Romanesq said:
Indeed on the USB cables. I've seen stores selling 5 meters USB 2.0 cables for about 30$CAN. You can get these at Digi-Key for around 10$CAN.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Intel Mac mini
- Thread starter drift1492
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed on the USB cables. I've seen stores selling 5 meters USB 2.0 cables for about 30$CAN. You can get these at Digi-Key for around 10$CAN.
This Is Enough!
OK OK OK... STOP BITCHIN EVERYONE.
I have asked many people who I assume would know a thing or 2 about the graphics capabilites of the new Mac Mini.... they ALL AGREE that why it seems "fundamentally wrong" for Apple to use integrated graphics... it will prove to be better than the graphics used in the previous minis. BETTER... you hear that... not whoppingly X1600 better... but better more so along the lines of a 1.33 GHz computer getting bumped to a 1.42 GHz one. Not thaaaat much better... but still.. BETTER. Why is everyeone so up in arms about this announcement? One of the guys I asked didnt think it was even physically possibly to put an X1300 in the mini given its heat and the actual card size, and the fact that the older ATI 9200s were technically still integrated into the logic board, they just had their own memory.
I deal with people and computers all the time.. and the conclusion that I have come to is probably the EXACT same one that Apple probably concluded.... and it is: "People seeking an entry level computer to do e-mail, internet, and a few media related things DONT CARE ABOUT THE GRAPHICS CARD.. if they even know what a graphics card is! Now i do agree that its a bad feeling i get when i hear "intergrated graphics" just as a lot of people got a bad feeling when they first heard "Intel chip" last June.... but i dont hear anyone screaming for Apple to go back to PowerPC!
Besides.. everyone ... dare i say, 95% of people reading and posting on this site are NOT the AVERAGE CONSUMER... you are the computer savvy tech type... who, if you were buying a dell, wouldnt go and buy a cheap-ass one unless it was your 2nd or 3rd. Which this Mac Mini would be perfect for... a 2nd or 3rd computer for a computer person like yourself... or a new one for someone who is NOT LIKE YOU and DOESNT CARE!
Final things to remember....
1. People buying a mac mini arent looking to play intense games... and people looking to play intense games shouldnt be looking at a mac mini!
2. The graphics card that was in the old mini was enough for handling most video decoding and playback even in HD. Thats right... HD. Gaming in HD, maybe not so much... playback in HD... of course. My 2 year old powerbook plays 1080i content more than fine from my EyeTV with 2 or 3 other things going on...and there isnt even that much 1080p content that exists (yet). The core solo, and especially the core duo mini will be more than enough from a processor standpoint to play HD, b/c the processor can make up for what the graphics card lacks... to a degree.
3. Shared memory shmared memory.... its bad.. it sucks... whatever... its more video memory than the 32MB they used to have (64MB which ive heard is capable of up to 94MB) and faster memory. GET AT LEAST 1GB ram and QUIT COMPLAINING. Hell, its got 2 slots, bump it to 1.5 GB and your str8.
4. Price going up always sucks... but when you think... Airport, bluetooth, more expensive and much faster processor, SPDIF digital audio out and in, faster bus, more USB, faster RAM technology, front row, remote, and a few other things.... $100 doesnt sound all that bad. ANd how man other brands of entry level computers can achive all that.. dual core.. and be 6x6x2 inches? and run OS X?
If you disagree .. well i'm sorry. But no matter how you look at it.. the mac mini now is MUCH better that it was.... PERIOD
[EDIT]: I stand corrected about the #2 response. I was referring to MPEG-2 not H.264. In that case... yeah... incapable. BUT... given the benefits of external HDDs, say, the kind designed to fit under the mini, or something even bigger...mpeg2 is not so bad. I know i know h.264 is the way things are heading.. .but my EyeTV (200 and 500, both of which i got for a ridiculously low price on eBay, together for about 100 bucks) do a decent job at delivering some sort of HD, and it doenst take up THAT much space. So i retract statement #2... but everything else stands
OK OK OK... STOP BITCHIN EVERYONE.
