Brilliant speculation - Apple will release a product that is slower than their last product! That's the way to impress your customers. At least it would confirm AI's long held insistence that Apple was adapting the Atom.
But then again, maybe it's just a load of bullshit.
...However, Intel's Atom processor is designed to be a low cost, energy efficient x86-compatible GPU
Correction: The above article incorrectly uses "GPU" several times where "CPU" is in fact the correct term. A "GPU" is a Graphics Processing Unit, something the Atom most certainly is not. It is a Central Processing Unit. A casual mistake that may serve to misinform some readers.
To further elaborate, the new nVidia "Ion" platform based on their 9400M chipset does include a built-in, or integrated, GPU. Paired with an Atom CPU, this has been shown to perform graphics-intensive processes much better than the current generation of Intel motherboards found in Atom-based systems available now.
Anandtech.com has a recent article about this, if you need further details.
I could imagine a senario where you can purchase an Atom-based Mac Mini that is an AppleTV replacement at around $300, marketed as a "Mac Mini TV", or still choose models based on Core 2 Duo chips for $500+ still called a "Mac Mini" .
Or something to that effect. So long as there is a clear distiction to the buyer that one should not expect to use the Atom-based version for certain CPU-intesive tasks, but the native HD video decoding and graphics abilities of the 9400M / Ion chipset is more than adeqate for their multimedia Home Theater PC needs. And, they are - a recent Anandtech article speak about being able to saturate the DDR memory bus well before the graphics system is overwhelmed decoding two HD movies at the same time. Or something like that... go read his Ion article.
Dear internet: it would probably be a good idea to not get enraged and shake your tiny fists in indignation because of an entirely unsubstantiated rumor about something that Apple might do that would in fact be highly uncharacteristic of them.
Depending on if FW is included and a Superdrive a $399 Atom based
mini would be merely passable.
I doubt it'd run iLife very well and i'm not banking on OpenCL gaining any real
traction until 10.7.
It would make for a nice basic web surfing box and iWork and other productivity apps. Though I think there's a snowballs chance that Apple actually delivers a $400 computer.
Odds are they attempt to pass this off as an acceptable $500 computer which would be a joke.
But if they price it at $2000, then Apple can call it a premium product. Apple defenders could then argue that Apple makes premium products, higher prices mean better differentiation, Apple is like BMW while everyone else is Kia, etc.
But if they price it at $2000, then Apple can call it a premium product. Apple defenders could then argue that Apple makes premium products, higher prices mean better differentiation, Apple is like BMW while everyone else is Kia, etc.
Yes, that ludicrous hypothetical situation certainly would paint those silly Apple defenders in a bad light, when they pretend rallied to the made up thing.
Well I can personally tell you with absolute precision the next MacMini WILL NOT run an Atom based CPU.
I have exactly what there stating on my desk at the office. It's half the speed of the 1st gen Core Solo mini, even though it's dual core.
And they can't use it for AppleTV either because it can't process HD content as well as the current Pentium M cpu.
WHY? So glad you asked, it can't run processes out of step/sync. And the low cache is horrid when you try to watch HD Movies.
Running OS X Vanilla this cpu/chip combo scores a low 45.84 on Xbench. A core solo runs a decent 79.xx with 1gb of ram. Performance on Ubuntu 64bit is good but it would be like offering a G4 in today's market.
They may make a Mac with that cpu but nothing mainstream for real hard work. A $299 mac that's Eco friendly (system uses 18 watts under operation, half when idle) to go along side their netbook on the same chips and 10" screen (16:9 resolution BTW).
Replace the mini with that, might as well drop a 4cyl in the next corvette.
Dear internet: it would probably be a good idea to not get enraged and shake your tiny fists in indignation because of an entirely unsubstantiated rumor about something that Apple might do that would in fact be highly uncharacteristic of them.
Apple TV, Possibly 9400M technically, is perfectly capable of playing 1080P Video. With some optimization and proper software support.
Mini, i have previously thought yes, but someone pointed out the simple reason why not. Atom is not 64bit. Which i think rules Atom out of the Mini equation.
Apple TV, Possibly 9400M technically, is perfectly capable of playing 1080P Video. With some optimization and proper software support.
Mini, i have previously thought yes, but someone pointed out the simple reason why not. Atom is not 64bit. Which i think rules Atom out of the Mini equation.
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
The 3 people I know who bought an Apple TV all have the same thing to say... Apple TV Sucks!
All 3 of them returned them.
They didn't know what media the AppleTv supported before they purchased it? Sounds like you're trying to add credibility to your argument by fabrication.
Anyhow, I love my AppleTv. And I knew its capabilities when I purchased it.
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
The desktop Atom CPU's support 64-bit, the netbook (most use the N270 Atom) variants do not. The desktop Atom 330 is also dual-core, unlike the rest, which are single-core and support/use HT.
