Who knows. The Core Solo/Duo shares the same socket with the Celeron D/M and the Pentium M Dothan, so there are cheap enough processors to get the price down to $499. They chose not to.
The mini really isn't low end anymore, but $799 for a dual processor machine is really good. I don't see any DP desktops that cheap at Dell.
I gotta post what I posted in the announcement topic cuz you guys amaze me.
"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."
Common man how is the mini THAT bad of a deal?
In American money it's $1249 vs $1299 baseline iMac how is that a bad deal for a core duo with 2gb ram and 120gig hd?
I was proud of Apple for NOT having integrated graphics in ANY of their machines. They are NOT better, NOT acceptable, in ANY way. Shared memory ruins any speed attained by better architecture. It is the CHEAP way out and best way of ruining ANY computer.
We are currently replacing the remaining integrated graphics card computers at work. Several of the demos we run (Windows eviroment) come with a disclamer, "Will not run on computers equiped with Intel integrated graphics" and they don't. Where I work is typical of most businesses, they buy the cheapest........but hey, guess what? They DO learn. Maybe there is such a thing as "Too Cheap."
Those of you promoting Intel integrated graphics........do you work for Intel? It is the only explanation I can find for ANYONE to argue in favor of them. They aren't worth the space or cost they occupy.
I don't post very much, but I do read these posts almost everyday. I just could not sit silently on this one. I am TRULY AMAZED that in this group, they would be someone who thinks integrated graphics is.....OK. WOW. Simply WOW.
I was proud of Apple for NOT having integrated graphics in ANY of their machines. They are NOT better, NOT acceptable, in ANY way. Shared memory ruins any speed attained by better architecture. It is the CHEAP way out and best way of ruining ANY computer.
We are currently replacing the remaining integrated graphics card computers at work. Several of the demos we run (Windows eviroment) come with a disclamer, "Will not run on computers equiped with Intel integrated graphics" and they don't. Where I work is typical of most businesses, they buy the cheapest........but hey, guess what? They DO learn. Maybe there is such a thing as "Too Cheap."
Those of you promoting Intel integrated graphics........do you work for Intel? It is the only explanation I can find for ANYONE to argue in favor of them. They aren't worth the space or cost they occupy.
I don't post very much, but I do read these posts almost everyday. I just could not sit silently on this one. I am TRULY AMAZED that in this group, they would be someone who thinks integrated graphics is.....OK. WOW. Simply WOW.
I am not arguing that integrated graphics is great, but are you talking about the latest Intel integrated graphics or Intel integrated graphics aka 2002. It makes a difference (the memory and memory bus were different too). Or you are running Space Shuttle 3 NASA demos?
Why? Believe it or not, the GMA950 is an upgrade performance-wise to the Radeon 9200 chipset used in the previous Minis.
really? i'd like to see some figures backing that up...
anyways, a good thing with a gma-type video solution is that it can use the beefy big brother (aka the cpu) to 'drag you out of the hole' when doing gfx intense tasks.
the downside is that you *must* use the cpu when when doing that, and your other tasks begin to stutter...
so, be sure to get the core duo, you'll need that extra core when running even the most basic games or 3d apps.
I have used a similar spec graphics board - building a "hackintosh"
The Intel G915.
Just to clarify - the chip has strengths and weaknesses.
It is Core-Image and Core Video compatible.
It supports the latest pixel-shader model.
It completly and utterly great for media-playback. Great for GUI functionality . And I am certain that it would even be a better hardware for After Effects and Motion than the 32Mb Radeon because of its ability to grow its video buffer on the fly. (Albeit at the expense of system Ram)
It weakness is real-time 3d - It makes a lousy games board. Doom 3 runs at about 10fps. Half-Life 2 at about 15. The Lost Coast demo 5-6 fps
3D Graphics programs - like Lightwave actually seem quite snappy.
The answer is - if you want to use the Mini to watch HD media - or run iLife - or even try out some tougher Pro apps. It should be just fine.
If you want to run video games - go buy an XBox 360 - or a PC - or an iMac.
Who knows. The Core Solo/Duo shares the same socket with the Celeron D/M and the Pentium M Dothan, so there are cheap enough processors to get the price down to $499. They chose not to..
no can do, sir!
the sockets look the same, but the pinout is different and you need a 945pm/gm/gt chipset to use yonahs so dothan cpus are not compatible.
(and then it's the whole lacking of feature set and what-not but that's already covered in other topics...)
Apple is using the cheapist video it could find to push folks into Imac. Its that simple, its sort of like pay no attention to this mini we want to sell the ugly Imac move along please. They have used crap,crappier and crappiest video to distinguish between models for years............its more of the same crippling, if we just cripple this a little more it wont take sales from ugly iMac.
