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.178.18 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I would doubt they claim that it's piracy. They did one time make the claim that making a backup of a copy protected cdswas a violation of DMCA, but those CDs are few and far between. They also claim that "backups" are not authorized, but that's not per se illegal (yet). For instance, I don't authorize you to copy this text, but you can still do it legally. It is illegal to make a copy of DVD, even for backup purposes, since one would need to circumvent copy protection. Most CDs have no copy protection so making copies of your own CD for personal use is allowable under current copyright law (which I'm sure the music industry wants to change too).
In Canada, it's even legal for someone to make copies of any CD (like one from the library)provided it's original. In fact, P2P downloads may be legal too there. [1] Music industry is lobbying to change that as well - but it's a result of their success in taxing blank media under the presumption they needed to be compensated for lost sales. The Canadian courts said "fine" but that also meant then the right to copy music was part of the package for consumers. So now they want to tax iPods as well [2] Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mac mini picture

The image Image:Macminibox.jpg used in this article is incorrectly described as a public domain image when it's actually a derivative work of the Apple Computer case and box designs and hence fair use at best (and probably is). However the uploader is an account blocked for being related to page move vandalism so will be unable to claim fair use. If another person with an interest in this article wishes to upload it with a fair use claim, please do so. Otherwise, please remove it. I'll step back here as time allows to see what's happened with it. Jamesday 06:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

"Some speculate that some of the internal components imply that the unit was originally planned to feature a built-in iPod dock."

Is this really important enough to go in the article? If you read the link, one guy opened his Mac mini and discovered an unused Firewire pinout, and came up with the hypothesis (with no other reasoning) that it was for an iPod dock. (He also says it uses a diode that would only be useful for a standard 6-pin Firewire port, thus contradicting his iPod dock hypothesis.)

It seems, then, that the fact here is not that there may have been an iPod dock (there doesn't seem to be convincing evidence for it). The fact is that somebody "speculated" this. Is that important enough to go in a Wikipedia article -- one guy came up with a hypothesis that he isn't very sure of himself?

Suggest we remove that line.

I added the line, although when I added it I wasn't quite as blaisé about it. Some speculate that some of the internal components imply... it sounds so unsure of itself as it is. But, it is a true fact. Some people DID speculate that there may have been an iPod dock. It's not untrue, so why remove it? It's not like the article is weighed down by too many facts. I'm not trying to be defensive about it, I'm just confused as to why someone would want it removed? MrHate 07:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the fifth-generation iPod, iPod nano, & iPod shuffle are USB-only! What if you purchased your Mac mini, put one of the new iPods into the firewire dock, & it told you to plug in your iPod in through the USB port? They would have most likely made the iPod dock USB based, not Firewire.

I suggest the line is removed.

Done PMHauge 05:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of disruptive technology link

I removed the see also link to disruptive technology because this model is not a proper example of the technology described by Clayton M. Christensen. -- Toytoy 14:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dead link

The pdf file at the second external link [3] was missing. I changed it to the first result in Google. Can someone confirm this the correct one? [4] Apeeters

[edit] Silent upgrade

Anyone can confirm this silent upgrade really has been made? On the apple store it's still wrote 1.42 ghz and 32 mb of vram. Eredian

I own a 1.5ghz Mini with the 64mb VRAM. I can at least confirm they exist, and readers at MacNN.com boards seem to indicate most of them bought in the US since October have been upgraded models, but all the stickers on the box and machine say 1.42. Drakino 03:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added that the upgraded Mini ships with a 512MB PC3200 DIMM, as shown in ASP on my new Mini. I haven't tested to see if it's just reporting the SPD info or if it's actually running faster. The 80GB HDD is also now a Seagate Momentus 5400.2 ST9808211A, which is a Fluid Drive Bearing drive. It's very quiet.

[edit] Mac mini Intel picture

It is a shame the picture on the article was reverted. The inclusion of the remote control is an important aspect of the revised target audience for this new model and I'd like to see a pic that includes the remote. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Software

As with other Intel-based Macs, AppleWorks is no longer included. The Mini ships with trial versions of iWork and MS Office 2004. Also, the games are gone, replaced with 'Big Bang Board Games' instead. I removed the no-longer-included titles but didn't think their replacements were worth mentioning. Info on what it ships with is here: http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianAshe (talk • contribs) 02:36:53 2006-03-03.

[edit] Correction proposed

"The Mac mini is an Apple Macintosh desktop personal computer designed and marketed by Apple Computer." should be replaced by "The Mac mini is an IBM PC compatible desktop personal computer designed and marketed by Apple Computer."

