AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 7

post #241 of 782
3/1/06 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
I would like to be able to get higher than 80MB shared though. Is that the hard limit or would you be able to change that? If I had 1GB for the system slot 1 and 512MB for the card in slot 2, I'd be very happy.

Can anyone confirm if the Intel chip is at least as fast as the Radeon 9200?

It's faster. It appears you have to have matched pairs of RAM though in the two slots. With Intel's integrated Graphics, if you've two matched DIMMs of the same size and type then the bandwidth to the graphics processor and indeed the rest of the system doubles to 10.6GB/s. If you've 1 1GB and 1 512MB it'll run at 5.3GB/s.

Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
60GB HD as opposed to the 40GB and SATA!! - are they 3.5" drives btw?

No, 2.5" but they are 5400rpm as opposed to 4200rpm used in most of the old G4 Minis. Some of the later G4s had 5400rpm drives.

Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
The only thing still putting me off is the lack of native Intel software, mainly Photoshop. Not to mention upgrading all my software. However, it will have to happen some day.

Make sure you load it up with RAM for Rosetta emulation. Personally, I'd rather have a G4 Mac Mini if I was running Photoshop though I'd have to be on a serious budget restraint not to consider buying a G5 iMac instead which can be picked up for £799 new.

http://www.microanvika.com/offers/apple-sale.asp

That'll beat any Intel Mac for Photoshop work until Adobe bring out native software.
Reply
Reply
post #242 of 782
3/1/06 at 4:32am
Quote:
Originally posted by MacGregor
For that money you are waiting for a low-level iBook, not a MacBook.

He meant the upcoming MacBooks.

MacBook = iBook
MacBook Pro = PowerBook

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #243 of 782
3/1/06 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
>Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available.<

P.S. And they are charging $79 for iWork!? PC makers include Microsoft Works for free, Apple should be including iWork for free also.

I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.

As for iWork, I think Apple more dropped Appleworks than replaced it with iWork. Normal everyday tasks are too mundane for Apple. I think the decision not to release an updated AW will come back to bite Apple squarely in the rear when it's all said and done.
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 782
3/1/06 at 5:47am
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
I just looked at my DP 2.5, it has 3 USB ports: 1 in front, 2 in back. Those keyboard ports don't count and you know it

Read my post again, I specifically listed the keyboard ports seperately. Looks like you have the last gen G5, right? The newer ones have 4 USB ports, 3 on the back and one on the front.

Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's NOT the only option.

http://www.miglia.com/

Elgato also has a $149 box without hardware compression. The Duo should be able to handle the compression. I don't know if it can pause live TV.
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 782
3/1/06 at 5:51am
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I'll say this about integrated graphics, my mother's sempron powered HP came with integrated graphics. When I was able to get my hands on a lowly 64mb GeForce2 and put it in, the system performed much better. Sure GMA950 is far more advanced than the SIS graphics in that HP, but integrated graphics and shared memory hog the CPU and system memory. Apple only included them because they're already on the 945gm chipset.

Some of the cheap celeron and sempron systems with XP have only 256MB of RAM and integrated graphics. Using a card makes a big difference to the performance of XP not because of the card, but because you've given the OS extra RAM.

On the other end, Apple seem to be using paired RAM to get 10.6GB/s bandwidth. There's plenty spare there for most users. Extra RAM over the 512MB minimum always helps though. Anything less than 1GB I find a little confining.
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Elgato also has a $149 box without hardware compression. The Duo should be able to handle the compression. I don't know if it can pause live TV.

Intel's VIIV spec lists the Core Duo as a minimum requirement if I remember corectly, and since the integrated video is an Intel product as well I would imagine that this should work fine for compressing/decompressing video as well as "pausing" live TV. If the system is being taxed by other tasks then there may be a problem though.
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:27am
$999 13.3" MacBook will kill the sales of Mac Mini!

Hold on, mac mini will be revised ASAP!. that will be once merom out and Intel starts to give BIG discount for Core Duo! (Oct 06?)

mac mini price is now NOT targeted to serve its original purpose when it invented!.

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #248 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
What do you think Quartz uses to accelerate the WindowServer?

What makes you think Quartz needs openGL *2* to be accelerated?

Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i think apple is basically saying, now, we don't want that kind of customer -- too "low value"(low margin) to be worth the support, sales, etc. etc. costs. For the record, I was hoping that at least the $499 price point would be maintained.

