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.
New Intel Mac mini
- Thread starter drift1492
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hyperpasta
macrumors 6502a
xJus10x said:
Nope. I don't think WoW would run. The Intel iMac will run Wow excellently even without extra RAM, and myabe Rev. B of this will too.
No clear market
When the original Mini came out, it sounded like it might address two potential markets:
1- Switchers, folks wanting to try Apple for little money.
2- Media PC. Very small, unimposing in an entertainment center. Very quiet. Excellent power management (sleep/resume).
But Apple missed the boat for sure on the 2nd one by not having a digital audio output. Answer was that it was never really intended as a media PC. Afterall, a 60-80gig hard drive isn't going to take you very far serving up movies.
Now they've corrected the audio problem by adding digital audio output and input. So it seems that they recognize the media pc market. However, they didn't do anything about capacity. 60-120gig simply won't cut it. Serving it over a network from another computer doesn't really make sense either. I had been hopeful that they'd change the form factor to support 3.5" drives where you can get 300-500gig cheap. But 60-120 is too small.
There's also no DVR capability and no room to add a TV tuner.
Meanwhile the other market was the low end machine for a switcher. Yet they've raised the price.
In the end, I'm more confused than ever who they're targeting this machine for. I would have thought that with experience selling the Mini they'd know what their intended market was looking for. But it looks muddled to me.
Could there be yet another new machine in the works which is the Tivo killer? This one doesn't look like it.
When the original Mini came out, it sounded like it might address two potential markets:
1- Switchers, folks wanting to try Apple for little money.
2- Media PC. Very small, unimposing in an entertainment center. Very quiet. Excellent power management (sleep/resume).
But Apple missed the boat for sure on the 2nd one by not having a digital audio output. Answer was that it was never really intended as a media PC. Afterall, a 60-80gig hard drive isn't going to take you very far serving up movies.
Now they've corrected the audio problem by adding digital audio output and input. So it seems that they recognize the media pc market. However, they didn't do anything about capacity. 60-120gig simply won't cut it. Serving it over a network from another computer doesn't really make sense either. I had been hopeful that they'd change the form factor to support 3.5" drives where you can get 300-500gig cheap. But 60-120 is too small.
There's also no DVR capability and no room to add a TV tuner.
Meanwhile the other market was the low end machine for a switcher. Yet they've raised the price.
In the end, I'm more confused than ever who they're targeting this machine for. I would have thought that with experience selling the Mini they'd know what their intended market was looking for. But it looks muddled to me.
Could there be yet another new machine in the works which is the Tivo killer? This one doesn't look like it.
stcanard
macrumors 65816
Yvan256 said:
That's easy. This system is targetted at your entertainment room. Version 1 had the promise, Version 2 is almost there.
I would expect a slew of 3rd party DVR add-ons. Maybe they're even hoping to create a secondary economy like they did with iPods?
Oh, and don't forget the audio comes free with the intel chipset. It wouldn't surprise me to find out the gigabit does too.
Uh-huh... Yes, every Mac user needs 2GB of RAM... everyone? What the frick? I am a total geek run 3 users and 15 programs at one time and my old mini (mere 1.25 Ghz) with 1GB RAM purrs smoothly. I'd say due to the Rosetta penalty if you're going to be doing frequent Rosetta Photoediting (Photoshop, GraphicConverter,) moviemaking, or other multimedia/demanding you might need 1, 1.5GB but to say your average user, who will be using iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD/Apeture/FCS for these tasks, and maybe a little tiny Photoshop Elements/GraphicConverter, and will just be using Rosetta for utility, office productivity, financial, and maybe various apps like InDesign or Quark or Dreamweaver, needs anymore then 512-1GB RAM? You gotta be joking. 1GB is tons. Your mac is very happy with just 1GB.rog said:
Spanky Deluxe said:
Well yes ... but what if it involved some compromise?
X1300 and a Pentium-M
or
GMA 950 and Core Solo
(Personally, I would rather the former)
joeboy_45101
macrumors 6502
OK, OK. Like the rest of you I'm not very thrilled with the new Mac mini, but complaining on MacRumors is not going to change anything. Apple probably doesn't even look at this site.
