Talk:Mac Mini/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fine Article

I like this article as it is. Fine job by whoever writes it. By the way, the October 2014 minis ARE discussed. Jfgrcar (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Haswell CPUs

Hey guys, the writeup for the 2014 revision fails to note that Apple offers an upgrade option from i5 to i7 processors. Jfgrcar (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see that? http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-mini Scy1192 (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Powerful 3D games?

While I'm not questioning the 9400's improved graphical capablities, I'm not sure if "allows it to play powerful 3D games" is a correct way of putting it. I'm changing it to "Allowing it to run more graphically intense applications"...

(Games aren't 'powerful', computers are.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaderBiscut (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 Update

If people could add information from the new model that would be grate. New model came out March 3, 2009. Jerzyboy455 —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

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)
Mini A car manufacturer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.109.15 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should be officially capitalized Mac Mini, the iPod nano and touch articles have the names capitalized, even though their respective pages on Apple's website have it lowercase in both cases. Just a suggestion... I mean if we're going to go against Apple's naming policy (lowercased suffix) we should do it in ALL articles. stevenrasnick Tue 2:49 PM (UTC) October 7, 2008
If nobody has any objections, I'm going to move the contents of this article to Mac Mini, placing a redirect here. Fri 11:30 PM (UTC) October 10, 2008

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)

The picture :)

File: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).
I don't authorize you to copy this text, but you can still do it legally. I prove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.109.15 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
regardless. jobs is CEO of the company in question and hence owns the copyright in the first place.
Well.... not exactly. He controls the company that owns the copyright, and can choose to enforce it. In this case, he decided not to. Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


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

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.

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)


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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

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.

OSX Versions?

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



The new Mini comes with OSX 10.5, shouldn't it be mentioned in the table?

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?

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)

Power consumption

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reply to the proposed correction

To the one who said the Mac Mini article should say its "IBM Compatible": First of all, that phrase is no longer used, and hasn't been for at least 10 years. IBM is no longer the basis of to which everything is compared, they don't even make computers anymore. To use that phrase would be to imply the Mac Mini is archaic, and it is not. A more appropriate phrase would be, x86 compatible, though every current computer I can think of that is made for consumer use by the big corporate companies is "x86 compatible". And if you want to get technical, the G Series Processors were made by IBM / Motorola, so they are IBM COmpatible too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.193.177 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If the phrase is meant to suggest the Mac Mini can run PC operating systems and software, we may want to consider "PC compatible" to use common vernacular and have a wikilink to the technical explanation. "x86 compatible" is technical jargon that would be incomprehensible to many readers. Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research and unverified claims, speculation, tone

The article has quite a bit of original research, vague ideas, unverified claims, speculation, and a tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The facts must be cited and the conclusions must be backed up by citations, not by speculative narrative. I have marked the areas most in need of attention, but it is by no means all of them. --KJRehberg (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Interested in making some of the improvements yourself? Mattnad (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

shaders are "too compex to be replicated on the CPU"?

In the article, it was stated that "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."

Although the GMA950 doesn't come with hardware shaders, these features are easily replicated on the CPU. To say that shaders are "too complex to replicate" is invalid because it has already been done. That is the the GMA is able to run games such as halo (requires SM 2.0) at relatively high settings with full shaders, far cry (which uses at least SM 1.3) and other games. The GMA950 is even capable of playing doom 3, with shaders, but probably not at desirable rates.

I suggest that the "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." claim be revised. It is not true, and is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.97.223 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Verify

"4GB (one 4GB SO-DIMM) or8GB (two 8GB SO-DIMMs) of1333 MHz DDR3 SDRAM Expandable to 8GB." Says the table; but wait- there is no other part of the article that says that the Mac Mini ahs been updated. I also checked the store and saw that the max memory in the high end Mini is still 4 GB. I'm not an admin, so I am not sure what to do. Any insight on this issue? Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Update - I found the edit, made by 12.35.97.2. It's suspicious, for he (or she) has made unconstructive edits before. I really think I should just undo this edit. --Airplaneman (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked the Mac website and the info on there contradicts the edit. Undoing now. Please tell me if you have any arguements. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
8GB has been verified not to work by OWC and others who have posted on 123macmini.com Saulinpa (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Several users reported 8GB to work, including screenshots of over 4GB being addressed by applications. I suggest we place this back in the article:
Since the Mac Mini EFI Firmware Update 1.2 released on August 2009, many Mac Mini 
owners say that 8GB of RAM is fully addressed by the computer.
With this reference. Best regards, MigGroningen (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Airplaneman talk 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I have edited the article accordingly. Airplaneman talk 02:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the upgraded 2.26 GHz CPU the Intel P7550 or older P8400

