Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Intel Mac mini

chasepgh said:
Screw the gripes about integrated graphics.... my hot button is the pricing of the intel macs. In all the hype and speculation of this move, the exciting thing about going Intel was the potential to see Mac's go down in price..... not UP!!!!!
Click to expand...

The price of an intel chip is more than the G4. Quit whining. Don't buy it if you don't like it.

No wonder you guys are the laughing stock of the computing world.
 
The 1.5Ghz core solo model is pretty weak.

The G4 mini costs (much) less, offers roughly the same performance and it is able to run every application without being slowed down by emulation under rosetta.
Not to mention the fact that the G4 mini might have an advantage at 3D accelerated stuff...

The 1.6Ghz core duo is not bad, although it is still not powerful enough to handle h.264 HD videos and lacks a proper video card just as the base model.

Both models are a bad buy in my mind. I'm not in the market for a new computer, but if i was, i would spend my cash either on a G4 mini or an intel iMac right now.
 
Don M. said:
Everyone keeps talking about mini gaming, and that it's not sutiable, but I don't think anyone here truly believes the mini is a viable gaming rig. So are just talking past each other on this point?
Click to expand...

Here's another point...

Several pages back people were confused on the point that the consumer machines had the same processors as the prosumer. Given they don't have the breadth of chips to choose from (I'll bet ya current agreements require Core-X chips, so celeron M is not an option) it makes sense to use graphics as a differentiator.

In fact it might even be better -- the pro group sees the difference, and so still buys the pro line. The consumer group doesn't see the difference (and on day-to-day operation won't even feel the difference) and so feels like they got a great deal.

After all, how many people do you bet didn't buy a G4 based consumer system because they felt they were getting cheated without a G5? No amount of marketing would be able to convince them it really isn't necessary on iPhoto.

Now the distinction is maintained, but the impression is better.

Other than me (who would be buying this system for a very specific purpose; my main system still needs to be a pro-sumer level) I see very few people on this thread that Apple _wants_ to buy a consumer level; everyone here is somebody who is being pushed to prosumer. They've now nicely made that distinction.
 
nagromme said:
People have a strange habit of adding stuff to a low-end machine and then suggesting it's a better deal to get a high-end machine that already has those things standard. Yes--of course it is 🙂 But if you don't want all those things, the Mac Mini is cheaper. Makes sense to me.

I think it comes down to this: there's demand for a MID-range headless from Apple, and Apple doesn't make one. I hope they will, but the Mini isn't it.

The Mini is something ELSE that is PERFECT for many people.

Many people say the 950 graphics are just awful under Windows, even for basic daily tasks. Others say the 950 is suitable for streaming HD content 😛 I'll wait and see how it plays out in ACTUAL use--with OS X.
Click to expand...

Thing is that this isn't a low end machine. At least the dual core isn't. And if you compare the dual core with the iMac it is basically either too expensive or the specs aren't good enough.
 
Chuckles said:
You guys make too many assumptions. How do you know that the integrated graphics in the new Mac Mini suck? Have you even used one for yourself?

I for one think that the integrated graphics are perfect for the Mac Mini. The ATI graphics it had last time were LITERALLY integrated. This has more memory as well. Also, it freaking hooks up to a TV! Crappy graphics couldn't handle that.
Click to expand...

Smart guy. You actually understand what the mini is about.
 
gekko513 said:
But you're looking at a comparison with a Geforce 6200 which is pretty much on par with the x200 as far as I know.
Click to expand...

No, the 6200 is not an integrated GPU (the X200 is), and is much faster (I linked to some benchies on about page 5 or so).

I'm not sure what nVidia's equivalent to the X200 is. The X200 is a little better than the GMA950, but not much.


What's with all the comparison's to $300 Dells? Jeebus, they have a Celeron D - the Core Solo blows away the Celeron.
 
Apple Straddled the Fence

The problem seems to be that Apple tried to Straddle a barbed-wire fence and it looks like they are going not be happy with the results 😉 Well maybe not, most of us are a lot more critical of the specs of systems than the average consumer. This product tries to be too much to very different demographics.

The Mac Mini needs to be 2 separate products; the low end entry level mini and a media center mini.

For the entry lvl mini, integrated graphics are fine and if they don't put in the optical audio and other HT features it could be priced at $299-$350 theoretically. (No I haven't done a price break down, I'm just guessing)

For the media center mini, add a separate video card solution and charge $50 more. The next generation of this machine should have either DVR capabilities or they need to have an online video rental/purchase store with higher quality content.
 
Chuckles said:
You guys make too many assumptions. How do you know that the integrated graphics in the new Mac Mini suck? Have you even used one for yourself?
Click to expand...

Benchmarks already exist for it. It has been out for a bit (not the mini, but the hardware inside)

Also, it freaking hooks up to a TV! Crappy graphics couldn't handle that
Click to expand...

Crappy graphics can handle that. Not that big of a feat, lol
 
lexfuzo said:
Where did you get that information?
Click to expand...

Looks like I was a little too quick on the draw - it won't handle H.264 HD as large as 1080.