Not at all. If you were aware of intel's chip roadmap, you would have seen this coming. The cheapest intel chip in this socket is about $200. They have lower end chips coming out in a few months, plus prices always drop. The only way for apple to make a $499 or less computer today would be to kludge together a "yikes" mobo to support old intel chips soon to be discontinued.

The $599 price is only temporary. As this new line of chips progresses, $499 and cheaper machines will again be possible.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
But they've seen a PC that costs $399.

But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.

I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".

Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Are people supposed to be impressed with a 1.5 Ghz Intel Chip while PCs are at 3Ghz?

That's why the upsell to the dual 1.6 is so appealing. 2x1.6 vs 3? I'm impressed with that.

Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Then read up on how lame Pentium 4s are despite the big 3+Ghz number.

But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
But they're still a fair bit faster than a core solo at 1.5. Right?

Nope, the equasion 1.5 Core GHz = 1 Pentium 4 GHz. So the 3GHz P4 would be a bit faster, but not a whole lot. Cedar Mill chips are a little better AFAIK, but Prescott and Northwood P4s are trash. Don't even compare them to a Core.
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #250 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
In retail there's really nothing magical about a $499 price point. In my years of sales anything over say $200 was, for most people, beyond an impulse buy.

Frankly the difference between $499 and $599 is rather small. Sure some people would be limited by the extra C-Note but many would just toss the extra bit on the credit card and take the puppy home.


$100 makes a big difference when 1 dollar converts to big number in some other countries ...

$499 Mac Mini - the trick Apple forgot!. Mainly many bought this without upgrading anything!, just they ordered it!

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #251 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
But how many people actually buy those $399 machines? I've always heard that $699 machines outsell $399 machines by a wide margin. People perk up when they see such a low price tag, but when they read the fine print and see how crappy that machine is, they pony up the bucks for a nicer one.

I'd love to see stats saying what big sellers the $399 machines are. Until I do, I'm skeptical. There's no question there's a market for the cheapest machine possible, I'm just not convinced that market is "huge".

Obviously that depends upon your definition of "huge". Having not seen any market analysis on these low-end machines, I don't know exactly how many $399 machines get sold. My suspicions, like you, is that it isn't "huge"; but I would suggest it is "significant".

Another issue, as others mentioned, is that those $399 (or, in fact, $299 in the case of Dell for its cheapest desktop) "get people in the door". What you must realise is the vast majority of people aren't going to do that much research, so they see the $399/$299 price point at Dell and go there. Once there, they may realise that perhaps the cheapest of the cheap isn't for them, but just go for a more expensive Dell. This is less time-consuming than configuring the more expensive Dell, and then going to look at other brands to see what they offer at that price point.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #252 of 782
3/1/06 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
Maybe but I doubt person A is anyone on this site that is complaining. I'm out of the pc loop now though what kind of pc can you get for 399? Is it as good as the baseline mini?

While there are a variety of $400 PCs using the Dell and HP as examples:

Intel Celeron D Processor 325 (2.53 Ghz, 533 FSB)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR SDRAM @ 400Mhz
80GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM drive
48x CD-RW drive
15" Analog Flat Panel
Dell USB Keyboard and Mouse
2 channel audio
10/100 Ethernet
56K Modem
Intel Extreme Graphics 2
3 PCI slots

The HP Pavilion a1310 ($349 after rebate) has:

Intel Pentium 4 417 (2.9Ghz)
Windows XP Home
512MB DDR2-533 Mhz SDRAM
40 GB 7200 SATA drive
48x CD-RW drive
Intel Integrated GMA 900
Integrated 7.1 (Intel) Audio
HP Keyboard and Mouse
Micro ATX
4 DIMM slots
3 PCI slots
6 USB 2.0
2 Firewire
56K modem
10/100 Ethernet

There is a Athlon 64 version of the HP.

Are they as good as a baseline mini? It depends. For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor the bluetooth is nice. Likewise the built in airport since my cable router comes with 802.11g. No wires to run. Between those, iLife and OSX its worth a $200 premium for me to get my Dad.

Reduces my expected tech support for his current 3 Ghz P4 PC that it will replace. If I get .mac then we can share photos without him getting confused about attachments. They should simply show up via photocast/iPhoto and he can send them out to relatives the same way.

He's switching whether he wants to or not.

Vinea
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 782
3/1/06 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally posted by shanmugam
$100 makes a big difference when 1 dollar converts to big number in some other countries ...

$499 Mac Mini - the trick Apple forgot!. Mainly many bought this without upgrading anything!, just they ordered it!

