User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Mac Mini: Most Wanted New Features


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
View Poll Results: Most desierable Mac Mini updates? (base config)
512mb RAM 48 30.00%
5400 RPM Hard Drive 19 11.88%
64mb Video Card (Water ripples!) 84 52.50%
SuperDrive 9 5.63%
Voters: 160. You may not vote on this poll

Mac Mini: Most Wanted New Features
Page 4 of 4 Previous 1 2 3 [4]  Thread Tools
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2005-05-16, 17:49

Yeah, IVIIVI, I'm almost expecting a $999 single G5 Cube at WWDC. "Hoping for" might be a better way of putting it, but I'm reasonably confident it could happen...
  quote
IVIIVI4ck3y27
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lyons, IL
Send a message via ICQ to IVIIVI4ck3y27 Send a message via AIM to IVIIVI4ck3y27 Send a message via MSN to IVIIVI4ck3y27 Send a message via Yahoo to IVIIVI4ck3y27  
2005-05-18, 14:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koodari
I was not doing a comparison to the Mac.
This is a Mac site so I believe that in general, any discussion of a PC or gaming console is going to come around full circle to the Mac. You might not have made that your objective, but you should expect it to happen. After all it's not Microsoftnova.

Quote:
Still, what I think Apple can do to ease the situation is to ship a computer, like the headless iMac I've been yammering about, that already has a powerful GPU, either integrated or on a card. Even if the cards are costly in the aftermarket, it would be different if Apple bought them.
1) Headless iMac; agreed. I've been touting a 2-pronged approach since before the Mac mini shipped. I still attest that there's a definite need for a product to slot in the $799-999+ market that solves more problems than it raises questions. Hence my Mac Mini Tower/Cube Mk II from above. It is essentially a headless iMac in the same way that a Mac mini is a LCD-less iBook.

2) Integrated GPU; I won't argue there. A lot of people look at the semantic costs of upgradability (whether they ever do) vs. looking at the product as a "module" that gets replaced as technology warrants. The problem is... modularity works very well when you're talking about a $499 computer. It doesn't need to be upgradable because it's less costly to just buy an upscaled new config. of the same machine in a year or two than to upgrade the machine with add-on cards that can cost more than a brand new Mac mini. With a $799-999 or higher machine... I feel upgradability becomes more of a selling point, because replacing said machine costs significantly more. That's not to say that $499 is chump change... but it's comparable to what many processor upgrade cards for older machines cost... and yet you're getting a GPU, Hard disk, RAM, motherboard, processor, optical drive, all of the various ports, etc. for the same price as a G4 ZIF for an older desktop. It's a good value. Having to spend $799-999+ on a headless iMac... and have it all be integrated... I'm not sure if it's as good a value as it needs to be to maximize sales.

This would help make the upgrade market more healthy... which has been increasingly neutered since the G4 desktop was replaced by the G5. Read on.

Quote:
The following details what the card manufacturers could do.There I have to disagree.

Let's look at what happens if they sell a combined PC+Mac card at old PC card pricing. A price hike in the combined card would cause a significantly more complicated situation, so I like to look at this first.

+ The cost of the card is now significantly lower to the Mac customer, resulting in increased sales.
+ The manufacturer only has to produce one type of card, not two - thus reducing production costs.
+ For retailers, having only one type of card reduces risk: better to have the combined card than a Mac or PC card on the shelf, in case the customer that walks in has the other type of computer.
+ For customers (to Mac customers in particular, but also theoretically to PC customers) it's easier to find the combined card in stock, not just because they no longer have the risk of only finding the "wrong" card, but also because the retailer has reacted to the increased desirability of this card by having more in stock overall.
+ The value of the card is higher to both Mac and PC customers, since they have the option of using the card on the other platform in the future, and a wider buyer base should they choose to resell it.
+ Any increased demand and production due to the above factors lowers the manufacturing costs for all cards - a differential relationship.
The Mac upgrade market is very limited.

Most of the hardware has integrated GPU's, whether it's laptops or consumer desktops (iMac [G3, G4, G5], eMac, Mac mini, iBook [G3/G4], Powerbook [G3/G4], etc.). Therefore the Mac market has a very limited saturation point for upgradability, so there's limited potential "growth". The only people that are going to fit the upgrade path are those who own G5's (towers) or older G4 towers, which are a "fraction" of the overall Mac computer sales. Beyond that... most people in the field aren't after gaming performance (fact), and most video cards are more than adequate for graphic design.

