I'm not particularly concerned about HD or anything like that, so this update is welcome for me. Looking forward to the better speed and more USB ports.
Not to mention it only comes with an 80gig drive with a max option of 120gigs. if this is going to be my media center, I'm going to need a lot more room than that. I have 70 gigs of music as it is. Add in any photos or video and I'm out of room on that thing.
Building a small, (relatively) inexpensive computer is like coming up with a new recipe. You put some things in, and you have to leave some things out. You can't put everything you like in at the same time.
Apple has the problem of having decided upon this form factor. It is what it is.
It's also sold well.
A graphics chip with dedicated memory would have added another $75. Would you have been will ing to pay another $75? Enough people are already complaining that these cost too much. You should read the thread on Ars!
With a cpu costing Apple several times what the old G4 cost, the money wasn't there. Simple.
If you need another reason, it's also heat. A Core Duo 1.67GHz chip puts out more heat than a single core 1.42GHz G4 7447a.
They weren't about to place a Graphics chip W/memory into the 1.5GHz single core machine either.
These machines are much more powerful than the old ones were. You also get more (other than that graphics chip).
I see your points. I just think a cheaper CPU with an integrated video would make more sense to me. If you're going for power then core chips and video card. If you're going for economy then P-4(?) or celeron and intergrated video. Choices they made just seem inconsistent to me. Maybe I'm missing the mark here because most of the knowledgable posters think the decisions were correct.
Sure they should be OPTIONS, but Apple is doing themselves over by excluding themselves from the sub-500 market.
And I DO want Apple to creat a cheap computer beause, amazingly, it is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, and the OS runs just fine on my Snow iMac G3, which costs a lot less than $500.
Can you tell us, from what you know about Apple's costs on parts, etc. just HOW they would have come out with this as a sub $500 machine?
What features would you have added, and which would you have discarded? Again, based upon what you know about the costs for it?
Don't people here understand that if Apple thought that they COULD have done this for $500, much less under $500, that they would have done it?
Lastly, this has been said before, but this revision sucks most of all because it has a complete disregard for BOTH the low end AND the media center markets. It's higher priced... but it STILL doesn't have real media center capablities. For those you have to spend ANOTHER $350 for some third party soultion.
I think they just don't have the low end chips from Intel yet. ie. the Celeron M 4xx. It'll come eventually.
On the media center end, Apple just doesn't have it's software ready. I'm sure it's coming. And adding in a TV tuner or cable is quite difficult if you're selling the product worldwide. None of the US systems work in Europe for instance. Apple would have to redesign the mini to have some kind of card slot for the different systems.
And here in the UK, a DVB-T USB tuner that plugs in to the Mac Mini that would allow you to record digital TV is actually only £99 and the size of a USB key drive. I don't know why it's $350 in the USA.
Only because Sony will be selling the PS3 at over a hundred dollars below cost.
Correct and adding a faster graphics card isn't going to drastically change this.
There was good reason why older iMacs weren't selling very well. One of the main hold back was lack of decent GPU. It's a different story now since new iMacs still provides all the destop pc features as well as the gaming (not the best but still alot better than the prior models) which is drving the sales, IMO. Most consumers shop for the potential capablitis even if they don't use all the given features. It will be the same story with mac mini. it will lag sales # due to lack of potential features. I think the marketing dept. did real boo boo this time. New Macmini wasn't tarketed for specific market and it's not really good for any specific use. Just general purpose use for emails, web browsing, word process, and etc.... but the old macnini's didn't lag too much in this department. Even my old PM9600 can do that running Tiger. Well, there's a good chance apple will update macmini within 6 months with better GPU options due to poor sales, but this might be little too late for me. I hate to build another Windows box, but for $799 I can build myself a nice amd64 x3800(OC to 2.8 GHz, Nvidia 7800GT)gaming mini-ATX box with some of the scrap parts I already own. Who knows, I may be able to run OS X on this in the future....
I'm hoping/guessing the price of the mini will come down rather rapidly as Intel makes price cuts. It would be dishonest on Apple's part to keep them the way they are for months after a price cut on the processors.
I may buy one when the prices are more reasonable. I know this product belongs in the lowest end of the spectrum but how long is that integrated chip gonna last? At 800 bucks, I'm expecting for a graphics card that'll last at least a year or 2. The integrated one wouldn't last me 6 months.
