Thread
Use for an LC520?
Hi all, I'm in posession of a Mac LC520 All in One. I've removed the floppy drive, as it leaves a nice ring around any floppy discs I put in it. Other than that, I've upgraded the Ram to 36Mb, put in a new Clock battery (don't worry its a Purple Tadiran Battery Made in Israel, not a Maxtor) and upgraded to a 1GB Hard Drive. It currently has 7.6.1 Installed.
The problem is that now... I've done all this... but I realize... I don't know what to do with the machine! It's been sitting here for the past few months, and I'd like to see if I could put it to some good use, rather than have it just sit there. Does anybody know of any Practical use for a 68k Machine Like this?
Thanks ahead of time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, I've also installed an Ethernet Card into the machine
The problem is that now... I've done all this... but I realize... I don't know what to do with the machine! It's been sitting here for the past few months, and I'd like to see if I could put it to some good use, rather than have it just sit there. Does anybody know of any Practical use for a 68k Machine Like this?
Thanks ahead of time.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, I've also installed an Ethernet Card into the machine
Word Process
Spread Sheets
Netwroking:
IRC
FTP
WWW
Email
Picture Viewing
CD Playing
should be able to play MP3's
Vintage Games, From the Macintosh Garden.
Other Vintage Apps / Educational
Another Mac To add to the collection ?
Salon Care #40 Candidate?
Pop FPU in and install A/UX
Spread Sheets
Netwroking:
IRC
FTP
WWW
Picture Viewing
CD Playing
should be able to play MP3's
Vintage Games, From the Macintosh Garden.
Other Vintage Apps / Educational
Another Mac To add to the collection ?
Salon Care #40 Candidate?
Pop FPU in and install A/UX
it wont play MP3s that are in todays standard format 128k 44.1khz stereo+ I could barely get a quadra700 to play MP3s back in the day unless they were recompressed at a much lower quality. My P1 166Mhz I had stuttered when I would first start up an MP3 but then played perfectly afterwords.
PPCs handled fine though
PPCs handled fine though
Classic games & Claris software suite. Toy with old technologies like Publish and Subscribe while playing around with HyperCard and messing with Prince of Persia...?
A practical use for a computer from 1993 or so is a long stretch. Real work in the ordinary sense of the term is best done on something more recent, but I have used old gear to bridge between old peripherals like localtalk laser printers and OSX machines.
A practical use for a computer from 1993 or so is a long stretch. Real work in the ordinary sense of the term is best done on something more recent, but I have used old gear to bridge between old peripherals like localtalk laser printers and OSX machines.
Prince of Persia, Lemmings, all of the Infocom games, PageMaker, Civ I, Armor Alley (which is multiplayer, btw), bolo (likewise), Shuttlepuck Café, Tetris, SimCity.
I wouldn't put Mac OS 7.6.1 on it, I'd go for System 7.1 with a few extras like SoundManager, ThreadManager, later version of QuickTime if you need it.
I wouldn't put Mac OS 7.6.1 on it, I'd go for System 7.1 with a few extras like SoundManager, ThreadManager, later version of QuickTime if you need it.
not that it matters, i just would like to throw in that i really like the LC520 / LC550 Main-boards, just as i like the LCIII And pretty much all LC-III's will run at 33mhz no problem. -- And to go long with the color classic. Slapping a LC520/LC550 in there, Brings that machine A L I V E! and there is no Mod's, its just a slide in, Pop rear I/O cover back on and run.
And pretty much all LC-III's will run at 33mhz no problem. -- And to go long with the color classic. Slapping a LC520/LC550 in there, Brings that machine A L I V E! and there is no Mod's, its just a slide in, Pop rear I/O cover back on and run.I'd put 7.1 Pro on it and basically do anything you could have done with system 7. There are a lot of good games from that time period, there were some really neat ideas in desktop productivity software (things like publish and subscribe, which beachycove mentioned) plus PowerTalk on 7.1 and 7.5, if you have multiple machines and a localtalk or ethertalk network.