I have been researching the Mac mini as possible purchase, and find that some sites indicate the upgraded 2.26 GHz CPU is model P7550, some the (older) P8400.

(of course, now that I am typing this, I cannot put my finger on all those date details ... Working on those ...

Further: Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile P8400 Intro Jul 2008 <http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickrefyr.htm> But Intel changed their reference library for 2009, and I've not found the P7350 or 7550 intro dates beyond an article I remember stating early 2009...

If someone actually has one of the new March 2009 Mac mini's with the 2.26 CPU upgrade and has 'seen' the chip (underneath its heatsink no doubt) or has some tech tool which states actual chip ID, that would help.

Everymac references "P7350" for the 2.0 and "P8400" for the 2.26 GHz (which is what this Wikipedia article currently lists, but without a footnote link.) <http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/stats/mac-mini-core-2-duo-2.0-early-2009-nvidia-specs.html>

I just have some doubts that the 3/2009 Mini would use a new, early 2009 CPU for its standard 2.0GHz configuration, but would then stick in a July 2008 chip for the 2.26 GHz 'upgrade'.

Apple of course does not actually say... :p <http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html> and <http://support.apple.com/kb/SP505> I also went online for a chat session with one of their pre-sales reps, who said that Apple does not release specific chip identifications, except for the Nehalem Pro line... guess you only find out those details if you are willing to spend $2500 and up ... :P :P

So for now this is an edit place marker, as I have no changes to make until I can nail down some further actual reference on the the various chip model IDs. 

04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginnersview (talk • contribs)

post script: i was using the four tildes but all it did was put time and date, and did not put my ID. thus, I manually add in that author is "beginnersview" 

04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginnersview (talk • contribs)

Apple modem

I no longer see the USB modem listed in the Apple store or as an option on the mini spec page. Is there any confirmation that it is gone? Saulinpa (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support for _Burning_ 4.7 vrs. 8.5 GB DVDs

We own a "Macmini2,1" (Mid-2007) and use a "Macmini1,1" (2006). It _SEEMS_ that they both can read AND write 4.7GB DVDs, but they can only READ the 8.5GB DVDs.

I'm told that the more recent version that has two video ports in the back IS able to write to the 8.5GB DVDs.

Can anybody confirm this, and add it to the specifications chart?
LP-mn (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is true?

I came here to learn about this computer and don't know the answer, but either way this edit seems problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_Mini&diff=368215094&oldid=368214487 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.198.13 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apple just introduced a new version of the mini with an internal power supply, among other features. It may take a while for the article to be fully updated. --agr (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The new model has an internal power supply.Mattnad (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good review that we might be able to use in the article. Airplaneman ✈ 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The new Model has an SDXC slot not an SD slot as incorrectly listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.30.94 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it not SDHC? Airplaneman ✈ 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac Mini → Mac mini — What is the point of having the article at the wrong name? "Common sense over anything else" seems to apply here... —monopending changes begin june 15 01:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support – I always wondered why… Airplaneman ✈ 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), we use "the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." As a proper noun, "Mac Mini" is standard English. We note Apple's nonstandard preference in the lead. —David Levy 01:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. David Levy is exactly right; the name of a product is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Corporations may bend the rules of English to help distinguish their brand, but there is no reason everyone else has to go along with it. Fletcher (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why separate section for unibody?