Now one could argue about those in scientific or 3D modelling fields (where's the Oxygen and Quadro cards?), video editing (where specialty cards already exist at enormous premiums, this isn't even a real ATI/NVidia market as it stands), and a few other niche fields on the Mac... and I won't argue there, but since the G5 processor isn't available from Sonnet or Newer Tech or any other processor upgrade vendor for a G5 desktop... then their logical upgrade path seems to be that they'd just buy a new desktop when it was made available to fill their needs. Therefore you're still looking at "the desktop as a module" even on a machine that is upgrades capable, because even though "in theory" it's upgradable, the punchline is... there's no upgrades available to make the theory a reality. Consider it as Apple exploiting "mindshare" about the potentials of an upgrade while doing what they can to eliminate a source of upgrades (i.e. exclusive contract with IBM to PowerMac-compatible G5 purchases; only other vendor that can use the G5's in computers is IBM themselves at this juncture) so people... impatient in waiting for a Sonnet or Newer Tech or Gigadesigns or Powerlogix or whoever to release a G5 upgrade, just go out and buy a new G5 instead.

Which really brings it back down, once again, to gaming. That's the major purpose of upgrading a quite usable 9600 to a more powerful x800. For people in the graphic design field... the 9600 is perfect, if not maybe even more than they need. For those that extrapolate scientific data and do complex rendered models off of it... I'd still argue that few if any of the special features that an x800 are going to provide (more gaming oriented) is going to have serious merit. For 3D Modelling... of course (once again, where's the Oxygen and Quadro cards that are geared towards this market?), but how big of a market is the Mac in 3D Modelling vs. the competition? You're going to find you're splitting hairs in terms of potential marketshare vs. the whole of the computer genre.

The Mac (currently) is a niche platform, even as an esteemed and loving Mac owner since 1994, and user for far longer (Jr. High, I'll be 30 in a few months to put it into perspective). I'd love for it to be bigger than it is (although how much bigger I can argue semantics on both sides of the fence on) for the obvious reasons... but to be realistic vs. a zealot, one has to understand the truth of the matter. That is we are a niche platform, with a small percentage of the big pie chart of computer users, and that ultimately... we're going to have things come at premiums for us because of marketshare and that the costs of developing for our platform vs. return has to be kept in check.

So what you really come down to is this... any company that is going to make upgrade cards for a Mac, are going to either 1) eat the costs of software development for the platform, or 2) pass that cost on to the general public in some fashion via "segregation" of product. What you're speaking of *WILL* have them eating the costs, and upgrade sales will not sufficiently grow because few out there will fuss with their machines because they have limited potential for gain (read: lack of processor upgrades to maximize GPU performance), and those that might even want to "can't" because their machines use integrated solutions that are not upgradable. GPU's don't just reap substantial performance benefits on their own... they sometimes require processor upgrades, and the fact remains... the G5 while "upgradable" in processor has no "upgrade" cards available. The fact that IBM is now shipping 2.7 Ghz. G5's and there are people with 1.6 Ghz. G5 machines and there's no processor upgrade cards paints the picture I'm trying to convey. That is even with the current G5 desktops... there's a "limited" upgrade path at present (esp. compared to the G4 machines of the past), and that the upgrade paths for hardware are more restrictive on the Mac desktop because there's not 8x AGP capable upgrade boards en masse for those with older G4's (you can buy Socket-A compatible boards with 8x AGP, even if you're just transferring an old Duron to one). There's not G5 upgrade cards for those with older G5's. Even though "visibly" the machine is upgradable, the current G5 is only marginally so (hard drives, RAM, etc.) when you look at the bigger picture of what is realistic and tangible to perform said upgrades in terms of processing power (and it's affect on maximizing GPU performance). Outside of a niche focus on a niche platform and not even the "WHOLE" platform but a percentage of a platform (towers)... the sale of Mac video cards is miniscule compared to the PC, and doesn't have "legs" to run if you get my drift? For ATI to make their cards profitable... they have to retain a separation so they can prevent from eating the costs of development of the software/drivers for their cards, which is why their cards themselves are not compatible with a PC, and the PC cards aren't compatible with a Mac (both could be, neither is). 3dFX ran into much of this problem when people bought their Voodoo cards for PC back in the day... and downloaded the Mac drivers off of the net. The Mac card cost more than the PC card... because you were paying for the driver development.

