- May 7, 2006
I realize the speed bump on last Tuesday's event, but when can we start to expect a Core2Duo Mac Mini?
Next year I would think, after MWSF but before Leopard is released, same with the MacBook - that way all Macs would sport at least two 64 bit processing cores.kildraik said:I realize the speed bump on last Tuesday's event, but when can we start to expect a Core2Duo Mac Mini?
MWSF, being... Early December? Is a seperate GPU at all possible?Chundles said:Next year I would think, after MWSF but before Leopard is released, same with the MacBook - that way all Macs would sport at least two 64 bit processing cores.
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom#Future_DevelopmentsStealthRider said:I'd be happy with a 2.0GHz Core Duo and a GMA X3000 for a media center...I don't really see a need for amazing graphics in something that small and cheap - but the X3000 is supposed to be pretty decent.
They already use the same SO-DIMMs as the iMac. I'd also like to see a cheaper Mac, or at least a slightly upgraded one. It was hard enough trying to convince my Mom to get the low end mini, especially when it was only $20 off for teachers when she thought it was 10%, then she still had to spend money on a new kb. I got her more RAM too since 512 just was not cutting it. I tried to get her to get an iMac, but she didn't want to spend that much money. Especially for the larger screen.kildraik said:Maybe use iMac ram
The ATI solution is from ATI. Oh crap that's not manufactured by Intel.MacProGuy said:Yep. You said Intel. The ATI solution works with INTEL CPUS...
Or would you rather have INTEL integrated graphics, even though they are slower than the ATI integrated graphics which can use an Intel CPU? rightbackatya
Eidorian said:The ATI solution is from ATI. Oh crap that's not manufactured by Intel.
It doesn't matter. I just find it doubtful that Apple with go with ATI/NVidia integrated solutions. Not that I'm against it.MacProGuy said:Since when does it matter who the actual chipset of the motherboard is from?
Why would you want to use an Intel chipset with a slower video subsystem versus a much more robust one that, from all accounts, is even less expensive than the Intel one?
Just trying to understand your logic here?
It's Apple's logic. The others may be cheaper off the shelf for the rest of us, but I'm sure Apple has a deal with Intel for their chipsets. So we get Intel stuff. I don't know what to tell you.MacProGuy said:Just trying to understand your logic here?