Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 13

I noticed how you can't build to order a 7200 rpm dive for the new Mac Mini, but you can build to order a 100GB 7200 rpm drive for the Mac Book Pro.

Does anyone possibly know of a 3rd party 7200 rpm hard drive that would fit inside the Mac mini? Also, by doing so, would that or would that not void the warranty?

Thanks in advance.

So buy a 23 or 30" screen. Problem solved.

You can span your desktop to a second display. (I do this with my 20" Intel iMac (to a 21" monitor) and I highly recommend it!)

Did you actually just say that?

You think that a good option, if you want a ONE 23" or 30" screen, is to by an iMac and connect said screen to it? What a kludge!

You're just being overly argumentative. If you want more desktop real estate, spanning is a real option (and a decent one at that!).

Yes, you are locked into that primary iMac display...and if that is a problem for some users, they should definitely not go with the iMac.

Like I said before...perhaps we wait and see what Apple does with the revamped PowerMac line.

Why not? The kind of user that's going to splash out on a 30" Cinema Display isn't going to buy a low or mid range computer. If they really need that kind of screen real estate then spanning two screens is a very good idea.

Then again, if they really do need that kind of screen real estate, I suspect they'd also need a PowerMac.

Really, I think these arguments are silly and come back to people wanting a PowerMac for Mac mini money. Not going to happen.

O.K.

I'm sorry, you're right, a 23" and 30" display is high-end. Someone who's in the market for a 30" display isn't in the market for a low-mid range computer.

I should have gone with smaller display sizes. It is conceivable that someone might want a 15" or 17" display, which is separate from their computer.

And no, this has got nothing to do with wanting a Power Mac for Mac mini money. Of course that isn't going to happen, it is not financially feasible. The kind of machine I and others are suggesting bears no resemblance to Power Mac specifications.

And that's low end and is exactly where the Mac Mini is.

The mini is not low-end. The machine I suggest is low-end.

15" display is low-end, I grant you.

17" displays are also mid-range, used extensively, I am sure, by people who don't like the idea of integrated graphics.

I doubt if Apple can reach 10% with the current product line. It's a mac users dream, but the vast majority don't think like Mac users.

It's low end when they finish off the lineup with a Celeron 4xx model, and I bet they will.

People who don't like the idea of integrated graphics yet won't buy an iMac are a very small percentage of the market. Last year, Intel had 47% of the graphics market. Most people really don't care.

My exact thoughts.

I agree. It will take some new products. A tablet pc maybe? Also I think that in order to expand market share the emphasis will come from the software side. Now that intel is in macs there are fewer ways to distinguish macs from pcs. Sure design is one way. But what's to stop dell from making a imac clone running windows? They already have small form pcs a la mac mini, although they are a terrible attempt copying the mini. Just my 2 cents.

It seems one of the big arguments for some $399 machine is "increase market share and thus increase developer support."

But do people that spend $399 on a computer actually buy much of any software?

It seems unlikely. It would help with maybe getting better video compatability on the web for macs, but beyond that I don't think I see it.

It's not just that the kind of machine I think Apple should produce would start at $399. It would also be much more configurable and therefore able to appeal to a much wider range of users.

Increased market share would also help to stem the tide of moronic websites, government portals, etc. that only work on Windows IE.

Nothing. However, so far their designers aren't a patch on Apple's designers. The Dell name isn't exactly a designer label either. Dell does what it does well, Apple does it's thing well. Expecting either of the two to suddenly change that is wishful thinking.

It'd be a risk for Dell to try and market on design against Apple.

It'd be a risk for Apple to try and compete with Dell in the budget PC arena.

That's happening anyway as web designers get more of a clue and IE's market share drops. A $399 mac won't really change that.

Significantly increased market share would. Note that web designers are only beginning to wake up to this since Firefox and Safari combined hit 10% market share. Significantly increased market share would come from an expanded range of more-configurable hardware that more people want to buy.

From a thread I linked to earlier:


As I understand it, a native viewer is being worked on, but christ! They really did originally think that that was acceptable. They wouldn't have if Apple's market share was 10%.

I think its risky for dell not to. They have to copy good original design. They certainly aren't going to come up with it on their own.

It'd be a risk for Apple to try and compete with Dell in the budget PC arena.[/QUOTE]



I agree with you here 100%.

Mac Mini 1.66Ghz, 1GB Ram $899 - does 1080p streams (we think)

Sceptre 37" LCD HDTV $1,499 - does 1080p from DVI

$2398 + Tax and Shipping & bluetooth keyboard + mouse.

It's completely wireless except for power and DVI to the TV (and cable to the TV). 802.11g to the router. Bluetooth to the keyboard/mouse.

You want to be reasonably close to the TV when using it as a PC but you can be around 4' and almost be about the same as 2' with a 20" display.

