Third-ed.I miss my mac a lot but I loved $1000 for an amazing desktop (now it's a bit behind since it's almost a year old)
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.
Intel Atom-Based Mac Mini Due in March?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Third-ed.I miss my mac a lot but I loved $1000 for an amazing desktop (now it's a bit behind since it's almost a year old)
As long as Apple continues to make money and grow market share with their current offerings, they have no incentive what-so-ever to change. By the time this hits them where it hurts (and it will eventually), they will have missed the boat and be back to a 6% market share (about the number of fanatic types that don't CARE what Apple offers because they worship Apple). Apple had a chance with the floundering Vista to move in and capture a 15-20% market share. By the time Windows7 comes out, that chance will have passed. In other words, they're happy with their current sales and profits and don't see the larger picture that if you want to play with the big boys, you have to move machines and that means capturing large segments of dissatisfied Windows users. How do you capture more Windows users with out of date, overpriced hardware? You don't. You capture some that are fed up with Vista because it makes good hardware behave like crap. But all reports of Windows7 suggests it's as fast or faster than XP and without all the annoying aspects. Those that hated the OS will no longer hate Windows and will look at the Mac's non-competitive hardware and go right back where they came from.
Most of the new switchers are probably running Boot Camp and/or Parallels/Fusion anyway to keep using their software libraries. No such option exists for unhappy Mac users wanting to migrate to the PC which means they're even more unhappy and unlikely to ever return WHEN they finally do leave because their only desktop choices are essentially overpriced TOYS (Mac-Mini and laptop powered iMacs with no expansion ability) and $3000 workstations. And YET the fanatics have the nerve to say the Mac competes its hardware against Windows hardware (i.e. they don't have a monopoly). If that were true, I could get that machine you talk about and run OS X on it without having to hack things. Some Mac users need to wake up and realize they've been drinking Kool-Aid for far too long and DEMAND competitive hardware. If Apple can't provide it, they should let clones provide it for them. They seem to be more of a gadget company these days anyway (dropping of firewire and matte screens on half the laptop line, delaying the OS in favor of phones and iPods, etc.)
Intel should mean more and better hardware choices, not even worse setups than in the PPC age (there were at least usable GPUs back then for the era and some 3rd party cards even!). Now you see LESS hardware options and even more propriety pushes (like the mini display-port which has exactly one monitor that works with it without a $99 adapter). Instead of seeing the possibilities of higher numbers, they seem to want to follow the tried and true practice of gouging the Mac faithful until they can bleed no more. I'm glad I can run Windows on my MBP if I need to do so. Otherwise, it was not a safe buy for future use. When it comes time to buy another desktop, I'll either have to go Hackintosh or back to Windows (maybe Linux will be more viable by then?) if this trend continues. I hope Apple will wake up and realize their hardware is nothing special and if anything it should be BETTER than typical PC hardware, not trailing along far behind it. Why so many people (again fanatics) seemed to just HATE Psystar is beyond me. Even if you don't like them or their products, if they won it would mean Apple would finally be FORCED to compete with their hardware offerings or suffer the inevitable market consequences. As it is now, they have no actual competition for hardware IF you want OS X.
You're already familiar with them, yet you ignore photographic evidence?
If an astronomer told you the Sun was really blue, despite being able to go outside and see for yourself, would you believe them over the real evidence as well?
I provided indisputable proof in form of direct screenshot comparison and you ignore it in favor of someone's opinion.
Let's post links again, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_7_Series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer' First of all, right at the beginning of the RSX article it says both: "Unless otherwise noted, the following specifications are based on a press release by Sony at the E3 2005 conference,[1], slides from the same conference[2], and slides from a Sony presentation at the 2006 Game Developer's Conference.[3]." and "Based on NV47 Chip (Nvidia GeForce 7600 Architecture) " so right off the bat, you're wrong.
Second, if you compare the actual specs side by side, you'll see that in some instances, it is equal to a 7600GT. In other instances it is equal to a 7800. Two great examples would be the number of shader units and memory bandwidth. The 7800GTX has 24, while the 7600 has 12. The RSX has 24. The memory bandwidth of the 7800GTX is 40GB/sec, 7900GTX is 51.2GB/sec, while the RSX and 7600GT are considerably lower at 22.4GB/sec.
And look at the actual fill-rate. The 7600GT and RSX are only capable of 4.4 gigapixels per second, while the 7800GTX is at 10.32 and the 7900 GTX is at 15.6.
The facts in the links show it. You're wrong. The RSX in the PS3 is not as powerful as a 7800 series GPU and its only slightly better than the 7600GT series in certain ways.
Good job not reading the link I posted. They're quoting an nvidia spokesperson from a magazine.
Good job proving you didn't read the links I posted, again. If you didn't notice, the actual Celeron had no L1 cache. Only L2. While the Xbox CPU had both L1 and L2 cache.