True..my post is a bit US centric. And current exchange rates don't favor Mac pricing overseas.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #254 of 782
3/1/06 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
True..my post is a bit US centric. And current exchange rates don't favor Mac pricing overseas.

Depends. In the UK and much of Europe they do. It rarely translates to Apple dropping prices here though.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 782
3/1/06 at 7:51am
As someone who has been waiting specifically for this upgrade to purchase, I decided to mull things overnight before commenting on why the new mini is so disappointing and why I wont be buying one.

The biggest problems with the old advertised mini was that the graphics just werent up to snuff and the processor technology was so 3 years ago. With the stealth upgrade to the 64 MB 9200 the graphics became adequate but, similar to a lot of folks Id bet, I decided to wait for the Intel switch based upon the rumors that the mini would be one of the first and that a core duo was possible. Understand that Im not talking about a computer to play Doom on, but something that can be used for some of the less graphics intensive games would be nice.

It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe its just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.

So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. Its just so Microsoftian that I cant condone it with my dollars. So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?
neumac
Reply
neumac
Reply
post #256 of 782
3/1/06 at 8:18am
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close.

But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Intel mini outperforms the G4 mini in all graphics areas.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #257 of 782
3/1/06 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
So Apple wants people to spend $100 on a machine that in one very import aspect will not perform as well as the previous model. Its just so Microsoftian that I cant condone it with my dollars.

Despite the fact that nobody has been able to play with this thing yet and actually see how absolutely terrible this integrated graphics thing is. Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever. Seriously ... cite test X form Lab A or Person B all you want ... they really don't mean shit till you have used the computer and see what's up. That has ALWAYS been my experience with Apple machines. I just kinda have to ignore so-called benchmarks and tests and see how the machine performs compared to what I need it for.


Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
So, I will waddle along with my upgraded Sawtooth PowerMac pining for the day that Apple releases a product for which I am in the target market ($1,200 Core Duo mini tower anyone)?

You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Apple just insn't into mini towers. Also, at the price range you're talking about, you can get a Core Duo iMac (display, mouse and keyboard included...)
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
post #258 of 782
3/1/06 at 8:31am
Ok, first off the EyeTV things, the cheap ones rely all on your computer, where the more expensive ones have their own hardware to take care of most of the processing.


as far as the Intel Integrated 950, its about on par with a Radeon 9200 that was in the old mac Minis. I did some searching around for some benchmark scores (under windows at least) for both chips. I found some testing from 3DMark 2001SE for both cards. both at 1024x768x32 the intel 950 was getting a 7483, which a radeon 9200 64mb was getting a 7208. Those are both VERY LOW scores, and very close. I dont think Apple has downgraded anything with these graphics, but i dont think its an upgrade really either, just a cheap solution
Reply
Reply
post #259 of 782
3/1/06 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
It never occurred to me that Apple would actually release a machine with degraded graphics performance versus the G4 mini. People have quoted the specs for the 950, and they are similar to the 9200, but numerous sites have done actual performance tests and its not even close. Maybe its just me, but when waiting for the new model I just expected it to be better than, or at least equal to the previous generation in all respects.

Where are your tests showing the GMA 950 to be worse than a 9200?

I had a quick google and was finding it hard to find definitive tests as the 9200 doesn't even run the newer benchmarks and is a few years old.

However,

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-535-x-9-9-x gives a 128MB 9200 a 3dMark03 benchmark of 1157 compared to an FX5200 getting 1232 at 1024x768

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=800 gives the GMA 950 a 3dMark03 benchmark of 1837 on a Pentium D 820 @ 2.8Ghz. The Core Duo 1.6 should be quicker than that.

The larger scores in that test above are using an Nvidia 6800GT btw - ie. not a cheap card.
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 782
3/1/06 at 8:49am
I wanted to weigh in on this integrated graphics ordeal, you see I just sold a Toshiba laptop that I used for work (to order my MBP) and this Toshiba had the same integrated graphics card. I have to tell you that it was not that bad. In fact I can honestly say that it was more than sufficient for many of the things I was doing (including playing games). I think way too much is being made of this. Someone earlier said that many people are upset because it's not the machine for them, but you really need to take a second look at what you're getting at the $599 price point. I'd love to see this thing drop $100 off the price but it wouldent effect my decision to buy one, but it would help the arguement that Macs are affordable on the entry level side.
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
From what I've been reading, the PS3 might cost Sony $800 to build!