Granted... you've got older G4 machines that are upgradable. To... newer G4 processors. But you're also in many of those older machines (not all G4's support 8x AGP, in fact I believe it might be one or two generations of G4) dealing with older AGP specs, and the G4 isn't as good for gaming as a G5 so you're obviously going to want to upgrade the machine more than the video card for today's gaming with regards to the latest greatest games on the market (assuming you want them). The x800, for many, won't even be compatible with their hardware. So once again... you're talking a much more "limited" scope for hardware and software development.

Quote:
All these factors help partly recoup, totally recoup or surpass the profit that previously came from the Mac version's price premium - which is the only thing lost under this versioning/pricing scheme. What the extent of these effects would be in practice, I am not in the position to know. The point is it's not as simple as you made it out to be - pricing is not a zero sum game, and if Mac card buyers pay less, the difference does not automatically transfer to the PC card buyers.
It would because of the amount of potential for profit. It's a niche platform, there's only a percentage of the overall Mac platform that supports 8x AGP, much less something like PCI-X, and there's no support for PCI-E. Just allowing users to buy any PC card and download the drivers was something that was crippling 3dFX back in the day for those that remember. There's a defining reason these vendors ship Mac-specific cards with unique hardware designs. It's to prevent this very feat from happening. 3dFX has proven in the past that the cards can be cross platform with just driver changes... but it also has been proven that the significant amount of programmers put forward to write drivers and software for said cross-platform cards can actually eat into their investment. I could see them perhaps requiring you to pay to download the drivers/software off of the 'net, but then you'll have people putting said drivers/software up on Bittorrent or Limewire/Acquisition/Gnutella negating their chance of profitability on the platform. So by requiring separate designs and tooling and platform specific drivers... the cards probably cost negligibly more, and they can control the margins and returns per investment by keeping everything locked and separated. They slash margins closer on the PC via price competition but on the Mac, there's no such need to compete because there's limited competition as it stands.

Sad... but true. They can charge 100% increase on margin performance and people will pay because if they want an x800... they have no choice. That said... few buy the cards as it stands (and a drop in price wouldn't change thing substantially amongst the majority of the Mac platform, as gaming is but a niche of a niche), ATI has to keep the profitability in check so they don't charge anywhere near that level of margin cap over a comparable PC card (although it is more), and in the end... most Mac versions of PC games have lower requirements because the games are more optimized to the platform like a console than forcing obsolescence on people like the game developers do on the PC side.

Quote:
I see an effect like this in Blizzard games. Blizzard ships most their titles with PC and Mac versions in the same box. If they did not do this, they would never sell me a single game as long as I have a Mac! The prices of Mac-only releases from other companies are awful. Also, while now only gaming with a Mac, I really appreciate getting the PC version because it's possible I would move on a PC. This difference to other game companies is so huge, it would not surprise me if Blizzard had over 50% of the Mac game market in their pocket.
Arguable.

The reason I say so is people that buy games... want the game. It's irrelavent what platforms come in-box to them when they only have *1* computer. Most of the people that choose a platform do so out of their preference, and that can be swayed by any # of factors. The least of which is platform switching down the road.

Now granted... the Mac mini is trying to be just that, a trojan horse into converting people over. It's reasonably priced enough to have those that are sick of spyware and adware and the intrusions that Microsoft themselves even present on the general public... it's the alternative, an option. It also however, make no mistake, has merits for the traditional Mac user and therefore the market is not just "solely" a PC switcher machine, but a machine that has legs towards increasing Apple's total revenues. Whether Mac user or PC user... the potentials are there on both sides, and Apple is reaping the rewards. I would argue that the largest percentage of users buying the Mac mini though, already have Macs. The next largest percentage... are people with iPod's that previously had no Mac (and maybe no PC).

Yet... there are those that *WILL NOT* switch. They personally could care less that you're dropping a free Mac copy of Warcraft in their box, anymore than the Mac person cares that there is a PC version in the box. Assuming Blizzard includes some "network" serials so you can play over the net (but a singular single-user license for non-net play)... then finally, we *DO* have a selling point as you can play your copy of Warcraft with your PC/Mac friends who don't own a copy of the game. That's an experience you'll cherish. Yet the real reason for allowing that network-user experience has a general focus, and that focus could potentially lead to them purchasing their own copy of Warcraft. THAT... my friend... is the real reason it's being done. It's Blizzard's own "Trojan horse" into selling more single-user copies of Warcraft. At some point... the "network" serials become moot if everyone buys their own copy of Warcraft because the single user license works for online play. Yet including network serials allows non Warcraft users to experience the game, realize how cool it is, and want their own copy to play offline. It's a proverbial "coup" into their pocketbook and there's little actual hurt being done by it.

