paulypants said:
But it will bring the whole cost down and thats what the Mac Mini is all about
remeber what steve said ! no excuse not to buy a Mac now?
/
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 Mac mini at MacWorld San Francisco in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it will bring the whole cost down and thats what the Mac Mini is all about
remeber what steve said ! no excuse not to buy a Mac now?
/
It would be excellent to start 2006 off with the first of the intel macs, in a new mac mini, to allow developers etc to all get their software ported properly to the new chips before the powerlines come out.
mac-er said:
Any applications that require the use of a G4 or a G5 processor will not run under Rosetta. Rosetta is a G3 emulator.
This means important apps like Final Cut, Motion, Soundtrack, DVD Studio, Aperture, Illustrator, and Doom will not run on intel Macs until they have been updated.
I think the Mini makes perfect sense as a machine for folks to get their feet wet with the Intel-Mac transition. The Pentium M is an excellent chip that is well-matched to the intended role of the Mini. And I entirely agree with the guy above who commented on the iLife Apps --- I'll bet they are ready to go.
It may be a nice transition machine, *if* they can keep the price in the lower registers then I can even imagine existing PPC Mac owners investing in one to try out the Intel side ---I know Iwould consider doing so. I'd love to convert my lab over to Mac and the Mini would make perfect sense for us (everyone already has keyboards, mice and monitors) ---but I find it underpowered in it's present form. If the Intel-Mini is a more "robust" machine then it will fit my needs perfectly.
My update from SoftRAID today prominently mentioned that they are making significant progress on the Intel front...hmmmmmm.
JT
Waiting (not patiently) for her Quad...
It may be a nice transition machine, *if* they can keep the price in the lower registers then I can even imagine existing PPC Mac owners investing in one to try out the Intel side ---I know Iwould consider doing so. I'd love to convert my lab over to Mac and the Mini would make perfect sense for us (everyone already has keyboards, mice and monitors) ---but I find it underpowered in it's present form. If the Intel-Mini is a more "robust" machine then it will fit my needs perfectly.
My update from SoftRAID today prominently mentioned that they are making significant progress on the Intel front...hmmmmmm.
JT
Waiting (not patiently) for her Quad...
Stella said:
Really? I wasn't able to find any at the Edu Store on Apple's website. I thought they were gone.
paulypants said:
I hope they decide to use an embedded GPU from ATI or nVidia.
Flowbee said:
a prize?! SWEET
and I'm happy about this news if it's true, i'll probably be in the market for a secondary machine to supplement my G5 around the spring next year, and this would be a great way to step into intel macs without breaking the bank on a Rev A machine
paulypants said:
It won't be. It's not Core Image/Video compliant. It doesn't make sense that the mini isn't Core compliant now, but it surely will annoy if the MacTel version continues to be crippled.
i'l buy a PPC iMac next week and later on a intel Mini for home entertainment on the TV.
The developers need to support both architectures for a long time, changing in 1 go would tempt them to develop only for mactel. All future mac software has to support both architectures imho, maybe IBM has a nice surprise in a few years, maybe osX will run on PCC consoles, home-electronics are mostly PPC, ...
PPC is not dead at all.
The developers need to support both architectures for a long time, changing in 1 go would tempt them to develop only for mactel. All future mac software has to support both architectures imho, maybe IBM has a nice surprise in a few years, maybe osX will run on PCC consoles, home-electronics are mostly PPC, ...
PPC is not dead at all.
Early Intel Macs
The issue for me is not when Apple's new Intel-based hardware is available, but rather when will the apps be ready for it. I don't think Apple will release anything until some of the major applications are ready or nearly so, such as Photoshop, Elements and Word.
The issue for me is not when Apple's new Intel-based hardware is available, but rather when will the apps be ready for it. I don't think Apple will release anything until some of the major applications are ready or nearly so, such as Photoshop, Elements and Word.
Here's the little circle: Rumor sites report a RUMOR> Mainstream news sites pick up on the stench and report it as some kind of weird fact> Rumor sites report on the reporting thinking it confirms their original reported RUMOR, who's source is some guy looking at the shape of the boxes in a warehouse in Asia.
Rumor sites need to be put out of their misery. You're starting to f**k with Apple's money. Any moment now, Apple will break down your door and come after you with a blade yelling "Your f***ing with my money b**ch, I'm gona cut you!"
Rumor sites need to be put out of their misery. You're starting to f**k with Apple's money. Any moment now, Apple will break down your door and come after you with a blade yelling "Your f***ing with my money b**ch, I'm gona cut you!"
Abercrombieboy said:
I'm probably one of the biggest Pentium M evangelists on the site but even I know that is pure BS.
The Mac Mini will be the first Intel Mac I'm sure.
