Sorry, in my opinion, facts beat out marketing. No matter how kool-aidicinous Apple's former promotional material was, the truth is that today the Intel Integrated graphics in the Mini is--depending on who and how you ask, and the truth of the facts you're using--as good or superior as the crap-ass 9200 in the previous Mini.
Look, it is very clear that the Mac Mini is targeted for people that
1. have a PS or XBOX or Nintendo already OR
2. have a PC/Winblows already OR
3. do not intend to game much on their new Mac AND
4. do intend for the Mac Mini to be the centre of their digital hub lifestyle thingy
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
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.
Every mac should burn DVD's by now but my 1.83 model has Dual Layer.
No need for 3 models just a HIGH end and a LOW end. Low end for switchers, high end for people that like regular computing but don't need the dual core power or screen of an imac."
I was right about only have 2 models.
I was wrong about the graphics.
Wrong about the price.
Other than that I was pretty close.
Now what is funny is the hypocracy on this forum
I watched you guys say for over a month that the intel ibook and mini would have INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. You are all right. AND NOW YOU ARE MAD. What the hell? If it's what's expected why are you mad.
OH NO OUR 499 PRICE POINT IS GONE APPLE WTF MAN!?
Come on guys, how many of the people here that said that ACUTALLY bought the 499 mini?
Most of you being long time mac users I am doubting not many.
So a 32MB non integrated card was fine but 64MB integrated is not?
Grow up guys this is fine for what it's meant for. I am a switcher and the mac mini I'm using is more than fine for what I do and probably more than fine for what 98% of it's intended market needs to do.
I was gonna upgrade to an iMac, now I'm not so sure, cuz I think apple did a good job on this one.
How I see it:
BASELINE IMAC
17-inch widescreen LCD with 1440x900 resolution
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
$1499cad
TRICKED OUT MUTHA F*CKIN HIGH END MINI
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
2GB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
120GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
$1459
now for people with a keyboard and mouse and a screen the mini is a bad deal?
hmmmmmm...I don't think so.
The only area that matters that iMac beats the mini is graphics. Previous mini owners that were curious about an upgrade path just got it.
As someone that as looking at an iMac the new mini is a good deal since like any mini owner I already have a screen, keyboard, and mouse.
How can you guys hate on that? I might have just saved 40 bucks for a machine not lacking in much other than graphics.
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
Come on man it's a 100 bucks more, are you serious about what you just said?
Apple probably knows if/or when DVR's become mainstream television studios will come down with the full power of the law. Or lobby congress to create the law.
Come on man it's a 100 bucks more, are you serious about what you just said?
Yes.
Person "A" is considering switching. All they need is the simple stuff as I outlined before. But they've seen a PC that costs $399. If a Mac Mini costing $499 existed, they may consider the $100 premium worth it for OS X, and iLife, and better physical appearance. But $399 vs $599? Apple looses.
A huge number of people are very price driven. I'm not suggesting for a moment that Apple should be trying to obtain 100% market share by offering every single type of machine currently offered by the myriad PC makers. But what I am asking is what the hell is wrong with giving customers the choice, rather than forcing features upon them that they may not want?
Try reading the post that you quoted again. The miglia TV mini uses the same software as Eye TV.
The miniTV is just a DVB-T receiver/demodulator. It is unlikely to affect picture quality, as the output should just be the bit-stream that was transmitted by the T.V. station*. The thing that will affect picture quality is the software, in this case EyeTV, so the picture should have the same quality as when using EyeTV DVB-T hardware.
* if the receive amplifier is poor, the error-rate would be higher than for a different receiver with better amplifier performance in the same signal conditions.
Hrm.. well I'll try it again with the new software.. the card is sitting around here somewhere.
The question there would be how much more real performance would be gotten out of this $50 graphics card?
On charts I've seen you get 10% -20% improvement from a slightly better graphics card but you need one significantly more expensive to get significantly better performance.
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%. I would gladly pay the extra $50 for one. I would even be happy to pay an extra $100 to move up to a bottom tier midrange card, like a radeon x600.
