The Mac mini and Macbook use the exact same hardware short of the processor right now. Even so, that choice is up to Apple. There isn't anything preventing you from dropping in a Core 2 Duo into a mini beside the warranty.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Weak compared to what? I've never liked the whole idea behind the iMac, but the Mac Mini is a fairly decently priced, really cute little box that would be perfect for a lot of users who just do every tasks on their computers.
I think the only real problem with it is how for slightly more you can get a Macbook. (Also I'm not sure that opening it is easy, which is another knock against it.)
At any rate, I'm REALLY glad Apple has it, as they really need a product in that price range, and it's a great first Mac for people (or supplemental computer, or whatever). I just wish there was a way to turn it into a real DVR...
If you want to play the apple waiting game...you should be able to get something like that in about a month...then when that month is up, you will probably wait another month....then...well you know the drill.
(HOW DO YOU QUOTE MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME?...BRILLIANT!)
I hope Apple will have something that suits me within the month. If they do, I'll buy it. I'm sure I would have already bought a Macbook Pro months ago (maybe last year when it got Core 2). I guess I'd put up with the lousy GPU, but the non-replaceable hard drive is pretty much a non-negotiable issue for me.
Am I missing something here? after you spend $200 on a screen for your mac mini and buy a keyboard and mouse, you might as well have gotten an Imac...then who cares about a cute little box?
buy a cute little box with a picture of an apple on it and set it on your desk next to your Imac.
Most people already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse (and the keyboard and mouse don't cost much). I guess it depends on your needs, but for me I'd never touch a 17" iMac-that wouldn't be useable or pleasent for me. So basically you go from $599 all the way up to $1499 just for an upgrade from a terrible GPU to a low end one, and a better CPU. There's no way I'd drop $1499 on that hardware. It's just a rip off for that price, whereas I can sort of see going for a Mac Mini if I just needed a basic computer.
I don't know...I'm sure it depends on the individual, but for me the Mac Mini looks decent, and the iMac looks like a rip off.
to each his own. I dont think i would buy either one...mostly because I am broke! i hope your mac mini works well for you.
My department bought it for me to replace my Power Mac G4.
1. 17-22" CRT = Free
2. USB keyboard and Mouse = Free
3. Assorted computer cables = Free
4. Mac mini - $599
Pretty sure that is for the Pixel Shaders. I looked at the data sheet (even did a search for Vertex Shader) and couldn't find any thing. Shoot it doesn't even have Geometry Shaders, how on earth is it D3D 10 compatible? I also noted that if it did have Vertex Shaders wouldn't it be OGL 2.0 compliant then? How come it is only 1.5 compliant?
Programmable/unified shaders can be "upgraded" if Intel every release the drivers and updates for it.
Next Tuesday?
I'm not buying a Mac Mini. But if I had to buy one or the other...
Exactly. And even if you have to buy a monitor for it, you can get a really good one, and reuse it down the line...versus having to just toss the whole thing. For the price of an iMac, it's always seemed to me that I'd rather just get a laptop. It has the same types of limitations, the same price range...but at least it's portable!
Programmable/unified shaders can be "upgraded" if Intel every release the drivers and updates for it.
Next Tuesday?
I was under the impression Intel's newest video is (finally!) Direct X 9 compliant, but I don't think it's 10. I don't pay a ton of attention to the low end of the market though.
I'm not sure "everyone" and "upset" are used correctly here. There are a couple of people who were looking to/thinking of/wanting to buy a MacBook and are understandably (in my opinion) disappointed that such a meager upgrade would come after Santa Rosa's mainstream availability (please note I do not pretend to know how many units are available at this specific time and am not inviting the "Apple needs X units before shipping" argument) when Santa Rosa would offer a better (whether marginal or significant, perceived or real) upgrade than a smaller processor bump.
Many of us are just voicing our opinion on this event, which is one major reason this forum exists. Some are just more vocal than others about their views. Some are just bored at work.
I would like to assume that the relative few of us here at MacRumors (compared to the entire market) are far more educated about the technology we buy or recommend others buy. The ones who see this update negatively are confused as to why Apple would make this particular move at this particular time. The others try to see the bigger picture and feel more confident that Apple is doing the right things at the right time. Some just aren't sure what's going on and want Mommy and Daddy to stop yelling at each other.
My point is, while we as individuals may not have been standing at the register only to turn away because the "right things for us" were not updated, we very well may be the people who are responsible for someone looking toward a Mac and OS X in the first place. And we very well may be the people who recommend that "average Joe user" wait just a little bit longer to get a better buy for "average Joe user's" needs. We're doing nothing more than any other reviewer out there does, only we're doing it for free.
The GMA 900/950 were compatible with DirectX 9, in software...
The GMA X3000/3100 is compatible in hardware mode and could be upgraded to DirectX 10 via software updates to hardware.
While the world does move at a faster pace today, and there are always the occasional exception, the basic rules of manufacturing still have not been fundamentally altered: you can't have everything. If you want to hold the line on price, you either have to allow the product's quality to decline (which Apple won't do), or you're not going to get it now (which is what has happened here).
God, I would love to work for a Manager like you, who's able to wave his hand and magically make expenses go away.
