Lowest Price

: 769

Brand

: Apple

Model

: MC239LL/A

Reviewer: Jesse B.| Date:2009-11-23

Background: I'm a freelance web designer and developer, as well as a musician. I primarily use apps for graphic (both vector and raster) design, coding, testing websites, and notating music.

After debating whether I should get a Macbook Pro, Mac Mini, or iMac, I decided on the Mac Mini for a few reasons:

+ It is extremely compact, taking up very little desk space. I also like the fact that it has 5 USB ports, eliminating the need for a hub.

+ It has the same specs as the higher end 13" Macbook Pro, for quite a lot less money (minus the portability, of course).

+ Although I like the idea of iMac's all-in-one design and simplicity, I don't like the idea of my computer's components being tied in with my monitor. Even with the advent of Display port on the new iMacs, I don't know if the iMac's display would still function if the other components died. The Mini isn't tied to any particular display, which I like.

+ The cheaper price (compared to the iMac and Macbook Pro) allowed me to have more money to spend on some apps that I needed.

As part of a goal to simplify my life, the Mini fits the bill perfectly. It is nice looking, runs quietly (although it isn't completely silent), and keeps my desk clean.

I also like the world of Mac apps much better than Windows. It seems like Mac developers have much more creativity and aren't afraid to try new, different approaches to things. And I really like some of the OS X features like Stacks, Time Machine, Dashboard, etc. It all seems very intuitive and simple (unlike most things PC). And for development, having access to the Terminal is indispensable. I've also managed to get Internet Explorer 6 running (using WineBottler) without having to resort to Boot Camp or a virtual machine, which is convenient for testing my websites.

As far as performance goes, the Mini is very quick indeed. Despite the slow hard drive speed (5400 rpm), booting and loading apps is very fast. It also performs very well on CPU-intensive tasks like encoding music or videos. I have yet to tax the graphics card in any way, but I imagine that it will perform decently.

The Mini is a great little machine that is perfect for my needs. I can't imagine ever needing a full desktop again after using one of these.

Review from Review from Amazon

Reviewer: Vox Locus| Date:2009-11-17

I have lots of Mac computers, both the ones I am in charge of at work, and my own at home.

This 2.53ghz Mac Mini is my desktop at work, pushing to the side a MacBook Pro 15" 2.2 ghz

Why?

I was using the MacBook Pro mostly as a desktop, driving a 24" monitor, and using the 15" MBP as the secondary monitor.

I do a lot of spreadsheet work, and decided the Mac Mini's ability to drive two 24" monitors simultaneously would be a big help.

And it sure is.

I'm now running a Dell LED 24" and an HP that offers pivot for when I need to view all of a really long document.

I am very happy with the purchase. Even tho the Mini sits about 2 feet from my ears, I can't hear it run.

Review from Review from Amazon

Reviewer: Glenn R. Howes| Date:2009-11-05

First of all my credentials, I have been writing Mac software since 1992. I've had on my various desks a Mac Plus, Performa 605, PowerBook 100, several iBooks, PowerBook G4s, MacBook, PowerMacs 7600, 8100, G3, G4 and G5, a couple recent generation iMacs and a previous generation Mac Mini. I have seen Macs come and go, and I just love this little desktop. It is exactly what I need for compiling a large desktop application using Apple's development tools. What I need is a reasonably fast processor, Firewire, 4GB of RAM and multiple monitor support. I do not need a huge box filled with disks. I do not need some super fast GPU. I do not need PCI cards. If I did, then yeah, a Mac Pro would be sitting under my desk sucking up the Watts.

My company has also provided me with a monstrous, fully loaded, Dell whose case could hold upwards of 30 Mac Mini's. In the one processor intensive task I do--doing a full rebuild of a large C++ application--the Xenon processor and desktop hard drives in the Dell can complete the task in 6 minutes while the Core 2 Duo processor and laptop drives in the Mini can do the task in 13 minutes. If I were doing that task many times a day (as opposed to several times a week) then I would need to move up to a high end iMac or Mac Pro; but I don't and I can live with the more typical single change, compile, link time of 14 seconds on the Mini versus a very erratic 6 seconds on the Dell (for whatever reason Visual Studio on the PC will sometimes take over a minute to do this).