Would better graphics be good? Sure. But as long as the Mini can handle 1080p streams and do reasonable scaling to 1080p for DVDs its not a bad little media center PC out of the box for Q1 2006.

Much better than the old mini. No DVR but it does have photocasting and all the other nice little features of .mac as well as iTunes.

Vinea

No, most of us take pride in making websites cross browser compatible and have done for years. It's not difficult. There's very little that isn't cross browser compatible today and what isn't, is well known. The problem isn't usually the designer but the technologist pulling the strings behind it. That said, you do get .net monkeys that build sites in MS's toolset blissfully unaware of other browsers. I don't think that will ever change though.

I'd bet the grants.gov site uses active-x and an entirely microsoft back end. Once you start down that path, the outcome at the end may be incredibly difficult to make cross browser compatible. I'm not sure market share will change that as it still takes an enlightened manager somewhere along the path that knows of things other than Microsoft.

I think it's going to take a second semi-independent brand. Apple has absolutely nothing to cater to the corporate world or the average computer user on the hardware side. At the same token, you'd hear endless complaining for the hardcore macheads if Apple were to relase more conventional machines.

The higher Apple's market share, the more likely it is that the people you are referring to would be aware of things other than Microsoft.

Here in the U.K., whenever I see a newspaper article about computer security, or a "how to do this or that" with your computer, it only talks about Windows. Doesn't even mention Apple in passing. This means that general awareness of OS X is fairly low. Again, the higher Apple's market share, the more likely it is that such articles would mention OS X, raising its profile. Or of course, Apple could try advertising OS X. But for some reason, it doesn't seem to want to.

IMO that's just re-fighting the war Apple lost in the 90s. I can't see corporate users switching to macs unless something radical happened. It would take a total FUBAR by MS.

Big chunk of that 47% is in the corporate market. Most consumer market PC's with IGP usualy comes with PCIe or AGP upgrade uptions which most people spend $60 on a lower end GPU card that performs 10x better than the intel IGP GMA950.

Intel IGP GMA950 lacks motion adaptive deinterlacing capacity. This alone will ruin video play back. On the 37" 1080p LCD will show even great amount of stair-stepping.... all the jaggies will be even more obvious on the bigger LCD screen. I have 37" 1080p Westy and was waiting for iMac mini to turn it into a media mac, but sadly won't happen.

How do you know it is a very small percentage of the market? I personally know three people that would buy the mini if it had a halfway decent graphics card, and have no intention of getting an iMac. And if most people really don't care about whether their computers used integrated graphics or not, then Intel would have had a much higher percentage of the graphics market. Not to mention that the 47% market share includes the computers that come with intel integrated graphics but are also capable of using a graphics card (my sister got a PC that came with integrated graphics, then punched a graphics card - I am sure a lot of other people do the same).

I don't think it matters in corporate land.

When I've argued this in the past with clients they generally aren't concerned. Arguing that you should use web standards is a better tactic, especially if you can show the long term benefit and that it will cost them less. Arguing that you have to support Firefox is a good tactic.

Windows people really get their backs up if you mention having to support the Mac. It's sad. The Mac getting popular will not change that and with some people, the more popular the Mac is, the bigger the fight they'll put up to promote the Microsoft way. Some people just don't get it yet that web standards encompass 100% of the people whereas the Microsoft way creates ghettos.

Hopefully you agree that if Apple had a 97% market share, everyone would support their platform. It would be business suicide not to.

So, somewhere in between current market share (4%) and 97%, is a point where people start to be aware that OS X exists, and should be supported.

I think the point at which this starts to happen is 10%.

Most people actually never upgrade their computers at all. They like believing that they have the option but never actually end up doing it.

The Apple DVD player never deinterlaced all that well. I've never tried to run VLC.

I've read on AVS that someone that ran the HQV test disc on the MacBookPro reported that the Apple DVD player and FrontRow failed most of the tests.

It's not the GMA950 that's the limiting factor. Its the poor decoder/player.

1080/24p H.264 trailers appear to play without dropped frames. Movie DVDs will play fine. It should look very good for good source material.

Your concern is FUD given the known limitations of using a Mac as a HTPC in general (i.e. software DVD player sucks in comparison to PC software DVD players).

Vinea

Your points are articulate and well taken.

The question still is; should Apple give minis away to increase market share.

I know where you stand and I just disagree.

10%, you might notice, is not the vast majority. Neither is 15%.

Airport and Bluetooth are "free" with the Intel chipset Apple's using as I understand it (which is why they now support 802.11a having rubbished it for so long.)

I doubt the remote costs Apple more than $10.

So I don't think what you mention would reduce the costs to Apple by $100.

Much as I liked the fact there was a $499 Mac mini in the original line-up, I can't remember ever seeing the $499 one and saying "Yeah, I like/I'd recommend that." I think Apple's sane in starting at $600 for a full-featured model. They're not quite sane for releasing Core Solo based stuff *now* when we're still waiting for Universal Binaries, and the lack of accelerated graphics in the medium end ($800) model, even as an option, is a major turn-off for me. But the pricing I don't have an issue with.

