Should You Buy a New Mac Mini, iMac or Mac Pro?

[gochichi]

The message to Apple is this: We will find alternatives because pure hardware is so inexpensive and rapidly advancing that we are lured into an open desktop, a "PC".

I am someone that didn't stand in line for a Wii, or a PS3, or an Xbox360. I've never stood in line for any product, but a sub $1000.00 Mac desktop in a standard format (meaning, it has 4 slots for RAM, fits 3+ harddrives, and you can swap out the chip if you wanted to). I'd get in line for that, I'd even pre-order that.

I'd like a 20X DVD burner, but if it's not on a Mac, it's just a $35.00 piece. I'd specifically like to have it on a Mac. I'd like 4GB or 8GB of RAM, but if it's not on a Mac, I have no use for it except for bragging rights to myself. It's true that Apple turns lesser hardware more desirable because of the platform. Just like I wouldn't want the chip in a Xbox 360 at any price, the 360 itself, as a platform gives that tiny chip pizzaz.

That's what an Apple is like to me, it's like a finished product, like a PS3, like a

 

[gochichi]

The message to Apple is this: We will find alternatives because pure hardware is so inexpensive and rapidly advancing that we are lured into an open desktop, a "PC".

I am someone that didn't stand in line for a Wii, or a PS3, or an Xbox360. I've never stood in line for any product, but a sub $1000.00 Mac desktop in a standard format (meaning, it has 4 standard slots for RAM, fits 3+ harddrives, and you can swap out the chip if you wanted to). I'd get in line for that, I'd even pre-order that.

I'd like a 20X DVD burner, but if it's not on a Mac, it's just a $35.00 piece. I'd specifically like to have it on a Mac. I'd like 4GB or 8GB of RAM, but if it's not on a Mac, I have no use for it except for bragging rights to myself. It's true that Apple turns lesser hardware more desirable because of the platform. Just like I wouldn't want the chip in a Xbox 360 at any price, the 360 itself, as a platform gives that tiny chip pizzaz.

That's what an Apple is like to me, it's like a finished product, like a PS3, like a car.

I do completely agree with many of you, including the author, that the lineup pigeon holes people like us. People that spend considerable money and time in computers. It's truly a shame, that Apple won't let us in exactly as we are. That to get in, we have to let go of all DYI DNA. That we have to choose between $100 for a 500GB hard drive, $80 for 2GB of RAM and a Mac. I'd really like both, and I'm pretty sure many of you would too.

I'd love it if Apple would wake up to us, instead of making the same mistake that caused them to be the little guys in the first place. As a computer company, they've always held that we need them more than they need us. Even if it's true (in the sense that many of us would be better off by just taking the higher price and moving on with our lives <I believe this to be the case for me anyhow>) it's a condescending attitude, and it forces me to continue to support Linux and Windows.

I feel like Apple is so great at doing impossible things, and yet with the most basic things it drops the ball. Sure the iMac is amazing, it is. It's such a slick all in one (who can argue with that?). The same can be said about the Mac Mini, it's the slickest, tiniest desktop ever. The Mac Pro, while outdated at this point, was clearly the workstation to beat when it was first released and it's still not clearly beat.

But when it comes down to that cheap, stable desktop, with plenty of pep that any of us could slap together, it drops the ball entirely. I think it's a loose-loose, I know for sure I loose and I think Apple looses too. Over price the thing a few hundred dollars, just give me some options.

I'd like to make a distinction between advice to Apple, and advice to fellow consumers. It's not like Microsoft has really earned our loyalty either. And Linux is in Beta at best, though I continue to be hopeful, there is a very real possibility that Linux could be truly competitive in the home space before Vista has a successor.

Apple, why do you spite us? There are those of us that want to buy into what seems to be the tidiest code base on an OS. We don't want to eat Microsoft's spaghetti code but you leave us no choice.

Microsoft is never "too good", if it's gaming's evolution that keeps the computer industry afloat, then so be it, they cater to it. Frankly, I do enjoy that about MS.