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%. I would gladly pay the extra $50 for one. I would even be happy to pay an extra $100 to move up to a bottom tier midrange card, like a radeon x600.
People have enough of a problem with the price as it is and you want to UP it another 50-100 bucks? lol
Person "A" is considering switching. All they need is the simple stuff as I outlined before. But they've seen a PC that costs $399. If a Mac Mini costing $499 existed, they may consider the $100 premium worth it for OS X, and iLife, and better physical appearance. But $399 vs $599? Apple looses.
A huge number of people are very price driven. I'm not suggesting for a moment that Apple should be trying to obtain 100% market share by offering every single type of machine currently offered by the myriad PC makers. But what I am asking is what the hell is wrong with giving customers the choice, rather than forcing features upon them that they may not want?
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?
Hrm.. well I'll try it again with the new software.. the card is sitting around here somewhere.
I don't know about the PCI card that you have. That might not use EyeTV, and I'm perfectly willing to take your word that it's crap for you. The TVmini is a small device that looks almost exactly the same as an iPod shuffle. It plugs into a USB 2.0 port and is controlled using EyeTV
Then when HD becomes standard in 2009 how will we record TV to watch if they come down on us?
Unfortunately that's the point, they don't really want us to.
Quote:
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%.
Seeing as the GMA950 is new how can you be so sure of that bold claim.
Doesn't appear the Geforce 6200 is made specifically for HD media playback like the GMA 950.
One advantage of the shared memory is the graphics card is able to access just as much memory as more expensive graphic cards when it is only used to view media.
I myself could use a couple minis for my rafting business - so i don't care about gpu whatever - what i want is cheap. i have a powerbook for doing graphics work. maybe have to load up linux on a $300 pc...
ps. i bought a ipod shuffle cause it was cheap even tho i wanted a nano. i am happy. apple needs a cheap computer option for the cheapskates and/or lower income just like they have a super cheap ipod.
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?
God damn it Dell's website is crap!
Currently, The Dell dimension B110 configured with 2.53 GHz Pentium Celeron D, 512 MB RAM, 80 gig 7200 rpm HD costs $339, including a keyboard and mouse. No wireless, no digital audio I/O, no IR receiver, slower RAM.
Now, I couldn't find anywhere how many USB ports that has, but I'm going to assume it has some USB 2.0 ones. No way it'll have Firewire, but that could be added for $20 as a PCI card.
Yes, this machine is vastly inferior to the baseline mini. What I'm saying is that the current baseline mini shouldn't be the baseline mini. There should be a cheaper one, without wireless, digital audio I/O, or front row.
I hope that those who suggest that Apple are waiting for the Celeron M 4xx are right and that a stripped down version of the mini will surface later.
Comments
But hell we are using Intel processors no irony compares to that.
Originally posted by TenoBell
That is a bit of irony Apple will have to eat.
But hell we are using Intel processors no irony compares to that.
Apple made fun of the Penteum in 1996, the bit about intel graphics was on the mini site THIS YEAR...things change in 10 years, but 10 weeks?
1. have a PS or XBOX or Nintendo already OR
2. have a PC/Winblows already OR
3. do not intend to game much on their new Mac AND
4. do intend for the Mac Mini to be the centre of their digital hub lifestyle thingy
Originally posted by a_greer
While that is true, check this out, from the MAC MINI G4 WEB SITE
Thank you way back machine
Sorry, in my opinion, facts beat out marketing. No matter how kool-aidicinous Apple's former promotional material was, the truth is that today the Intel Integrated graphics in the Mini is--depending on who and how you ask, and the truth of the facts you're using--as good or superior as the crap-ass 9200 in the previous Mini.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Look, it is very clear that the Mac Mini is targeted for people that
1. have a PS or XBOX or Nintendo already OR
2. have a PC/Winblows already OR
3. do not intend to game much on their new Mac AND
4. do intend for the Mac Mini to be the centre of their digital hub lifestyle thingy
True, honestly at this point, I am saving my pennies to get an intel workstation and FCP...and a DV camera
I have outgrowm my Mini, I think it was too small when I got it, but it was affordable, and it still happily chugs along...
