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
ibook30 said:
I will probably buy a Mini the moment it's an Intel. I don't want to buy a laptop (had an iBook once, couldn't get used to the keyboard) and the others are too expensive because I don't know if I will actually use it for anything useful.
The Mini is perfect because it's cheap and small (more than enough space taken up by computers already).
arkmannj said:I used to squirm at the thought of an intel inside sticker,
but I wouldn't care if they put it on the back by the ports or something.
My (Sony) laptop had a lot of stickers on it (Intel inside, all the specs, ...). They were gone minutes after I unpacked it.
Multimedia said:
They never said that. The PowerMac G5s will be phased out last. Concurrent release of the PowerMac G5 and the intel PowerMac is definitely a possibility.
AvSRoCkCO1067 said:Apple could always just come out with an entirely new line of computers (possibly a desktop or a laptop) with Intel, keeping its other computers under PPC Architecture for a bit. You know, just to work out the bugs.
I think that, although the Mac Mini certainly isn't a speed demon, that it is not the area in which Apple would want to focus on the most. Look at Apple's current offerings (especially considering bang for the buck.)
The PowerMac is amazing - its recent update will certainly carry it along a while (until Intel comes out with something actually worthwhile for desktops...)
The iMac is pretty darn awesome too...
The Mini is slow, but for 500 bucks, I'm very happy with my purchase
The iBook is also a bit slow, but again, for a 1000, much better than its PC counterparts (it never slows down, unlike my other PC laptop and desktop)
The POWERBOOK - ah, therein lies the lagger. Although its screens are undoubtedly beautiful, its in need of a facelift. Bang for the buck considerations; iBook is better. Apple needs to update the PowerBook's processer (re: FBS) as soon as possible - it will probably be one of the earlier updates!
Yes, I do not see Apple putting an expensive CPU in the Mac Mini. Why? Because the Mini was designed to be the low-entry Mac in the lineup. I would suspect that they will either go with a Celeron processor in order to stay within the $500 price barrier. Apple is switching more and more users from Windows to OS X (including myself as of a few weeks ago). My question is this. How much slower will my updated (got lucky) Mac Mini with 1.5GHZ, and 1GB RAM be versus a low-end Celeron processor? The Yonah chips sound great, but I just do not see that happening in January or at the price the mini is at..
Plus, why the recent update for the Mini's then? What would be the purpose of bumping the Mini's for just a few months before they release the Intel model? This does not make sense to me... Could it be that the iBook will get the first Intel chips, or possibly even the Powerbook (and we all know that the PB is due for a significant update)...
Intel Mac mini = iHome?
How about the Intel Mac mini becoming the mythical "iHome" that stealthily takes over living rooms the way the iPod took over everyone's front pocket?
Build in an iPod dock on top (remember the speculation about that?), stick a TV tuner in the back, and the IR receiver on the front. Include the remote and an updated Front Row v1.1 that is iPod, TV, and network aware for shared music/photos/movies and net radio, keep the price reasonable, and advertise the heck out of it to attract everyone who ever bought an iPod to get one.
Apple sells 37 million Mac minis to the iPod masses who want to plop their iPods (and their buddies' iPods when they visit) into their computers and mess around with Front Row. They then discover the OS X & iLife experience in the process, and over time transition their future purchases to higher end Macs. Meanwhile the "Intel inside" gets a test run and good word of mouth from the 37 million as the x86 transition moves up the product line.
Just needs a catchy name like iPod to link it together in the public's mind.
How about the Intel Mac mini becoming the mythical "iHome" that stealthily takes over living rooms the way the iPod took over everyone's front pocket?
Build in an iPod dock on top (remember the speculation about that?), stick a TV tuner in the back, and the IR receiver on the front. Include the remote and an updated Front Row v1.1 that is iPod, TV, and network aware for shared music/photos/movies and net radio, keep the price reasonable, and advertise the heck out of it to attract everyone who ever bought an iPod to get one.
Apple sells 37 million
Mac minis to the iPod masses who want to plop their iPods (and their buddies' iPods when they visit) into their computers and mess around with Front Row. They then discover the OS X & iLife experience in the process, and over time transition their future purchases to higher end Macs. Meanwhile the "Intel inside" gets a test run and good word of mouth from the 37 million as the x86 transition moves up the product line.Just needs a catchy name like iPod to link it together in the public's mind.
Abercrombieboy said:
Uh, what makes you think that? iMac has 1.9Ghz and 2.1Ghz G5 in it. They CAN use x86-CPU that is slower than that you know. Or do you think that they will cram the fastest CPU possible in there?
No, they will provide an upgrade on the CPU-front, but tey will not upgrade it so much that it will harm the sales of other systems. Besides, by that time, iMac might get a speed-boost as well.
And besides CPU, there's the question of other things. the vid-card, HD, RAM etc. etc. All those could be faster on the iMac.