That makes it not a Celeron
In fact, in the words of MICROSOFT it makes it a "Custom Intel Coppermine-based processor"How? Prove it. Having an extra pixel shader unit does NOT mean the GPU's exceeded the spec. Oh, you're also wrong about the GeForce 4 as well. You see, the GeForce 4 only supported Pixel Shader 1.3. It didn't support Pixel Shader 1.4, which was part of the DirectX 8.x spec.
Sorry, you're wrong again.
So, again, you'll take someones opinion over photographic evidence?
Yes it does.
I'm sorry, but neither Bioshock nor Oblivion run better on the PS3. Oblivion just had new textures.
It is how things are defined by people other than those who prefer opinion rather than photographic evidence in arguments
Yes it does actually look better. Gears of War that is. Let's get some screenshots from Resistance, shall we?
Resistance:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/317/reviews/928399_20061114_screen012.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/317/reviews/928399_20061114_screen018.jpg
Geez, look at those textures. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault had higher resolution textures back in 2001!
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/317/reviews/928399_20061114_screen029.jpg
Now lets look at Gears of War on the Xbox360 (more fair comparison than the better looking PC version)
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/332/928234_112906_screen002.jpg wow just that one shot. Look at the amount of detail in the character models versus those in Resistance. Look at the amount of onscreen detail overall.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/332/928234_112906_screen026.jpg look at those textures and the polygon count as well!
I'll stop there because Gears is simply slaughtering Resistance with just those two.
Let's compare Resistance 2 to Gears 2, shall we?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/309/reviews/944521_20081105_screen012.jpg wow thats a lot of Playstation Vasoline.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/309/reviews/944521_20081105_screen016.jpg HUGE amount of Playstation Vasoline.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/309/944521_20081105_screen019.jpg theres one without so much Vasoline.
Gears of War 2:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/307/938611_20081104_screen001.jpg wow I can actually see whats going on in that screenshot! Look at those textures! And the amount of detail in the characters. Amazing.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/307/938611_20081104_screen005.jpg Those two sum it up nicely.
How about we compare some screen shots then? Take those Resistance 2 shots up there and lets put them up against some Halo 3.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen024.jpg look at the lighting.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen020.jpg hey look! Higher resolution textures than Resistance 2!
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen055.jpg considerably higher resolution textures and polygon counts compared to Resistance 2.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen059.jpg again, look at the overall amount of onscreen detail. Better yet, look how CLEAR the image is. You can actually see whats going on! It's not all blurred with Playstation Vasoline!
Gears of War most certainly looks better than those games. But I already proved with screenshots that Resistance is anything BUT a good looking game. Even Half-Life 2 has higher resolution textures than Resistance 2 http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/914642_20041112_screen012.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/914642_20041112_screen004.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/156/reviews/938210_20070606_screen001.jpg Episode 2 looks even better than Resistance 2. Look at those textures.
Only for those unfortunate enough to own only an N64 at the time. Thankfully I had both consoles and I was able to see that Zelda: Ocarina of Time wasn't even 1/10th the game that A Link to the Past was.
Really? How can screenshots and video show different when I've posted screenshots and direct comparisons that show the Xbox360 coming out on top?
Oh and reviews don't mean anything. A review is just one persons opinion. Reviewers, again, lost their credibility 10 years ago when they started giving games high scores to cater to the fanboys to drive up readership.
I posted screenshots to back up my argument, as well as video. All you have to go on is someone else's opinion.
Again, would you believe someone if they told you the Sun was blue just because they were an astronomer, despite the fact that you can clearly see otherwise?
I had Zelda launch day, gold cartridge and everything. It was the last N64 game I ever purchased. I know how good it wasn't.
I posted links backing up the story that the PS3 GPU is not anywhere near as powerful as you claim. Yet you continue to ignore everything said in those links, even though those links are based on Sony's once official specifications, specifications that have since been retracted and real world performance suggests that the hardware isn't even as powerful as those original claims.
So before you go calling people names and saying ridiculous things like "fanboi" and "zealot", you might want to consider the facts. Those facts being that direct screenshot comparisons, as well as video have proven you wrong on that front. When it comes to the Xbox CPU your own argument is your undoing. And regarding the PS3's GPU specifications, Sony's own specs tell you that you're wrong.
Now, can we let this thread go back on topic? You're wrong and you simply need to admit it.
It's not exactly off topic because the discussions about CPUs lead to that topic to be discussed.
I have, however, called for that discussion to end multiple times. However, the poster keeps replying insisting hes right while the facts prove otherwise.
Interesting review of similar hardware to mooted Mini
An interesting review of similar hardware to the mooted Mini
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/10/review_desktop_pc_shuttle_x27d/
Doesn't seem all that promising to me...
Wish Apple would pull their finger out and start taking the desktop market seriously again. We don't all want laptops.
An interesting review of similar hardware to the mooted Mini
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/10/review_desktop_pc_shuttle_x27d/
Doesn't seem all that promising to me...
Wish Apple would pull their finger out and start taking the desktop market seriously again. We don't all want laptops.
You are all over the place here. I will say that Apple does NOT view the netbook market as SATURATED... Steve Jobs said that Netbooks are a "nascent market"... Apple is waiting to see how the market develops. So, nascent means a relatively NEW and UNSATURATED market.