I really wouldn't bother overclocking it, because if you're going to do that, you may as well just grab a 575 board. Putting the board into a Color Classic is an option, but that really depends on if you want the smallest possible system, and want to deal with the lower resolution of the color classic's display.
I really wouldn't bother overclocking it, because if you're going to do that, you may as well just grab a 575 board. Putting the board into a Color Classic is an option, but that really depends on if you want the smallest possible system, and want to deal with the lower resolution of the color classic's display.
No sacrifice. If you have both machines, and (critically) want to run them both at the same time, the 520 will run with the CC board in it. It'll just be big and slow while the CC is small and fast. You can always reverse the process and have big and fast when you want to.
Overclocking a 520 to 33MHz wouldn't make it a 575 (an '040 Mac), it would make it a 550. Still an '030 machine, but silly fast.
Uni - have you got a 128MB SIMM to work in these? If so, an overclocked 520 or 550 with 132MB RAM would be about the coolest pre-Quadra Mac (especially in a 640x480 modded CC). Even at the nominal maximum 36MB RAM, it's a pretty sweet machine.
Overclocking a 520 to 33MHz wouldn't make it a 575 (an '040 Mac), it would make it a 550. Still an '030 machine, but silly fast.
Uni - have you got a 128MB SIMM to work in these? If so, an overclocked 520 or 550 with 132MB RAM would be about the coolest pre-Quadra Mac (especially in a 640x480 modded CC). Even at the nominal maximum 36MB RAM, it's a pretty sweet machine.
i herd a rumor they could accept (some) 64 meg simms, but i do not have any proof to back that up, i'v never first hand seen that. ( just 32 meg )
(LC-III / 520 / 550)
I have a LC520 test machine that i treat like a red-headed step child. Zack sent it to me and it literally busted apart in the shipping, so I used GOOP and glued it all back to gather. I use it to test CC/MacTV/520/550/575 MB's even though its glued together its fully functional! And works out great as a test machine. My test machines are getting beat up anyways, I have a se/30 that just sits on the shelf with out it's back on. its CRT has seen better days. the AB/FLoppy /HD all work great so it works out good as a test machine, Had to tear it down the other day to re-solder on the Speaker wire, it fell off from all the mechanical tensions, Soldered it and gooped it this time
(LC-III / 520 / 550)
I have a LC520 test machine that i treat like a red-headed step child. Zack sent it to me and it literally busted apart in the shipping, so I used GOOP and glued it all back to gather. I use it to test CC/MacTV/520/550/575 MB's even though its glued together its fully functional! And works out great as a test machine. My test machines are getting beat up anyways, I have a se/30 that just sits on the shelf with out it's back on. its CRT has seen better days. the AB/FLoppy /HD all work great so it works out good as a test machine, Had to tear it down the other day to re-solder on the Speaker wire, it fell off from all the mechanical tensions, Soldered it and gooped it this time
I had one of my LC's set up as a headless localtalk<->ethernet bridge, as I could have it stuffed in a shallow shelf of a cupboard, no need to have a keyboard attched to power it up as it was hard power only, and realistically it was too slow to do much more with anyway. Like, yes it was workable, but the LCIII and LC475 took up just as little space and were not hobbled with an '020.
Bunsen: yes. Back in the days of an active CC mod community, people did cut down 5xx boards and stuff them into CCs to avoid the hi-Rez hack. There were a few non trivial circuits and components that had to be moved/patched in order to get it to fit. All in all it wound up being as much work as the various Rez hacks, and crippled another Mac in the process.
Of course, if you're just stuffing Macs into CCs, you could find a 10" 4:3 hi-rez monitor and the most recent Mac mini and have the most powerful CC in the world!
Of course, if you're just stuffing Macs into CCs, you could find a 10" 4:3 hi-rez monitor and the most recent Mac mini and have the most powerful CC in the world!