Evangelion said:Yes,because Photoshop is the only app people use on their computers
Exactly! Let's see a comparison of window resizing in the OS, or the rendering of a web page. User Interface tasks are the single most perceivable factor to productivity.
I think if Apple can reach a point where the real world performance we see in high end PowerMac's are in their low end machines, we'll be in great shape. I don't care what CPU is in it anymore. It would have been nice to be a PowerPC, but if Intel has got a couple tricks up it's sleeve, I'm more than happy to have them.
As my Sig suggests, my next Mac will almost certainly be an Intel PowerBook.
...and because "radial blur" is the only thing that people do when they run PhotoshopEvangelion said:Yes,because Photoshop is the only app people use on their computers
i don't think the first intel mac mini will be the greatest, but it's good to see apple starting early. i wouldn't buy the first intel mac though.
AidenShaw said:...and because "radial blur" is the only thing that people do when they run Photoshop
You kidding?
I spend all-day with Radial Blur!! As soon as i see a picture... RADIAL BLUR!! Infact im hoping we see Adobe Photoshop RBE (Radial Blur Edition) with extra cool radial blur features!! I upgraded my G5 so Radial Blur would blur faster! Anyhow.... No i don't see the Mac Mini turning Intel in january. It would p**s off anyone who bought one over the Christmas period (do apple want to p**s potential switchers off after thier first mac experience?) especially if its a move to Intel.
I hold out hope that they might use Freescale and get in those fabled G4's running at a speed of about 1.7Ghz. PCI Express and DDR2 would be a bonus too since the mini is now the only Mac without it. Even if they use lower speed DDR2 there is surley a gain from the fact that its lower power and so less heat than standard DDR.
I see a few problems with an Intel Mini in January, but this is just my personal view. Apple would need to add something major to the system or it will look poor value next to other cheap PC's (if they are both intel and look simular specs on paper are people going to be tempted to switch by paying more?)
and also i know Rosetta runs PPC apps well, but is that really what the Mini needs? Even more of a performance disadvantage. Intel systems get native x86 versions of photoshop or whatever app and run as well as they can, and mini uses have to use a PPC version going through rosetta and any performance implications (or bugs?) that go with that. If they 'make up' for that by pumping up the CPU power then they threaten to overshadow higher-priced products and make the mini cost more to produce....
I think there is more chance of the Powerbooks getting the Intel treatment first.
something has to be the first MacIntel
1. Apple is telling developers to code for a Dothan system. The Powerbook would probably get a Yonah dual-core, the single-core Dothan wouldn't put the "Power" back in Powerbook in a big enough way. (The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)
2. The MiniMac's target audience is more likely to be happy enough with native Intel iLife apps - the Powerbook crowd would be more likely to need 3rd party apps that wouldn't be native....
Apple is subjecting the 32-bit OSx86 to a minor handicap by using Dothan as the base system (instead of Yonah)....
I stand correctedRobHague said:You kidding?
I'll bet on the MiniMacIntel as the first....RobHague said:
1. Apple is telling developers to code for a Dothan system. The Powerbook would probably get a Yonah dual-core, the single-core Dothan wouldn't put the "Power" back in Powerbook in a big enough way. (The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)
2. The MiniMac's target audience is more likely to be happy enough with native Intel iLife apps - the Powerbook crowd would be more likely to need 3rd party apps that wouldn't be native....
Apple is subjecting the 32-bit OSx86 to a minor handicap by using Dothan as the base system (instead of Yonah)....
Why? The P4 is hot, it won't fit well into the Mini's box. And Intel are dropping the P4s anyway and moving to P-M based chips.EricNau said:
The P-M's are higher performance for equivalent clockspeed, and run cooler.
My predictions for the middle of 2006:
Mac Mini - Celeron-M, 1.6GHz in January, single core Yonah towards end of year.
iBook - single core Yonah, 1.8/2.0GHz (approximately, I don't think the clock speeds have been announced yet)
PowerBook - dual core Yonah, 1.84/2.17GHz
The PowerBook will move to dual core Merom in early 2007, about the same time Yonah single core will be in the Minis. I can't see either the Mini or iBook going dual core until all CPUs are dual core. The iMac will switch to dual core Merom at the same time as the PB.
This is all speculation and so I expect to spectactularly wrong, especially since the different CPUs are likely to have different sockets (Celeron-M especially) and would require a mobo redesign.
ack_mac said:
Aopen's knockoff has no problem meeting the Mini's price points with a P-M. Still, a $399 version with a celeron-m might be intriguing.
The Powerbook line should be the first to get the Intel chips!
I don't understand the logic in moving the Mac Mini to a faster Intel chip while the Powerbooks continue to use relatively slow G4 processors.
I think Apple needs to get their pro-line machines competitive before their consumer products. Obviously the iMac had the room to accomodate a hot processor like the G5, the laptops currently cannot. This makes the laptops the perfect line to upgrade first. And it would be stupid to upgrade the iBooks before the Powerbooks.