I have asked many people who I assume would know a thing or 2 about the graphics capabilites of the new Mac Mini.... they ALL AGREE that why it seems "fundamentally wrong" for Apple to use integrated graphics... it will prove to be better than the graphics used in the previous minis. BETTER... you hear that... not whoppingly X1600 better... but better more so along the lines of a 1.33 GHz computer getting bumped to a 1.42 GHz one. Not thaaaat much better... but still.. BETTER. Why is everyeone so up in arms about this announcement? One of the guys I asked didnt think it was even physically possibly to put an X1300 in the mini given its heat and the actual card size, and the fact that the older ATI 9200s were technically still integrated into the logic board, they just had their own memory.
I deal with people and computers all the time.. and the conclusion that I have come to is probably the EXACT same one that Apple probably concluded.... and it is: "People seeking an entry level computer to do e-mail, internet, and a few media related things DONT CARE ABOUT THE GRAPHICS CARD.. if they even know what a graphics card is! Now i do agree that its a bad feeling i get when i hear "intergrated graphics" just as a lot of people got a bad feeling when they first heard "Intel chip" last June.... but i dont hear anyone screaming for Apple to go back to PowerPC!
Besides.. everyone ... dare i say, 95% of people reading and posting on this site are NOT the AVERAGE CONSUMER... you are the computer savvy tech type... who, if you were buying a dell, wouldnt go and buy a cheap-ass one unless it was your 2nd or 3rd. Which this Mac Mini would be perfect for... a 2nd or 3rd computer for a computer person like yourself... or a new one for someone who is NOT LIKE YOU and DOESNT CARE!
Final things to remember....
1. People buying a mac mini arent looking to play intense games... and people looking to play intense games shouldnt be looking at a mac mini!
2. The graphics card that was in the old mini was enough for handling most video decoding and playback even in HD. Thats right... HD. Gaming in HD, maybe not so much... playback in HD... of course. My 2 year old powerbook plays 1080i content more than fine from my EyeTV with 2 or 3 other things going on...and there isnt even that much 1080p content that exists (yet). The core solo, and especially the core duo mini will be more than enough from a processor standpoint to play HD, b/c the processor can make up for what the graphics card lacks... to a degree.
3. Shared memory shmared memory.... its bad.. it sucks... whatever... its more video memory than the 32MB they used to have (64MB which ive heard is capable of up to 94MB) and faster memory. GET AT LEAST 1GB ram and QUIT COMPLAINING. Hell, its got 2 slots, bump it to 1.5 GB and your str8.
4. Price going up always sucks... but when you think... Airport, bluetooth, more expensive and much faster processor, SPDIF digital audio out and in, faster bus, more USB, faster RAM technology, front row, remote, and a few other things.... $100 doesnt sound all that bad. ANd how man other brands of entry level computers can achive all that.. dual core.. and be 6x6x2 inches? and run OS X?
If you disagree .. well i'm sorry. But no matter how you look at it.. the mac mini now is MUCH better that it was.... PERIOD
[EDIT]: I stand corrected about the #2 response. I was referring to MPEG-2 not H.264. In that case... yeah... incapable. BUT... given the benefits of external HDDs, say, the kind designed to fit under the mini, or something even bigger...mpeg2 is not so bad. I know i know h.264 is the way things are heading.. .but my EyeTV (200 and 500, both of which i got for a ridiculously low price on eBay, together for about 100 bucks) do a decent job at delivering some sort of HD, and it doenst take up THAT much space. So i retract statement #2... but everything else stands
gama-go said:
I like this idea. It seems very plausible that Apple could/would do this and it would solve some of the issues of giving the Mini truer HTPC features within the current SFF technology without dramatically redesigning the unit, changing it's target market (entry-level low to mid-end PC consumers) or driving up it's initial buy-in price. Unfortunately, if the Elgato is any indication, such a [firewire] device would be pretty damn expensive compared to standalone devices like the TiVo, but still it's food for thought.
Just a point of clarification:
We were not talking about MPEG-2 HD. We were talking about H.264 HD. There is a substantial difference. Many of us do not want to pay for the 10x storage requirements associated with MPEG-2. Also, we use our LAN bandwidth for many other things (VoIP, VPN, etc.).
I do not disagree with you...certainly Apple makes higher end computers for higher end purposes.
But the fact remains that those higher end computers simply do not have the proper form factor to function as a remote controlled living room computer. While the mini has the form factor, it fails for the other reason.
It is Apple, not anyone on this board, that is holding the mini out to be a living room computer. Apple, which claimed that LAST YEAR was the year of HD and claimed LAST YEAR that H.264 was the de facto standard for efficient distribution of HD.