Why is this Mac Mini a better value then the MC238LL/A at the lower price? Because it adds more RAM, a larger hard drive, and a slightly faster CPU, and I don't have to pop it open to max it out. All three things together make it worth the extra dough. If you are just going to use it for a home theatre PC, as many people do, then added expense is probably not worth it and you should go with the lesser model.

Why would you choose this over a current generation iMac? The iMacs are great machines, and can be ordered as quite the powerhouses with i5 or i7 processors, and with desktop level graphics engines, but they might be overkill and in the long run it may not make sense to be ordering machines where you can't reuse the previous machine's monitor. If you have a monitor already, the Mini will be several hundred dollars cheaper. Also, if the monitor has multiple inputs, the Mini bought today can be retired as a home server in a couple years with the Mini of the future stacked upon it sharing the same monitor. While the newest iMacs do allow there use as an external Display Port monitor, its still a bit inflexible tying the computer to the display. Having said this, I like the iMac too, and if you need a monitor and have the room, it may be the way to go.

Why is this Mac Mini much better than previous Mac Minis? The Mini has had several value adding changes over the last couple years: going from PowerPC to Intel, adding multiple monitor support, adding FireWire 800 support, and getting a decent GPU in the NVidia 9400M. This is a real computer. Not some dinky Ion laptop. It can do computationally intensive things, like in my case compiling hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ code. And yet it is tiny, and quiet.

So, yeah, I like this box.

What about the nearly as compact Dell Inspiron Zino HD? Well presumably you would buy the Mini because it is a Mac. The Zino is certainly cheaper, and is a valid competitor if you were setting up a home theatre PC, and could use the slightly better video card and Blueray option. If I were buying a Mini just to run Windows Media Center, I'd certainly be open to getting a Zino. I don't see an overlap between the uses of this non-home theatre Mini and the more multimedia centric Zino. I think you will find the Mini better made and faster at processor intensive operations: and it's definitely smaller.

Anyway, installation could hardly be simpler. Pop it out of the box, plug in a keyboard and mouse. It comes with a mini-DVI to DVI adaptor which will connect to any modern monitor, and you can get a mini-Display Port adaptor separately to add multiple monitor support. Power it up and you will soon be computing. It's nice, fast and quiet. Plenty of USB ports (5). Add up whatever peripherals you need: speakers, external hard drives (look at getting drives with Firewire 800, they are much faster and reliable than USB 2.0).

My wife has an older Mac Mini which she runs Windows Vista in Boot Camp mode and has done so without problem for over a year. I would think this Mini would be even better as a Windows 7 box with the much improved graphics chips allowing for better use of the Aero interface.

Review from Review from Amazon

Reviewer: Paul C. Huang| Date:2009-10-31

The previous dual-display-support Mac mini was introduced on 3/3/09. It's been just half year and it is updated already. Considering that the previous model are essentially identical (2.0GHz) and the 2.25GHz 'custom made' model was a $200 option, this is a nice upgrade. With the previous version, the value was in the entry-level model ($599), because the $799 model packs in useless 1GB x 2 and 320GB hard drive, which is practically worthless nowadays, it made sense to buy the entry model and put in the RAM and hard drive.

Now the differences are:

160GB vs 320GB
2GB (1GB x 2) vs 4GB (2GB x 2)
processor is 2.53 vs. 2.25GHz

160GB is all over my floor anyway, so it's valued at $0.
320GB should be valued at $60

2GB (1GB x 2) = $0, because 1GB modules are all over the floor and worthless.
4GB (2GB x 2) = $80 and on the rise.

When the actual price difference of $200 and the value difference of $140 tossed into the washer, $60 come out of the wash.

This means the 2.53GHz vs 2.25GHz difference is valued at $60. As the added speed is translated into productivity, this $60 difference is well worth it.

Review from Review from Amazon