I understand that Power-PC and Intel versions get their own sections. But why a separate section for unibody? Especially for the spec table - this makes it very hard to compare specs to the previous model. I propose putting the specs for the mid-2010 update in the next column after the October-2009 model. If no-one objects, I'll try to make the changes. Ebohman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Take a look at this version here [5]. It contained the intel specs including the unibody in one table. It's getting crowded and as apple updates the new line, it will get worse. I didn't create a new section, but I see value in the break from the older intel line. The unibody is a significant evolution, just as the intel processors were. I believe there's a major shift by Apple in acknowledging the home theater application which will lend itself to further developments as they exploit that HDMI connection. But in the end, it's easier on the eyes this way even if it makes it a little more difficult to compare with older verisons (which we also did with G4 vs. Intel).Mattnad (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we optimize the article for what people will use it for today? Down the line, it might make sense to split the spec table if it gets too busy, but I see no good reason to do it today - comparisons with the previous version is a much more likely scenario for Wikipedia users. And as to you argument for the new section: Moving from Power PC to Intel was a major architecture change, but a new enclosure is not a major evolution for this product, and was certainly not the enabler for HDMI, MT 320, etc. So I propose to do what's best for today, and maybe split the spec table back out -if needed- in the future when the next model comes out. Ebohman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
I can live with that. Wikipedia is a living document after all.Mattnad (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Component output is not supported easily from DVI

I have been investigating output to a Component capable TV and it appears that component signals are not provided through the DVI adapter.[1] e.g. "as the Mac Mini more than likely doesnt output the "sync-on-green" needed for the component output." [2]

Therefore I propose to remove the reference to component as this is misleading. Roughana (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://sewelldirect.com/DVI-to-Component-Adapter-Cable-6ft.asp
  2. ^ http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7783817

Naming conventions

This article inconsistently uses "Mac Mini" and "Mac mini". The article name has title case letters, as does the subject in the lead. All references to the name within the article should match the article title, so they should either change back to calling it "Mac Mini" in the article, or another move request to "Mac mini" should be initiated. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I recall some discussion around this, but I forgot what the consensus was. Apple calls it a "Mac mini" but that's not necessarily writing style. The NYTimes uses caps "Mac Mini" which tends to suggest that we do the same from a style POV.Mattnad (talk)
I agree, but I certainly am not going to change the article text. No way I'm getting into an edit war. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit war with whom? I don't think anyone cares one way or the other given the article uses both capitalization schemes.Mattnad (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the article history, one user changed all the instances to lowercase. I reverted, in part because changing all the refs broke some pictures, but another user just fixed the picture links and reverted it back to lowercase. I've already engaged in a back-and-forth regarding the articles use of colspan. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I left the refs alone, and focused only on the text. Done. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks a lot! --Jtalledo (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Correct. We do NOT use branded versions of the English language except in the lede explaining the use of branded/stylised version, and in cites where the media use branded version. All other text should use uppercase "Mini". Yet again I've had to clear through the document fixing this, re-adding the lede stylisation note. Jimthing (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Mac mini.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mac mini.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mac Mini Unibody specification TODO list

TODO list for Mac Mini Late 2012:

  • ref. to Apple Tech spec. Apple Tech spec.
  • Machine model
  • Model number (??)
  • CPU model for MD388LL/A and MD389LL/A (probably 3610QM or 3615QM
  • Memory (probably allow unoffically upgrade to 32 GB)
  • Noise level

TODO list for Mac Mini Unibody:

  • confirm IR Receiver (Peripheral connections)
  • check Greenhouse gas emissions for server

Link: Mac Mini Unibody specifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.207.233 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Memory discrepancy of either Mid 2007 or Early 2009 ?

I remember that one of the above two models was originally listed as having a Memory capacity that was something like 2 GB Supported by Apple and 4 GB NOT supported by Apple ("with only 3 GB addressable").

I now see that the 3.1 or 3.3 GB reference has been deleted or changed.
Can anyone explain this situation?
LP-mn (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s.:
I did find this relevant link: http://forums.macnn.com/t/348828/4-gb-ram-in-mac-mini-core-2-duo.
LP-mn (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Optical drive misinformation

Article says in intro: Before the mid-2011 revision, all models, except the mid-2010 server model, came with an internal optical disc drive. That is false, the MC408xx/A model (late 2009) also didn't have an optical drive[1].