There's two shortcomings in your arguement.
The first is that you're trying to trivialize the expense of the redesign. It is far more than just a couple of man-months of designer time, but also all of the dedicated manufacturing equipment on the line: you simply can't ignore these fixed costs, particularly when a product line is approaching the end of its lifecycle (which we know is the case with the MB, since SJ wants to go "Green" on its LCD display).
Second, while they will eventually need to pay to upgrade the MB, it is not clear to us when this (a) can occur, and (b) needs to occur. As I said before, if you throw away the current MacBook tooling before you were planning to, its expense isn't amortized off, so you have to figure out how that's going to be paid for. By your argument, you should start making alimony payments today, because someday you'll get married and divorced.
Only if you're looking at just the variable manufacturing costs.
Because the GPU is integrated on the motherboard, your true cost to impliment is that which it would take to put a newly redesigned motherboard into production...YMMV, but I hardly think that that's so trivial that it can be so utterly and cavalierly ignored.
That's not in dispute: my disagreement is in your claim that the motherboard could be redesigned with a new GPU and put into production proverbially for free, and for a production run that could be as short as 6 months.
Overall, where our disagreement resides is in the cost to make a change to a manufacturing line. You seem to think that the only expense would be in the incoming subcomponents, which constitutes only the variable costs: you're utterly ignoring and/or trivializing all of the fixed costs.
Now granted, you can in some circumstances ignore the fixed costs, but this generally requires the production quantity to be large...as on the order of magnitude of 'million(s) per day' produced. Save your agrument for when Apple's selling over 200 million Macs per year (more than 30x today's volume).
A case study:
Let's change the design on one trivial "3 cent" cheap plastic injection molded widget. Which means that you'll need a new mold to make it: that's typically $50,000. You'll also need your vibratory bowl feeders to be redesigned for parts handling for where it feeds into your assembly line. If you're lucky, the change is very minor (no alpha or beta symmetry changes) and is only $50,000 (if you're unluckly and get a 'problem' child, you'll spend 10x more). Assuming everything else to be zero (even though it isn't), if you're able to crank out a quarter million units (amortization quantity), just this one change alone has added a quick 40 cents to the cost of your product.
If your product's complex and expensive, a 40 cent change in costs doesn't sound like a big deal ... and it isn't. The catch is that you won't have just one single change in a complex product, but dozens-->hundreds of changes, which can add up quickly.
-hh
-hh you do know that Intel sells Merom (Santa Rosa) parts at the same prices points as Merom (Napa) was.
Merom was sold at the same price points as Yonah that it was replacing.
This isn't taking into account internal component redesign if needed by Apple.
Merom was sold at the same price points as Yonah that it was replacing.
This isn't taking into account internal component redesign if needed by Apple.
nice update for PC users sitting on the fence about jumping to the world of Mac. also nice to use as a prop for my shaky desk
So it's the same kind of phoney "look, we can emulate it through software!" thing
Oh well, at least it FINALLY has DX 9 support.So everyone else in the industry can improve their products, use newer parts, keep the same prices, etc., except Apple. Hmm...
You mean hardware support.So it's the same kind of phoney "look, we can emulate it through software!" thing
Which Apple is going to have to do anyways if their OEM can't do it for them based on the given specifications they already have.
OH NOES!
Only delaying the inevitable.
So you're not a newbie then, are you?
My post was aimed at those people with very low post counts that seemed to be particularly harsh in their criticism - in other words, obvious trolls. If you'd read my post properly, you'd have known that and wouldn't have taken offence.
ok so I have a question. I really wanted a comp where I can use FCE fluidly and smoothly. with the new specs (being that it has the same graphics card) do you think it's worth getting and can keep up or is still a MBP the best option?
The internet disagrees with you. Just look at the rating on the article.
Do people want everyone to hump Apple unconditionally even if they spin out a crap update (for many consumers) like this?
A SR update would have given much more substantial benefits than this. I think anyone can see that Apple are getting rid of their old stock of components with this update.
However for many consumers this IS a good update, those who just buy stock.
The problem is that the one glaring flaw in the MB still remains. Now it not only has integrated graphics, but it has last-gen integrated graphics. HDD and RAM can easily and cheaply be upgraded outside Apple, can a GPU? If only.
A SR update wouldn't have cost much more (per machine), if more at all, than this update and would have brought more wide-ranging benefits. Thus, disappointment.
I can guarantee you all the people having a go at the "whiners" aren't buying the new MacBooks and never intended to. They can say this is a "great" update because it doesn't affect them at all.
Programmable/unified shaders can be "upgraded" if Intel every release the drivers and updates for it.
Next Tuesday?
I found the GMA3000 whitepapers here. It looks like the X3100 does infact have Vertex Shaders. I guess it is easier if we think of it in terms of the D3D 10 terms it only has 8 stream processors. the X1600 comes with 12 (sorta). But the clock is agressive. Intel claims 667 mhz is the speed it (X3100) runs at. Which is the same speed as the memory. It also is a TBDR GPU (think PowerVR). All in all it is an interesting low end part. If it had more than 8 pipe/sp's then it could have been deadly.