Core 2 Duo Mac mini's?
Since it seems very likely that the MacBook's will be getting the Core 2 Duo treatment soon, what do you think the chances of the Mac mini seeing the same change are? I feel if the Mac mini will get a Core 2 Duo it will be a while before the change since they just recently got the speed bump. Personally I'd love it if the Mac mini's held on to the Core Duo's for a long time if it meant the Mac mini would drop back to the $499 price point. I have many friends who would love a Mac mini but they feel $599 and $799 are too expensive.
Comments
Out of interest, can you buy a Core 2 Duo/Core Duo PC for $499? If not then your friends have no reason to wait. PCs are cheaper because they use older components that are slower. Apple just switched so they use the latest chips and there are no Pentium-D or Pentium-Ms going around.
Maybe in a year or so, a second hand Core Duo Mini will be around $400.
I want to see quad core Minis next year too. I'd be happy buying a new Mini every year.
$499 Mac mini
1.83Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
512MB RAM
60GB HD
Combo Drive
Intel GMA 950 graphics
$699 Mac mini
1.83Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
80GB HD
SuperDrive
Intel GMA 950 graphics
$899 Mac mini (black)
2.16Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
80GB HD
SuperDrive
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB SDRAM
I really want a Mac mini, but I want decent video. Then this thing could power one of those 30" LCDs. I don't want an attached screen, so I don't want an iMac. And I can't spend the money needed for a full blown tower. This thing would be perfect for me.
I like the idea about a black top-of-the-line mini with dedicated graphics, Apple should really consider it as I've heard lots of people steer away from the mini due to it's integrated graphics.
Also, I think the mini's design is quite appropriate, combining the white consumer elements and the aluminum pro element. I know a wide variety of people with mini's, some new Mac users, some pros using mini's as backups or media centers. The mini is well suited for both types of users.
- Mark
the thing that confuses me about the mini is that, its metal, like the pro models in the apple line up, but aimed at average joe, usually white. but i supose it would look silly being in a white box. just a thought.
Well the top is white plastic and when you think about it, the iMac base is metal. Perhaps they learned from the cube that plastic all over doesn't work well - maybe it weakens the case.
I'd actually love to see an all silver Mac Mini.
How about a black Mac mini? Lately, Apple has been using a black scheme to differentiate a more equipped, top-end product compared to the rest in its lineup (MacBook, iPod nano...).
Apple's color scheme works like this (except for the iPod 30/80 GB where price doesn't affect color):
White plastic + Aluminum equals dirt cheap for Apple (mac mini, shuffle)
White plastic equals consumer (iMac, MacBook)
Black plastic equals high consumer (nano, MacBook)
Aluminum/metal equals pro user (MacPro, xServe, MacBook Pro)
-=|Mgkwho
And I forgot cinema displays: they're for pro users over macmini users (just look at the BYODKM images)
-=|Mgkwho
Would you rather have a mini with 64MB of dedicated graphics, or Apple allowing the mini to use the maximum 224MB of video memory that the Intel integrated graphics are capable of?
Impressive numbers, but the GMA950 doen't even deliver the performance of the old 32MB 9200 G4 iBook. I am sure you will argue that the GMA950 is more compatable with some new core items, but remember the 9200 is ancient........and was never brought forward and ended it's life with the 9550.
If Apple IS going to continue with integrated graphics..........let's pull the hardware from the shelves that don't have dust on them..........and put the GMA950 in the graveyard where it belongs.
There is NO longer an argument for cost. A graphics card or chipset that can triple the performance costs same. I am sure that you will argue that a redesign is costly.........the mini should have been designed with dedicated graphics in the first place.
There, truly, isn't a good argument for the GMA950, no matter how much ram it steals from the rest of the computer...........unless you work in the integrated graphics dept. at Intel.
I shell out the duckies for a Mobile Nvidia graphics chip, 7200RPM SATA drive (I realise its a lappy drive) based Mini. I would love to be able to have OpenGL performance and the portability of the mini!
Impressive numbers, but the GMA950 doen't even deliver the performance of the old 32MB 9200 G4 iBook. I am sure you will argue that the GMA950 is more compatable with some new core items, but remember the 9200 is ancient........and was never brought forward and ended it's life with the 9550.
If Apple IS going to continue with integrated graphics..........let's pull the hardware from the shelves that don't have dust on them..........and put the GMA950 in the graveyard where it belongs.
There is NO longer an argument for cost. A graphics card or chipset that can triple the performance costs same. I am sure that you will argue that a redesign is costly.........the mini should have been designed with dedicated graphics in the first place.
There, truly, isn't a good argument for the GMA950, no matter how much ram it steals from the rest of the computer...........unless you work in the integrated graphics dept. at Intel.
I shell out the duckies for a Mobile Nvidia graphics chip, 7200RPM SATA drive (I realise its a lappy drive) based Mini. I would love to be able to have OpenGL performance and the portability of the mini!
Wouldn't it be nice.......if the mini was a little bigger, so it COULD have cheaper, faster and bigger hard drives. That way, all the new movies Apple wants you to buy would fit inside the Mac Mini without plugging in an external HD.
I guess that would disorder the cleverly laid marketing scheme of the price ladder leading to the iMac.
" If a Mac Mini costs this much.............well, for a few hundred dollars more I could have THIS computer with a monitor built in, a bigger hard drive and......"
You just can win.
Impressive numbers, but the GMA950 doen't even deliver the performance of the old 32MB 9200 G4 iBook.
You may be right that comparing the cards side by side in the same machine that the 9200 would perform better but the GMA in the Intel Macs is faster than the 9200 with the G4s. I suspect it's because the Intel CPUs are helping a lot but nonetheless, it's still faster overall and that's really what counts.
I'd still prefer to see a dedicated card too though.
I need a mini with dual display out's
Yeah that is a big problem for some people. It is actually possible to do but it has issues:
http://voice.firefallpro.com/2006/02...ors-using.html
After all that expense, you could probably get an iMac with external display for the same price.
After all that expense, you could probably get an iMac with external display for the same price.
I have 2 lovely sony displays though
I have 2 lovely sony displays though
You could always sell the Mini including one of the displays.
I think Apple would make more sales if the Mini supported dual displays but I don't know if the GMA can push that many pixels. Dashboard can stutter on 1600x1200 with a Mini and dual 1280x1024 is higher than that.
I am really craving an Apple display for my Mac mini put I can't justify a $649 purchase.
You could always sell the Mini including one of the displays.
I think Apple would make more sales if the Mini supported dual displays but I don't know if the GMA can push that many pixels. Dashboard can stutter on 1600x1200 with a Mini and dual 1280x1024 is higher than that.
The MacBook and basic iMac have GMA950 and they have DVI out for a second display, so Apple think its possible to run 2 displays on GMA950, it's just that the mini has one output.