The only way I can see for them to produce a cheaper Mac mini would be to spec it something like this:

Core Solo
Smallest drive available (probably 40G)
256Mb of RAM
No optical drive (use Firewire or USB)
Ethernet/BT/Airport/Crap Integrated Graphics/4 USB ports/etc

Even then, savings are from the second, third, and fourth items, and given the prices Apple pays, I'd be surprised if the saving averages more than $10 per item (maybe $20 for the RAM), so this (awful!) Mac mini probably couldn't sell profitably for $499.

I've said elsewhere, if I were Apple I'd have:

- Kept the Mac mini G4 versions for the low end, at least until next year or when Microsoft releases a UB of Office X, whichever is sooner.

- Released the Core Duo version at $800 as they did, today.

- Released a better Core Duo with a proper, iMac-like, graphics chip, and a gig of RAM, for $999 today. Both Core Duo versions could be a half inch higher than the machines they replace to ensure they have the space.

- When the G4 is fully obsoleted (see first point), replace that with a Core Solo version.

They're, all in all, in too much of a hurry to eliminate the PowerPCs from their lines. I don't think the time is right to release Core Solo based machines, and I especially think they'll harm the credibility of the platform if they do that on what was once the machine aimed at switchers and the rest of us.

A tablet PC is a loser. Less than 1% of laptop buyers choose a tablet. Laptop buyers are about 50% of the computer market. That means that the tablet marker encompasses a vast .5% of the computer market.

I doubt that breaking into that market will help Apple much in terms of marketshare.

Even if Apple comes out with a great model that sells well, it wouldn't up Apple's share by more than a fraction of a point.

And you, and others here, seem to think that the majority of PC buyers get $399 and $499 computers. They don't. The average selling price is closer to $1,000, when the "free" ($50 list value, but gotten for about $20) printer is added.

These machines fit within this model. Apple does need a "home value" LCD monitor. A $179 17", and a $299 19" (the most popular size now), would go a long way to make a complete system for these buyers when they walk into an Apple store. Then Apple could have a complete system for that $1,000 bucks.

$599+$179+$60(keyboard+mouse, wired models), +"free" printer=$838. Upgrade paths can be shown, as they do in other stores.

They can do the same thing for the dual.

Apple doesn't have to capture that crowd that can't spend the extra $100. That's NOT the largest category of buyer out there. And I just can't understand why you seem to think it's so important. None of the companies selling computers at that price are making money with them. This has been said in the financial pages, over, and over again. Even Dell admitted it.

I wish that most web designers were as conscientious as you. Most web sites are written for companies that want to take advantage of IE only technologies (and, no, I don't want to get into a discussion as to what they are, the fact that it's done is enough). hopefully, this will slowly change as FireFox (though the latest info has shown that it's lost some of the share) and Safari, as well as Linux browsers get more marketshare.

As far as the Grants.gov site goes. That problem is solved.

The company (PureEdge Solutions) that wrote the software, that only works on Windows (it's NOT a site problem, the electronic form ON the site is Win only), has announced a Mac version for November. The Government has, therefore, decided to delay electronic submissions for R01 research grants to February 2007, from October 2006.

This is where those of you (not you aegis) who think that marketshare isn't important, are so very wrong. If such a large population of scientists DIDN'T use Mac's, this change would NEVER have happened.

This info is from my Feb 24 issue of the journal Science.

That's simply not true. Almost ALL low price machines, including $1,000 and up machines from Dell, and others come with IG. Many laptops do as well.Even some up to $1,500 do.

Very few people buying these machines upgrade to cards. You can't even do it on a laptop.

It's an Anon, but still, it supports my contention as well that 1080p should play.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8772/

I just went to Dell's site. Machines under $1,000 vary between those with IG and those with more powerful configurations. For example, the Dimension E510 ($699) comes with a 128Mb ATI Radeon X300 mini-PCI card. (There are probably others in this price range, I'm just mentioning the first one I came across.)

Similarly, I jumped into the middle of the HP machines and found a variety with ATI and nVidia graphics in this price range. For example, the a1350y, with mostly the minimum settings checked, but including an NVIDIA GeForce 6200se, comes out at $609.99.

(Try customizing here, don't know if it'll work)

You can presumably go to most of the big names and get the same results. Including a decent graphics card may occasionally be a BTO option, but machines that are directly price-competitive with the Mac mini that have decent graphics are far from abnormal. And let's be honest: most people who want decent graphics are not willing to spend thousands on a PC. College students, parents buying boxes for their kids, etc, are not made of money.

1080p trailers only requires decoding via CPU, hence everything would look great on the 1080p Display, but all other video feeds especially 480i DVD titles would look aweful even with good DVD software player due to lack of proper deinterlacer.