Well I assume the takky and mystic hacks for the CC were popular because the logic boards could still be purchased from apple, or parts stores. And the fact that the macs were very plentiful at the time.
But nowadays, they are all considered endangered species. So killing one to save another for size/cuteness reasons is kinda well... insane. lol.
But nowadays, they are all considered endangered species. So killing one to save another for size/cuteness reasons is kinda well... insane. lol.
Yeah tacky and mystic hacks to cc these days are insanity, I don't want nothing to do with those. Completely worthless and destructive in my book.
The best you see out of me with a cc is slide a 520 or 550 mb in one and that is all. Other wise bone stock with an apple iie card makes a nice fun little unit.
The best you see out of me with a cc is slide a 520 or 550 mb in one and that is all. Other wise bone stock with an apple iie card makes a nice fun little unit.
my CC has the 550 board. Only because the machine it came out of had a bad CRT.
that would be the only case I would ever swap one over.
One of the audio jacks, and its associated ferrite filter bead had been ripped off. probably from someone tripping over a cord. But aside from that, it works along with the internal sound at least.
that would be the only case I would ever swap one over.
One of the audio jacks, and its associated ferrite filter bead had been ripped off. probably from someone tripping over a cord. But aside from that, it works along with the internal sound at least.
GUYS, Guys, guys . . .
There is only one thing that you can do with an LC520, and it is the same thing that I did with my very first computer -- and LC III -- beginning back in 1993-1994.
And what is that you may wonder? Well, look at my signature.
If you go to that URL, and read everything there, you will soon be inspired to set up your very own Macintosh-based Hermes II BBS, just like me!
Macintosh BBSing lives . . . even if I am the last Macintosh SysOp standing.
There is only one thing that you can do with an LC520, and it is the same thing that I did with my very first computer -- and LC III -- beginning back in 1993-1994.
And what is that you may wonder? Well, look at my signature.
If you go to that URL, and read everything there, you will soon be inspired to set up your very own Macintosh-based Hermes II BBS, just like me!
Macintosh BBSing lives . . . even if I am the last Macintosh SysOp standing.
No, no! You've got that backwards. The mainland USA is like another planet. They've got the walking dead, all kinds of aliens -- at least some people say -- alligators in big city sewers, strange sightings in the sky, and I don't know what else. Not to mention that some of the people there are as crazy as crazy can be!
We's all very sane out here, and we live in real houses too!
We's all very sane out here, and we live in real houses too!
http://www.ebay.com/usr/sparkerm?_trksid=p2047675.l2559
this guy
looks like he is selling a ZOOM 56k modem too!
this guy
looks like he is selling a ZOOM 56k modem too!
I don't know if you've read the Armageddon BBS home page yet, but one thing I mention in there is the "fabulous" speed I acquired back in the modem BBSing days. I started out with a borrowed 300 - 1200 baud Apple modem.
The neat thing is, with the introduction of telnet capabilties in BBS software -- such as in what I use, Hermes II -- we can still enjoy the "good old days" of BBSing without the snail-paced speeds of old modems.
To add to that, with emulators such as Basilisk II and SheepShaver -- I have both set up -- which emulate the Mac Classic environment, you can run your Old School BBS on the latest Macintosh computers, as I do, and it runs very fast. It's very nice indeed.
When I got acquainted with BBS systems, it was on an IBM PS/2 Model 30 286. With a Hayes 2400 baud modem on Telix... This was in early 96 or so, well into the WWW era. Even then BBS lists were still hung up in grocery stores.
I remember though, all I did was download DOS games and utilities. I would never download anything over 1 meg because it took too long.
I ended up catching some sort of dos virus on a BBS I went to, which led to the ultimate demise of my PS/2 as my boot disk was bad.
From then I moved onto a 386 with aol 3 and a 14.4k modem. Slowww web browsing I tell you that much.
I remember though, all I did was download DOS games and utilities. I would never download anything over 1 meg because it took too long.
I ended up catching some sort of dos virus on a BBS I went to, which led to the ultimate demise of my PS/2 as my boot disk was bad.