References

  1. ^ http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3476

Dalvii (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are. Mattnad (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Supported Operating Systems

Hi. I have a Mid 2007 Mac Mini, it will not support Maveriks as the article states. The highest OS it can use is Lion. The table needs to be changed to reflect this. This article will provide a source - http://apple-history.com/mac_mini_mid_07 --JetBlast (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Currency

This article about Mac Mini is well out of date and would be best updated ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.227.114 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYI (sic) portion

There is a section for "DYI" (sic) upgrades on the Mac mini which I have removed. This really doesn't belong in this article as it states information that is readily available elsewhere. If these were upgrades which were specific to the Mac mini I could see the point, but realistically all upgradeable components referenced (RAM, HD) are standard upgrades for a plethora of hardware platforms, so this section adds no value. tendim 03:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tendim: You're absolutely right. It doesn't belong in any article. WP:NOTMANUAL WP:NOTGUIDE WP:NOTHOWTO WP:TRIVIA — Smuckola(talk) 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

USB on Intel Mac Mini

This paragraph appears in the Intel Mac Mini section. "The Mac Mini 2009 model gave access to 3 different USB busses on the back. Port 2 shares a USB bus with the IR connection. Ports 1+5 and 3+4 are each on their own USB bus. So it should be possible to get a throughput of 3x480=1440 Mbit/s."

On my Early 2009 model, System Profiler shows four buses, two USB1 and two USB2. There are five USB ports on the back. It appears that the ports are not physically connected to the buses, but are switched to an appropriate bus depending on whether they are operating at USB1 or USB2 speed.

I am new to editing Wikipedia. The paragraph has no attribution so I am not sure where the information came from. My own experiments show it is incomplete in terms of ports to buses, and incorrect in terms of the number of buses and throughput. Should I replace the paragraph with the paragraphs below? How do I cite this information based on experiment rather than some other published source?

The Mac Mini Early 2009 model has four buses, two USB1 and two USB2. Ports are switched to an appropriate bus depending on whether the device plugged in to a port is operating at USB1 or USB2 speeds. Bus 1 is shared with Bluetooth. Bus 2 is shared with the IN receiver.

If ports 1, 2 or 5 are operating at USB1 speed, they will connect to bus 2. If ports 3 or 4 are operating at USB1 speed, they will connect to bus 1.

If ports 1, 2 or 5 are operating at USB2 speed, they will connect to bus 4. If ports 3 or 4 are operating at USB2 speed, they will connect to bus 3.

--Davidmorr (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, since the info in question has no attribution and is in question, usually such uncited passages are either deleted or tagged with {{cn}}. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mac Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move Retina Display to Retina display, and consensus not to move the other articles to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

– While WP:MOSTM is cited in the previous move discussion for Mac Mini, with the argument that the article title shouldn't bend to Apple's marketing, WP:MOSCAPS notes that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization", and that proper nouns are "capitalized in accordance with standard usage". "Mini" is arguably descriptive in the article titles (and "display" is clearly descriptive as well). Reliable sources use both "Mac Mini" (Engadget, CNet, Business Insider) and "Mac mini" (ZDNet, 9to5Mac, Ars Technica, PCMag). Results are similarly split for the iPad mini/Mini and Retina display/Display. I would also support moving Retina Display to Retina (brand name) or similar.

I have chosen not to include the iPod articles (classic, shuffle, touch, nano, mini, and respective articles for product generations), since "shuffle" and "touch" (marketed lowercase) are not adjectives and could arguably be capitalized as "Air" and "Pro" (marketed capitalized). However, if the seven articles listed above are moved it would probably make sense to move some or all of the iPod articles as well. Jc86035 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support move to Retina display, oppose all others. The "mini" moves would be blatant violations of MOSTM, as those are pure stylizations. Your argument that they may be descriptive is flawed, as English grammar simply doesn't work that way. However, the specific case of "Retina display" can be parsed as "display with the brand name Retina" in a descriptive manner. ONR (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all – Thanks for doing such a great job working out the details, Jc86035! That's more than I could have gotten done. Also, as a side note, I did read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks (WP:MOSTM). ← Look! A shortcut has been spelled out upon first use! This habit might help the newbies get more involved, y'know? Just an opinion. Suggestion. Suggestipinion. Thanks! —Geekdiva (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Geekdiva: I generally use the full links on new users' talk pages, on the occasions that that happens but I tend to use the abbreviated forms otherwise (if linking to the guideline itself). I might use Module:Redirect on abbreviations, if it does help new users. Jc86035 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to Retina display, oppose all others per argument by Jc86035. I would also argue that "mini" is not an adjective, it's just the brand name that Apple decided to go with, it isn't necessarily descriptive. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to Retina display, oppose all others we should use standard title-case for products, which is Mac Mini. For Retina Display, the title-case term is "Retina" and display is a descriptor. "Mini" is not a descriptor; specifically, it's not short for minicomputer (a word not commonly in use after the 1980s). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support move to Retina display, oppose all others as explained by the others above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Mac Mini