Hence the origination of the gripe.
YoGramMamma said:
We were not talking about MPEG-2 HD. We were talking about H.264 HD. There is a substantial difference. Many of us do not want to pay for the 10x storage requirements associated with MPEG-2. Also, we use our LAN bandwidth for many other things (VoIP, VPN, etc.).
I do not disagree with you...certainly Apple makes higher end computers for higher end purposes.
But the fact remains that those higher end computers simply do not have the proper form factor to function as a remote controlled living room computer. While the mini has the form factor, it fails for the other reason.
It is Apple, not anyone on this board, that is holding the mini out to be a living room computer. Apple, which claimed that LAST YEAR was the year of HD and claimed LAST YEAR that H.264 was the de facto standard for efficient distribution of HD.
Hence the origination of the gripe.
Any word if the cpu will use a socket like the intel imac or wil it be surface mounted such as the Mac Book pro?
Would be intersting if you could swap in a 2.1ghz or maybe a few months down the line a 2.4ghz if you buy the 1.5hz solo. 🙂
Would be intersting if you could swap in a 2.1ghz or maybe a few months down the line a 2.4ghz if you buy the 1.5hz solo. 🙂
JDOG_
macrumors 6502a
I for one am really suprised that the new minis aren't using Intel's viiv chips. I mean it seems like that's what ViiV was meant to do, is marketed to do, and doing in all these cool new media-centric computers. The mini is a perfect candidate for viiv technology.
I hate to say it, but at this point I'd gladly choose a $599 viiv-based PC over a Mac Mini....and I'm a huge apple fan.
Core solo? Meh. Core-duo, heck yes...but for $800+? 😕
I hate to say it, but at this point I'd gladly choose a $599 viiv-based PC over a Mac Mini....and I'm a huge apple fan.
Core solo? Meh. Core-duo, heck yes...but for $800+? 😕
Personally I really really am not excited by this. Mostly, as everybody has said, before, graphics card issues. Look, it's not a question of wether the 950 or the 9200 is more powerfull and what can run what how well. It's a matter of dedicated ram vs. Shared. The matter of having 2 gigs of ram vs. 1 aside, I still prefer the dedicated ram. Call it an irrational need for dedication. However, take this as you will. I use my 1st rev mac mini with the 32 megs of dedicated ram to run UT2K4. Even though minimun specs on that game are 64 megs of ram. This should tell you something.
People claiming that Mac Mini is not a gaming machine. No, certainly, now it is not. The GPU hurts it trememndously. However, the G4 versions could hold their own fairly well for a computer that only cost 600$.
Higher end Intel Macs, like Macbook, iMac, definately drool worthy. This? I won't go near it.
People claiming that Mac Mini is not a gaming machine. No, certainly, now it is not. The GPU hurts it trememndously. However, the G4 versions could hold their own fairly well for a computer that only cost 600$.
Higher end Intel Macs, like Macbook, iMac, definately drool worthy. This? I won't go near it.
Chundles
macrumors G5
JDOG_ said:
Viiv is intrinsically tied to Windows Media Centre Edition. It's not a chip either, it's a chipset that consists of one of a number of Intel processors, transfer protocols, networking standards and the like. Because it's so tied into MCE it's unlikely to be seen on a Mac.
the idea of the integrated graphics card is starting to grow on me, IF it means the graphics processor can take a large chunk of the RAM for its function (e.g. up to 256)
If this is true, then doesnt it mean you effectively have a graphics card which can work as if its got 256 dedicated RAM?
Yes, this does mean would have a lot less RAM for your CPU to use, so i suppose the best thing for apple to do, if it was going to have an integrated graphics card would have been to make it 1 gig minimum RAM.
The way it is at the moment, i dont think anyone at all would buy a mini without upgrading the RAM to atleast a gig, which adds to the cost.
Overall though, i think its a very nice little machine. I am very glad they brought out an intel mini this early since i will be after one later this year, and hopefully rev B will have come out by then with some improvements and maybe price cuts over what already looks like a very cool function filled little box.
If this is true, then doesnt it mean you effectively have a graphics card which can work as if its got 256 dedicated RAM?
Yes, this does mean would have a lot less RAM for your CPU to use, so i suppose the best thing for apple to do, if it was going to have an integrated graphics card would have been to make it 1 gig minimum RAM.