From then I moved onto a 386 with aol 3 and a 14.4k modem. Slowww web browsing I tell you that much.
Slow, yes, but you say slow from looking at it from a modern perspective.
As I have mentioned before, back then, our "slow" looked "fast" to us, because we had nothing else with which to compare it.
It is only now that we have true high-speed connections that we realize how slow things were back then.
But again, given the technology that was available to the public back then, it was not slow. We just learned to have patience.
Patience today? What's that? :
As I have mentioned before, back then, our "slow" looked "fast" to us, because we had nothing else with which to compare it.
It is only now that we have true high-speed connections that we realize how slow things were back then.
But again, given the technology that was available to the public back then, it was not slow. We just learned to have patience.
Patience today? What's that? :
My friend, ALL business people over-exaggerate and hype up their products. It is a sad world that we live in.
I'll tell you what though: Be thankful for your 3 MB - 11 MB connection. The best I can get on my downstream is 2 MB / sec, and that is only with some connections.
And I can tell you that I am just about certain that I pay a lot more for my connection than you do for yours.
Moral of the story: There is always something to be thankful for.
I'll tell you what though: Be thankful for your 3 MB - 11 MB connection. The best I can get on my downstream is 2 MB / sec, and that is only with some connections.
And I can tell you that I am just about certain that I pay a lot more for my connection than you do for yours.
Moral of the story: There is always something to be thankful for.
Ha! I doubt it. Most things are generally more expensive here than in the U.S. mainland, because we are an island which basically and totally depends on imports.
I won't even bother to mention the shipping companies who take advantage of the situation, or the local businesses who use our isolation and dependence on imports as an excuse to inflate their prices.
There was a time when my ISP totally monopolized the situation here. Now there are other options. Still, I bet you wouldn't be caught dead paying $115.00/month for a 15 MB connection.
You divide that 15,000 Mb by 8 bits, and what do you get?
How about 1.875 MB/sec on a good download connection. Sometimes I've seen it hit 2.0 MB/sec, but not too often.
I won't even bother to mention the shipping companies who take advantage of the situation, or the local businesses who use our isolation and dependence on imports as an excuse to inflate their prices.
There was a time when my ISP totally monopolized the situation here. Now there are other options. Still, I bet you wouldn't be caught dead paying $115.00/month for a 15 MB connection.
You divide that 15,000 Mb by 8 bits, and what do you get?
How about 1.875 MB/sec on a good download connection. Sometimes I've seen it hit 2.0 MB/sec, but not too often.
My speed growth over the years:
300 to 1200 baud Apple modem --> 24 baud Hayes modem --> 14.4 modem (don't remember the brand) --> 56k U.S. Robotics modem --> DSL line (can't remember the speed, but faster than the U.S. Robotics modem --> 2.5 MB cable modem --> 7.0 MB cable modem --> 10.0 MB cable modem --> 15.0 MB cable modem.
The highest they offer is 30 MB cable modem, but my pocket is not that deep.
300 to 1200 baud Apple modem --> 24 baud Hayes modem --> 14.4 modem (don't remember the brand) --> 56k U.S. Robotics modem --> DSL line (can't remember the speed, but faster than the U.S. Robotics modem --> 2.5 MB cable modem --> 7.0 MB cable modem --> 10.0 MB cable modem --> 15.0 MB cable modem.
The highest they offer is 30 MB cable modem, but my pocket is not that deep.
But what I really find jaw-dropping is that I spent around $3K or so in 1993 to purchase a 25 MHz Mac LC III with 4 MB of RAM, a 160 MB hard drive, and I think a floppy disk drive, and a 13" or 14" 256-color monitor, and today for about the same price, you can purchase yourself a monster 24" or 27" iMac with so much more speed, memory, better graphics, huge hard drive, etc.
Man do they know how to yank our chain!
Man do they know how to yank our chain!
I agree. BUT..Slow, yes, but you say slow from looking at it from a modern perspective.