I just wonder how Apple will configure it.
Will it be a Dothan processor? If so, will it be coupled with Intel's integrated graphics? Being a consumer system I fear it will be so. Let's hope that it will be Intel's most up-to-date integrated graphics therefore.
I'm more inclined to believe that Apple will go with a bottom-of-the-line dual-core Yonah (which costs around $30 more than the bottom-of-the-line single-core Yonah, which is the only SC Yonah. Not least because it'll be around for a year or so from that date, whereas Dothan will be phased out over the year. That would make the Mac Mini a really interesting system and I'd buy one. I don't think you'll get a cheaper Mac Mini this way however. I bet Apple pays less than $50 per G4 right now (for <1.5GHz G4s) - Intel would have to give some killer discounts on the >$240 Yonah processor.
So I expect, in January or February 2006:
Dual-core 1.66GHz Yonah (X20) OR Dual-core 1.5GHz Yonah (X38)
Intel chipset with integrated graphics
512MB 533MHz DDR2 RAM, upgradable to 2GB (single slot)
$100 more than current Mac Mini.
I just wonder how Apple will configure it.
Will it be a Dothan processor? If so, will it be coupled with Intel's integrated graphics? Being a consumer system I fear it will be so. Let's hope that it will be Intel's most up-to-date integrated graphics therefore.
I'm more inclined to believe that Apple will go with a bottom-of-the-line dual-core Yonah (which costs around $30 more than the bottom-of-the-line single-core Yonah, which is the only SC Yonah. Not least because it'll be around for a year or so from that date, whereas Dothan will be phased out over the year. That would make the Mac Mini a really interesting system and I'd buy one. I don't think you'll get a cheaper Mac Mini this way however. I bet Apple pays less than $50 per G4 right now (for <1.5GHz G4s) - Intel would have to give some killer discounts on the >$240 Yonah processor.
So I expect, in January or February 2006:
Dual-core 1.66GHz Yonah (X20) OR Dual-core 1.5GHz Yonah (X38)
Intel chipset with integrated graphics
512MB 533MHz DDR2 RAM, upgradable to 2GB (single slot)
$100 more than current Mac Mini.
kwajo.com said:
Bingo, as the poster said above. And iLife is already optimized for Intel, as is most all the consumer apps, as is OS X. People buying a Mini would probably see an increase in the speed of these apps over the current ones, potentially appreciable but that'd be speculation as there is a LOT of stuff thats goes on between an app, a processor, the busses, etc.
And whomever thinks they're going to use the Centrino chip is completely delusional. They're so bad even most peecee makers are trying to distance themselves from it, machines built with it in often aren't mentioned excpet the fine print. Even Apple, for all their cheapness sometimes (need I mention video cards like someone did above), wouldn't be THAT cheap! I've watched people run a bake-off where the original PIII from 98 dusted a new Centrino and supposedly the Centrino is based on the PIII. Apple is going to be using the M chips (and beyond), and developers are being told to code to that, not Centrino. Pay attention before you post.
paulypants said:
Don't be. There won't be any Intel GPU in the thing. Count on it. Apple is fanatical about not having integrated cheap'o graphics in the thing. At worst I expect the thing to be running a mobile 9600 with 64MB of VRAM.
SiliconAddict said:
Well, Apple used to be fanatical about having PowerPC chips too. I think everything's up in the air.
bennyek said:
Why? The Mac mini is the simplest product from an engineering standpoint, so it makes sense to work on an Intel version of that first - less risk. I wonder whether it will actually be in Mac mini form factor or have a different form-factor and name but essentially the same spec. (except processor and IR receiver).
Photorun said:
Ummm you are wrong. Way wrong....insanly wrong. So wrong it hurts. I mean....*shakes head* I'll wayt for someone else to come out and tell you exactly why you are wrong. The Pentium M....(There is no god damn Centrino chip!! Sorry but if you are going to rant on something get the name right!! Please!)...rocks in most apps. The only ones they lag behind at are the more intensive content creation items like ripping a DVD or encoding a movie into DIVX. Even then current benchmarks show they aren't THAT bad. I think you need to go back and look at your facts....Maybe you are thinking about the Celeron or somthing?
mdavey said:
exactly, look what they did with the iPod Mini ... redesigned it to the iPod Nano -
Mac Mini could be re done altogether
miloblithe said:
No Apple is fanatical about the experience they give their users which is part of the reason why they are going x86. (Note: part.) Apple isn't going to use a craptastic GPU that is going to be on par with a large portion of the PC's on the market.
liketom said:exactly, look what they did with the iPod Mini ... redesigned it to the iPod Nano -
Mac Mini could be re done altogether
Introducing the Mac Waffle.....so thin you just want to eat it.