I was one of those who told you guys that Apple was buying Intel's whole line of goods. You should not be surprised. Integrated graphics are going to be in most of Apple's line-up. Apple's hardware is going to be indistinguishable from Dell's. Got it yet?
Nobody's mentioned yet that the Mini transitioned from laptop PATA to SATA HDs. That should bring a huge improvement in performance. Hopefully the higher price is just a temporary aberration.
I gotta post what I posted in the announcement topic cuz you guys amaze me.
"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."
Common man how is the mini THAT bad of a deal?
In American money it's $1249 vs $1299 baseline iMac how is that a bad deal for a core duo with 2gb ram and 120gig hd?
AMEN TO THAT..!
I only want to add that it would be awesome to have a Mac in between the mini & the power... upgradable like the power but not that powerfull, small like the mini, but not to small.. of course!
I only want to add that it would be awesome to have a Mac in between the mini & the power... upgradable like the power but not that powerfull, small like the mini, but not to small.. of course!
but all & all,
apple has it all,
you just need mo'money,
that's all!
That's what may come when the Conroe chips will be available (july?).
A lot of people here think that PowerMacs will use Woodcrest chips (faster FSB and multi-processor aware).
Conroe will be 64-bit dual-core and that's all (one processor only), it will cheaper than current Core Solo/Duo and future Merom chips.
I believe Conroe is a really nice chip for mid-range/headless Macs ($999 to $1699).
It's true that it's also in the iMacs price range, but I believe it would address different customers.
I think that lots of us are interested in a dual-core, dual PCIe slots, dual HD computer but cannot justify spending the price for a current/future PowerMac.
II am certain that it would even be a better hardware for After Effects and Motion than the 32Mb Radeon because of its ability to grow its video buffer on the fly. (Albeit at the expense of system Ram)
The biggest question I have is whether the Mac Mini and possible future Apple hardware utilizing Intel Integrated Graphics will be supported by Motion, once the Universal version is available next month. The PowerPC Mac Mini's and iBooks have never been supported, as their graphics cards don't meet the requirements (it will not install).
The notion of running Motion on a Mac Mini may seem absurd, but the bigger picture here is that, if it doesn't, one would have to spend $1,999 to get a headless Mac that is Motion-compliant. Furthermore, if Apple uses Intel Integrated Graphics in their iBooks and it is not supported by Motion, one would have to spend $1,999 for an Apple notebook that is Motion compliant.
I feel that people could accept the Mac Mini having Integrated graphics if either 1. a dedicated graphics chip was a BTO option (say an ATI Radeon X1600 like the iMac) or 2. Apple had another headless option below $1,999 with a real graphics card.
Edit: I called Apple and asked if the Intel Integrated Graphics in the Mac Mini would support the universal version of Motion, available sometime in March. The rep spoke with his superiors, and he said while they don't know for sure yet, it looks promising considering the integrated graphics support Core Image & Core Video. He thought they would know within a week. Here's hoping.
The biggest question I have is whether the Mac Mini and possible future Apple hardware utilizing Intel Integrated Graphics will be supported by Motion, once the Universal version is available next month. The PowerPC Mac Mini's and iBooks have never been supported, as their graphics cards don't meet the requirements (it will not install).
The notion of running Motion on a Mac Mini may seem absurd, but the bigger picture here is that, if it doesn't, one would have to spend $1,999 to get a headless Mac that is Motion-compliant. Furthermore, if Apple uses Intel Integrated Graphics in their iBooks and it is not supported by Motion, one would have to spend $1,999 for an Apple notebook that is Motion compliant.
I feel that people could accept the Mac Mini having Integrated graphics if either 1. a dedicated graphics chip was a BTO option (say an ATI Radeon X1600 like the iMac) or 2. Apple had another headless option below $1,999 with a real graphics card.
Edit: I called Apple and asked if the Intel Integrated Graphics in the Mac Mini would support the universal version of Motion, available sometime in March. The rep spoke with his superiors, and he said while they don't know for sure yet, it looks promising considering the integrated graphics support Core Image & Core Video. He thought they would know within a week. Here's hoping.
That'd be awesome my current mini has no problems wit fcp, stp, or dvd sp, motion is the only one I don't use, Of course I don't really need to but if I could run it I'd try to see if I could integrate it into my workflow.
Something people unfamiliar with Motion should understand is that one wouldn't necessarily use Motion on a Mac Mini or forthcoming Intel iBook, but rather just having it installed so those systems could understand Motion files is the important thing. As it stands today, those systems that don't support Motion get left out of the workflow because if Motion content is added to a Final Cut Project or DVD from another system, those unsupported systems can't understand it and thusly cannot render, export, playback, or encode said projects.
