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

I'm sorry Apple

I'm sorry Apple I will not be purchasing the new Mac mini. I was waiting patiently to purchase an Intel Mac mini once they became available. I was going to use the Mac mini to replace an old Windows desktop, but after looking at these specs I think I'll have to keep waiting. It's not the processor that bugs me, it's not the price that bugs me, it's the Graphics Chip that I can't handle. When the original (PowerPC) Mac mini was released one of the main features of the system was dedicated GPU and VRAM. Intel Intergrated Graphics is a horrific solution at any level. I would not be writing this if Apple had thrown in even a modest graphics card, say a ATI Radeon 9550 with 64mb of VRAM, because even that would have been acceptable. 🙁
 
You guys are not the target market...

Face it. The people who will be buying the new mini and the boombox are not currently refreshing MacRumors every 30 seconds. They are working normal jobs, paying their mortgage and might just happen to walk into an Apple Store once a month to play with the latest gadgets. These products are geared towards the same people who might spend $2,000 on a Bose system or don't want a tangle of wireing and giant monolith speakers in their living room. Average people with money. Probably not a lot of you guys here. Also note I'm using the term guys. The boombox is aimed at the gal who wants something simple to plug their ipod or stereo into. A mini and boombox comboed with a plasma is what 95% of the buying public wants out of a home system. Apple is targeting that market. Face it, you guys sound more like PC weenies. The new Mac 'geek' is the same gal who shops at the Gap. The woman you could only dream of having.
 
Ugh- I gotta say no to the Mini as well. They raised the price and the graphics suck. I think this was a misstep. Better luck next time, Steve!
 
Well, did a little digging to get some benchmarks on the GMA950 and all I can say is uh oh...

GMA950 vs GeForce6200TC

Tom's article on the GMA950

EDIT: More benchmarks, this time from Anandtech. Note the X300's performance vs the GMA950. Ouch.

A lot of people in this thread are pulling statements out of their rear, but the article and benchmarks clearly show that

- The Radeon 9200 (old Mini) and GMA950 (new Mini) will probably render all the 3D stuff in OS X equally well.

- The Radeon 9200 64MB in the old Mini is clearly a superior video card for running 3D games. The GMA950 is just as good on paper but in reality ATI/nVidia cards in the same price class are worlds better.

In sum, you the new Mini will run non-gaming apps faster then ever before. But game performance is a big question mark - the GMA950 is not a good performer, but the new Mini does have a much faster FSB. These two may cancel each other out initially but in the long run the Mini will need a better video card than the GMA950 to make it a credible performer for newer games. Even a Radeon X300 would be a nice step up.

Another point to think about is that the current iBook has a Radeon 9550 - a GPU that is certainly an order of magnitude better than the GMA950. If the iBook replacement ships with integrated graphics it will be a massive step backwards. (Steve, are you hearing this?)

Time to put on your tinfoil hats everyone.
 
carlivar said:
Because you might already have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard and you don't give a crap about iSight. That makes the iMac almost $400 more.

And some folks don't like built-in monitors, period.
Click to expand...

You mean like non-upgradeable Mac minis...🙄
Still with a decent hard drive it's less than $300. Considering the specs I think they are way too close. And besides, who wants to use a windows keyboard on a Mac anyway 😉
 
I have a monitor, I have a bluetooth apple keyboard, I have a USB mouse but I could get a mighty mouse.

The Mac Mini is good for me.

I like the iMac, but I don't need to add those onto the price.

However I am a little disappointed with the integrated graphics. However I can understand that there is probably no room inside for another graphics chip, certainly not one that's around $50 wholesale.

Think of this like the cancellation of the low-end Mac Mini, and the $599 Mac Mini has had some minor upgrades.
 
Is the intel Mac mini using 2.5" sata hard drive or the 3.5" sata hard drive ??😕 😕


I can't find that info on apple's site 😱 😱
 
Diatribe said:
So why on earth would you buy a mac mini if for $70 more you get a kick-ass graphics card, 40GB more HD space and a better processor?
Click to expand...

You, Sir, just sold me an iMac (or a MPB if cashflow permits). 😀 😀 😀

I'll be sure to mention your name when I order. 😛
 
Not angry ...

just, disappointed.

The difference between a low-end 3D chip and Intel's integrated chip is not much financially but represents that little extra that Mac users are prepared for pay for.

Another review found here http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427

Ignore Intel's bumph about video playback on their web-site – those features are standard on almost every graphics chips made since 2002.

It does not bode well for the new iBook / MacBook, either.

A second annoyance is the use of 2x256Mb. Just a waste and another hint at the penny pinching going on at Apple.

But, I suspect I will buy one of the bottom end boxes. At worst, it provides a cheap entry into Intel Macs that can be used for a good year while the software and platform stabilises. Companies (and individuals) have a low cost method to evaluate the Intel Mac platform without having to rely on subjective reports about software performance (MS Office, Photoshop) and developers have a cheap testbed to evaluate and test software. As a "pro", in that I use my current PPC Mac derive a substantial part of my income, I would never in a month of Sundays change blindly to the Intel platform. The mini, with whatever specs, provides an easy first step along an inevitable long journey. A year down the line, it can be a home entertainment system or passed on to a needy friend or relative.

4 USB ports: 'bout bleedin time.

iPod HiFi: er, I worry the iPod has jumped the shark.
 
Smart Purchase???

There's a lot of rhetoric on this thread, but if someone could please answer some pointed questions, that'd be great.

