Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Trebz said:
I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

If you're planning on using iMovie then the Mini CD would be more than enough with 1-2GB of RAM. If you want to use FinalCut Pro then you'd do best to wait a while until Universal Binaries come out for all of the pro apps. But when they do, the Core Duo mini should be great for that too.

Edit: You will want to have a decent sized and fast external HD for any decent amounts of video though.
 
cube said:
Even if really there's no space if the current configuration for a discrete gfx, it's a case of form over function. Apple prefers to make a bad machine instead of a good one and just very slightly bigger.
Many would disagree with your assessment that this is a bad machine. Also, using the same case allowed them to get the product out sooner. There's always a rev B waiting, but it was nice to see this so soon.
 
form over function... BlueTooth..

I disagree cube. There are very few SFF PCs at this size and as has been stated, Apple do make full size computers too.

Mac Mini is ideal for some scenarios, not for others.

I'm not so impressed by SODIMMS, i think that along with Bluetooth make the base configuration too expensive for it's target market. With 4 USB ports anyone that REALLY wanted a BT keyboard/mouse could use a BT key. Maybe apple could have made a small apple styled one.

However, as BT is standard, i think Apple should include a BT App for frontrow so that you could control frontrow from your mobile phone keypad for when you lose the remote! That would be a fairly trivial software update.
 
Trebz said:
I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?

My question and problem exactly. I spoke to a Apple Store Manager this morning and he was sketchy on it. I told him I would be using iMovie but also thinking about using Final Cut Express at some point too, though both in SD since I don't have an HD camcorder. He wasn't sure whether the graphics would pull more then 64Mb if necessary or if it was limited. He said by Monday they would have some Core Duo units on display with max RAM and to come by then to test it. This guy was the 1st Mac Genuis hired by Apple prior to opening any stores and really knows his tech, so I value his opinion. He said there isn't enough data yet on the Mini to know.
 
I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price. 2)Integrated Graphics, at first I was totally against this but the more I learn about this chipset the better it feels. Apple needs to post some kind of comparison between the performance of the new chipset and the old Radeon 9200. 3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:
 
mattyturner said:
I disagree cube. There are very few SFF PCs at this size and as has been stated, Apple do make full size computers too.

You would barely notice the difference if you rearranged this for discrete gfx.
Even if you made room for a 3.5" hard disk, it would still be an awesome little form factor.
 
joeboy_45101 said:
I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price. 2)Integrated Graphics, at first I was totally against this but the more I learn about this chipset the better it feels. Apple needs to post some kind of comparison between the performance of the new chipset and the old Radeon 9200. 3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:
There is no such thing as 64bit processing, its a freaking marketing ploy. The only thing 64bit processors do is allow acess to greater than 4GB or RAM. Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something??? You couldn't even put that much in a G5 imac, so whats the point of it being 64bit??
 
joeboy_45101 said:
3)No 64-bit, none of these Intel Core chips are 64-bit capable. That's right, the iMac's lost their 64-bit capability with this transistion. It's not to say that the Intel Core processors are underpowered, but Apple has been hyping 64-bit processing technology for a couple of years now. I don't know what I would use 64-bit processing for anyway, but if I'm going to invest my money in a new computer I would like it to actually be "new" and designed with the future in mind.

It's seems to me that Apple has become a victim of it's own hype machine here. I might just continue to wait until the Merom-class processors arrive. These things have all the benefits of the Yonah-class processors plus 64-bit processing and better power consumption margins. Unfortunately, it's anybody's guess as to when these will make it into the Mac mini. :confused:

I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.
 
roland.g said:
I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.
you need MORE than 4GB ram to need 64bit processor. Basically 64 bit processors are not necessary unless you're going to be doing really really hard core video and photo editing. Or if you're gonna run Vista ;)
 
Trebz said:
I am considering getting one of th new core duo minis. The most intensive activities I would use it for would be video editing DV from a camcorder and the occasional DIVX or iPod video conversion.

Do you think the mini's are too underpowered for this? Would getting 2 GB RAM help any?
I do video editing now with my G4 mini. 1GB of memory. Don't have any problems. Rendering the final product takes awhile, but I start up the process before going to bed.

Edit: Should have also noted I have an external 300GB FW drive and use the iLife suite of applications. I have heard the G4 mini has no problems running Final Cut Express.
 
roland.g said:
I had been thinking the same thing about 64-bit, with the whole hullabaloo that Apple made a couple years ago and it made me want to wait for a Merom too. But I looked into it a bit more - you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM to use 64-bit. Right now a tower is the only thing you can load that with.