Windows XP runs on it, therefore it is an IBM compatible PC. Designer clothes and fleshy skin matter none, on the inside it is the Charlie Chaplin architecture, see: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/adverts/IBM_5150_Advert_1.jpg

That's an interesting idea. Still, it is sold primarily as a "Mac" and its early incarnations were not PC compatible. I'm inclined to think, for now, that the definition of "Apple Macintosh" is changing and that a change like you describe is not yet warrented (although a note to that effect might be). —Ben FrantzDale 13:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAC BU has 150 Mac minis

On his blog David Weiss stated that the MS Mac BU has 150 mac minis for automated test all of which are controlled by KVMs and ARD, the article also has lots of pictures of all the minis. Dunno if it could be but in a trivia section or maybe were it mentions the use of KVMs and minis. I'll leave it up to you all. http://davidweiss.blogspot.com/2006/04/tour-of-microsofts-mac-lab.html TheEnlightened 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by 68.113.120.196 moved from the article

[For the record, isn't saying the GMA950 is acceptable because it's faster than the ATI 9200 like saying the Edsel was an acceptable car because it was faster than the Model T?

But the issue for people who know better is not so much the GPU used but the use of Shared Memory. Shared memory makes for a slower system in two ways: shared memory is slower than dedicated video memory, and shared memory slows the entire system down by making less memory available to the system.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.120.196 (talk • contribs)

-- grm_wnr Esc 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac mini and MacBook

Please see my comment at Talk:MacBook#Mac mini and MacBook. Thanks.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I took out "The entry-level MacBook's specifications are very similar to those of the Core Duo Mac mini. Specifically, the Mac mini, priced at US$799, has a clock rate of 1.66GHz for the CPU, where the MacBook, priced at US$1099, has a 1.83GHz version. Both share the Intel GMA 950 onboard graphics processor. While the Mac mini has four USB ports (MacBook, two) and an 80GB hard drive as standard (MacBook, 60GB), the MacBook can be configured with an 80GB hard drive for an additional US$50. The only notable differences between the configurations are the MacBook's display, battery, keyboard and touchpad." This is really pointless. One is a laptop and one is standalone. Yes, Apple is using the same Intel chips in both, except for the mini core solo where it isn't. And yes both have hard drives and USB ports, as do pretty much every modern computer in the world. So what? --agr 11:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like engaging in a discussion with you, having already been singularly unimpressed with your standards of civility. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh.--agr 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software

Would it be possible for someone who knows for sure to list exactly what software shipped with the various SKUs? In particular, Panther v. Tiger, versions of iLife and iWork, etc. Thanks!

[edit] Intel Graphics Capabilities

Someone should point out the fact that Apple recently has made some of their "Professional" software totally unsupported on Macs with Intel integrated graphics. Specifically the Final Cut Studio bundle , presumably because the Motion component of this bundle cannot render graphics effectively with the Intel chip. (user reports however confirm that the installation and performance of other components of the Final Cut Studio bundle work acceptably)

Some might speculate this will force users of their professional software to purchase higher end systems from Apple.

[edit] OSX Versions?

The description for each release should indicate what (major at least) version of OSX shipped with it.

[edit] Competitors?

Aren't there competing products out there of similar sizes and prices in the PC world? Or is the mac mini in a class by itself? Someone might add a "related articles" or "see also" section that links to articles about similar products from other computer companies

Yes there are, and they were around before Apple's mini. I've added references in the past to ITX and nano PC designs, and the mini's place within this niche. These references to earlier and similar mini-slab PCs generally last around a day before some Macolyte deletes them. Why bother?

[edit] Upgrading to Core 2

I personally have upgraded two Intel minis to Merom processors. I know that there are pages out there about doing this. Maybe we should upgrade the language from suggesting the possibility to confirming that it has been done? Nsayer 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power consumption

Please include average power consumption (watts) in computer articles.-69.87.199.199 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics - GMA 950

The last paragraph in the Graphics section says:

Aside from that, a discrete graphics card has additional hardware, namely vertex and pixel shaders, that an integrated Intel graphics chip nto only lacks but is also too complex to be replicated on the CPU. The Intel GMA is thus not capable of running games that strictly require such hardware, such as Doom 3.

This isn't accurate, the Intel GMA 950 used in both the Mac mini and the MacBook does support pixel shaders (2.0) in hardware (but no vertex shaders or T&L, which run on the CPU) http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm

Also, Doom 3 does run on a GMA 950, as can be seen in these results (MacBook 13"): http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

--PowerMacX 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9200 comparison against integrated graphics irrelevant?

Considering the fact that the 9200 was released in 2002 and the Mac Mini is a computer released very recently, why is there a comparison between the two, apart from showing the Mac Mini's (obvious) superiority? Even Integrated Intel graphics these days are superior to nVidia and ATI cards released several years ago. A more appropriate comparison would be between the Mac Mini integrated graphics and a entry level ATI/nVidia card released in the previous year, like a 7600 GS —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalDragon (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that would require real effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.94.27 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better benchmark

The game Second Life is better for testing 3D performance, as the virtual world enviroment is heavy on 3D card usage.

A post-August update Mac Mini (1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo, Intel GMA 950 graphics, 1 gig RAM) resulted in an average framerate of 8 fps, but never getting more than 10 fps. The Mac used is mine, bought one day after the annoucement. STrRedWolf 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intake vents

Hey, does anybody know where the intake vents are for the Agust 2007 model are? GlassDesk (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BYODKM

Should maybe add the BYODKM term. And then maybe create a new article for it.

BYODKM bring your own display, keyboard, and mouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.167.102 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)