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mac Mini's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "spec":

  • From USB 3.0: "Universal Serial Bus Revision 3.0 Specification". Retrieved 2014-05-19.
  • From AirPlay: Donenfeld, Jason A. "AirTunes 2 Protocol". ZX2C4. Retrieved April 11, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Audio Out Jack

In the article tables, the audio output is just listed as mini-jack. This is incorrect for many models. At least in the Early 2009, through the 2014 models, the audio output, like the input, was dual purpose: analog mini-jack and Optical SPDIF. I wouldn't be surprised if earlier models also had the digital audio out, but Apple no longer has their specs here https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT201894. Unfortunately they dropped the digital output on the 2018 model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.176.221 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

According to https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/index-macmini.html, the SPDIF came in with the Intel minis. The G4 did not have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.176.221 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Processor-based split

With processor change announced should be split, e.g. iMac (Intel-based). This is already the only Mac article with multiple processor types (PowerPC/Intel) condensed to one page. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I like how it is right now with all related info in one page. A different processor doesn't make it a different machine. Clicklander (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Clicklander. Unlike all the other Mac models, the Mac mini has remained fairly similar over the years. There is a single continuity between the models. Have each design change be a different heading Cooluncle55 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The Mac mini page should be split into 3 separate pages, 1 for the G4 mini, 1 for the Intel Mini, and 1 for the Apple Designed Processor mini. This pattern better reflects the other Macintosh products like the iMac (Intel-based). Implementing a consistent pattern for these apple products should increase usability and make each page more succinct. Furthermore, while these different machines may appear similar on the exterior, they are vastly different on a technical and internal level meaning separate pages make more sense than forcing them together. Squirrel8296 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Squirrel8296
It is all still the same product with different iterations, and Apple never marketed the machines as a separate product Jspace727 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Since the operating system was/is also a hybrid and worked on both architectures (e.g. Tiger and Leopard ran on PowerPC and Intel, likewise Big Sur will run on Intel and ARM) it seems to me that the CPU architecture isn't the main differentiator. I would also suggest to get rid of the "generations" (which lack a WP:VD and seem, to me at least, to fall into WP:NOR) and instead separate, within this article, by model numbers. The result would be A1103 (PowerPC), A1176 (Intel, 32 bit), A1283 (Intel 64 bit), A1347 (Unibody) and A1993 (space gray unibody, T2 chip), as well as the coming ARM model number. As for the structure of this article, I would suggest to put the current model to the top, and list all previous models below ("model history"). It's what I did in the german wikipedia (de:Mac mini) ‣Andreas•⚖ 23:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: I agree with the approach of Andreas for a new structure. However, I personally do not see any issue with the term "generations". I think this way is easier for the reader to differentiate the different models rather than by model numbers. Clicklander (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: Well, I see how it is convenient, but introducing "generations" without a reliable source still is own research. It is especially misleading since different sources state different generations, even though most of them use the change of exterior design and/or CPU as the mark of a new generation. Doesn't make it better though. Look at Apple's pages: iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs have generations. The first Apple Watch is referred by Apple as 1st generation, but Series is the correct term further on. Macs, like e.g. MacBooks, have models – not generations, not series. This is for example also correctly reflected by everymac.com, where you will not find "generations" for Macs. Everywhere else, people use anything for "generation", like the Mac Pro with three generations here in the Wikipedia and on the Internet, e.g. here and here, but different ones e.g. here and here. This was going to happen when there is no clear definition of what a Mac "generation" is... ‣Andreas•⚖ 09:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: I don't really see the term "generation" as an official name rather than as a verbal expression. E.g. "1st generation" = the first mac mini model to be released. Clicklander (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: Ok, then the PowerMac10,1 and PowerMac10,2 would be the 1st? And the Macmini1,1 would be the 2nd up to the current Macmini8,1 the 9th, right? ‣Andreas•⚖ 11:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: It doesn't have to follow the same pattern for every Apple product, as said it is a verbal expression not an official name (at least for the mac mini). You can split generations either per model identifier or per model number.Clicklander (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: I agree, one could use generation as a verbal expression. I also agree to use an existing scheme like model number or model ID. The problem is that the article currently does neither. ‣Andreas•⚖ 12:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: The article currently defines generations according to the processor family and the external design. It doesn't look bad to me but I am not sure if this is the best way to split models in the timeline. In any case the objective should be such that the article is easy to read and not creating confusion. --Clicklander (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: It doesn't look bad to me either, I just think it's own research. I would split it according to model numbers, and use the term "generation" only in such a manner as to refer to "the previous" or "the next generation". But, as you point out, IMHO the foremost task would be to get the current model to the beginning of this article, and move previous ones down into something like a "model history" section. Anything concerning not the current model or the history in general should also be moved down, but I don't think it would be wise to split the article into three, based on CPU. ‣Andreas•⚖ 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: I agree with your overall approach.--Clicklander (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Computer case