Then they would be selling it for $300-$400 below cost.

Actually from all the news i've read the PS3 cost $900 to make and that they plan to sell the system for $500.

If they sold it for that $300-$400 Sony would loose a lot of money!

Not to mention they are having a lot of problems and that the PS3 release date is being pushed back and some analyst say as far back as 2007... or very late 2006!

Anyways I'm going to wait until the Mac mini is tested and see how it performs, then I'll pass on judgement.

Edit: Here is some news..
Quote:
Business 2.0
New Sony PlayStation to break the bank
Monday February 27, 12:24 pm ET

In the videogame business, hardware makers generally sell new consoles at a loss, making their profits by charging licensing fees to videogame publishers. But according to an analysis by News.com, Sony is paying an unusually steep bill for its upcoming PlayStation 3 console. The system's components cost between $725 and $905, analysts estimate. The biggest culprit: Sony's new Blu-Ray disc drive, which will play high-definition movies as well as games. With the PS3 console expected to sell between $299 and $399, Sony will lose hundreds of dollars per console. Of course, if the PS3 is a hit, the move could still pay off. Component prices usually drop sharply as a console continues production, and the more consoles Sony sells, the more licensing fees it will garner from videogames sold for the PS3.


Quote:
\t
Sony may delay PS3 launch
Correspondents in Tokyo
FEBRUARY 27, 2006
SONY may have to delay the long-awaited launch of its PlayStation 3 console until the autumn because certain specifications were not set on time.

The launch could be delayed from the scheduled debut in the spring because of the failure to set the specifications of the Blue-ray DVD technology, a Sony Computer Entertainment spokesman said, according to Kyodo News.

The Blu-ray DVD technology is "indispensable" for PlayStation 3 consoles which feature high-definition, movie-quality graphics, the Sony spokesman reportedly said.

A group of about 80 Blu-ray DVD manufacturers, including Sony and Matsushita Electric Industrial, failed to set specifications for the advanced DVD format by the end of last year, Kyodo said.

Mass manufacturing is finally set to begin at the end of the month, the news agency said, citing industry sources.\t

Officials at the producer of the popular PlayStation game console series could not be reached for comment on the report.

Sony Computer Entertainment has apparently been behind schedule in taking orders for the new PlayStations from retailers, Kyodo said.

Hirokazu Hamamura, president of Enterbrain, a leading publisher of computer game magazines, told Kyodo that it would be difficult for Sony to release the new console as scheduled.

"Sony has not begun taking orders early this month, that means that it would be difficult for the company to begin sales in May," he said.

Sony is now likely to shift its focus on product sales from the spring to the year-end sales period, promotion for which begins in October, industry analysts said.

The expected delay may pressure the Sony group's earnings, the news servie reported.

The PlayStation series has been one of the major pillars of the Sony group's earnings.

Total global shipments of its PlayStation 2 game console had exceeded 100 million units by last November since its launch in March 2000.

The original PlayStation took nine years and six months to clock up similar numbers.
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #262 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:16am
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core

CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Where are your tests showing the GMA 950 to be worse than a 9200?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp

Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
But did those sites test the 950 running on a system with dual-channel DDR2 system RAM? That could make a huge difference.

For the Extremetech test, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
Let's at leasyw ait until we see how Apple has integrated it with everything else before we label it the worst computer ever.

I plan to but it doesn't look good.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Apple just insn't into mini towers. Also, at the price range you're talking about, you can get a Core Duo iMac

Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.
neumac
Reply
neumac
Reply
post #264 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
I'd love to see this thing drop $100 off the price but it wouldent effect my decision to buy one, but it would help the arguement that Macs are affordable on the entry level side.

Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.

Benefits in the new Mac mini:

CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote

Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #265 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
Well if this helps any, here a some benefits that the new MacM mini has that people seem to be glossing over and can easily explain the extra $100 cost.

Benefits in the new Mac mini:

CPU: G4 --> Core Solo
HD: ATA 40GB --> SATA 60GB
Memory: DDR --> DDR2
Ethernet: 10/100 --> Gigabit
Wireless: None --> 802.11G 54Mb/s
Bluetooth: Additional Cost --> Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Additional Ports: More USB ports
Additional Ports: Optical digital I/O
Additional Accessory: IR receiver
Additional Accessory: IR remote

Sure I'm bummed about the intel graphics but what can ya do? Apple hasn't ever gotten it 'all right'.

Dave

Jeez! Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? I've only seen one post in this entire thread that claims that the mini is overpriced.