Nevertheless, it's ability to handle H.264 HD content (particularly the core duo flavor of mini) is significantly greater than it's predecessor.
 
Off Daring Fireball:
Apple, Circa 2005, on ‘Integrated Intel Graphics’ Chips

From the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine cache of Apple’s Mac Mini Graphics page from March 5, 2005:
Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.
Click to expand...
What a difference a year makes: the new Minis use an “integrated Intel graphics” chip that siphons memory from system-level RAM and doesn’t have a slot for another video card.
Click to expand...
 
adamcz said:
Somebody please help me!

How will this new computer compare to my 1.25G4 tower with 64meg graphics? The only semi-intense thing I use my computer for is photoshop, but I'm not a graphics pro. Other than that, I surf the web, use Sibelius music notation, and Dreamweaver for my website.

Would there be any advantages or disadvantages for me switching?
Click to expand...

I'd say there are three main advantages:
1) A quiet computer (is that a G4 jet engine you have?)
2) A small computer that basically has all same features as the G4, but with USB 2.0
3) A substantially faster CPU and modern graphics architecture (if not impressive speed).

For web tasks, office programs, and even Photoshop and iMovie, the parts that matter are the CPU and the RAM, both of which are much improved over the G4. Neither Photoshop nor iMovie are impacted by your graphics card (it seems a little contrary to logic, but it's true).
 
Is there any place to post feedback on Mac Minis? I looked at Apples site and all I could find was product feedback for the iPod, Power Mac, and Macbook...If there is a general feedback site we should all send feedback so that the next incarnation of this product is better.
 
Sigh

Sigh. I really had high expectations. I love Apple, but this is sort-of a downer. In my opinion the weakest release of new stuff since the iPod shuffle. They really could have taken the mac MINI to a new level; beyond the processor switch. Wonder if that speaker-thing is any good; Harman Kardon, JBL and Boston Acoustic (just to name a view) have decades of Sound engineering expertise. Better stick to your guns Apple. Looking forward to a really kick-ass 30th anniversary Mac. Just don't disappoint me with a *black* Mac Mini.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
Macmini could be used for gaming all it needed was a half decent gpu instead of the 99 cent Intel special. Apple has found a new low when it comes to graphics. What was Apple thinking😕 Bean counters are at again crippling one machine so they can sell the ugly Imac. egad! For all those that are dissapointed i would write the eggheads at apple at let em know how you feel. No wonder they didnt ever anounce the 1.5 G4 mated to the 64 mb ati 9200.
Click to expand...

Maybe it wasn't bean-counters? Perhaps they wanted to keep heat to a minimum so the box would be nice and whisper quiet? Do you think the core-duo gives off the same heat as a G4?
 
gekko513 said:
OK, you're right, but the X200 is still better than the Intel GMA950 in this test [anandtech]
Click to expand...

The X200 wins but I think the bigger issue is that we want to avoid integrated graphics altogether.

I'm going to hug my GeForce 6800GT when I get home. 🙄 😛
 
Does the integrated graphics card support core image?

And is it actually slower than the previous graphics card in the PPC mini?

There are some non-gaming OpenGL needs that require an acceptable graphics card (hell, even some screen savers), not to mention it probably won't run Aero in Windows Vista if you decide to dual boot it. Just food for though.
 
Of COURSE Apple touted having a separate GPU when the Mini had one. And of COURSE they stopped touting it when they didn't use one anymore. Where's the surprise there?


chasepgh said:
Competing winblows machine come better equipped than the mini (and include monitors, keyboard, and a mouse for that matter) for the same or often LESS money.
Click to expand...
Actually not true. To say that you generally have to single out certain specs and ignore the areas where the Mini beats the PC. Something that's commonly done to "prove" Dell is cheaper, but not something that makes any real sense.

You can BUILD a PC yourself very cheaply if you wish, and you can buy cheap PCs with cheap failure-prone parts. But a name brand Dell/Sony/HP seldom comes out cheaper than a Mac--and sometimes more expensive--if you look at ALL the specs instead of hand-picking what to ignore. And don't forget the software bundle.


Don M. said:
Why on earth would myself or any other PM user get rid of our PM's for the mini as a "stopgap machine" until the Intel PMs come out? 😕 We currently run every PowerPC or universal app faster than any Intel Mac user right now.
Click to expand...
Actually not true: PowerMac does not mean PowerMac G5. A lot of people have PowerMac G4s, and universal apps can run much faster on a Mac Mini than on a G4 😛
 
Quixcube said:
Maybe it wasn't bean-counters? Perhaps they wanted to keep heat to a minimum so the box would be nice and whisper quiet? Do you think the core-duo gives off the same heat as a G4?
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, the more I think my long post above is right -- graphics is being used as the differentiator. After all with a core solo nvidia iBook, why buy a Mac Book Pro?

Of course, I think that's precisely what a lot of the people in this thread are upset about -- they had hoped in the future to get a Mac Book Pro for an iBook price 🙂
 
This is probably the most obvious bridge machine of the three released. Rev B will no doubt be amazing. Updating all their machines in a year was too ambitious for them. So instead of two or three amazing amchines we get a line-up of mere adequacy this initial intel go-around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back