Should we describe the Mac Mini as a computer case? What fits the definition of a computer case? 2605:6000:1526:450B:61DC:EB1F:A61C:2417 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the article be split?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not split per snowball clause 17jiangz1 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Silicon Mac Mini has created a third architecture with the 5th generation. With high certainty we can say there will be a redesign in the future, although nobody can say when. I propose splitting the article between PowerPC, Intel, and silicon macs. With the exception of Xserve, the rest of the lineup has separate articles for the PowerPC and Intel, so why not the Mac Mini? With Xserve I can understand its combined article as it didn't have that long of a lifespan compared to the remainder of the lineup, but why not the Mac Mini then? Subscribe to me (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose While Apple Inc. has announced their new Mac Mini, the new articles would seem to be quite short as they are mostly the same except a processor difference. We should just improve on this article instead. SoloGaming (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Well so are the articles for the iMac G5 and many of the pre-1998 Macs. Besides, this Apple Silicon article would get longer as time goes on. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per OptXSolo, but also for consistency with other Mac articles. --17jiangz1 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose split by architecture for reasons stated above. I could support a split by hardware design, i.e. white plastic (gen 1&2) and aluminum (gen 3+). BLAIXX 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    • None of the other Macs do that though. Under that argument the Aluminum PowerBook G4 and first generation MacBook Pro should have the same article while the Titanium G4 and other generations of MacBook Pro should have their own. Same would apply to the iMac G5/first generation Intel and the PowerMac G5/first generation Mac Pro. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You are misunderstanding my argument. If we choose to split an article, we should choose an intuitive spot to do so. For all of your examples listed, the product changed name making it an obvious point to start a new article. It's true that none of Apple's current computer names are split into multiple articles, however as the history grows, one of the pages has to be first! BLAIXX 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The product name is the same. Splitting it up just creates confusion. --Resplendent (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose

I suggest that the article NOT be split, if what you mean is to create a separate wiki page for each generation. If you mean creating visual sections on this page, that is ok, but splitting to new pages is not good.

The vast majority of people will not know or perceive obviously that there are links to the detailed separate pages. Many people may not even know about the history of Mac Mini generations to know to follow through to a certain generation's page link. Most people will look for the information on this page, and fail to find the content they are looking for unless it is very clearly called out visually as needing to follow a link. Providing some preview of the full information here (specifically, the spec tables) could visually guide people to know that more is available, if a separate but additional page is desired. See as an example the iMac page, where it fails to show people that there is an Intel version of that model line that has its own page. The iMac page lacks the detailed tables people may be looking for, and unless you know to look at the Intel page, you will leave without finding the info desired.

The master page for a major product line should contain as much information as possible, and if needed to be split, only be done so in addition to the info on the main page, with prominent visual linking so the reader knows there is more detail. Supernova87a (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)supernova87a

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition to "Should the article be split?"