No one who is complaining of a lack of a $499 or cheaper model is complaining that the mini is overpriced. We are complaining about the fact that you have to buy wireless networking, bluetooth, digital audio I/O and front row, even if you don't want any of it. Remove all those additional features, and you have a $499 machine. Wait for the Celeron 4xx, and you have a $449 or hopefully even $399 machine.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #266 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core

CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!

I hope you are right!!!! If these new little intels w/integrated graphics can at least get by - we are in for good times. I mean think about it - changing cpu chips AND using whole new graphics paths with all of the problems of initial implementation?!?! This is going very smoothly if you think about what Apple is trying to do. I think we have to get used to the fact that from now on the iBooks and Mini's will be dependent mostly on Intel tech/mb's and the MacBooks and PowerMacs will be optimized by Apple. There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines. And with the new iMac's finally getting to a real Pro-sumer form, this is an alright scenario for me.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #267 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
I wanted to weight in on this. I just played with the new mac intel mac mini yesterday. Both the solo and the core

CAN PLAY at least 2 1080p streams flawlessly. So stop complaining about VIDEO PERFORMANCE. IT"S MUCH MUCH BETTER. IT MEANS I CAN ACTUALLY USE IT ON MY 67" TV FOR WATCHING HD SHOWS!

Was that MPEG4 streem or MPEG2 at 1080p?...

I would also be curious whether $7 graphic chip is capable of properly deinterlacing/scaling 480i DVD material to 1080p. My work computer(gateway) has this integrated video chip and it's horrible playing back any video clips. I'm sure it has to do with the content as well, but the intergrated graphic chip doesn't do much as a scaler.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #268 of 782
3/1/06 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp

Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.

Yes it slow performance, but have you looked for benchmarks that show the performance of the previous Mini card, the radeon 9200? here is one...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...ic_r92p/4.html

in that at 1024x768x32 the 9200 64mb is getting a 3Dmark 2001SE of 7208. In your own link from Extremetech, they got int he same benchmark, on the intel 950 a 7483

Yes it sucks, but no its not a downgrade
Reply
Reply
post #269 of 782
3/1/06 at 10:07am
Quote:
Originally posted by MacGregor
There is going to be distinct differences in the consumer and pro lines.

I think this scenario is really taking shape. The entry level systems will, as you pointed out, be low cost parts that are mostly provided by intel. Pro systems will be more 'Apple' with much greater performance and component separation. It is probably unrealistic to expect the next ibook to be as close in specs to MBP as the old iboook was to the old PB. Hell there was really very little difference.
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 782
3/1/06 at 10:33am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[Side Thought #23] Maybe this means one can pick up a G4 Mac Mini and Elgato EyeTV200 for about US$500 -- Just nice for my dad, he is considering seriously a standalone DVR thingy for about that price point.

I haven't noticed any EyeTV 200 bargains recently. It may tough finding one for ~$250 right now. And a Mac mini G4 for $250? I dunno about that.

A ~$200 alternative to the EyeTV 200 to consider:

Plextor ConvertX PX-TV402U

It's USB 2.0 but apparently performance and MPEG-2 recording quality are good (enough). There was some discussion about it here not long ago:

Jim Dalrymple.com -> Elgato -- EyeHome and EyeTV

Site's down now so I can't get the exact thread(s). I remember one person preferring the Plextor over the EyeTV.
Reply
Reply
post #271 of 782
3/1/06 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427&p=2

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/09/...tel/index.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1821808,00.asp

Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.

No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.

Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.
Reply
Reply
post #272 of 782
3/1/06 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[BI don't mean to sound like a dick but I thought most people following Apple news would get the hang of what this Core Solo and Core Duo thing is about. [/B]

Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.
Reply
Reply
post #273 of 782
3/1/06 at 11:45am
About the GMA 950

Quote:
Another interesting feature of the new GMCH is the add-on digital video output card. Dubbed "ADD2+", the card can use 4 or 8 lanes of x16 PCI Express and support up to two displays in multimonitor mode. Alternatively, it can work together to support one very high resolution display. The GMCH can also output S-Video. In addition to the 3D capabilities of the integrated core, Intel has built in a video engine with full hardware motion compensation, MPEG2 hardware decode, subpicture support (e.g., for closed captions), and dynamic de-interlacing.