The biggest issue with the current netbooks, is that the GMA 950 is a piece of crap, but that's the same issue that I have with my Mini. The 9400M would be perfect for that type of application, but in an Apple desktop, unless it was $300-400 dollars, Apple would be completely crazy, as the Atom is great for low-power applications, but doesn't have enough power for more demanding things like iLife even.
Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. While the Mini could stay within the same parameters, and grow in power, there might be room for a machine at roughly the Apple TV price point, but with additional features and 3D graphics. A sort of "Apple Console". A lightweight, flash-based (no disk drive) media center device, perhaps with gaming capability, definitely browsing and e-mail, with an App Store distribution model for software.
It would be a computer for people who don't use computers, or use them badly, as well as an entertainment hub for people who do use computers, but don't want to tie up a real machine with their TV.
It would be the flip side to the netbook concept; similar power but not a mobile device.
Perhaps it wouldn't even be called a Mac, which would fit with their effort to trademark OS/X alone.
It could be something else entirely, but I think Apple is up to something...
We all would like to think that Apple doesn't compromise on quality, but they've been doing it with the Mini for the past couple years. This is keeping in line with that tradition.
We all would like to think that Apple doesn't compromise on quality, but they've been doing it with the Mini for the past couple years.
"Let them eat cake."
I think the quality of the mini is fine though the specs are beyond outdated. The Atom certainly isn't the answer. I understand Apple's reluctance to push the mini but low cost computers are good for families that want multiple computers.
The more computers sold means it opens up opportunity for selling more software and services like MobileMe and eventually easy management of resources for a small Home Area Network.
I'm sure the dream for Apple is that families can afford iMacs all the way around but that's just not realistic. The typical multi computer home will probably have a mix of fast and slower desktops and a laptop or two tossed in.
Apple's sitting at this point where they have implemented the technology in software to easily create networks and leverage resources but they don't seem to have the will power to just deliver the solution.
i dont really have any problems with my appletv , sure it would be alot easier if i didnt have to convert alot of my stuff , but it doesnt bother me that much , ive also played a 1080p mkv file that was 10GB and it didnt shutter or freeze , and im doing all this on my 2.4ghz macbook.
They clearly thought it made sense to use an Atom to compete with the Mini.
Looking at their marketing style, which takes a lot of influence from Apple, it's easy for me to feel convinced that this is what Apple's doing. Who can't imagine an Apple page advertising an Atom Mini after looking at that?
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
I don't know anything about MKV format videos, but my early 2008 MBP plays the high bit-rate, h264, 1080p video from the new Canon 5DII just fine. Besides, if the goal for the AppleTV is to play iTunes Store content (yes, we all agree that it SHOULD do more than that), then it only has to be able to play 720p video.
Comments
But then again, maybe it's just a load of bullshit.
Correction: The above article incorrectly uses "GPU" several times where "CPU" is in fact the correct term. A "GPU" is a Graphics Processing Unit, something the Atom most certainly is not. It is a Central Processing Unit. A casual mistake that may serve to misinform some readers.
To further elaborate, the new nVidia "Ion" platform based on their 9400M chipset does include a built-in, or integrated, GPU. Paired with an Atom CPU, this has been shown to perform graphics-intensive processes much better than the current generation of Intel motherboards found in Atom-based systems available now.
Anandtech.com has a recent article about this, if you need further details.
AppleTV on Atom - possibly.
Mac mini on Atom - don't be daft!
I could imagine a senario where you can purchase an Atom-based Mac Mini that is an AppleTV replacement at around $300, marketed as a "Mac Mini TV", or still choose models based on Core 2 Duo chips for $500+ still called a "Mac Mini" .
Or something to that effect. So long as there is a clear distiction to the buyer that one should not expect to use the Atom-based version for certain CPU-intesive tasks, but the native HD video decoding and graphics abilities of the 9400M / Ion chipset is more than adeqate for their multimedia Home Theater PC needs. And, they are - a recent Anandtech article speak about being able to saturate the DDR memory bus well before the graphics system is overwhelmed decoding two HD movies at the same time. Or something like that... go read his Ion article.
That is all.
Depending on if FW is included and a Superdrive a $399 Atom based
mini would be merely passable.
I doubt it'd run iLife very well and i'm not banking on OpenCL gaining any real
traction until 10.7.
It would make for a nice basic web surfing box and iWork and other productivity apps. Though I think there's a snowballs chance that Apple actually delivers a $400 computer.
Odds are they attempt to pass this off as an acceptable $500 computer which would be a joke.
But if they price it at $2000, then Apple can call it a premium product. Apple defenders could then argue that Apple makes premium products, higher prices mean better differentiation, Apple is like BMW while everyone else is Kia, etc.
