#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS ANDROID#
#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS MAC#
#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS WINDOWS#

#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS WINDOWS#

The most recent and obvious example of this is Pandora for Windows Phone 8, for which Microsoft provided both development and financial support.

With Windows Phone, Microsoft has engaged in artificial platform growth by paying developers to release apps for a system they would not normally adopt due to low sales. The result, as I noted in Microsoft and the Follower’s Dilemma is that these platforms may literally have come to market too late to make a difference, much as it was with the Zune’s release in 2006 (five long years after the iPod and three years after iTunes for Windows). The iPad triggered a new market for tablet computing in early 2010, and Microsoft followed up with Windows 8/RT in late 2012. The iPhone launched the modern smart phone market in 2007, and Microsoft released Windows Phone in late 2010. Perceived as a laggard, Microsoft is (re)entering the markets for mobile devices-smart phones and tablets, primarily-years after the fact. (And while I know I’ll inevitably hear from some developers who wish to defend these tools, I’m going to have to chalk up those opinions to a tech version of the Stockholm syndrome.) The results speak for themselves, and what we see is a virtuous cycle: More users equates to more developers. Not that it matters: As these platforms have raced ahead, developers have adopted the tools en masse out of necessity and have immersed themselves in their weirdness and idiosyncrasies.

#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS ANDROID#

But the core advantages of the developer platform remain, and on Windows 8/RT in particular, where WinRT supports a variety of programming models, the amount of choice is laudable.īy comparison, the Android and iOS developer platforms are a mess. Rather than base the Windows 8/RT developer APIs on the Silverlight/XNA platform it created for Windows Phone, Microsoft went in a completely different direction, and then it moved Windows Phone 8 over to a variant of this new system, called the Windows Runtime. Since then, of course, there have been a few major changes. One of the most exasperating aspects to this is that the developer environment, SDK and APIs, and designer tools are all amazing, and they have been since the initial release of Windows Phone in 2010. If Microsoft can’t organically grow its new platforms, the future is already decided. Today, that’s no longer a given, and while some believe this to be a recent phenomenon, the truth is, this issue dates back to the Longhorn debacle of a decade ago. In the good old days, Microsoft would deliver a platform and developers would race to support it. And this artificial platform growth may be the most telling sign yet that the OS is in trouble.

#MAC MINI MID 2010 SPECS MAC#

If you’re considering whether to buy the entry-level or the higher-end model, our Speedmark 8 results show that the $799 model was 25 percent faster overall, with the biggest gains being in MathematicaMark and Cinebench CPU, which were 78 percent and 53 percent faster, respectively, than the new $599 Mac mini.Windows 8 is following down yet another path first blazed by Windows Phone: With developers ignoring the platform in favor of well-entrenched competitors, Microsoft is forced to pay for apps. On the other hand, the previous high-end model, with its discreet AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphics, was faster on GPU-intensive tests, like Portal 2 (9 percent more frames per second) and Cinebench OpenGL (24 percent more frames per second). MathematicaMark was 78 percent faster on the new system, Cinebench CPU tests took 53 percent less time to complete, and HandBrake was 24 percent faster than the old model. The older system took nearly three times as long to complete our Photoshop action script.Īs you’d expect, processor-intensive tests that can use all four cores (and eight virtual cores, thanks to the Core i7’s Hyper Threading technology) showed the new high-end Mac mini to be much faster than the 2011 high-end Mac mini with a dual-core 2.5GHz Core i5 processor.

The 2012 Mac mini was 68 percent faster and finished the Cinebench CPU test in half the time of the 2010 model. We also looked at the performance differences between the new low-end model and a mid-2010 entry-level Mac mini with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo processor. The new Intel HD Graphics 4000 helped the 2012 low-end Mac mini beat last year’s system by 60 percent in the Cinebench OpenGL test and by 27 percent in Portal 2. In our testing, we found the new $599 Mac mini to be 31 percent faster overall than its predecessor.

Mac mini mid 2010 specs