If you don't like something about the Mac mini then you should let Apple hear about it.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/
If you don't like something about the Mac mini then you should let Apple hear about it.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/
Stella said:
The presentation was kinda underwhelming, but nobody should really expect anything better than that...you asked for Minis with Core Duos, you have'em...you wanted the Boombox, you got it...the rest will follow.
As for the GPU, usually IIG are crap, but I am sure they are AT LEAST better than the venerable Radeon 9200, which had only 32Mb; this one has much more, although shared...and if I am not mistaken, it's the latest Intel IIG, which might mean more than the average crap.
Besides, it's TIGER CORE compatible (with ripple effect and all), for the whiners out there.
Nothing fancy, nothing exhilarating...but hey, what did you expect from a small "fun" event? Turn off the hype machine, please...
I just ordered a Duo mini. Should be perfect for my video playback requirements with the added bonus of keeping my itunes library consolidated on my Powerbook I'm a happy person.
On a side note. I saw this on engadget last week. This is probably as close a comparison as you'll find to the intel mini and whilst it doesn't cost twice as much as a mini anymore it's still more expensive and of similar formfactor and presumably specs.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=937
On a side note. I saw this on engadget last week. This is probably as close a comparison as you'll find to the intel mini and whilst it doesn't cost twice as much as a mini anymore it's still more expensive and of similar formfactor and presumably specs.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=937
Mac Mini - mini form, max price
Guys, the Mac Mini has swayed from its 'raison d'etre' it is no longer really an entry level machine and there are a few reasons for this:
Firstly, the use of Core Solo/Duo was really unneccessary in the first intel Mac. I would have personally preferred a Pentium D which I talked about in the other thread - it is over 60$ cheaper than the core solo and is a dual processor. I think the agreement with Apple and Intel has prevented them using anything but the new intel technology.
Core Solo/Duo is notebook/mobile processor technology. The MacMini does not need the powersaving features of the Core processors at all. Nor does it really need that much of a performance boost. The Pentium D may have been slower than the Core Solo but it would have allowed that extra 70-75$ for a nice X1300 64Mb dedicated chipset and that would have made miles difference.
Why? Rosetta
- Dual Core processors have shown to be crucial under Rosetta for decent enough performance. A single core intel chip is really going to struggle under Rosetta.
- The Intel GMA steals 80Mb of memory, potentially more (id say 100Mb) which leaves an abysmal ~ 420Mb of real memory for Mac OS X. Granted that 512Mb really was a good minimum for smooth performance under Tiger with the native G4. Under Rosetta memory is even more of an issue and the MacMini now has less. The real power boost of the Core Duo is gonig to be crippled below that of a Celeron M available today guys. I wonder what will happen when Leopard demands 512Mb of memory and at least 64Mb of extra VRAM (shared or dedicated, ie 576Mb MINIMUM)
My wish was for the MacMini delivered today, maybe with one less RAM slot, you can get 2GB now people, it may cost alot but most people wouldnt need more than 1GB for the Mini today anyway.
BUT, I would have really liked a Pentium D 2.46/2.66Ghz, X1300 64/128Mb and all the rest that has been given. It would have come to the same manufacturing price no doubt. But why hasnt it been done? Oh no..because then numerically the mac mini is faster than the PowerMac G5 oh nooo and wait for it, the iMac and the macbook pro!
Apple have chosen to differentiate rather than deliver and the MacMini with GMA falls short of the 'Apple on the go' image I would liked to have seen in 2006 with the Apple transition.
The intel move on the mini is one step forward, two steps back. Sure the Core smokes the G4 but with less RAM and onboard graphics the extra CPU will be useless for the things it will be needed most.
PS: If integrated graphics really was to be used, the Pentium D would have made dual core available at 499$ not at 799$ and that would have made the MacMini a steal...oh well maybe Rev B guys
Guys, the Mac Mini has swayed from its 'raison d'etre' it is no longer really an entry level machine and there are a few reasons for this:
Firstly, the use of Core Solo/Duo was really unneccessary in the first intel Mac. I would have personally preferred a Pentium D which I talked about in the other thread - it is over 60$ cheaper than the core solo and is a dual processor. I think the agreement with Apple and Intel has prevented them using anything but the new intel technology.