Thanks for not biting my head off like the last guy. Like I said earlier Apple has become a victim of their own marketing hype here. Is 64-bit really neccessary? Right now I don't know. One day people are saying it's the next big thing, the next day people are acting like it's just a waste of time. I guess I'll just have to wait and see. Macworld should be posting some test results soon, maybe that will be more encouraging to me.
 
JustADecoy said:
Okay, time for some answers, based upon my experience with one at the Apple Store and at home last night (I am so Steve Jobs' bitch):

From the Quicktime HD Gallery (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/), I used the Higher Ground trailer as a guide to its H.264 decoding capabilities:
  • 720p played the first 40 seconds with no noticable frame drops
  • 1080p did skip frames occasionally -- enough to be noticable
I bought the thing anyway and was able to watch the IMAX Deep Sea 3D 720p trailer without noticable frame dropping.
The new Mac Mini is capable of displaying in my Sony CRT at 1080i (and 720p, though mine upsamples it).
World of Warcraft loads, updates, and plays -- but not very well. I do not have a Mini G4 to compare against, so here's what I know: It's subjectively worse than my (Mobile) Radeon 9600-based PowerBook G4, which I use all the time. Running at 720p, it starts losing fps very quickly and I would not attempt PvP combat on a Mini Core Duo. During a flight from Stormwind to Ironforge, even with all of the Video Options tweaked down, I was able to drop the fps to 0 by swinging the camera around. Standing in Stormwind's auction house gave me 29 fps. Standing outside Stormwind's bank gave me 25fps max.

Front Row is great at 1080i, though. :D

Hm, that is better than what I feared in regards to WoW. The way I understand you the game was running at 720p when you looked at the framerate in stormwind? Just curious now, did you have the graphics settings on standard apart from the resolution or down to the lowest possible settings?
 
cube said:
You would barely notice the difference if you rearranged this for discrete gfx.
Even if you made room for a 3.5" hard disk, it would still be an awesome little form factor.
Sure. Why don't you go get a mini and show us how you'd fit a 3.5" HDD and discrete graphics into the same case. I'm sure it's simple enough to do. I mean, look at all the extra room!
joeboy_45101 said:
I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price.
That would be nice, but given that the $599 model includes AirPort and Bluetooth, and that the Intel chips - I believe - cost a fair amount more than the G4s, I suspect you won't see a price drop until the Rev B's ship, if even then.
 
The eternal pattern is true again :D

1. New Apple product announced.

2. Much whining. Rants and obscenities hurled about how it doesn't cost 5 bucks and doesn't cure cancer (though this one could, see sig).

3. Mostly negative votes at MR.

4. Naps and bottles all around.

5. Follow-up articles. Discussion becomes more rational. Less is assumed, and more is investigated.

6. Now mostly POSITIVE votes at MR.

7. Sun somehow rises again after all. Life finds a way to struggle on.

8. Great reviews.

9. Massive sales.

10. Repeat.

:p

joeboy_45101 said:
I am really on the fence about the Mac mini. I really want one but there are some things that I'm having a hard time getting over. 1) Price, the $100 jump in price doesn't feel good to me. I am hoping that as production ramps up the cost of the Mac mini's will fall and Apple will lower the price.
I wish you could still get a sub-$500 Mac and I'm sure that day will come again. But consider all that Apple has added (without increasing the size) for your $100:

* Audio input

* Digital/optical audio (in and out)

* Wi-Fi now standard

* Bluetooth 2.0 now standard

* Gigabit Ethernet

* More flexible support for TVs and displays with odd resolutions

* Faster (5400 rpm) drive

* 50% more hard disk space (and new double-layer SuperDrive on the high end)

* Twice the USB ports

* Two RAM slots

* MUCH faster (and future-proof) processor that nearly rivals a G5 (and duals on the high end!)

* Front Row remote

That's a LOT of improvements over the old models. And LOT of specs that other low-end PCs lack.
 
There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.

This would have solved every bitch that people have about this machine. It would be the same price, it would have a great, fast, cheap HDD, and it would have a discrete video card that doesn't suck away all your memory and bus speeds.

Tell me, why would this have been bad?
 
jared_kipe said:
Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something???