Now if Blizzard has over 50% of the Mac game market in their pocket... I wouldn't doubt. Yet it has NOTHING to do with the CD including both sets of software and everything to do with the games themselves being marketed well and being one of the few "exciting" software titles available to the Mac platform. We only get a small percentage of what's available on the PC, itself a dwindling market in and of itself due to piracy concerns and vendors switching to a more closed console-only market where it's harder to pirate. For a game-starved platform with minimal legs... for any vendor to produce an even adequate game... has potentials. If you produce a game that's quite awesome... then you're going to get sales. It only stands to reason.



If you want my realistic solution for cheaper ATI and NVidia cards?

Open source the card's hardware and software-capable specs for PC spec cards (maybe even release a base set of driver/software code to work from for each platform)... allow Apple, or even Joe in his basement, to work on open source drivers that fully support their PC-compatible off the shelf cards. Would the quality of the drivers be the same? That's a good question (I think Apple could make good software, whether Joe in his basement can... is a different story, could even be better). They might be better in supporting all of the various PC-compatible features on the Mac, they might be worse... as in quirky interface design, and less quality of experience in terms of setup for the cards. The reality is though... open source development of software for the various cards for Mac/PC could perhaps benefit them. ATI and NVidia wouldn't be paying people to program their cards... and they'd hold no liability for the drivers/softwares performance because they aren't intrinsically "supporting" said drivers. The driver writers would be assuming that responsibility, if they did at all (e.g. disclaimer; this software is written under the GNU public license, all liability for damages caused by this software are placed on the patron who downloads said software, i.e. use at your own risk).

Marcus Mackey
mmackey27@comcast.net
  quote
Amadeus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Massachusetts
 
2005-05-18, 19:40

I would like to see all of them of course. The 512 MB RAM would be a good starting point. Eventually a G5.
  quote
RoughneckMini
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
 
2005-06-06, 17:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amadeus
I would like to see all of them of course. The 512 MB RAM would be a good starting point. Eventually a G5.

Well it sure as heck won't be a G5.

After reading the WWDC transcripts I went ahead and bought my mini today. I don't think waiting (short term) will land me much better, and after reading the specs on the new XBox and the PS3 I doubt I'd have much enjoyment gaming on my Mac even with a 9600 as the base.
  quote
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-06-06, 18:08

All of the above.
  quote
MarkTime
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-06-06, 19:23

I tell ya what I'd in a mac mini...its going to sound strange, but hear me out... an INTEL PROCESSOR....hahahahaha

oh that's going to be funny at least the first 500 times
  quote
Anthem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-08, 14:13

In this order:

1. Optical Audio Out
2. 512M RAM standard
3. Firewire 800
4. Faster hard drive
5. Better graphics chip (64M isn't that much better... how about 128?)
  quote
Algernon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
 
2005-10-03, 08:26

1. Ability to connect two mac mini's with firewire to get Dual G4 Mac mini.
2. Connecting my iBook wirelessly to the above mentioned dual G4 mac mini to make it a triple G4 mac.
3. And so on...

This could be already done with some clever software that combines software RAID, xGRID, X11 windowing, and Mac remote desktop techniques. Maybe this will be the great new feature of new Mac OS 10.5 ...

(I have absolutely no insider knowledge, just too much general knowledge)

Supercomputing starts at 499$!!!
  quote
oldmacfan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mile 1
 
2005-10-03, 09:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Algernon
1. Ability to connect two mac mini's with firewire to get Dual G4 Mac mini.
2. Connecting my iBook wirelessly to the above mentioned dual G4 mac mini to make it a triple G4 mac.
3. And so on...

This could be already done with some clever software that combines software RAID, xGRID, X11 windowing, and Mac remote desktop techniques. Maybe this will be the great new feature of new Mac OS 10.5 ...