Core Solo/Duo is notebook/mobile processor technology. The MacMini does not need the powersaving features of the Core processors at all. Nor does it really need that much of a performance boost. The Pentium D may have been slower than the Core Solo but it would have allowed that extra 70-75$ for a nice X1300 64Mb dedicated chipset and that would have made miles difference.
Why? Rosetta
- Dual Core processors have shown to be crucial under Rosetta for decent enough performance. A single core intel chip is really going to struggle under Rosetta.
- The Intel GMA steals 80Mb of memory, potentially more (id say 100Mb) which leaves an abysmal ~ 420Mb of real memory for Mac OS X. Granted that 512Mb really was a good minimum for smooth performance under Tiger with the native G4. Under Rosetta memory is even more of an issue and the MacMini now has less. The real power boost of the Core Duo is gonig to be crippled below that of a Celeron M available today guys. I wonder what will happen when Leopard demands 512Mb of memory and at least 64Mb of extra VRAM (shared or dedicated, ie 576Mb MINIMUM)
My wish was for the MacMini delivered today, maybe with one less RAM slot, you can get 2GB now people, it may cost alot but most people wouldnt need more than 1GB for the Mini today anyway.
BUT, I would have really liked a Pentium D 2.46/2.66Ghz, X1300 64/128Mb and all the rest that has been given. It would have come to the same manufacturing price no doubt. But why hasnt it been done? Oh no..because then numerically the mac mini is faster than the PowerMac G5 oh nooo and wait for it, the iMac and the macbook pro!
Apple have chosen to differentiate rather than deliver and the MacMini with GMA falls short of the 'Apple on the go' image I would liked to have seen in 2006 with the Apple transition.
The intel move on the mini is one step forward, two steps back. Sure the Core smokes the G4 but with less RAM and onboard graphics the extra CPU will be useless for the things it will be needed most.
PS: If integrated graphics really was to be used, the Pentium D would have made dual core available at 499$ not at 799$ and that would have made the MacMini a steal...oh well maybe Rev B guys
ddrueckhammer
macrumors 65816
Tastannin said:
Wow I can't believe they are still working on this. Many people on the Tivo Community forums have written off Tivo on ever completing this. I have the Toshiba DVD burning Tivo and I hope Tivo to Go for Mac is available for that unit. I might have to actually subscribe to Tivo's premium service. Currently I only have basic. BTW I use my Airport Express to network my Tivo and it works like a charm. Watching Tivoed content from my powerbook would be awesome. BTW what video player does the mac Tivo to go software use? Quicktime?
I can't believe people are looking to complain when nobody's even tried the thing yet!
Like I said, I imagine this is designed to be a partner to an upcoming Apple movie downloads or rentals service. The digital audio etc, and the remote make perfect sense for this. And the integrated graphics are fine for movie playback of the quality likely to be offered.
I really believe there's more to come and then it will all make sense. In fact it does to me already! 😉
Like I said, I imagine this is designed to be a partner to an upcoming Apple movie downloads or rentals service. The digital audio etc, and the remote make perfect sense for this. And the integrated graphics are fine for movie playback of the quality likely to be offered.
I really believe there's more to come and then it will all make sense. In fact it does to me already! 😉
ddrueckhammer
macrumors 65816
dmelgar said:
You hit the nail on the head. This needs to be 2 products. The only thing I would add is that if Apple starts an online movie download store with higher quality content then they might not want to compete with it by adding in DVR functionality...
I dont get the fuss about the intel integrated graphics.That gpu sucks with celerons but it should get a boost from the power of the core solo/duo.
ddrueckhammer
macrumors 65816
On the really high end another interesting concept would be to create a Media X-Serve with 1 TB of storage and Fairplay DVD ripping. Imagine being able to rip all your DVDs to a media center and have them all as video on demand...I think it would be pretty cool but maybe too expensive for the average user...
StealthRider
macrumors 65816
Keep in mind that all of the drives are now 7200RPM...so that 3.5-inch internal drive isn't such a huge deal. FW/USB can cut it now.
millypede
macrumors 6502
So what If I dont want it as a 'Digital Media Machine' and want it as a new computer to get rid of nasty little grey box running Windows.
I have no Word Processing software, as Appleworks has yet again vanished from the Intel upgrade.
I have no decent graphics cards that will allow me to run any of the educational games that my children will play.
