7 Replies Latest reply: Sep 22, 2012 9:44 PM by creasyj
cathy fasano Level 2 (340 points)

I'm looking at the mac mini configurations, and comparing with iMac configurations.  I'm trying to argue we should go the mini route.  I want this to be true for a couple of reasons:

  1. The users are doing page layout or are artists.  It's really nice for them to have a BIG screen, but it would be nice to be able to get nice screens and then not replace them as frequently as we replace cpus.
  2. Machines get "handed down" from users who need lots of cpu and memory to users who don't need that so much.  Those users might not need all that screen real estate, either, so in the computer "musical chairs" it would make more sense for people to keep the monitor that fits their work needs.
  3. Eventually machines end up running serverish tasks back here in the computer room.  (We have a collection of junk back here and it's awesome how well it works.  We just retired our last G3 tower a few weeks ago, and we've got lots of old G4s and G5s, too.)  Cast-off minis are great for us -- just stack them up and plug them into a kvm switch.  Towers are fine, too.  But a bunch of 20" or 21.5" iMacs?  Yikes!


But looking at the minis, they appear to be underpowered next to the iMacs.  The mid-price mini can be ordered with an i7 but it's only dual core not quad.  The GHz on the cpus is lower.  Is there something I'm missing here?  (Like stuffing memory into the machine is more important than the cpu, or that the extra cores aren't going to do any good for my users running InDesign...)


So, help me out here -- how do I justify the mini?  It just doesn't seem to have quite the same horsepower as what should be an "equivalent" iMac, at least on paper.