The way it is at the moment, i dont think anyone at all would buy a mini without upgrading the RAM to atleast a gig, which adds to the cost.
Overall though, i think its a very nice little machine. I am very glad they brought out an intel mini this early since i will be after one later this year, and hopefully rev B will have come out by then with some improvements and maybe price cuts over what already looks like a very cool function filled little box.
Naimfan
Suspended
My .02 on the new Mini. . .
I write this as someone who has not played with a new Mini, so I am going off my experience with the old 1.42 GHz Mini with a Gb of RAM. I have to say I was somewhat underwhelmed by the old Mini on a performance basis, but for the price I thought it was a great value.
The new ones seem to me to be a substantial step forward in terms of capability and performance (at least on native Intel apps), esp. the dual core one. And I frankly don't know enough to say if using Intel integrated graphics is a step forward, backwards, or sideways (which is my guess). I find it rather ironic that a new dual core Mini, loaded up with RAM, will most likely leave my 2 GHz iMac for dead.
All that said, my only disappointment is in the pricing. Perhaps it was unavoidable given the price of the Intel chips, but I think the prior price points were just about perfect. I have no knowledge of Apple's sales, revenue, or cost figures for the Mini (other than what is available in their corporate disclosures), so I would have to think that the price increases were unavoidable.
I do think that Apple has now (finally) mostly provided a headless iMac. Save the obvious differences in graphics and HD, I'd think the dual core Mini would be in the ballpark of the entry level iMac performance-wise. The 17" iMac would obviously win, but I do think the Mini would at least stay close enough that you'd have to time them.
Overall, I'm a bit mixed. I was ready to buy one of the duals if they were $699, but at $799 . . . it just seems a touch high, even granting the (expected) dramatic performance upgrade.
Now, time to save for a Power Mac.....
Best,
Bob
I write this as someone who has not played with a new Mini, so I am going off my experience with the old 1.42 GHz Mini with a Gb of RAM. I have to say I was somewhat underwhelmed by the old Mini on a performance basis, but for the price I thought it was a great value.
The new ones seem to me to be a substantial step forward in terms of capability and performance (at least on native Intel apps), esp. the dual core one. And I frankly don't know enough to say if using Intel integrated graphics is a step forward, backwards, or sideways (which is my guess). I find it rather ironic that a new dual core Mini, loaded up with RAM, will most likely leave my 2 GHz iMac for dead.
All that said, my only disappointment is in the pricing. Perhaps it was unavoidable given the price of the Intel chips, but I think the prior price points were just about perfect. I have no knowledge of Apple's sales, revenue, or cost figures for the Mini (other than what is available in their corporate disclosures), so I would have to think that the price increases were unavoidable.
I do think that Apple has now (finally) mostly provided a headless iMac. Save the obvious differences in graphics and HD, I'd think the dual core Mini would be in the ballpark of the entry level iMac performance-wise. The 17" iMac would obviously win, but I do think the Mini would at least stay close enough that you'd have to time them.
Overall, I'm a bit mixed. I was ready to buy one of the duals if they were $699, but at $799 . . . it just seems a touch high, even granting the (expected) dramatic performance upgrade.
Now, time to save for a Power Mac.....
Best,
Bob
Uh, no. They killed Aero, much Like everything else. Every single one of the "new and cool features" announced for Vista has either been sidelined, made obsolete by Apple, or impossible for the knuckleheads at M$ to incorporate.arrizaba said:
However, you do raise a good point that I mentioned earlier about Lion compatibility. The thing on that is this: The Steve knows what is coming. I think he would plan far enough ahead so as not to leave switchers in the cold 8 months from now. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.
Ok as other people said, ViiV is M$ compatible at the moment. And who cares, Apple is doing a decent job engineering hardware...for the most part. In terms of what is better, yes I agree. I would so totally shell out all that so I can get viruses, trojans, and have to use that annoying thing called Windoze. Absolutely, WAAAAAAY Better deal. Im sarcastic, I hope you know that.JDOG_ said:
Passante
macrumors 6502a
Early video Mac Mini benchmarks are not bad
See the MacIntouch benchmarks compared to G4 mini
http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.03.01;)
scroll halfway down or click on notes and tips
See the MacIntouch benchmarks compared to G4 mini
http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.03.01;)
scroll halfway down or click on notes and tips
Mechcozmo
macrumors 603
YoGramMamma said:
Uh....