I might want to do some things in iMovie with some of the nice transitions, and effects, will the graphics card cope with this?
I might want to use Photoshop Elements 4, will it cope?
Why do I need to buy Paired memory for the machine, why can I not just buy Single sticks. (My biggest problem with selling PowerMac G5's and selling them to newbies)
In fact the only software it does come with is
Software
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (includes Spotlight, Dashboard, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Address Book, QuickTime, iCal, DVD Player, Xcode Developer Tools)
iLife 06 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, iWeb, GarageBand),
Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Test Drive, iWork (30-day trial), Quicken 2006 for Macintosh(not for Euroland), Big Bang Board Games (Some need a GRAPHICS card to run them 😛), Comic Life, Omni Outliner, and Apple Hardware Test
Front Row
Oh dont have Broadband, yes people still dont have it, 'they dont use it enough' or cant get it, lose a USB port, you need it for youre USB modem.
And its SO-DIMM memory again, so not the full sized Memory chips, so no more excuses that they couldnt fit it in, oh and on the duel chip thing, the iMac doesnt do that, does that mean its not better.
I have no Word Processing software, as Appleworks has yet again vanished from the Intel upgrade.
I have no decent graphics cards that will allow me to run any of the educational games that my children will play.
I might want to do some things in iMovie with some of the nice transitions, and effects, will the graphics card cope with this?
I might want to use Photoshop Elements 4, will it cope?
Why do I need to buy Paired memory for the machine, why can I not just buy Single sticks. (My biggest problem with selling PowerMac G5's and selling them to newbies)
In fact the only software it does come with is
Software
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (includes Spotlight, Dashboard, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Address Book, QuickTime, iCal, DVD Player, Xcode Developer Tools)
iLife 06 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD, iWeb, GarageBand),
Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Test Drive, iWork (30-day trial), Quicken 2006 for Macintosh(not for Euroland), Big Bang Board Games (Some need a GRAPHICS card to run them 😛), Comic Life, Omni Outliner, and Apple Hardware Test
Front Row
Oh dont have Broadband, yes people still dont have it, 'they dont use it enough' or cant get it, lose a USB port, you need it for youre USB modem.
And its SO-DIMM memory again, so not the full sized Memory chips, so no more excuses that they couldnt fit it in, oh and on the duel chip thing, the iMac doesnt do that, does that mean its not better.
Now I have a decision to make. I was hoping to buy a new Intel mini and give the kids my current 1.42 mini. Not sure now with the damn video card. Maybe I'll wait for the benchmarks.
LimeiBook86
macrumors G3
You stole my bit! 😡 😛 *wrestles with agentdavo*agentdavo said:Yeah right...
https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42080&d=1141157849
Airforce said:
Yes but not the Mini. Integrated graphics do the job just fine for the vast majority of users. Myself included, on my PC. Talk of the Mini being 'crippled' is ridiculous. For what its designed for its fine.
You should be ashamed
<rant on>
I have just read through most of the rubbish being talked on here. Are you people on drugs (can i have some?) ? It breaks down like this....
1. If you want top end games buy a PC
2. If you want medium end games buy a 360
3. If you want low end games buy a xbox / ps2 / apple ....whatever.
You may notice there is no "if you want to play xxxxxx buy a new mac mini".
That's because they are cr*p for playing games on. I have a PC and an iMAC. My PC is cr*p for running OSX ! It's a total non starter! But I'm not complaining to IBM or whining like a fool. Games on pretty much any apple are cr*p compared to what can be achieved on another platform.
Just buy the thing that does the job and **** !
</rant off>
<rant on>
I have just read through most of the rubbish being talked on here. Are you people on drugs (can i have some?) ? It breaks down like this....
1. If you want top end games buy a PC
2. If you want medium end games buy a 360
3. If you want low end games buy a xbox / ps2 / apple ....whatever.
You may notice there is no "if you want to play xxxxxx buy a new mac mini".
That's because they are cr*p for playing games on. I have a PC and an iMAC. My PC is cr*p for running OSX ! It's a total non starter! But I'm not complaining to IBM or whining like a fool. Games on pretty much any apple are cr*p compared to what can be achieved on another platform.
Just buy the thing that does the job and **** !
</rant off>