I really wanted a media machine that could handle DVDs/iTunes as well as do some light Photoshop work at the same time. Right now I have my 3+ yr old PowerBook G4 12" overextended doing all this (plus it outputs VGA to my Dell 26" LCD-TV, and non-digital audio to my receiver).

Questions:

-can the mini support HDMI output to my Dell?

-can the mini support spanning across two monitors, VGA and the aforementioned HDMI (I have a feeling this is a stretch)?

-if I upgrade the RAM is the Intel Integrated graphics gonna be enough?

Any help is appreciated,

-N
 
sam10685 said:
apple usually posts' video's of their keynotes somewhere on apple.com. where is it?
Click to expand...

If it were there, people would probably think its the next episode of the "ipod video photo video" and would go whine and say the rumors about intel mac minis are wrong and that they cant wait for next tuesday when they unveil a VIIV machine.
 
1219 bucks (cdn) for a mac mini?! (thats with 1gb ram and a 120gb HDD on the dual core version, to make it decent). please. I love Mac OS but for that price i would much sooner buy a PC that would dominate the mac mini in terms of performance. it would be worth paying the extra few hundred and getting an imac. Apple *sigh* you are letting me down. 🙁 I know the mini is all about consumer end, and a small package but having a cute little computer is hardly worth that.
 
Evan_11 said:
Face it. The people who will be buying the new mini and the boombox are not currently refreshing MacRumors every 30 seconds. They are working normal jobs, paying their mortgage and might just happen to walk into an Apple Store once a month to play with the latest gadgets. These products are geared towards the same people who might spend $2,000 on a Bose system or don't want a tangle of wireing and giant monolith speakers in their living room. Average people with money. Probably not a lot of you guys here. Also note I'm using the term guys. The boombox is aimed at the gal who wants something simple to plug their ipod or stereo into. A mini and boombox comboed with a plasma is what 95% of the buying public wants out of a home system. Apple is targeting that market. Face it, you guys sound more like PC weenies. The new Mac 'geek' is the same gal who shops at the Gap. The woman you could only dream of having.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. My girlfriend is hot and does shop at the Gap. I'm a techie and this Mini crap system seems more like a step back for Apple.
 
Hear hear!

GekkePrutser said:
If it wasn't for this I'd have my order in right now!!

Seriously, this would be an ideal box to do some light-weight gaming, especially once someone gets Windows running on it (side-by-side of course).

But this Intel graphics things is bad. See a benchmark here, compared to a $60 GeForce. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821811,00.asp
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly! Credit card slipped back in my pocket 🙁
 
Diatribe said:
That's just too funny.

iMac:
# 512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 1x512
# 160GB Serial ATA drive
# ATI Radeon X1600/128MB VRAM
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD+RW/CD-RW)
# Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X - U.S. English
# 17-inch widescreen LCD
# 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo

$1299

Mac mini:

# 512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
# 120GB Serial ATA drive
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# Wired Keyboard & Mighty Mouse Set - U.S. English
# 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
# Intel GMA950 graphics

+ $100 17" display
+ $130 iSight

$1230


So why on earth would you buy a mac mini if for $70 more you get a kick-ass graphics card, 40GB more HD space and a better processor?

I understand the home theater use but as an entrance into the Mac world it would be a lot smarter to buy an iMac.
Click to expand...


Because I don't want a 17 inch monitor: I want to be able to change it as I deem fit. Also, because the computer is in a corner, so I wouldn't be able to load DVD easily; and so on: There are many reasons why people like me might not like an all in one solution, particularly after I saw my ADC LCD flicker and gracefully...die.

I posted before the event that we were going to have a 64 Mb shared...😡 It is sooo Apple like: great design crippled by poor video!
 
ScubaDuc said:
Because I don't want a 17 inch monitor: I want to be able to change it as I deem fit. Also, because the computer is in a corner, so I wouldn't be able to load DVD easily; and so on: There are many reasons why people like me might not like an all in one solution, particularly after I saw my ADC LCD flicker and gracefully...die.

I posted before the event that we were going to have a 64 Mb shared...😡 It is sooo Apple like: great design crippled by poor video!
Click to expand...

I guess then it is either integrated graphics or an integrated monitor... I for one would choose the integrated monitor, especially since you can now span another monitor on the iMac.

And besides I was never advocating that the mini doesn't have its place but with the integrated graphics it's not worth buying it over the iMac. That's my point.
 
Its a rev. A in the Intel-world of CPUs. I guess the rev. B Intel Mac Mini will have more up to date graphics.

Oh, how I whish Apple would release a machine that would blend in with the rest of my units in my stereo rack. Just a cheap black thing intended for TV connection, only to stream music, a little video, some pictures, etc. That would be a HI-FI for you there...😱
 
sw1tcher said:
I hope you're wrong. Integrated graphics is a step back for Apple.

There has to be a low end GPU Apple can put in these, like maybe a Radeon x1300?
Click to expand...

If they didn't put an X1300 in the Mac Mini, I doubt that the iBook/MacBook/IntelintegratedgraphicsBook would have an X1300. 🙁

Quick Question - Up to what ACD can this support?
 
Lord Blackadder said:
In sum, you the new Mini will run non-gaming apps faster then ever before. But game performance is a big question mark
Click to expand...

Repeat after me:

The Mac Mini is not intended to be a game machine.

The Mac Mini is not intended to be a game machine.

The Mac Mini is not intended to be a game machine.

The Mac Mini is not intended to be a game machine.

The Mac Mini is not intended to be a game machine.

Okay, get it?

The Mac Mini is intended to be a media machine. And as you just said, as a media machine it will perform better than the older Mini.

Not everybody plays videogames.

Not everybody who buys a computer is buying it to play videogames.
 
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