In terms of turning the Mac into a decent enough gaming platform, I would much prefer to see a pact between Apple and AMD and NVIDIA rather than a pact between Apple and the software vendors. If they could all commit to Mac compatible releases of standard cards, that would go a long way for me. It doesn't have to be every single chipset, just major releases. Give the Mac a $120 8600GT, a $200 8600GTS, a $300 8800GTS and NVIDIA can call it a day. Add $50.00 to those prices if absolutely necessary but no more.

I have the feeling that Apple has a standard desktop in the pipeline, that within a year, this will be a reality. If nothing else, a Mac Pro update will certainly bring about dual quad cores and so on.

Though I am as frustrated with Apple's lineup as the author (Frankly, I'm probably much more frustrated). I disagree that they've fallen behind anything, they are far ahead in key areas and Nazi-like in other areas.

Buying advice:
(If you're pinned into a large Windows environment in the work place then you'll have to weigh that in, but if you're "free as a bird" about your equipment... )

If I were going to do web-development, and was going to purchase Adobe CS 3, I'd invest in the Mac edition, 99 times out of 100. I would get the basic 20" iMac, buy up 4GB of RAM from Newegg, and get a nice Firewire 800 external hard drive. I would add a second 20" or 24" display (not an Apple branded display probably), and that should tide you over quite nicely.

For semi-pro video editing, same hard ware as above, just add more software, probably Apple branded software.

For more casual use, I think that the Mac Mini is alright. The main problem is the sluggish and small hard drive. But for casual use, it just makes sense.

If anyone is contemplating a Mini, and is also contemplating a laptop, a MacBook or MacBook Pro is a very nice alternative to the Mini, because the Mini is simply a laptop without a display.

In terms of the Mac Pro, now is not the time to buy it. But if your business needs are plenty and you'll be generating cash with it for 8 hours a day, it may make sense to take the Mac Pro leap. Even for these people though, if you need to buy something really soon, I'd still recommend a souped up iMac to tide you over to Mac Pro's refresh. You can always sell or reuse, or give away a used Mac (the demand is high for used Macs, especially when compared to PCs).

Again, Apple could do without their elitist attitude, and they sure as hell could use a geek friendly product in their lineup. However, Apple is a huge company, and at some point you have to come down to the little guy, "YOU the little guy", and Mac is an excellent platform, and I do recommend it.

 

[Joe_The_Dragon]

OWC http/www.macsales.com/ has good firewire cases with GOOD chipsets and they have good prices on ram for mac systems with buy back of the apple ram.

 

[macbones]

I'm having a hard time justifying upgrading my powermac G4. I edit raw photos w/ CS2, and have a huge media collection. This machine has been easy to upgrade, it takes about 10 minutes to swap a drive. I bumped the graphics card, and currently run 5 hard drives (the extra optical bay takes one) for 1.4 TB storage. This machine rocks for my needs. I don't know anyone with a 7 year old PC, much less a 7 year old PC that does what my mac does as well. . . So I would say it was worth the extra few hundred I paid in 2001. I would say the current Macs can more than cover the needs of 99% of the users out there, and 99.9% if you're talking about a Macpro w/ the midlevel graphics card. Can you tell me, just what activity, including todays games would choke that machine? Are game framerates of 100 really functionally different than 50? I guess I'm just not a sophisticated gamer to notice.

 

[lostandwandering]

Are game framerates of 100 really functionally different than 50? I guess I'm just not a sophisticated gamer to notice.

It depends on the game. In FPS games, frame rate is everything. The higher your frame rate, the smoother your character and the more precise your shots are. In RTS games it's not as important. RTS' remain playable at rates that would frustrate an FPS player.

 

[AARRGGHHH]

I'm having a hard time justifying upgrading my powermac G4. ...

With Apple's apparent betrayal of the midrange user (no more 17" iMac, no tower at all except for the high priced (overpriced ?) Mac Pro) a lot of people feel the same way you do.

My next Mac will be a used one, I can't justify spending what Steve Jobs wants for a new one. Why he's going to let my $1000 to $1200 go to an eBay seller or other 3rd party seller, instead of Apple, is way beyond anything I understand as good business sense.