I said I'd buy the mini if it had Core Duo and was marketed under 800 dollars. But I didn't think Apple would put an integrated graphics chip in there.
I don't think I'm cut out of the mini...I can't afford two computers right now. Having to choose between the mini and the PowerMac, I'd have to go with the PowerMac.
HD playback is CPU bound and not graphics card bound!!
Geez guys vent all you want but don't make stuff up.
B U L L S H * T
There. I am right you are wrong. What a great way to argue? Shouting does not help your case buddy.
What if one's video card cannot output 1920x1080 @ 60hz? Are they then not bound by their GPU?
Moreover, People here are confused about high definition and codecs used in achieving that high definition.
For example, MPEG-2 in 1920x1080 is roughly 15-20 mbps and may not be that difficult to decode. However, MPEG-4 and various derivatives such as H264, DivX, Xvid, WMV, etc are are roughly 8-10 mbps and notoriously hard to decode. As people have mentioned, ATI's R520 does offer H264 accelration and so does Nvidia's PureVideo. ATI has also long offered DivX acceleration at least in its PC products. GPU certainly has a role in HD content playback.
Therefore, I would argue that HD content playback can be limited to either CPU or GPU based on the context - rather than your errorneous black or white statement.
To make stuff up and then tell others to not make stuff up is bad enough. To shout it out? That's sad.
I just ordered one, the 1.66GHz Core Duo. Judging by the specs, it should run HD video just fine, as the CPU will be able to easily handle it. That being said, while it will play just fine, it will use more CPU than on a machine with a GPU that has h.264 decoding built into the GPU. Obviously, this is not a high end gaming machine, but it's still a damn fine computer.
By the way, the Core Solo and Core Duo chips are not Pentium M chips. Just a note.
What are you compiling that needs distributed compilation for the length of a movie?
It's an example.
Who the hell sits around watching HD via their Mac-mini? If I want to watch HD I'll use a PowerMac w/ Cinema Display or an iMac 17/20 that was released this past January.
The fact is this "system" is not a media center targeted for the media center market. It is an entry level mac w/o monitor and can address various market segments, partially.
If I wanted to have an inexpensive small rendering farm I'd buy a short stack of these.
If I needed a couple cheap fileservers this is another example.
If I was doing a motion picture rendering job obviously I wouldn't mention it, but these are for the hobbyist.
For development reasons, you want to develop optimized applications for the slowest systems; and then adjust for any hardware specs you can leverage in your applications as you test against the iMac, PowerMac, XServe, MacBook Pro, etc.
If I had to choose between buying several Mac-mini systems to cheaply develop games my answer is that these systems aren't adequate to meet my needs for OpenGL and acceptable framerates.
If I need to develop codecs to test Video compression that would give me high frame rates and minimal quality reduction these systems aren't for me.
How then these systems are for me to watch HD video is a stretch.
These systems are home computers for someone who for some damn reason thinks $599 is a bargain and then buying a nice monitor doesn't make them cringe.
These headless systems are solid for doing work that doesn't require a head.
There. I am right you are wrong. What a great way to argue? Shouting does not help your case buddy.
What if one's video card cannot output 1920x1080 @ 60hz? Are they then not bound by their GPU?
Moreover, People here are confused about high definition and codecs used in achieving that high definition.
For example, MPEG-2 in 1920x1080 is roughly 15-20 mbps and may not be that difficult to decode. However, MPEG-4 and various derivatives such as H264, DivX, Xvid, WMV, etc are are roughly 8-10 mbps and notoriously hard to decode. As people have mentioned, ATI's R520 does offer H264 accelration and so does Nvidia's PureVideo. ATI has also long offered DivX acceleration at least in its PC products. GPU certainly has a role in HD content playback.
Therefore, I would argue that HD content playback can be limited to either CPU or GPU based on the context - rather than your errorneous black or white statement.
To make stuff up and then tell others to not make stuff up is bad enough. To shout it out? That's sad.
Euh...actually, you're wrong. HD playback is done by the CPU (at least currently on Macs it is)...the GPU has nothing to do with playback (currently). HD playback and video output are unrelated to each other. Technically the computer could play the video without a display...or stream the video to another device.