It is a gateway drug, and I am hooked.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Look, it is very clear that the Mac Mini is targeted for people that
1. have a PS or XBOX or Nintendo already OR
2. have a PC/Winblows already OR
3. do not intend to game much on their new Mac AND
4. do intend for the Mac Mini to be the centre of their digital hub lifestyle thingy
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
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.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=60460
"1.67 Ghz Core Solo
40 GB Serial ATA 5400 RPM (BTO 60GB HD)
512MB RAM (expandable to 1GB)
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
64MB ATI Graphics (maybe 128, or BTO 128MB)
$499
1.83Ghz Core Duo (maybe just maybe 2ghz single)
80 GB Serial ATA 5400 RPM (BTO 7200RPM)
512MB RAM (expandable to 1GB)
Super Drive (DL DVD±RW/CD-RW)
128MB ATI Graphics
$699
No mac should have integrated graphics.
Every mac should burn DVD's by now but my 1.83 model has Dual Layer.
No need for 3 models just a HIGH end and a LOW end. Low end for switchers, high end for people that like regular computing but don't need the dual core power or screen of an imac."
I was right about only have 2 models.
I was wrong about the graphics.
Wrong about the price.
Other than that I was pretty close.
Now what is funny is the hypocracy on this forum
I watched you guys say for over a month that the intel ibook and mini would have INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. You are all right. AND NOW YOU ARE MAD. What the hell? If it's what's expected why are you mad.
OH NO OUR 499 PRICE POINT IS GONE APPLE WTF MAN!?
Come on guys, how many of the people here that said that ACUTALLY bought the 499 mini?
Most of you being long time mac users I am doubting not many.
So a 32MB non integrated card was fine but 64MB integrated is not?
Grow up guys this is fine for what it's meant for. I am a switcher and the mac mini I'm using is more than fine for what I do and probably more than fine for what 98% of it's intended market needs to do.
I was gonna upgrade to an iMac, now I'm not so sure, cuz I think apple did a good job on this one.
How I see it:
BASELINE IMAC
17-inch widescreen LCD with 1440x900 resolution
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
$1499cad
TRICKED OUT MUTHA F*CKIN HIGH END MINI
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo processor
2MB L2 Cache
667MHz Frontside Bus
2GB memory (667MHz DDR2 SDRAM)
120GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
$1459
now for people with a keyboard and mouse and a screen the mini is a bad deal?
hmmmmmm...I don't think so.
The only area that matters that iMac beats the mini is graphics. Previous mini owners that were curious about an upgrade path just got it.
As someone that as looking at an iMac the new mini is a good deal since like any mini owner I already have a screen, keyboard, and mouse.
How can you guys hate on that? I might have just saved 40 bucks for a machine not lacking in much other than graphics.
Originally posted by a_greer
I have outgrowm my Mini, I think it was too small when I got it, but it was affordable, and it still happily chugs along...
It is a gateway drug, and I am hooked.
Oh, you have not begun to experience our drugs... Bwahahahah... BWAHAHAHAHA!
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, exactly. That's what a lot of people are complaining about. Where's the cheap Mac aimed at people who want to send e-mail, surf the web, and maybe dabble in a bit of iLife stuff? The cheapest Mac mini is too expensive for that because it includes stuff that those people do not need. Note that I'm not saying the mini is overpriced, but that there should be a cheaper model with fewer capabilities.
Come on man it's a 100 bucks more, are you serious about what you just said?
Originally posted by TenoBell
Because........
Apple probably knows if/or when DVR's become mainstream television studios will come down with the full power of the law. Or lobby congress to create the law.
Then when HD becomes standard in 2009 (http://gear.ign.com/articles/685/685360p1.html) how will we record TV to watch if they come down on us?
Originally posted by ecking
Come on man it's a 100 bucks more, are you serious about what you just said?
Yes.