You are completely wrong about Apple's current positions in the market also.
Whatever... go buy yourself an iHo.
As it's the only headless non-powerhouse non-laptop they do, then it sort of defaults itself to being the primary production machine for any of us who want a desktop but absolutely do not need an integrated monitor. It may not have been designed for it, but it's the only thing that fits the bill for some of us.
Yes, it's not the ideal primary computer. But neither is the iMac - especially for use in a KVM setup.
(When I get my next Mac it absolutely must be able to screenshare with my other machine.)
Interested parties should read the entire review, but I found this interesting:
This is the primary reason IF this Ion rumor is true, I'm willing to give Apple engineers the benefit of the doubt they know what they're doing in designing a Mac around the Nvidia GPU and Atom N330 processor.
Yes. It has not been updated in 531 days, and it wasn't really up to date when they updated it last time. You will be paying for VERY outdated hardware.
Also, the Mini is definitely getting an update in the near future. How near, who know's? Could be a few weeks, or a few months.
Wait, you will be much happier.
Why should a family who is doing nothing more then checking email, iTunes and surfing wait? what would make this family sorry they bought a brand new Mini today? this only applies to the geeks who cannot afford the higher end products and are trying to make the Mini into a high end work station.
Sorry but its never going to happen! you guys are trying to turn a family kids room box into your dream boxes.
kids who are old enough to use the internet responsible also play computer games
and for a computer for kids who don't play games it's way overpriced
Glad it worked out for you, but it would be hard going back to a Windows operating system. It would be like me selling my Lexus and buying a Dodge.
I understand your point but since I came from Windows it was an easy transition back.
For those wanting a "lower end" desktop Mac, keep your eyes open for second-hand Mac Pros. They are less expensive and will be even less so when the Mac Pro is refreshed.
The first gen Mac Pro is still a very powerful system; when the refresh happens those may get into the low $1000s range as many pros update. This is a great time to grab a powerful, expandable system for less.
Just an idea. I know some folks don't buy second hand, but for Mac Pros it's less of a big deal since they're built like bricks.
The first gen Mac Pro is still a very powerful system; when the refresh happens those may get into the low $1000s range as many pros update. This is a great time to grab a powerful, expandable system for less.
Just an idea. I know some folks don't buy second hand, but for Mac Pros it's less of a big deal since they're built like bricks.
The second another company made the announcement of a similar item I knew there would not be one at Macworld for Apple.
Why? Because they would more likely wait to see what bugs came up and have them fixed before they sent something out. Otherwise they would look like idiots. but it is possible that they had that very thing ready to start production. who knows.
But if that Dodge is a VIPER, I don't think it would be as bad as you insinuate. Yes, I'm saying other than the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro (in terms of expected laptop performance not a desktop like the iMac that performs like a laptop), Mac hardware is slow and outdated and definitely overpriced. It's a shame such a nice OS is forced to live on such lousy hardware choices. Pretty cases don't make up for inferior hardware. Apple needs to get their butts in gear and offer a mini-tower that's competitive with PC hardware (even if it costs $1800 to get what a PC has for $1200) and make OS X capable of using SLI and accelerated video among other things. OpenCL is a niche by comparison. Why not fully support the existing standards before inventing new ones?
Sorry, so many posts to read now...
Question:
Don't you think, like the iMac and MacBook Air, Intel will give Apple a special pre-release CPU, and maybe make available a 1.82 or 2.0 GHz Dual Core Atom for the Mini?
I think that coupled with the Ion should be fine for many things, especially with Snow Leopard.
Well, if this rumor pans out, then you may want the older one if you are going to do CPU intensive tasks such as video encoding...
Question:
Don't you think, like the iMac and MacBook Air, Intel will give Apple a special pre-release CPU, and maybe make available a 1.82 or 2.0 GHz Dual Core Atom for the Mini?
I think that coupled with the Ion should be fine for many things, especially with Snow Leopard.
Well, if this rumor pans out, then you may want the older one if you are going to do CPU intensive tasks such as video encoding...
i own a wii but to compare the games which rule the PCs with the wii games is ridiculous .. no make that ridonkulous.. or better macmininotupdatedagainolous
lets face it: Apple utterly fails at this point which simply is for some a requirement for a homecomputer or as apple liked to call it: media hub
i'm going back to the windows/linux world since in my book having to own 1 PC is better than having to own 2 because 1 can't do everything you want
Yikes. I assumed those two links were to the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. Yeah, those two systems aren't as powerful technically as a PC, and the games aren't 100% overlapped, but at least they have serious development on them, and a lot of games that are ones that traditionally would have been only on PCs. (Stuff like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, etc.)
The Wii...not such a good substitute, not that it doesn't have some good games. (So far Super Mario Galaxy is the only one I've loved though. I picked up Warioland, and will hopefully love that too though, as I love the older Warioland games.)
The Wii...not such a good substitute, not that it doesn't have some good games. (So far Super Mario Galaxy is the only one I've loved though. I picked up Warioland, and will hopefully love that too though, as I love the older Warioland games.)