As I have mentioned before, back then, our "slow" looked "fast" to us, because we had nothing else with which to compare it.
It is only now that we have true high-speed connections that we realize how slow things were back then.
But again, given the technology that was available to the public back then, it was not slow. We just learned to have patience.
Patience today? What's that? :
it was slow for me then too. I remember getting pissed off when trying to obtain a 30 meg file over dialup 56K on AT&T, and it took forever. Then more and more sites getting convoluted, taking awhile to load. etc... On and on it goes
I think I can recall eBay being the first one I had issues with as time went on. Trying to keep up with bidding, or getting a bid in on dialup was a nightmare. I recall doing this on my 6100/66 with an external 56K modem. It was a tad bit faster on my P2 but not by much.
When sites were still like this: http://antiqueradio.org/gallery.htmDialup was fine
But when more and more sites started to get "animated" persay, loaded with javascript, etc is when it started to become noticeable for me.
Nope. But this was at a time when filesizes were starting to grow, exponentially. If I am not mistaken, I think i was trying to download Nero.
Also, I remember when I used to burn MP3s into CDs for all the kids at school (CD Burners were relatively expensive still, not everyone had one). 40 minutes to download 1 song. Those were the days.
I remember the highest connection negotiation I could get was 50666BPS. most of the time it connected in the upper 40s though.
Also, I remember when I used to burn MP3s into CDs for all the kids at school (CD Burners were relatively expensive still, not everyone had one). 40 minutes to download 1 song. Those were the days.
I remember the highest connection negotiation I could get was 50666BPS. most of the time it connected in the upper 40s though.
For some reason this discussion reminded me to check to see if Berkshire-Hathaway had updated their website at all since I last checked it a few years ago. Http://www.berkshirehathaway.com
I love that the richest investment portfolio in the US has the same all-text website they had in 1996.
I love that the richest investment portfolio in the US has the same all-text website they had in 1996.
Wow, Bunsen! My eyes almost popped out of my head when I read that statement!
Then I conducted some quick online research and realized that you were in fact just talking about the Quad Core Mac Mini being discontinued. It made no sense to me that Apple would discontinue the Quad Core line as a whole.
It reminds me of the 500 MHz Dual Processor Graphite G4 mini-tower that I purchased years ago. I loved that machine because it had a DVD-RAM drive in it. Using Verbatim 9.4 GB DVD-RAM disks with it made it so much easier and quicker to backup my various servers. I am not sure, but I think that is what they referred to as the Sawtooth model.
Anyway, I am glad to see that Quad Cores aren't going anyway.
Bunsen: I hadn't seen that the quad-core minis were history. That and the RAM access issue make upgrading my 2011 mini filled classroom a bit problematic. Might have to return to an all PC environment.
The Quadra Classic is still half done. I sent an important cable from the monitor to a friend to have customized, and he has had a hard time getting it back to me. I'll get it accomplished regardless, I just have to make a new cable. The plastic surgery is done, I just need to pack it all in there and get the CC-5xx loom to talk to everything properly.
Losing all the pictures in that 17 page thread was kind of a bummer. Makes it harder to go back and figure out where the good info (as opposed to the fun but wild speculative technical fiction) is. Wthww was kind enough to send me the pics, but I can't edit them into posts from 2012-13.
Recent health scares (I'm fine now, I hope) had back-burnered a few projects, but I'm feeling the Mac modding itch again.
The Quadra Classic is still half done. I sent an important cable from the monitor to a friend to have customized, and he has had a hard time getting it back to me. I'll get it accomplished regardless, I just have to make a new cable. The plastic surgery is done, I just need to pack it all in there and get the CC-5xx loom to talk to everything properly.
Losing all the pictures in that 17 page thread was kind of a bummer. Makes it harder to go back and figure out where the good info (as opposed to the fun but wild speculative technical fiction) is. Wthww was kind enough to send me the pics, but I can't edit them into posts from 2012-13.