 

[Merlot_pv]

The substandard specs on base macs are no real surprise. Economics & Marketing 101. Apple gets punters through the door with the base pricing but like Starbucks, Macdonalds etc gets you with the upsell for the 'extras'. Pretty much why Apple has one of the best margins in the business.

For me the OS IS the selling point. A properly specced Mac is nicely engineered but nothing to get excited about performance wise. Bottom line - if I could run OSX on a custom built box, I would. I'd never used OSX until last year, but quite frankly I won't be going back to Windows, though I still administer Windows for a living and use VMWare Fusion for some Windows apps, and Bootcamp for the odd game.

 

[froboz]

I'm glad someone is finally standing up publicly to point out what a poor value the Apple computer line is, particularly the Mac Pro. What I don't understand is why they call it the 2007 Mac Pro. This box hasn't changed in any meaningful way since it was introduced in August 2006. Sure, they added an 8-core config and a RAID card, which very few consumers cared about. They even provide faster processors in the base config than a 2006 model did, but this is still the same old hardware. Apple can call it a 2007 model if they want. They aren't fooling anyone.

The real tragedy (for me anyway) is that, regardless of the poor value, I really wanted to buy one. What held me back is the lack of a high end graphics card for gaming. I've been waiting all year for Apple to come out with an 8800 GTX class GPU, but to no avail. You can't even add your own 8800 GTX (or any other non-Apple GPU) to the box and expect it to boot OS X since they don't use the EFI BIOS. The best solution that anyone has come up with so far is to configure the box to dual boot OS X and Windows and to SWAP OUT THE VIDEO CARD each time you change which OS you're booting. Gimme a break. I finally got tired of waiting for Apple to deliver and spent my money on a high end Windows rig.

P.S. I'm also really p*ssed about the iPhone's 33% price drop recently. That's no way to treat customers. I bought two iPhones when they first came out. Sure, I got $100 back from Apple for each phone and that took a bit of the sting out of it. But I still feel betrayed by Apple and will not be spending nearly as much on Apple gear this Christmas as I had originally planned.

 

[thx1138]

Apple's CPU and graphics performance is beyond lame. Apple will never put a Q6600 in the iMac because it would cannibalize their Mac Pro sales. But the real problem is they haven't even put in an e6600. The unvarnished truth is that the iMac is just a glorified notebook. Their clever marketing literature simply says "Core 2 Duo"... Translation: you're getting a notebook CPU. The iMac is in reality an immobile notebook dressed up as a desktop. Apple in fact sells no real desktop computer.

Meanwhile, over on my linux-based man's desktop, I've been powering along on a 2.4Ghz e6600 overclocked to 3Ghz for over a year. Actually for $270 I recently upgraded it to a 2.4Ghz quad core Q6600 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz.

I almost bought a Mac Pro a year ago; at that time it had some decent bang for the buck, perhaps unprecedented in Apple's history. But I didn't, and now my $1000 hand-built server with its Q6600 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz outstrips Apple's $2500 Mac Pro. Some related benchmarks can be found here http/xtreview.com/review172.htm

Why is the mac mini firewire only 400Mhz instead of 800? Apple deliberately cripples it, otherwise you could put on an external disk and get some decent performance out of it.

As much as I'd like the turnkey OS-X, Apples charges a lot of money for very little horsepower, and this has always put me off.

 

[geoffs]

The author takes Apple to task for a number of things, many of which are valid issues/complaints, however, I think he missed on a few.

1. The new Aluminum iMacs don't support dual-channel memory, so Apple shipping them with one DIMM rather than a pair of smaller ones is a benefit, not a drawback. In order to upgrade the RAM, you just add rather than replace. As demonstrated in many benchmark tests on tomshardware.com, dual channel memory makes very little difference in real-world performance anyway, even with integrated graphics (which these iMacs don't use). The CPU cache, pipeline, prefetch buffers, and write buffers almost completely hide any delays.