I don't really see a need to upgrade the Mac Mini before everything else. It's meant to be a low-end machine, so if it continues to run older G4s for a few months more, I don't see that as a big deal.
*Personally, I'd like to see a Mactel Powerbook announced at MWSF and available by Feb/Mar.
*Then in the Spring (Apr/May) they should announce Mactel iBooks and Mac Minis with availability by June
*iMacs should then get the Intel chips later in the year along with a CPU upgrade to the next-gen Intel processors for the Powerbooks.
*PowerMacs, already very competitive with Intel-based offerings, can get switched over by MWSF '07.
All machines could use regular video card upgrades.
With this roadmap, the machines that NEED the upgrades get them in the appropriate order and all machines get the upgrade within 1 year.
I totally disagree with the argument that the Mac Minis and even iBooks should be the first to go Intel because SW availability on x86 is less critical for consumer products. I've seen OS X on x86. Rosetta runs pretty darn fast and I think an upgrade to a high-end Pentium-M from a G4-1.67 would more than offset the performance lost by using Rosetta. Besides, do you really want an old G4 to run FinalCut Pro and other CPU intensive apps anyway??? Seems like the already powerful G5 desktops are more appropriate for those tasks.
I don't understand the logic in moving the Mac Mini to a faster Intel chip while the Powerbooks continue to use relatively slow G4 processors.
I think Apple needs to get their pro-line machines competitive before their consumer products. Obviously the iMac had the room to accomodate a hot processor like the G5, the laptops currently cannot. This makes the laptops the perfect line to upgrade first. And it would be stupid to upgrade the iBooks before the Powerbooks.
I don't really see a need to upgrade the Mac Mini before everything else. It's meant to be a low-end machine, so if it continues to run older G4s for a few months more, I don't see that as a big deal.
*Personally, I'd like to see a Mactel Powerbook announced at MWSF and available by Feb/Mar.
*Then in the Spring (Apr/May) they should announce Mactel iBooks and Mac Minis with availability by June
*iMacs should then get the Intel chips later in the year along with a CPU upgrade to the next-gen Intel processors for the Powerbooks.
*PowerMacs, already very competitive with Intel-based offerings, can get switched over by MWSF '07.
All machines could use regular video card upgrades.
With this roadmap, the machines that NEED the upgrades get them in the appropriate order and all machines get the upgrade within 1 year.
I totally disagree with the argument that the Mac Minis and even iBooks should be the first to go Intel because SW availability on x86 is less critical for consumer products. I've seen OS X on x86. Rosetta runs pretty darn fast and I think an upgrade to a high-end Pentium-M from a G4-1.67 would more than offset the performance lost by using Rosetta. Besides, do you really want an old G4 to run FinalCut Pro and other CPU intensive apps anyway??? Seems like the already powerful G5 desktops are more appropriate for those tasks.
BenRoethig said:
Yes, but they offer a 1.4GHZ Celeron processor for $499 running Windows XP, and a 1.73 (Dothan) proc (about $699??).
This goes back to my original question, what type of performance gain would either of these chips offer over a G4 1.5GHZ PPC chip? Is this really that groundbreaking? I understand the fact that they are switing to Intel processors is significant, but from a psycological standpoint the GHZ bump is barely noticeable (from a numbers perspective). I could see where offering a dual core 2GHZ Yonah chip would result in a significant performance increase, but that will only be for a Powerbook type of announcement, that type of chip is certainly not destined to be in a mini.
As it stands right now, I will take my 1.5GHZ G4 PPC chip running Mac OS X anyday over an Aopen machine running Windows XP Home Edition..
ack_mac said:
Let's not forget that with the Mac Mini, you get iLife '05, World Book 2006, and other free software that you won't get with XP.
Esp for a developer, XCode is free and VS.NET is several hundred.
The only reason I'd get the AOpen is I was foolish enough to get an Archos AV-500 that needs a Divx encoder and Tiger broke Divx!!!
ack_mac said:
I am told that Apple compiles optimizing for size, not speed, right now.
One small way they can boost the apparent speed of the x86 platform is to start compiling for speed. They will need to in the beginning, I'm sure, since most software will still be running through Rosetta.
ccrandall77 said:
World Book? Was it pre-installed? I haven't seen it on my mini.
Oh, and p.s., can't you use VLC for DivX under Tiger? I think I've been doing that. Well, I haven't encoded to DivX on it, yet, but the output does support Div1, Div2, and Div3, among other things.
artifex said:
Hmmm... maybe that got transferred over when I had it move settings/files/apps from my PB. Still, the Mini comes with a lot of nice SW stock.
everyone keeps talking about the pro apps not being ready and such and I know its been said that cs won't be ready til the end of the year probably but I will be really suprised if apple doesn't have their own pro apps ready already(maybe I'm missing a known fact where apple has said that their apps aren't ready yet? or something else) They might of even developed them that way from the start since they had osx that way.