(I have absolutely no insider knowledge, just too much general knowledge)

Supercomputing starts at 499$!!!
One problem, only one Firewire port per Mini or iBook...
  quote
Algernon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
 
2005-10-04, 00:43

Yes, that's true. But it also has 10/100 ethernet.
To be really feasible, it would need gigabit ethernet, or two firewire800 ports.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-10-04, 00:46

Neither FireWire nor gigabit Ethernet are fast enough to connect two computers at the CPU level to create a pseudo dual-processor machine out of two single-processor machines. They don't even come close.

What you're asking is pure fantasy.

When you've read about supercomputers that are networks of "regular" computers, you missed a very important bit: they don't perform ordinary computing operations. Those infrastructures are built for very specialized distributed tasks that are not immediately reliant on each other's output. That's generally the extreme opposite of what you do in an operating system and day-to-day applications.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Algernon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
 
2005-10-04, 03:58

That's right they are not fast enough for connecting two CPU:s.
But they are fast enough for running applications on another computer.

X11 windowing works fine on very low bandwidth.
(Windows) remote desktop works fine on very low bandwidth.
They are not build for vert specialized distributed task.

A simple day-to-day example would be something like this:

User on computer 1:
- Opens iTunes, and selects play, the livingroom airtunes station is selected by default.
- Minimizes the iTunes

Computer A
- Starts playing music over airtunes
- Notices that user has minimized the iTunes, and is not actively using it
- Transform the process to computer B.

Computer B
- Has got identical hard drive contents with computer A.
(Some form of hard drive syncing is used for that)
- Starts itunes process, and prepares to sync processes with computer 1
- When these two processes on computers A and B are in sync (eg. when switching to next song), the music playing process is totally switched to computer B.
- Only the UI of Itnues is now is streamed to computer A (if needed) , like in remote desktop.

The result is that the computer A, which is actually used by the user seems to play music with particly no processor load.

Of course, this would not make the computers to work together as twin G4 computers, but this could improve the user experience.
  quote
Koodari
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-10-04, 08:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
2) Integrated GPU; I won't argue there. A lot of people look at the semantic costs of upgradability (whether they ever do) vs. looking at the product as a "module" that gets replaced as technology warrants. The problem is... modularity works very well when you're talking about a $499 computer. It doesn't need to be upgradable because it's less costly to just buy an upscaled new config. of the same machine in a year or two than to upgrade the machine with add-on cards that can cost more than a brand new Mac mini. With a $799-999 or higher machine... I feel upgradability becomes more of a selling point, because replacing said machine costs significantly more. That's not to say that $499 is chump change... but it's comparable to what many processor upgrade cards for older machines cost... and yet you're getting a GPU, Hard disk, RAM, motherboard, processor, optical drive, all of the various ports, etc. for the same price as a G4 ZIF for an older desktop. It's a good value. Having to spend $799-999+ on a headless iMac... and have it all be integrated... I'm not sure if it's as good a value as it needs to be to maximize sales.
You seem to have missed the fact that iMac both costs more and is far more "integrated" than the proposed headless with fast integrated graphics. If the proposed headless was bad due to limited expansion, iMac would be downright unsellable.
Quote:
removed a *page* of text here where the only message was "Macs are a niche market and few Macs have a graphics card slot" ... man, you really don't spare your keyboard!

So what you really come down to is this... any company that is going to make upgrade cards for a Mac, are going to either 1) eat the costs of software development for the platform, or 2) pass that cost on to the general public in some fashion via "segregation" of product. What you're speaking of *WILL* have them eating the costs, and upgrade sales will not sufficiently grow
Just how would you know these things? Are you senior mgmt at ATi or nVidia? In addition to the demand curve, I listed a ton of savings that result from having a combo card. I even forgot to list advertising, packaging and distribution savings. We don't have numbers on any of these, so it's flat out impossible to say if it would work for them. Furthermore, I'd go as far as to say the first player to do this in the Mac market will take near every sale that would have gone to their opponent.
Quote:
The reason I say so is people that buy games... want the game. It's irrelavent what platforms come in-box to them when they only have *1* computer. Most of the people that choose a platform do so out of their preference, and that can be swayed by any # of factors. The least of which is platform switching down the road.

... another page with no content removed here...