Also 1080p does play on my 1024x768 CRT...albeit it plays slowly...but this has nothing to do with the fact that my card can't display typical HD resolutions but rather the fact that I have a shitty G4.
Also...keep in mind that HD is offered in a variety of sizes...not just 1920x1080.
Also the word 'B U L L S H * T' wasn't as bolded as hmurchison...so you lose doubly so.
know that the average ENTRY level computer probably won't even have a 100 Mbit network, they will just plug their 10 Mbit cable modem right into their computer. Or they'll just use dial-up.
Why the assumption that networks are just for WAN connectivity. 100T networking becomes the bottleneck if you wish to put storage on the network. We have plenty of consumers buying network storage.
Quote:
Sure they should be OPTIONS, but Apple is doing themselves over by excluding themselves from the sub-500 market.
And just how much profit do you think is in sub $500 computers? If you can get $40 you're doing damn good.
Quote:
Lastly, this has been said before, but this revision sucks most of all because it has a complete disregard for BOTH the low end AND the media center markets.
Our best selling computers aren't the extremely lowend. People tend to shy away from the cheapest computer and move into the next step up for features. Apple's history shows the middle model out of a line of three tends to sell the best. Media Centre is just now blipping on the Mac radar. It's still incomplete and we have other things that need to happen first. The mac mini sucks to you but I doubt that many consumers will agree.
Comments
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Compiling my projects.
The Mini was never aimed at you. If that's what you want to do, get an iMac.
Originally posted by hmurchison
[B]Only because Sony will be selling the PS3 at over a hundred dollars below cost.
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.
You should read the thread on Ars!
The discussion on Ars is utterly ridiculous. And those guys claim to be computer experts.
Originally posted by buckeye
Not to mention it only comes with an 80gig drive with a max option of 120gigs. if this is going to be my media center, I'm going to need a lot more room than that. I have 70 gigs of music as it is. Add in any photos or video and I'm out of room on that thing.
That's what this 500Gb drive is for...
http://www.lacie.com/uk/products/product.htm?pid=10727
Originally posted by melgross
Building a small, (relatively) inexpensive computer is like coming up with a new recipe. You put some things in, and you have to leave some things out. You can't put everything you like in at the same time.
Apple has the problem of having decided upon this form factor. It is what it is.
It's also sold well.
A graphics chip with dedicated memory would have added another $75. Would you have been will ing to pay another $75? Enough people are already complaining that these cost too much. You should read the thread on Ars!
With a cpu costing Apple several times what the old G4 cost, the money wasn't there. Simple.
If you need another reason, it's also heat. A Core Duo 1.67GHz chip puts out more heat than a single core 1.42GHz G4 7447a.
They weren't about to place a Graphics chip W/memory into the 1.5GHz single core machine either.
These machines are much more powerful than the old ones were. You also get more (other than that graphics chip).
I see your points. I just think a cheaper CPU with an integrated video would make more sense to me. If you're going for power then core chips and video card. If you're going for economy then P-4(?) or celeron and intergrated video. Choices they made just seem inconsistent to me. Maybe I'm missing the mark here because most of the knowledgable posters think the decisions were correct.
Originally posted by ctachme
Sure they should be OPTIONS, but Apple is doing themselves over by excluding themselves from the sub-500 market.
And I DO want Apple to creat a cheap computer beause, amazingly, it is the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, and the OS runs just fine on my Snow iMac G3, which costs a lot less than $500.
Can you tell us, from what you know about Apple's costs on parts, etc. just HOW they would have come out with this as a sub $500 machine?
What features would you have added, and which would you have discarded? Again, based upon what you know about the costs for it?
Don't people here understand that if Apple thought that they COULD have done this for $500, much less under $500, that they would have done it?
Originally posted by Thereubster
Looks like the new Shuttle Mac mini competitor might suddenly be more attractive as well http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/...226223550.html
its bigger sure, but not by a lot, ATIX1400 graphics, 3.5 inch HD MCE support, seems a better option (depending on price)
Looks very nice. Nice as a future Linux system for my needs.
Originally posted by TenoBell
The discussion on Ars is utterly ridiculous. And those guys claim to be computer experts.