It would have been better if I had known this while the discussion was going on, but there is a proposal to split either the MacBook Pro or MacBook Air article based on the size. WP:TOOBIG says an article should be split of it is over 100 kB, and this article is 102 kB. The article would go under 100 kB if we split it into 3 based on the architecture. Subscribe to me (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Split Mac Mini#Specifications into Specifications of Mac Mini. The Specifications section is over-detailed, considered splitting it into a separate article.. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    I support this idea, with a rename as List of Mac Mini models or similar. The section head of "Specifications" is far from the most appropriate title, even if left in place. — HTGS (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    So proceed as List of Mac Mini models? There's an overwhelming amounts of information here. @HTGS Wingwatchers (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, you have my support on that split 👍 — HTGS (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Too many opinions about the article at the moment, and too many conversations. Merge, Split, GaC. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Philoserf, I really can’t track your comment. Can you maybe explain what you mean for those of us who aren’t as familiar with the issues as you? — HTGS (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: It will help differentiate the differentiate models. Angelgreat (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose split to Specifications of Mac Mini. Would support splitting into different models, like a main article for Mac Mini, and articles for G4, Intel-based, and Apple silicon. (How MacBook Air is split). The current way the article is set up with a separate article for specs is a mess. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    How was it a mess? It is more organized. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I have to go to a separate page and hunt down the model I was looking at to remember how fast its RAM was or how many ports it had. Putting the table under the model is corresponds to, e.g. in MacBook Pro, makes more sense. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    The MacBook Air is confusingly split, and I think the better solution for that set of articles would be similar to this, with spec tables split off, and a main article that’s more encyclopedic. People don’t think of the Intel models as conceptually distinct from the M1 model. But that’s a different issue. Either way it isn’t necessary here; the Mac mini is clearly one single topic. — HTGS (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    It's pretty normal. The different types of processors are what make them worthy of being split in the first place. We did that with the iMac, Power Mac, and PowerBook. And more recently we've done that with that the MacBook Air. And while the differences are not particularly big between the Intel and Apple Silicon Models right now, they will grow in the future. We also agreed many years ago to keep the specs in the same article. No other mac has it that way. In the future, the Mac Mini will get redesigned and reinvented just like the MacBook Pro is right now with a fundamentally different model, and the iMac would be a nightmare all in one article. Overall, we have a system to use that's been well established. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don’t speculate on how the computer might be redesigned in future, we write how the current state of things are.
    For the closest comparison to the Mac mini check the Mac Pro page, which is divided by generation, not by processor. The processor may be the most important thing to some readers, but it doesn’t create the clearest division in this case. The new iMac is fundamentally a different machine on many levels, and so it makes sense to split at this point, but the mini has only really changed in one way for most consumers.
    And honestly the spec sheet is a huge eyesore and takes up tonnes of space for readers who don’t need massive amounts of technical data; it would be just as useful as a list article. — HTGS (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    So. 1. It is true rumors do not count as reliable enough resources for Wikipedia, but we know another Apple Silicon Mac Mini is in the works as they have announced that their entire lineup is being given them, which the Mac mini hasn't bee completed with
    2. The two articles are not similar at all. Mac Pro has specs integrated into like all other Macs and has only had it's name on Intel, while the Mac Mini has existed on PowerPC, Intel, and Apple Silicon, like the iMac. The iMac has been subdivided with two layers of generations, first by processor, and second by design. The first layer has 5 generations (G3, G4, G5, Intel, Apple silicon) while the second has at least 10 (tray loding G3, slot loading G3, G4, G5, original Intel (which is not much of a redesign over it's immediate predecessor), aluminum Intel, unibody Intel, slim unibody Intel, retina Intel, and (so far) first generation Apple Silicon). On the Intel iMac article they number the generations within the larger set. So far, the MacBook Pro is the only one to have more than one generation of Apple Silicon. I would call the 13-inch the first generation Apple Silicon, and the 14 and 16-inch the second generation. We should at least be prepared for the future.
    3.We can just make them collapsible if people don't want to see them. This is what the MacBook Pro and Intel iMac do so it's not unproven. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_Mini/Archive_1&oldid=1184380145"