My 12" 1.33GHz PowerBook chokes on H.264 HD video. Then it dies, sprawled out on the floor, asphyxiated. Cause of death?
-CPU speed
-Hardware decoder (lack thereof, actually)
-Bus speed
How are you playing your HD video? If it is MPEG-2, then that's easy: you don't care about a single video taking most of your hard drive.
Hilarious.. @ core solo.. can't believe Apple is still releasing machines with COMBO DRIVES in them... Have they checked the price difference these days between DL DVD-RAMs and combo writers? It's about ~$5 at the CONSUMER level, so the difference for Apple? probably $1-2..?!
Multimedia
macrumors 603
EyeTV2 Is What You Want
We have it already. It's called EyeTV2 with an EyeTV 500 HDTV Tuner hooked to a 500 GB (or whatever size you like) FW HD hooked to the Mini. Works like a dream. I would not give up my EyeTV2 for an Apple solution - no way. 😛gama-go said:
I think Apple has provided a great little computer for the price, but I'm still disappointed... Here's why:
I've used Macs in the past (hell, I've used Apple IIs in the distant past), but haven't paid much attention to the Mac platform in quite a number of years. Recently I got an Intel iMac at work, to port the application software we write to the Mac platform (we already support Windows and Linux). I love the iMac so much that I really want to buy an Intel Mac for home use, but realistically I'm not going to 'switch', I'm looking for more of a dual-system setup with a PC and Mac I can KVM-switch between.
If the iMac supported video-in to the display from an external source, I'd buy one of the 20" iMacs in a heartbeat, but since it doesn't I was thinking about getting a Cinema Display (because I really love the look of the iMac display at work) and a mini, and share the Cinema Display between my PC and the mini, but while the mini is a good system for the price, it really doesn't meet my needs. I really wish they offered a mini Plus with a better graphics system, even if they bumped the price on the third option up to $1000 or so base. I don't want a mini because the price is low, I want a headless Mac that can share an ACD with my PC! But the mini just isn't powerful enough for what I want to do, so it looks like I'll be waiting to see what Apple has in store for tower options, whenever those come to pass.
Please, Apple, give us a headless Intel Mac for more than casual computing soon! And consider supporting video-in on futute iMacs for people who would love to make one of those beautiful systems the center piece on their computer desk but still need to run their PCs as well.
I've used Macs in the past (hell, I've used Apple IIs in the distant past), but haven't paid much attention to the Mac platform in quite a number of years. Recently I got an Intel iMac at work, to port the application software we write to the Mac platform (we already support Windows and Linux). I love the iMac so much that I really want to buy an Intel Mac for home use, but realistically I'm not going to 'switch', I'm looking for more of a dual-system setup with a PC and Mac I can KVM-switch between.
If the iMac supported video-in to the display from an external source, I'd buy one of the 20" iMacs in a heartbeat, but since it doesn't I was thinking about getting a Cinema Display (because I really love the look of the iMac display at work) and a mini, and share the Cinema Display between my PC and the mini, but while the mini is a good system for the price, it really doesn't meet my needs. I really wish they offered a mini Plus with a better graphics system, even if they bumped the price on the third option up to $1000 or so base. I don't want a mini because the price is low, I want a headless Mac that can share an ACD with my PC! But the mini just isn't powerful enough for what I want to do, so it looks like I'll be waiting to see what Apple has in store for tower options, whenever those come to pass.
Please, Apple, give us a headless Intel Mac for more than casual computing soon! And consider supporting video-in on futute iMacs for people who would love to make one of those beautiful systems the center piece on their computer desk but still need to run their PCs as well.
Old quicktime page?
Everyone points out that the Mini duo specs are a little short of the 1.83 Ghz posted as the minimum for Quicktime H264 HD at 720p. However, I think that 1.83 notation is just because that was the minimum the iMac came out with. I suspect the dual mini could handle HD content and that that quicktime page will be updated to reflect the release of the mini.
Everyone points out that the Mini duo specs are a little short of the 1.83 Ghz posted as the minimum for Quicktime H264 HD at 720p. However, I think that 1.83 notation is just because that was the minimum the iMac came out with. I suspect the dual mini could handle HD content and that that quicktime page will be updated to reflect the release of the mini.
Passante said:
wow, thats kinda cool, so the core solo mini beats the G5 imac in a few graphics tests! damn!