Yes! That was why I pointed to that. Emotions ride high, don't they?
We're seeing that here as well, though to a lesser extent.
Some sitting back, and thoughtful analysis is needed. Look at what is being said about the new Hi-Fi Boombox.
More lack of understanding of what it takes to go into these things, and what those parts cost.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Apple is all about coolness and innovation.
ooooo....a 1.5GHZ pentium M.....thats really fucking innovative! PC manufacturers havnt been using those for 2 years or anything!
But seriously, these do look great, I just think Apple needs a low end option sans wifi at $499, but it looks like a strong line.
Originally posted by melgross
The Mini was never aimed at you. If that's what you want to do, get an iMac.
Distributed compiling at $499 a pop is one hell of reason to buy a few of them.
Originally posted by ctachme
Lastly, this has been said before, but this revision sucks most of all because it has a complete disregard for BOTH the low end AND the media center markets. It's higher priced... but it STILL doesn't have real media center capablities. For those you have to spend ANOTHER $350 for some third party soultion.
I think they just don't have the low end chips from Intel yet. ie. the Celeron M 4xx. It'll come eventually.
On the media center end, Apple just doesn't have it's software ready. I'm sure it's coming. And adding in a TV tuner or cable is quite difficult if you're selling the product worldwide. None of the US systems work in Europe for instance. Apple would have to redesign the mini to have some kind of card slot for the different systems.
And here in the UK, a DVB-T USB tuner that plugs in to the Mac Mini that would allow you to record digital TV is actually only £99 and the size of a USB key drive. I don't know why it's $350 in the USA.
http://www.miglia.com/products/video/tvmini/
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Distributed compiling at $499 a pop is one hell of reason to buy a few of them.
So just spare one of them for watching HD.
What are you compiling that needs distributed compilation for the length of a movie?
Originally posted by hmurchison
Only because Sony will be selling the PS3 at over a hundred dollars below cost.
Correct and adding a faster graphics card isn't going to drastically change this.
There was good reason why older iMacs weren't selling very well. One of the main hold back was lack of decent GPU. It's a different story now since new iMacs still provides all the destop pc features as well as the gaming (not the best but still alot better than the prior models) which is drving the sales, IMO. Most consumers shop for the potential capablitis even if they don't use all the given features. It will be the same story with mac mini. it will lag sales # due to lack of potential features. I think the marketing dept. did real boo boo this time. New Macmini wasn't tarketed for specific market and it's not really good for any specific use. Just general purpose use for emails, web browsing, word process, and etc.... but the old macnini's didn't lag too much in this department. Even my old PM9600 can do that running Tiger. Well, there's a good chance apple will update macmini within 6 months with better GPU options due to poor sales, but this might be little too late for me. I hate to build another Windows box, but for $799 I can build myself a nice amd64 x3800(OC to 2.8 GHz, Nvidia 7800GT)gaming mini-ATX box with some of the scrap parts I already own. Who knows, I may be able to run OS X on this in the future....
I may buy one when the prices are more reasonable. I know this product belongs in the lowest end of the spectrum but how long is that integrated chip gonna last? At 800 bucks, I'm expecting for a graphics card that'll last at least a year or 2. The integrated one wouldn't last me 6 months.
I said I'd buy the mini if it had Core Duo and was marketed under 800 dollars. But I didn't think Apple would put an integrated graphics chip in there.
I don't think I'm cut out of the mini...I can't afford two computers right now. Having to choose between the mini and the PowerMac, I'd have to go with the PowerMac.
Originally posted by hmurchison
HD playback is CPU bound and not graphics card bound!!
Geez guys vent all you want but don't make stuff up.
B U L L S H * T
There. I am right you are wrong. What a great way to argue? Shouting does not help your case buddy.
What if one's video card cannot output 1920x1080 @ 60hz? Are they then not bound by their GPU?
Moreover, People here are confused about high definition and codecs used in achieving that high definition.
For example, MPEG-2 in 1920x1080 is roughly 15-20 mbps and may not be that difficult to decode. However, MPEG-4 and various derivatives such as H264, DivX, Xvid, WMV, etc are are roughly 8-10 mbps and notoriously hard to decode. As people have mentioned, ATI's R520 does offer H264 accelration and so does Nvidia's PureVideo. ATI has also long offered DivX acceleration at least in its PC products. GPU certainly has a role in HD content playback.