Now if Blizzard has over 50% of the Mac game market in their pocket... I wouldn't doubt. Yet it has NOTHING to do with the CD including both sets of software and everything to do with the games themselves being marketed well and being one of the few "exciting" software titles available to the Mac platform.
Uh, yeah. You're only replying to the weakest argument I presented. The main points are price and availability. I can pick up a new World of Warcraft for 30e. I can find Starcraft from the discount bin for 10e. I can buy Blizzard games from department stores, from computer stores, from the street corner. I'd be surprised if even 5% of these stores carried a single Mac game besides Blizzard's dual releases. The difference of availability is a night and day difference.
Quote:
If you want my realistic solution for cheaper ATI and NVidia cards?

Open source the card's hardware and software-capable specs for PC spec cards (maybe even release a base set of driver/software code to work from for each platform)...
So where's the realistic solution?
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2005-10-04, 08:29

I'm not quite sure how - or why - a $499 Mac would suddenly have FireWire 800 when a huge chunk of everything immediately above it in price/specs (eMac, all iBooks, the 12" PowerBook and all iMac G5 models) don't.

  quote
Koodari
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-10-04, 09:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0
I'm not quite sure how - or why - a $499 Mac would suddenly have FireWire 800 when a huge chunk of everything immediately above it in price/specs (eMac, all iBooks, the 12" PowerBook and all iMac G5 models) don't.

It would make sense if the other computers were all getting it at next update. Many signs point to that Apple is through shooting itself in the foot with nazi product line separation. iBook is now shipping with better-than-PB graphics chip, until they get around to updating PB.

That said, I don't think Firewire 800 is very universally useful. Desktop hard drive would be the absolute best thing to add in the Mini, followed by a (low-end) programmable GPU for better futureproofing. The next generation of low-end chips are all programmable, of course, so this is only a question of time.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2005-10-04, 09:37

Exactly.

There are about 3-5 things the mini should have BEFORE FireWire 800 enters the picture.



However, I don't even think those other things (eMac, iBook, 12" PowerBook and iMac G5) will get FireWire 800 even on their next TWO updates.



I don't think it's something anyone is really clamoring for or truly needing, outside the "pro" realm (where it already exists, as it should, on the towers and two larger PowerBooks). Granted, on the 12" PowerBook it may be a space issue more than anything. But still...
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-10-04, 09:45

I think it's unfortunate that Apple has developed this great "new" (as of two and a half years ago) Firewire 800 interface yet they've refused to make it common enough on their products to really allow it to take off.

If they simply replaced the single FW400 port on the eMac, iBook, 12" PowerBook, Mac mini, and iMac with a FW800 port and included an adapter, there wouldn't be a space issue.

I can only imagine they're clinging to it as one of the few factors that differentiates their higher end computers from their lower end ones, since it probably wouldn't increase the cost tremendously either.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2005-10-04, 09:52

Indeed. I have to say, I haven't bought a FW400 enclosure in ages. Once you get used to the speed of 800 the difference between the two is very noticeable.

So it goes.
  quote
Anthem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-10-04, 23:42

Interesting that a lot of these updates have now been added. I'd forgotten this thread.

Still no optical out, though.

EDIT: I don't understand the purpose of FW400. It's slower than USB2.0, which is more universal. The only reason to have firewire is to pull down DV. I can't imagine that adding a FW800 port is all that much more expensive for Apple than a FW400. Plus, don't they license the spec to third parties? They'd make more on licensing by creating a market for those products.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2005-10-04, 23:47

Actually, in my experience, Firewire is faster than USB 2.0. (Is that just me?)
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-10-04, 23:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthem
Still no optical out, though.
CD-R/RW is optical out and all models have this at a minimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthem
EDIT: I don't understand the purpose of FW400. It's slower than USB2.0, which is more universal.
1. It's not slower, as has been pointed out several times lately.
2. Apple invented FireWire.


The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Anthem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-10-05, 10:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
CD-R/RW is optical out and all models have this at a minimum.
:laugh: Picky, picky, picky.

Optical AUDIO out.

Happy now?
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 4 of 4 Previous 1 2 3 [4] 

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My fickle love/hate of the Mac mini Wraven Apple Products 46 2005-06-28 18:15
Wait a second, did I read that right? OSX for Intel? And other musings. HOM Speculation and Rumors 96 2005-05-26 16:35
Of All Things: PowerMac vs. Mac mini?!?!? Wraven Purchasing Advice 20 2005-01-25 21:25
Got thrown out of Comp USA today (mac mini) Devilotx Apple Products 41 2005-01-25 03:31
Apple releases updated Power Mac G5s staph Apple Products 43 2004-06-09 13:20


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova