Apple Upgrades Mac mini, Doesn't Tell Anybody

echomancer writes "Think Secret is reporting that Apple has released a slightly updated version of the Mac mini, but has failed to tell anyone. Some Mac minis may now include a 1.5GHz processor, 64MB of VRAM, and an updated 8x superdrive but these new machines are being shipped in boxes reflecting the original specs. 'The motivation behind this is to help clear current inventory without lowering prices. Essentially, customers are promised that the Mac mini they purchase will have specifications at least equal to the label, but that their system may exceed those.'"

Comments

Yup, got one here

[Space cowboy]

I bought one about a week ago. I can't say I've noticed it's faster in real-world use, but it does benchmark slightly faster (in accordance with the CPU speed bump). Since its main purpose is to look gorgeous in the living room, run email and web-browsing, I have no complaints, but then I wouldn't have had, anyway :-) The faster drive is noticeable though (once you get past the spotlight indexing, anyway)

Having the extra VRAM seems to improve video performance a fair bit as well - subtly but noticeably smoother when doing the 'cube' switch using 'Desktop Manager', for example. (Which is the *very* first piece of s/w I ever install on a mac). Yes I use expose too, but with DM I can dedicate one screen per task. Much nicer :-)

Simon

Re:Yup, got one here

[porneL]

Damn, I've bought "Rev 1" model. Now I have to buy another one!

Re:Yup, got one here

[Talez]

There are UI things I don't like - for example options missing from the context menu that are only on the main menu.. so you have to go hunting around for them instead of just getting on with what you want to do. Finder seems to have a problem shutting apps down too.. you can close them and they'll keep running.

Application Name --> Quit Application.

Get into the habit of using it if you want to quit each time.

There are perfectly good reasons for OSX maintaining this behaviour of not closing apps when the last window is closed. For something like iTunes you can either a) minimize the window which clutters up the dock, b) change it to mini mode which is still another window open or c) close the window and let iTunes run in the background anyway.

Ditto for Mail.

Re:Yup, got one here

[porcupine8]

You've already had plenty of explanations of the close-but-not-quit thing, but I just wanted to say why I *love* this feature. If I have an application that is slow to startup (like, say NeoOffice/J, or anything that requires firing up Classic mode), if I close my last window and leave the app running the background I don't have that startup wait when I want to open another document. I HATE it in Windows, when I close a Word document, and then five minutes later when I open another one I have to sit though Word firing up again.

But nobody's forcing me to leave things running. If I don't want to do that, I can Command-Q or quit from the menu. If I decide later that I've got too much open, I can quit from the dock.

So, basically - you have more choice here than you do in Windows. If you want to quit every time you close the last document, you can do it - either with keyboard or mouse. If you don't want to, you don't have to.

Re:Yup, got one here

[pknoll]

Wow was that incredibly ugly. Once more for clarity:

Regarding the home/end key behaviour - place the following in ~/Library/KeyBindings/DefaultKeyBinding.dict :

/* Sane Home/End Keys*/
{
"\UF729" = "moveToBeginningOfLine:"; /* home */
"\UF72B" = "moveToEndOfLine:"; /* end */
"$\UF729" = "moveToBeginningOfLineAndModifySelection:"; /* shift + home */
"$\UF72B" = "moveToEndOfLineAndModifySelection:"; /* shift + end */
}

Re:Is there a problem here? (no, not really)

[utlemming]

Yes, there might be a problem here. According to labeling laws when you specify contents of a package, you must specify the contents as closely as you can, and when you have to round, you round down. Just recently the nursery industry got in a lot of trouble for selling "gallon" pots that, if you have ever bought a pot know, never could measure much of a gallon. Pretty much what has happened is that the industry is being brought into compliance. While the computer industry may not be regulated quite like the nursery industry, the labeling laws are quite strict, and they apply accross the board. The reason for a labeling law is so consumers can compare like products with a like product. So someone who is looking at a Mac-mini and some eMachine or something like that, the small difference in performance that the faster processor has might make a difference, and it could get them in trouble. The esscense behind the labeling laws is so the consumer can have all the information. You can understate content, but only by a little bit. And the question in computers becomes, what is a little bit.

Re:Is there a problem here? (no, not really)

[OneBarG]

So you saw a well-lit picture and assumed it had a feature that was never mentioned anywhere else? You didn't check the manufacture's specs? You didn't do any research beyond looking at a well-lit picture? I'm sorry and not trying to troll here, but you bought a product that you really didn't know a helluva lot about.