Recent health scares (I'm fine now, I hope) had back-burnered a few projects, but I'm feeling the Mac modding itch again.
I remember downloading large files with dialup. I once downloaded all four ISOs of Fedora Core 4 in fact. It took about a month :lol:
And one summer, I stumbled across some site that offered up the Windows For Workgroups 3.11 setup disks file by file, and I downloaded it, file by file. It took a LONG time (and it was very tedious, especially with Internet Explorer and it's lack of a proper download manager), but I think I was actually able to do it within a day or two.
c
And one summer, I stumbled across some site that offered up the Windows For Workgroups 3.11 setup disks file by file, and I downloaded it, file by file. It took a LONG time (and it was very tedious, especially with Internet Explorer and it's lack of a proper download manager), but I think I was actually able to do it within a day or two.
c
I'm thinking the reason why they arent doing the quad core in the Mac Mini is because they don't want to jeopardize any potential sales for the Mac Pro because of the power of the latest processors
Or they have just gone plain (mental) which if anyones seen the latest MacBook, kind of leads me to believe that this may be true. No ports? Yep. Mental.....
Or they have just gone plain (mental) which if anyones seen the latest MacBook, kind of leads me to believe that this may be true. No ports? Yep. Mental.....
I'm with Hardcore SysOp.... I love BBS's... Believe it or not I used to log in during the 90's to many different ones through my Altos 886 Xenix Server.. with one of my connected Altos III terminals... I loved it!!!!!! I miss it... I was even trying to devise a way to make a table stand to hold my terminal over my bed and with the keyboard so I could chit chat while in bed and watchin TV... It never happened.. those damn arm (hospital like) terminal mounts were like 200 bucks.. I had just graduated from High School and couldn't afford crap!
Just signed up on his server... Sad thing is in life.. when your a kid you have the time but not the money... when you get older you have the money (mostly) but not the time... Funny how that works eh??
Just signed up on his server... Sad thing is in life.. when your a kid you have the time but not the money... when you get older you have the money (mostly) but not the time... Funny how that works eh??
Hardcore have some faith.... As we are all getting older (40)... as my dad used to fiddle with his ham radio when I was a kid it may regain interest.... I'd like to start my own BBS service.. I wanted that back then... but couldn't do it.. but now I am in a different position... but then again here comes that "time" thing!!!! So many things I want to do and not enough time!
As we are all getting older (40)... as my dad used to fiddle with his ham radio when I was a kid it may regain interest.... I'd like to start my own BBS service.. I wanted that back then... but couldn't do it.. but now I am in a different position... but then again here comes that "time" thing!!!! So many things I want to do and not enough time!Yes, and it might arrive by the time that you are old and ready to die!
BTW, folks, be warned! Do not ever let any postal clerk tell you that something will arrive on Guam quicker if you use express mail, registered mail, Federal Express. A lot of people have the mistaken impression that if they spend more money, and pile on the postage stamps, something will get here quicker.
Trust me. I have lived here for thirty years. It is not so. First class letters take on average five or six days to get here. Packages can take two weeks to two months. Yes, off-topic, but . . .
BTW, folks, be warned! Do not ever let any postal clerk tell you that something will arrive on Guam quicker if you use express mail, registered mail, Federal Express. A lot of people have the mistaken impression that if they spend more money, and pile on the postage stamps, something will get here quicker.
Trust me. I have lived here for thirty years. It is not so. First class letters take on average five or six days to get here. Packages can take two weeks to two months. Yes, off-topic, but . . .
I suspect the reason few noticed that the quad-core Minis were discontinued is because you could only buy them at the very top end of the mini product line, and they were never available with discrete graphics, likely due to TDP issues.
In 2011, the quad-core mini was primarily available in the server version. (Even though having a quad-core processor is unlikely to help any of the tasks you're going to use a Mac OS X server for.) It had an i7-2635QM in it, which was a 45W chip, compared to the 35-watt chips shipping in the dual core Minis. Tray price, $378. This model of the mini cost $999.