So, here's hoping you can install Motion on the new Mac Mini and any other forthcoming Apple systems which use Intel Integrated Graphics. Still, Apple should either offer an ATI Radeon X1600 as a BTO option for the Mac Mini, or alternatively have a headless system in the $999 price range that has one standard.
Comments
The mini really isn't low end anymore, but $799 for a dual processor machine is really good. I don't see any DP desktops that cheap at Dell.
"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."
Common man how is the mini THAT bad of a deal?
In American money it's $1249 vs $1299 baseline iMac how is that a bad deal for a core duo with 2gb ram and 120gig hd?
We are currently replacing the remaining integrated graphics card computers at work. Several of the demos we run (Windows eviroment) come with a disclamer, "Will not run on computers equiped with Intel integrated graphics" and they don't. Where I work is typical of most businesses, they buy the cheapest........but hey, guess what? They DO learn. Maybe there is such a thing as "Too Cheap."
Those of you promoting Intel integrated graphics........do you work for Intel? It is the only explanation I can find for ANYONE to argue in favor of them. They aren't worth the space or cost they occupy.
I don't post very much, but I do read these posts almost everyday. I just could not sit silently on this one. I am TRULY AMAZED that in this group, they would be someone who thinks integrated graphics is.....OK. WOW. Simply WOW.
Originally posted by aircft.sys.spec.
I was proud of Apple for NOT having integrated graphics in ANY of their machines. They are NOT better, NOT acceptable, in ANY way. Shared memory ruins any speed attained by better architecture. It is the CHEAP way out and best way of ruining ANY computer.
We are currently replacing the remaining integrated graphics card computers at work. Several of the demos we run (Windows eviroment) come with a disclamer, "Will not run on computers equiped with Intel integrated graphics" and they don't. Where I work is typical of most businesses, they buy the cheapest........but hey, guess what? They DO learn. Maybe there is such a thing as "Too Cheap."
Those of you promoting Intel integrated graphics........do you work for Intel? It is the only explanation I can find for ANYONE to argue in favor of them. They aren't worth the space or cost they occupy.
I don't post very much, but I do read these posts almost everyday. I just could not sit silently on this one. I am TRULY AMAZED that in this group, they would be someone who thinks integrated graphics is.....OK. WOW. Simply WOW.
I am not arguing that integrated graphics is great, but are you talking about the latest Intel integrated graphics or Intel integrated graphics aka 2002. It makes a difference (the memory and memory bus were different too). Or you are running Space Shuttle 3 NASA demos?
Originally posted by iMav
Why? Believe it or not, the GMA950 is an upgrade performance-wise to the Radeon 9200 chipset used in the previous Minis.
really? i'd like to see some figures backing that up...
anyways, a good thing with a gma-type video solution is that it can use the beefy big brother (aka the cpu) to 'drag you out of the hole' when doing gfx intense tasks.
the downside is that you *must* use the cpu when when doing that, and your other tasks begin to stutter...
so, be sure to get the core duo, you'll need that extra core when running even the most basic games or 3d apps.
The Intel G915.
Just to clarify - the chip has strengths and weaknesses.
It is Core-Image and Core Video compatible.
It supports the latest pixel-shader model.
It completly and utterly great for media-playback. Great for GUI functionality . And I am certain that it would even be a better hardware for After Effects and Motion than the 32Mb Radeon because of its ability to grow its video buffer on the fly. (Albeit at the expense of system Ram)
It weakness is real-time 3d - It makes a lousy games board. Doom 3 runs at about 10fps. Half-Life 2 at about 15. The Lost Coast demo 5-6 fps
3D Graphics programs - like Lightwave actually seem quite snappy.
The answer is - if you want to use the Mini to watch HD media - or run iLife - or even try out some tougher Pro apps. It should be just fine.
If you want to run video games - go buy an XBox 360 - or a PC - or an iMac.
C.
I ordered a Mac mini, with 1.66GHz Core Duo, last night. It shipped this morning. Just for fun, I will try some games on it and post my impressions.
Originally posted by jackbauer
Who knows. The Core Solo/Duo shares the same socket with the Celeron D/M and the Pentium M Dothan, so there are cheap enough processors to get the price down to $499. They chose not to..
no can do, sir!
the sockets look the same, but the pinout is different and you need a 945pm/gm/gt chipset to use yonahs so dothan cpus are not compatible.
(and then it's the whole lacking of feature set and what-not but that's already covered in other topics...)