Actually, yeah. I have 4.5 in my quad right now, and the only thing stopping me from going higher is the fact that most single apps can't access more than 4.

The socketed thing is WAY cool, in my opinion it adds a bunch to the value of the machine. Wonder when we'll see the first report of someone buying a solo for $599 and swapping in a duo 2.16 or 2.33?
 
zelet said:
There are so many Apple Fan-bois here it makes me ill to be a Mac person myself. You people do realize that Apple, like any company, screws up?

Instead of making the case slightly bigger to accommodate a larger, faster, cheaper HDD and a decent video card for the same price they decided to go with a case that adds no benefit to anybody at all? To fit the larger components would have only taken AT MOST an inch in each direction.

This would have solved every bitch that people have about this machine. It would be the same price, it would have a great, fast, cheap HDD, and it would have a discrete video card that doesn't suck away all your memory and bus speeds.

Tell me, why would this have been bad?
(a) It would have altered the form factor, meaning reengineering costs and time lost getting it out the door.

(b) It would have negated many of the mini-sized 3rd party accessories which depend on that form factor.

(c) An inch in each dimension would have doubled the volume. (7.5"x7.5"X3" as opposed to 6.5"x6.5"x2" = twice the volume, to three digits of precision).
 
cube said:
Even if really there's no space if the current configuration for a discrete gfx, it's a case of form over function. Apple prefers to make a bad machine instead of a good one and just very slightly bigger.
Conversely, they're keeping a consistent form factor. One that many third parties have designed and made products to match.

Get over the damn discrete graphics issue! It isn't all that bad. How well does Doom III run on a G4 Mac Mini anyway?
 
Lurch_Mojoff said:
How much RAM do you have in the mini? Could the 1080 playback be choppy, because of occasional HDD reading? Are the WOW stats at 1024x768 or 1280x720 (or a higher/lower resolution)?

I only have the standard 512MB RAM, and I would bet that the drop to 0 fps was more about memory than GPU. The WOW stats are at 1280x720, but I did play briefly on 1024x768 on my normal monitor for comparison. My subjective take is "I'll stay on my PowerBook G4, thanks".

thies said:
Hm, that is better than what I feared in regards to WoW. The way I understand you the game was running at 720p when you looked at the framerate in stormwind? Just curious now, did you have the graphics settings on standard apart from the resolution or down to the lowest possible settings?

Yes, my TV is only really happy at 720p (edit: or 1080i, which 720p upsamples to -- but WoW at 1080i seemed worse), so that's what I used. I started with standard settings and the frequently stuttering framerate bothered me enough to tweak down the settings to the lowest. I can't say it stuttered less (I didn't play with it for very long, honestly), but that's close to where I have my PowerBook set anyway. I'll probably use this for checking auctions and in-game mail. The chat box font is a little small for a TV.

One other interesting fact: The lower left options area in Video Options was disabled. A couple options are checked (Death 'glow' effect, maybe), but you cannot change any of them. I expect WoW is not yet optimized for the 950 chipset. I'm also wondering (away from WoW, where I can't confirm) if the 'full screen glow' option is forced on and may be slowing performance slightly. I expect it will get slightly better over time, but I still won't jump in a Battleground on the Mini.
 
jared_kipe said:
What in the hell are those little PCB things sticking up in the corners on springs??
The smaller one is the bluetooth antenna the larger one is the Airport antenna
 
Hattig said:
Get over the damn discrete graphics issue! It isn't all that bad. How well does Doom III run on a G4 Mac Mini anyway?

I don't care about Doom. I wanted the mini for X-Plane, which doesn't require too much CPU.
 
I wonder how a Core Duo mini would compare to a stock G5 Dual 1.8 Powermac from 2004 (with a FX5200 as standard) on native apps. Now *that* would be interesting to see. I'm not really thinking about games as much as I am general system performance.
 
jared_kipe said:
There is no such thing as 64bit processing, its a freaking marketing ploy. The only thing 64bit processors do is allow acess to greater than 4GB or RAM. Do you need a computer with 6GB of ram for something??? You couldn't even put that much in a G5 imac, so whats the point of it being 64bit??
Apart from the support for 64-bit integers, which do help in some tasks (encryption/decryption/signing in particular).

However x86 got additional benefits from the move to 64-bits, such as many more GPRs which can really aid performance if the compiler is aware of them and can make use of them. 64-bit on x86 is actually useful for far more people than 64-bit on PowerPC.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.