Therefore, I would argue that HD content playback can be limited to either CPU or GPU based on the context - rather than your errorneous black or white statement.
To make stuff up and then tell others to not make stuff up is bad enough. To shout it out? That's sad.
By the way, the Core Solo and Core Duo chips are not Pentium M chips. Just a note.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So just spare one of them for watching HD.
What are you compiling that needs distributed compilation for the length of a movie?
It's an example.
Who the hell sits around watching HD via their Mac-mini? If I want to watch HD I'll use a PowerMac w/ Cinema Display or an iMac 17/20 that was released this past January.
The fact is this "system" is not a media center targeted for the media center market. It is an entry level mac w/o monitor and can address various market segments, partially.
If I wanted to have an inexpensive small rendering farm I'd buy a short stack of these.
If I needed a couple cheap fileservers this is another example.
If I was doing a motion picture rendering job obviously I wouldn't mention it, but these are for the hobbyist.
For development reasons, you want to develop optimized applications for the slowest systems; and then adjust for any hardware specs you can leverage in your applications as you test against the iMac, PowerMac, XServe, MacBook Pro, etc.
If I had to choose between buying several Mac-mini systems to cheaply develop games my answer is that these systems aren't adequate to meet my needs for OpenGL and acceptable framerates.
If I need to develop codecs to test Video compression that would give me high frame rates and minimal quality reduction these systems aren't for me.
How then these systems are for me to watch HD video is a stretch.
These systems are home computers for someone who for some damn reason thinks $599 is a bargain and then buying a nice monitor doesn't make them cringe.
These headless systems are solid for doing work that doesn't require a head.
Originally posted by klinux
B U L L S H * T
There. I am right you are wrong. What a great way to argue? Shouting does not help your case buddy.
What if one's video card cannot output 1920x1080 @ 60hz? Are they then not bound by their GPU?
Moreover, People here are confused about high definition and codecs used in achieving that high definition.
For example, MPEG-2 in 1920x1080 is roughly 15-20 mbps and may not be that difficult to decode. However, MPEG-4 and various derivatives such as H264, DivX, Xvid, WMV, etc are are roughly 8-10 mbps and notoriously hard to decode. As people have mentioned, ATI's R520 does offer H264 accelration and so does Nvidia's PureVideo. ATI has also long offered DivX acceleration at least in its PC products. GPU certainly has a role in HD content playback.
Therefore, I would argue that HD content playback can be limited to either CPU or GPU based on the context - rather than your errorneous black or white statement.
To make stuff up and then tell others to not make stuff up is bad enough. To shout it out? That's sad.
Euh...actually, you're wrong. HD playback is done by the CPU (at least currently on Macs it is)...the GPU has nothing to do with playback (currently). HD playback and video output are unrelated to each other. Technically the computer could play the video without a display...or stream the video to another device.
Also 1080p does play on my 1024x768 CRT...albeit it plays slowly...but this has nothing to do with the fact that my card can't display typical HD resolutions but rather the fact that I have a shitty G4.
Also...keep in mind that HD is offered in a variety of sizes...not just 1920x1080.
Also the word 'B U L L S H * T' wasn't as bolded as hmurchison...so you lose doubly so.
know that the average ENTRY level computer probably won't even have a 100 Mbit network, they will just plug their 10 Mbit cable modem right into their computer. Or they'll just use dial-up.
Why the assumption that networks are just for WAN connectivity. 100T networking becomes the bottleneck if you wish to put storage on the network. We have plenty of consumers buying network storage.
Sure they should be OPTIONS, but Apple is doing themselves over by excluding themselves from the sub-500 market.
And just how much profit do you think is in sub $500 computers? If you can get $40 you're doing damn good.
Lastly, this has been said before, but this revision sucks most of all because it has a complete disregard for BOTH the low end AND the media center markets.
Our best selling computers aren't the extremely lowend. People tend to shy away from the cheapest computer and move into the next step up for features. Apple's history shows the middle model out of a line of three tends to sell the best. Media Centre is just now blipping on the Mac radar. It's still incomplete and we have other things that need to happen first. The mac mini sucks to you but I doubt that many consumers will agree.