Nobody's mentioned yet that the Mini transitioned from laptop PATA to SATA HDs. That should bring a huge improvement in performance. Hopefully the higher price is just a temporary aberration.
Originally posted by ecking
I gotta post what I posted in the announcement topic cuz you guys amaze me.
"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."
Common man how is the mini THAT bad of a deal?
In American money it's $1249 vs $1299 baseline iMac how is that a bad deal for a core duo with 2gb ram and 120gig hd?
AMEN TO THAT..!
I only want to add that it would be awesome to have a Mac in between the mini & the power... upgradable like the power but not that powerfull, small like the mini, but not to small.. of course!
but all & all,
apple has it all,
you just need mo'money,
that's all!
Originally posted by Zenga
AMEN TO THAT..!
I only want to add that it would be awesome to have a Mac in between the mini & the power... upgradable like the power but not that powerfull, small like the mini, but not to small.. of course!
but all & all,
apple has it all,
you just need mo'money,
that's all!
That's what may come when the Conroe chips will be available (july?).
A lot of people here think that PowerMacs will use Woodcrest chips (faster FSB and multi-processor aware).
Conroe will be 64-bit dual-core and that's all (one processor only), it will cheaper than current Core Solo/Duo and future Merom chips.
I believe Conroe is a really nice chip for mid-range/headless Macs ($999 to $1699).
It's true that it's also in the iMacs price range, but I believe it would address different customers.
I think that lots of us are interested in a dual-core, dual PCIe slots, dual HD computer but cannot justify spending the price for a current/future PowerMac.
Originally posted by Carniphage
II am certain that it would even be a better hardware for After Effects and Motion than the 32Mb Radeon because of its ability to grow its video buffer on the fly. (Albeit at the expense of system Ram)
The biggest question I have is whether the Mac Mini and possible future Apple hardware utilizing Intel Integrated Graphics will be supported by Motion, once the Universal version is available next month. The PowerPC Mac Mini's and iBooks have never been supported, as their graphics cards don't meet the requirements (it will not install).
The notion of running Motion on a Mac Mini may seem absurd, but the bigger picture here is that, if it doesn't, one would have to spend $1,999 to get a headless Mac that is Motion-compliant. Furthermore, if Apple uses Intel Integrated Graphics in their iBooks and it is not supported by Motion, one would have to spend $1,999 for an Apple notebook that is Motion compliant.
I feel that people could accept the Mac Mini having Integrated graphics if either 1. a dedicated graphics chip was a BTO option (say an ATI Radeon X1600 like the iMac) or 2. Apple had another headless option below $1,999 with a real graphics card.
Edit: I called Apple and asked if the Intel Integrated Graphics in the Mac Mini would support the universal version of Motion, available sometime in March. The rep spoke with his superiors, and he said while they don't know for sure yet, it looks promising considering the integrated graphics support Core Image & Core Video. He thought they would know within a week. Here's hoping.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
The biggest question I have is whether the Mac Mini and possible future Apple hardware utilizing Intel Integrated Graphics will be supported by Motion, once the Universal version is available next month. The PowerPC Mac Mini's and iBooks have never been supported, as their graphics cards don't meet the requirements (it will not install).
The notion of running Motion on a Mac Mini may seem absurd, but the bigger picture here is that, if it doesn't, one would have to spend $1,999 to get a headless Mac that is Motion-compliant. Furthermore, if Apple uses Intel Integrated Graphics in their iBooks and it is not supported by Motion, one would have to spend $1,999 for an Apple notebook that is Motion compliant.
I feel that people could accept the Mac Mini having Integrated graphics if either 1. a dedicated graphics chip was a BTO option (say an ATI Radeon X1600 like the iMac) or 2. Apple had another headless option below $1,999 with a real graphics card.
Edit: I called Apple and asked if the Intel Integrated Graphics in the Mac Mini would support the universal version of Motion, available sometime in March. The rep spoke with his superiors, and he said while they don't know for sure yet, it looks promising considering the integrated graphics support Core Image & Core Video. He thought they would know within a week. Here's hoping.
That'd be awesome my current mini has no problems wit fcp, stp, or dvd sp, motion is the only one I don't use, Of course I don't really need to but if I could run it I'd try to see if I could integrate it into my workflow.
So, here's hoping you can install Motion on the new Mac Mini and any other forthcoming Apple systems which use Intel Integrated Graphics. Still, Apple should either offer an ATI Radeon X1600 as a BTO option for the Mac Mini, or alternatively have a headless system in the $999 price range that has one standard.
Originally posted by Xool
My guess is that it will likely support Motion but will be pokey.
How about Aperture?