Person "A" is considering switching. All they need is the simple stuff as I outlined before. But they've seen a PC that costs $399. If a Mac Mini costing $499 existed, they may consider the $100 premium worth it for OS X, and iLife, and better physical appearance. But $399 vs $599? Apple looses.
A huge number of people are very price driven. I'm not suggesting for a moment that Apple should be trying to obtain 100% market share by offering every single type of machine currently offered by the myriad PC makers. But what I am asking is what the hell is wrong with giving customers the choice, rather than forcing features upon them that they may not want?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Try reading the post that you quoted again. The miglia TV mini uses the same software as Eye TV.
The miniTV is just a DVB-T receiver/demodulator. It is unlikely to affect picture quality, as the output should just be the bit-stream that was transmitted by the T.V. station*. The thing that will affect picture quality is the software, in this case EyeTV, so the picture should have the same quality as when using EyeTV DVB-T hardware.
* if the receive amplifier is poor, the error-rate would be higher than for a different receiver with better amplifier performance in the same signal conditions.
Hrm.. well I'll try it again with the new software.. the card is sitting around here somewhere.
Originally posted by TenoBell
The question there would be how much more real performance would be gotten out of this $50 graphics card?
On charts I've seen you get 10% -20% improvement from a slightly better graphics card but you need one significantly more expensive to get significantly better performance.
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%. I would gladly pay the extra $50 for one. I would even be happy to pay an extra $100 to move up to a bottom tier midrange card, like a radeon x600.
Originally posted by Res
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%. I would gladly pay the extra $50 for one. I would even be happy to pay an extra $100 to move up to a bottom tier midrange card, like a radeon x600.
People have enough of a problem with the price as it is and you want to UP it another 50-100 bucks? lol
Originally posted by Mr. H
Yes.
Person "A" is considering switching. All they need is the simple stuff as I outlined before. But they've seen a PC that costs $399. If a Mac Mini costing $499 existed, they may consider the $100 premium worth it for OS X, and iLife, and better physical appearance. But $399 vs $599? Apple looses.
A huge number of people are very price driven. I'm not suggesting for a moment that Apple should be trying to obtain 100% market share by offering every single type of machine currently offered by the myriad PC makers. But what I am asking is what the hell is wrong with giving customers the choice, rather than forcing features upon them that they may not want?
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?
Originally posted by slughead
Hrm.. well I'll try it again with the new software.. the card is sitting around here somewhere.
I don't know about the PCI card that you have. That might not use EyeTV, and I'm perfectly willing to take your word that it's crap for you. The TVmini is a small device that looks almost exactly the same as an iPod shuffle. It plugs into a USB 2.0 port and is controlled using EyeTV
Then when HD becomes standard in 2009 how will we record TV to watch if they come down on us?
Unfortunately that's the point, they don't really want us to.
A cheap geforce 6200 is about 100% better performance, not 10%-20%.
Seeing as the GMA950 is new how can you be so sure of that bold claim.
Doesn't appear the Geforce 6200 is made specifically for HD media playback like the GMA 950.
One advantage of the shared memory is the graphics card is able to access just as much memory as more expensive graphic cards when it is only used to view media.
ps. i bought a ipod shuffle cause it was cheap even tho i wanted a nano. i am happy. apple needs a cheap computer option for the cheapskates and/or lower income just like they have a super cheap ipod.
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?
God damn it Dell's website is crap!
Currently, The Dell dimension B110 configured with 2.53 GHz Pentium Celeron D, 512 MB RAM, 80 gig 7200 rpm HD costs $339, including a keyboard and mouse. No wireless, no digital audio I/O, no IR receiver, slower RAM.
Now, I couldn't find anywhere how many USB ports that has, but I'm going to assume it has some USB 2.0 ones. No way it'll have Firewire, but that could be added for $20 as a PCI card.
Yes, this machine is vastly inferior to the baseline mini. What I'm saying is that the current baseline mini shouldn't be the baseline mini. There should be a cheaper one, without wireless, digital audio I/O, or front row.
I hope that those who suggest that Apple are waiting for the Celeron M 4xx are right and that a stripped down version of the mini will surface later.