In 2012, the quad-core mini was made available more readily in a non-server version. It used a i7-3615QM, which was a 45W chip with a tray price of $378.
The best quad-core chip for a presumed Haswell Mac mini would be something with HD5000 or better graphics, have a TDP of "about" 45W and would cost about $378. Such a chip just doesn't exist, and it would have been seen as a regression to only make the mini available at $1300.
For more information about the mac mini, you can take a look at this thread I posted in last year. This stuff was all written before the Haswell-based Mac minis actually shipped, but it turns out, I was totally right. They even ended up using the exact chip model I mentioned, the 4558U.
The mini was never a particularly powerful computer, and the quad was always in a pretty weird place, because they never made it available with discrete graphics. Probably the best use case for it (the quad mini) would be compiling really big projects remotely using the server component of xcode, if your main work machine was MacBook Air. However, the Mac Pro is really a better system for this task, and a good MacBook Pro or iMac would have blown even the quad-core mini out of the water, and would have not had the additional complication of setting up a compile server.
I would have loved for Apple to take the mini closer to being a "desktop" but I suspect that they're getting a great deal on the parts in the new mini and the 1.4GHz iMac, which is what prompted them to make the mini available for $499, down from its old $599 price.
Other i5-4570R and i7-4770R thoughts: what I'd love to see is a PC motherboard that has one of these chips soldered down and room for the customary 32 gigs of RAM. I'd buy the heck out of a variant on the DZ87KLT-75K in this configuration. Supposedly either with Broadwell or Skylake we're going to see some modular -R CPUs, that'll be interesting to see.
In 2011, the quad-core mini was primarily available in the server version. (Even though having a quad-core processor is unlikely to help any of the tasks you're going to use a Mac OS X server for.) It had an i7-2635QM in it, which was a 45W chip, compared to the 35-watt chips shipping in the dual core Minis. Tray price, $378. This model of the mini cost $999.
In 2012, the quad-core mini was made available more readily in a non-server version. It used a i7-3615QM, which was a 45W chip with a tray price of $378.
The best quad-core chip for a presumed Haswell Mac mini would be something with HD5000 or better graphics, have a TDP of "about" 45W and would cost about $378. Such a chip just doesn't exist, and it would have been seen as a regression to only make the mini available at $1300.
For more information about the mac mini, you can take a look at this thread I posted in last year. This stuff was all written before the Haswell-based Mac minis actually shipped, but it turns out, I was totally right. They even ended up using the exact chip model I mentioned, the 4558U.
The mini was never a particularly powerful computer, and the quad was always in a pretty weird place, because they never made it available with discrete graphics. Probably the best use case for it (the quad mini) would be compiling really big projects remotely using the server component of xcode, if your main work machine was MacBook Air. However, the Mac Pro is really a better system for this task, and a good MacBook Pro or iMac would have blown even the quad-core mini out of the water, and would have not had the additional complication of setting up a compile server.
At 65 watts TDP, a 4570R (which, yes, is also way too expensive, even for a Mini configuration that costs $1000) would absolutely roast inside the Mac mini's slim frame. Gigabyte has done it, and the reviews all say that it's insanely loud. (Also keep in mind that while you get a great quad-core CPU and some pretty good built-in graphics, your $500 (*the original price) doesn't get you RAM, storage, or an OS, and you get defects-only support.
I would have loved for Apple to take the mini closer to being a "desktop" but I suspect that they're getting a great deal on the parts in the new mini and the 1.4GHz iMac, which is what prompted them to make the mini available for $499, down from its old $599 price.
Other i5-4570R and i7-4770R thoughts: what I'd love to see is a PC motherboard that has one of these chips soldered down and room for the customary 32 gigs of RAM. I'd buy the heck out of a variant on the DZ87KLT-75K in this configuration. Supposedly either with Broadwell or Skylake we're going to see some modular -R CPUs, that'll be interesting to see.