First, I want to point out theres a lot of misinformation in this thread.
People are saying that we need a new Mac mini with the 9400M for things like media playback.
I completely agree, the Intel Mac minis have ALWAYS been in need of significant upgrades thanks to the use of Intel GPUs.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that OS X DOES NOT offer any sort of hardware acceleration for video.
Snow Leopard supposedly will, but Leopard itself offers very basic and very limited hardware support for video.
So for the 9400M to make ANY different in any Mac its put in, Apple needs to finally bring OS X into the modern world and fully support what these GPUs have offered for many years now, the same way Windows has been taking advantage of them since the 90s.
Now I want to reply to this:
The Core2Duo's are better at normal computing tasks. But I bet you, that if a PS3 with Core2Duo processors went up against a Normal PS3 playing a game with advanced AI, and complex graphics, the normal PS3 would preform better. While the processors in gaming systems maybe rudimentry compared to C2D's for normal computing tasks, they can crunch massive ammounts of data, and can habdle games better then a C2D. Different processors are meant for different activities.
Don
Thats completely untrue. The "Cell" in the PS3 is nothing more than an old single core PowerPC processor with a bunch of 32-bit co-processors tacked on for good measure.
Despite Sony's claims, the "Cell" has absolutely nothing to do with graphics processing. I mean it does have the standard job of telling the GPU how to draw what on screen, but it cannot help improve the quality or speed of rendering, despite Sony trying to convince people otherwise.
You want proof that Core 2 Duos are better for gaming than the "Cell"? Look no further than Grand Theft Auto 4. GTA4 is unique in the way that its calculating physics for nearly everything on screen in real-time at all times. If you have 20 cars on screen and 15 people walking down the street, the engine is calculating the physics for everything for each one of those objects onscreen. A system with a Core 2 Duo running at around 2.4GHz paired with a GeForce 8800GT will be able to run at least 3x the amount of onscreen detail as the PS3 version. Don't try to tell me otherwise, or say the game runs bad on PCs. It doesn't. I play it on both of my computers, including my aluminum MacBook.
Look at another game, UT3. Built from the ground up for the PS3 and PC. Yet the PS3 version runs at less than half the speed, lower resolution, and lower detail settings compared to even low-end PCs at the time of the games release. My aluminum MacBook can run it at higher details with more onscreen action and at double the frame-rate, albeit at a slightly lower resolution than 720p.
Quite honestly, the PS3's "Cell" is nothing short of a joke. The main core, the PPC core, is so painfully slow that it has no business even being around modern games. And the "SPEs", the co-processors, are somehow even worse. They're good at very linear and predictive math, the type Photoshop would use.. but they've proven to fail massively when it comes to demanding physics or AI. Just look at GTA4 as an example. Or even Half-Life 2.
The GPU in the PS3 is a massive failure as well. It's basically the equivalent of 2 GeForce FX 5200s taped together and forced to run in SLI mode. With the exception of Oblivion, which had an extra year in development and all new textures, PS3 games run at lower resolutions, lower detail settings, and have significantly lower resolution textures compared to Xbox360 versions of the same game. Again, look at GTA4. Look at Fallout 3 and others as well. And then when you compare to the PC version its simply no contest at all. And you most certainly do not need a high end PC to beat the PS3. A Core 2 Duo running at ~2.4GHz with a GeForce 8800GT and a couple of gigs of RAM will beat the PS3 and it will cost only a little more than the PS3 currently does. When the PS3 was first launched in 2006 at $599(!), you could build a PC then for about the same price and it too would have beat the PS3 in graphics. Honestly, PS3s a joke.
But thats all for another thread
Back to the Mac mini discussion.
I honestly don't see how Apple could even still charge $799 for any Mac mini.
The parts are dirt cheap these days. A 160GB notebook drive is what? $50 now? A notebook DVD writer is about $40. Even using high end parts, a Mac mini with DVD writer, 9400M, 2GB of RAM, and at least a 2GHz Core 2 Duo Penryn can't realistically cost more than $400 to build. They could sell that at $499 and still make a nice profit.
TV and the Mac Mini... a more advanced media center.