This product may be returned......

[cl191]

Oh great....now Fry's is going to run out of return labels. Oh the slightly related note, I have a Toshiba Libretto 50 which supposed to only have a Pentium 75 on it. But by the time mine was built, Intel has stopped making P75 and Toshiba ended up putting a P120 in it and underclock it to 75mhz....didn't take long before someone noticed that and a few soldering later, we have P120 Libretto 50s :-)

Re:intel

[ocelotbob]

Every CPU maker on the planet does this. They try to spec out every part of the wafer so that they can all be potentially the fastest rated chips, but due to microscopic flaws, some finished chips have problems at higher speeds, thus they sell them as slower versions. AMD, IBM, Motorola all do it.

Re:intel

[Jace of Fuse!]

Yup, and what's more....

Sometimes a yield is so good that very few processors actually fail at higher speeds, resulting in a batch of very good chips. Since the market still wants the lower rated chips, it sometimes becomes necissary to clock a perfectly good chip lower than it is actually capable of being clocked.

The Intel Celeron 300a (I believe) was a great example of this. 300a chips were so high quality, that most of them available could be run at around 500mhz (if I remember correctly).

ideas

[hotsauce]

there is a certain firewire chipset that is known to have a bug that causes freezes with os x. drive manufacturers have released fixes. check your manufacturers site

context menus are supposed to have less options than the menu bar by definition. context menus only have options that are relevant to that context, and in addition ux people will tell you they should only have the most relevant ones, not the whole kit and cabodle. context menus wouldnt save you any time if you had to dig through as many options as the menu bar

the close window control is supposed to close a window, and not shut down the application. you may be used to windows, where closing the last open window also shuts down the app, but many ux peeps will tell you this is not a good assumption to make: if you close the last window of a database server (say, a query window), do you want the database to shut down? if you close the last window to your mail app, do you want all mail services to shut down (i like still being able to see when ive got incoming mail)? the apple ux teams position on these things and others are well known (try google)

im surprised you would trust development to a system you see as so flaky

Re:ideas

[GigsVT]

It's a terrible idea. Most mac users I've met don't even know how to exit an application. They say they are having some weird problem so I ask them if they have tried restarting the application. They say they have, I come over and exit it and restart it, and everything works.

So basically most of the mac users just reboot every day because "it starts running slow", because they never exit anything.

Easy to use my ass. More like "confusing as hell".

Re:ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Not closing the app is a good idea. Why not leave the app open, so that next time you use it, it starts instantly?

OS X has excellent virtual memory management, so the RAM used is not a problem.

Re:ideas

[am 2k]

The strange behavior is the few that do quit, including a few where Apple needs to read their own guidelines.

Well, the ones that quit are the ones where there's a monolithic window and it doesn't make sense to leave them running without it (like the calculator, System Preferences, iPhoto). However, it *does* confuse newbies, that's right, and some folks refuse to get out of the newbie state for their whole life.

Re:ideas

[Uerige]

Why would the user care if the program is still running in the background or not? When he clicks the Safari icon on the bottom, the running Safari process opens a new window. It's completely transparent, only it might be faster because the browser does not need to start again.

The computer does not care about how many processes are running. Right now I have 68 processes running on my computer and I don't think I woul notice if it were 680. As long as they aren't doing I/O all the time, that is.

Actually a good update

[digitalgimpus]

I got a mac mini, it's actually a prety powerful computer. And so insanely silent 99% of the time, I don't even know it's on. This is a great update because they fixed some of the key issues:

- 512MB RAM is now standard (256MB isn't really very usable on OS X).
- More VRAM! Sadly not upgrading the chipset yet, but it's still an improvement
- 5400 RPM HD!!!! This is the biggest upgrade. The 4200RPM drive and minimal RAM makes this computer really slugish. Upgrade the RAM and the HD, and it's a whole new computer. That paging file will get you.

The processor upgrade isn't a big deal. The DVDR isn't bad, but don't know how much I'd use it.

It's a great computer. For anyone wanting to experiment on the Mac, or just want a cheap system, it's a steal. It's well engineered. The first time you hold it, you know it's well made. Solid, and good hardware.

I personally like this upgrade they offer. Wish mine had more RAM and a faster HD out of the box.