But if they price it at $2000, then Apple can call it a premium product. Apple defenders could then argue that Apple makes premium products, higher prices mean better differentiation, Apple is like BMW while everyone else is Kia, etc.
Yes, that ludicrous hypothetical situation certainly would paint those silly Apple defenders in a bad light, when they pretend rallied to the made up thing.
I have exactly what there stating on my desk at the office. It's half the speed of the 1st gen Core Solo mini, even though it's dual core.
And they can't use it for AppleTV either because it can't process HD content as well as the current Pentium M cpu.
WHY? So glad you asked, it can't run processes out of step/sync. And the low cache is horrid when you try to watch HD Movies.
Running OS X Vanilla this cpu/chip combo scores a low 45.84 on Xbench. A core solo runs a decent 79.xx with 1gb of ram. Performance on Ubuntu 64bit is good but it would be like offering a G4 in today's market.
They may make a Mac with that cpu but nothing mainstream for real hard work. A $299 mac that's Eco friendly (system uses 18 watts under operation, half when idle) to go along side their netbook on the same chips and 10" screen (16:9 resolution BTW).
Replace the mini with that, might as well drop a 4cyl in the next corvette.
Dear internet: it would probably be a good idea to not get enraged and shake your tiny fists in indignation because of an entirely unsubstantiated rumor about something that Apple might do that would in fact be highly uncharacteristic of them.
That is all.
Should have read this first! LOL!
Mini, i have previously thought yes, but someone pointed out the simple reason why not. Atom is not 64bit. Which i think rules Atom out of the Mini equation.
Apple TV, Possibly 9400M technically, is perfectly capable of playing 1080P Video. With some optimization and proper software support.
Mini, i have previously thought yes, but someone pointed out the simple reason why not. Atom is not 64bit. Which i think rules Atom out of the Mini equation.
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
The 3 people I know who bought an Apple TV all have the same thing to say... Apple TV Sucks!
All 3 of them returned them.
They didn't know what media the AppleTv supported before they purchased it? Sounds like you're trying to add credibility to your argument by fabrication.
Anyhow, I love my AppleTv. And I knew its capabilities when I purchased it.
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
The desktop Atom CPU's support 64-bit, the netbook (most use the N270 Atom) variants do not. The desktop Atom 330 is also dual-core, unlike the rest, which are single-core and support/use HT.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...tom_330/2.html
The biggest issue with the current netbooks, is that the GMA 950 is a piece of crap, but that's the same issue that I have with my Mini. The 9400M would be perfect for that type of application, but in an Apple desktop, unless it was $300-400 dollars, Apple would be completely crazy, as the Atom is great for low-power applications, but doesn't have enough power for more demanding things like iLife even.
It would be a computer for people who don't use computers, or use them badly, as well as an entertainment hub for people who do use computers, but don't want to tie up a real machine with their TV.
It would be the flip side to the netbook concept; similar power but not a mobile device.
Perhaps it wouldn't even be called a Mac, which would fit with their effort to trademark OS/X alone.
It could be something else entirely, but I think Apple is up to something...
We all would like to think that Apple doesn't compromise on quality, but they've been doing it with the Mini for the past couple years.
"Let them eat cake."
I think the quality of the mini is fine though the specs are beyond outdated. The Atom certainly isn't the answer. I understand Apple's reluctance to push the mini but low cost computers are good for families that want multiple computers.
The more computers sold means it opens up opportunity for selling more software and services like MobileMe and eventually easy management of resources for a small Home Area Network.
I'm sure the dream for Apple is that families can afford iMacs all the way around but that's just not realistic. The typical multi computer home will probably have a mix of fast and slower desktops and a laptop or two tossed in.
Apple's sitting at this point where they have implemented the technology in software to easily create networks and leverage resources but they don't seem to have the will power to just deliver the solution.
http://us.shuttle.com/X2700.aspx
They clearly thought it made sense to use an Atom to compete with the Mini.
Looking at their marketing style, which takes a lot of influence from Apple, it's easy for me to feel convinced that this is what Apple's doing. Who can't imagine an Apple page advertising an Atom Mini after looking at that?
Technically yes, but so far it doesn't. Out of all the software out there that plays video (vlc, perrien, coreplayer, quicktime, etc) I have only found 1 app that plays 1080p MKV without stuttering on a macbook pro... and that's Plex. My buddy even tried playing the 1080p MKVs on his quad 2.66 Mac Pro with VLC... no go.
BTW good point about the 64bit... I didn't realize atom wasn't 64bit. If this is true I can't see apple moving to it... not with the 64bit push for snow leopard.
I don't know anything about MKV format videos, but my early 2008 MBP plays the high bit-rate, h264, 1080p video from the new Canon 5DII just fine. Besides, if the goal for the AppleTV is to play iTunes Store content (yes, we all agree that it SHOULD do more than that), then it only has to be able to play 720p video.