2. Apple doesn't offer the top performing video card such as the Nvidia 8800 or ATi HD2900 with any of their machines including the Mac Pro. True, but those cards are really only useful for extreme gaming and there are few, if any Mac games that require such power. They do offer the ATi X1900 XT which isn't that far down the list and the new iMacs use the HD2400 XT and HD2600 XT, which aren't too far behind the HD2900. The cards they offer provide plenty of power for the games and productivity applications (page layout, photo editing, etc.) that are available on Macs. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem right now, Apple doesn't see the need to offer/support/charge for those video cards when there aren't any games that need the power and the game developers don't want to develop extreme games for a platform that doesn't have the hardware/software support their games require. If you're into extreme gaming, don't use a Mac (for now), but don't claim that the standard video cards aren't suitable for the tasks most Macs will be used to perform. In fact, don't expect ANY mainstream PC to support extreme gaming.

3. The standard RAM is only 1GB and Apple's RAM is expensive. That's not a disadvantage for Apple vs. HP/Dell/IBM/etc. Nearly every other large computer maker charges too much for their RAM, that's why there is a huge market for RAM upgrades. Be glad that they don't include a lot of highly marked up RAM in the base configurations and buy your RAM upgrade from a third party such as Crucial.com. Apple makes it easy to install RAM in most of their machines.

4. The Mac Pro is only available with drives up to 750GB. That's all Apple offers, but you can buy your own 1GB drives and install them for less than Apple would charge if they did offer them.

5. They don't offer a quad-core iMac. True, but almost no one who uses an iMac would see any benefit from quad-core. You've seen the benchmarks, very few applications can take advantage of even dual core CPUs, much less quad-core. The mainstream (where the iMac is targeted) isn't ready for more than 2 CPU cores. iTunes and iMovie might benefit, but iTunes is already faster than the fastest optical drive can extract the data, so iMovie encoding is the only thing that might benefit a typical iMac user. It would be nice to have a quad core as a build-to-order option, but Apple understandably wants users needing that much CPU to move up to a Mac Pro. Both the iMac and Mac Mini would likely have thermal issues with a quad core unless they went with the lower clock speed "low power" versions, and that would result in a machine that is slower for everyday tasks.

6. The superdrive in the iMacs is only 8x capable vs. "the standard PC speed of 18x". 18x isn't "standard" on PCs, it's nearly the fastest available, and few machines ship with a drive that fast. Yes, you can build your own machine with an 18x or 20x drive, but the major vendors aren't including them in their mainstream machines. Even with drives and media that can handle those speeds, the real performance is often lower. Finally, you can't get media rated above 16x (-R/+R) or 8x (-RW/+RW/-R-DL/+R-DL), so the real speed difference is lower.

7. The lack of an Airport card in the Mac Pro makes perfect sense. Why would you want to cripple the network performance of a desktop computer with Wi-Fi (even 802.11n)? You wouldn't, that's why most desktops (PCs and Macs) don't include Wi-Fi cards and you have to add one if you need it. The case for Bluetooth is not as clear, but given that it's mostly used for wireless keyboards, mice, and phone syncing, and that most desktop users don't use those things (yet), it makes sense for it to be an option.

If what he really wanted was an extreme gaming machine, why would he even look at a Mac, given that few if any of the current extreme games are available for a Mac? He should have started the article with something such as "Are any of the current Macs a suitable machine for an extreme gamer?" or titled it "Should I Buy a New Mac Mini, iMac, or Mac Pro?", since it's clear that the review is slanted to his personal requirements, not those of typical users. Then many of the criticisms would have made sense, but he doesn't ask that question. He sort of alludes to that in the conclusion, even though that appears to be one of his primary criteria in evaluating the machines.

Are at least some of the Macs overpriced? Yes.

Could Apple do a better job or be more flexible on some configurations? Yes.

Would I like to see a 17" iMac priced below $1000? Yes.

Is there a low-end or mid-range Mac that is expandable? Not really (you do have FireWire and USB 2.0, but no real expansion slots). On the other hand, other than a high-end video card, what would you want to add that you can't do using USB2.0 or FireWire?

Sincerely,
Geoff Strickler