People keep comparing this chip to gaming chips. Intel explicitly states this is not a gaming chip, this is a media chip. It has been built for HD playback.
Reply
Reply
post #274 of 782
3/1/06 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Especially when you have over 2K posts here. Seems to me you'd have to be trying awfully hard not to have noticed such a recently hot topic and remain under-informed about it. Sometimes it's wise to read more and pay attention before participating in ignorance.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the average low-end consumer/potential low-end switcher's mindset. Remember, supposedly the people that the mini is aimed at? These people don't know the difference between a Core Duo and a first generation Celeron. They'll be thinking exactly like he said "I can get 3Ghz for $1-200 less. Come on Apple."
Reply
Reply
post #275 of 782
3/1/06 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
For the mini that is expected to be placed near a large screen TV/monitor the bluetooth is nice.

Got any specific examples of why BT's nice for that? Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #276 of 782
3/1/06 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No. They raise questions about people expecting DOOM3 to run on a budget computer. PC or Mac. Actual comparisons between the old 9200 and the GMA950 show the 950 is generally faster. It's not going to be stellar but it's perfectly adequate for the computer.

Most people don't run games, especially Mac users. The Mac Mini isn't a games machine in the same way any other $599 computer isn't a games machine either.

I don't have Doom3 yet, but Half Life 2 runs at ~50 FPS on the $600 PC I built.

Next...\



(But no, I wouldn't expect the mini to be able to do that...it's a computer for kids and grandparents)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #277 of 782
3/1/06 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by neumac

Admittedly not "my" tests, nor are they a direct comparison with the 9200. They may not be Apples to Apples, but they raise serious questions about performance of the 950.

14 FPS Doom 3 800x600 HQ no AA/AF
30.5 FPS for Wolfenstien

/shrug

A 1.25 Ghz MacMini G4 w/32MB 9200 gets 9.3 FPS at 800x600 Med settings for Doom 3.

http://www.macologist.org/showthread.php?t=909

Given that when shadows were turned off on the 9200 the frame rate jumped to 16.1 I'd say with a bit of tweaking you could get Doom 3 into the low 20s on the GMA 950.

Remember that most of the other game benchmarks are for DX8/9 performance. Also OSX handles some parts of the OpenGL layers so performance on OSX will be lower than Windows. Also that Doom 3 on OSX was (likely) compiled under gcc. Universal games have the opportunity to use Intel's compilers.

I expect the GMA950 to be adequate for the gaming I do while visiting my parents. Certainly for the gaming my dad does. The 950 is stated to be sufficient for HTPC purposes by Extreme Tech.

Good enough.

Quote:
Don't I know it. Too bad I already have a very nice 20" display.

So run it as a second monitor. There are few desktop uses that wouldn't benefit from more real-estate.

Vinea
Reply
Reply
post #278 of 782
3/1/06 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
...it's a computer for kids and grandparents

Heck no man, think cluster. I ordered two of these babies, they'll never see a monitor but they'll be used around the clock.
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
post #279 of 782
3/1/06 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Got any specific examples of why BT's nice for that? Thanks.

Keyboard/mouse mostly. A dongle would work but ties up a port.

Vinea
Reply
Reply
post #280 of 782
3/1/06 at 1:23pm
Some late feedback in this fast-moving thread ...

Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, great point, except you can get a Tivo with a lifetime subscription for like $350-$400

TiVo's lifetime, previously mentioned and speculated to be short.

Quote:
so you're spending all that extra money for its OS X in the living room, and that's nothing to crow about

My EyeTV 200 isn't in the living room (more details below).

Quote:
(sorry, but Tivo's interface is soooo much better than OS X or front row or the rest. Easy to use and deal with). Seems more sensible to get the tivo to me (plus, its designed to do the TV thing, as opposed to the mac).

Based on what I've learned indirectly (no direct experience) I'd believe TiVo's interface is superior to EyeTV's.

Since no one mentioned it, I'll say (again) that EyeHome is one method of providing access to content stored on remote Macs. My (non-HDTV) wireless media streaming solution looks like:

Macs + EyeTV + Storage (downstairs) =>
AirPort Express + EyeHome + A/V components (upstairs)

No problem streaming anything within the product limitations (e.g. Does EyeHome support HDTV resolutions?).

Two obvious limitations:

can't program EyeTV (DVR) or manage remote media library (workaround: use iBook upstairs to access "components" downstairs)
no Apple DRM or H.264 playback

And EyeHome's UI won't win any prizes but I've gotten used to it.

I'm satisfied with this solution until after it's possible to upgrade without a relatively expensive computer (+$600 Mac mini) and media storage in my living room.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo