New Intel Mac mini

[stcanard]

I don't have a need to listen to iTunes music from my PM in my office, nor do I need to stream photos from my wife's PB to watch on our 60" HDTV. DVD player? Have two already and I daresay their output is probably better.

I think the mini needs to get some kind of DVR support before I can pull the trigger. Until then, it's just a novelty sitting on top of the TV.

I agree DVR support is the killer app that I'm waiting for on these systems.

As for the other points:

1) The mac in my office is my primary iTunes music storage. To be able to access it through front row in my family room would be ideal; right now it is inconvenient to have to take my ipod downstairs to plug it into the stereo, then take it upstairs to sync it, then downstairs to the stereo...

2) Being able to show my photos on the TV screen would be a lot more convenient than dragging people up to my office to look at them. Plus it gives me the opportunity to use slideshows for "decoration" in the living room.

I'd say this system is 95% -- add the DVR (preferably with a built-in cable tuner) and I'd get it for my living room.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

People complaining about the integrated graphics card - have you looked up the specs?

Nope. Probably not...

If you look a page back you'll see that I did. It sucks for games and Motion (duh) but will probably do everything else (Core Image, HD) just fine.

 

[NatronB]

prolly should save my money, anyways.....

I think that the iMacs are actually a much better deal than this. They arn't as compact but the graphics chip will be much better for your purposes. Is this for a bedroom/office or a living room setup? For a livingroom I would get an mini just so that I don't have to take up the space with an iMac.

Personally the appeal of a mac mini media center to me would be if Apple got off their ***es and started offering higher quality content from a dedicated Front Row movie store for a rental fee.

Thanks for your help.

Funny thing: my bedroom IS my living room IS my office (city life).

I'd like to somehow utilize the 17" LCD in my closet, so I'm not about to buy an iMac. I might have to hold back on a purchase this round.

I have a feeling of entitlement similiar to that of must posters on this site. Regrettably Apple does not make a product that EXACTLY suits MY needs.

-N

 

[Object-X]

Why is everyone pissing and moaning about integrated graphics? The Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 is pretty impressive. Maybe you should all read what this thing is capable of before decrying it. I think you're all pissed because it's not a Tivo replacement. Patience. It's coming.

 

[jdechko]

Intel GMA950 graphics processor.

JUNK

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed about that. But otherwise, the Mac Mini looks really good, except for the price increase. I was kinda hoping for a low-end starting at the same $499.

I'm not really saying its not a capable chip. Just the fact that it doesn't have dedicated graphics memory. It uses a minimum of 80MB of RAM according to the product page. Thats nearly 25% of the system RAM.

 

[rdf8585]

If I didn't buy my MacMini 11 weeks ago, I'd definitely get one of the newer models. But, as it is, I am happy with the machine I have. It easily performs the basic tasks I do on it (browsing, IM, word docs, spreadsheets, itunes stuff, occasional dvd playback)

But these new mac mini's sure look a lot better.

 

[Peace]

In regards to the integrated graphics..I had the dev kit...

My major gripe wasn't the integrated graphics per.se.
It was the system memory,FSB and CPU being used..

I can see now where Apple is going with the Mini..

It's being designed for "media delivery".Not games or Photoshop.
It's new internal design makes it perfect to hook up to your TV and stream movies from your other Front Row based Macs...

As long as that is what you actually do with it I see no problem with the onboard graphics chipset..

I do believe Apple didn't put in the dedicated GPU because it's not really necessary for streaming videos and movies...

The DVI out kicks butt!!

Love it or not it's the first rev..and it is only going to get better..

 

[adamcz]

How would this new mini compare to my current computer?

I'm on a single processor 1.25 G4 tower with a 64 meg real graphics card. For whatever reason, I could sell it on ebay for close to the price of this mini and make the trade virtually free. Is either system better or worse? Roughly equal?

 

[stcanard]

I doubt it will perform that much better with a Core Solo. (btw: Core Solo for 659 Euros - ridiculous)
Media machine - that's exactly why a X1300 with H.264 acceleration would have been the better graphics solution.

Everyone I knew who was looking at the Mac mini for a media centre left it for one reason -- no digital audio out. So already it's performing better than the old one.

Do you really think they could have added airport (necessity for media centre) bluetooth (necessity if it's going to sit in your living room) and an X1300 and still hit the price point that it currently is?

(Note: It's been a while since I've looked at Mac Mini specs, if the most recent ppc version included builtin airport and bluetooth I will stand corrected)

 

[mrgreen4242]

Whew. I was worried they were going to launch an Airport Express AV! My bank account is safe for a few more months...

I was mostly considering an iBook for my first Intel based Mac, but if this is an indication of what I have to look forward to I may stick it out with my old G4 mini for awhile yet.

The iMac is a nice machine, but if I am going to buy (another) non-upgradable, all-in-one machine it'll be a laptop.

This does, however, bode WELL for the Intel PowerMacs... if they can sell a pretty well equipped mini (all tiny little expensive parts) for "only" $799, I would imagine we might see a nice $1199 or $1299 PM eventually. Which would be nice, for me. An upgradable system for less than $2000 is sorely needed, in my opinion.

 

[delgado]

my question

So, I have a g4 powerbook with which I am very happy. I don't have a DVD player and I'm tired of disconnecting my turntables from my mixer to plug in my ipod. All I want to do is listen to music and play movies on a central entertainment hub, just what these minis are designed for. Everything else will be done on my pb. SO, will the graphics card be good enough for that?? Is there a reason to get the dual core over the single core???

 

[gkarris]

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.

I just bought this machine a few months ago:

Compaq Presario Windows XP:

AMD Sempron 3400
512 Megs RAM
Integrated ATI x200 with an Extra PCI-Express Slot Expansion
Dual Layer DVD RW Drive
160G HD
Keyboard
Mouse

Price after rebate $309.

THIS IS A GAME MACHINE. Even more if I get a PCI-Express Video Card.

$599 for a Mac Mini that you can't even play games on???? Sucky graphics

This is only proving Wintel fans right...

 

[Abulia]

I'd say this system is 95% -- add the DVR (preferably with a built-in cable tuner) and I'd get it for my living room.

I see your point, but from my angle (and this is just me) I already have an Xbox 360 that does this. For others, I can see how the mini might fill a "digital entertainment center" role.

It's gotta be priced cheaper so people will pull that "impulse" trigger to give the mini a shot, even if they don't need one. Like others, you can't intellectually call the mini a "good deal" when compared to the iMac.

But yea, DVR capabilities w/ a SuperDrive? I could get on board for that.

 

[LimeiBook86]

Actually the Mac mini G4 had a Radeon 9200/32MB. Apple never officially announced the "new model", so only a few people have a Mac mini with 64MB on their Radeon 9200.

That would explain why Apple never offically upgraded the Mac Mini. Because it would of been more of a noticable downgrade to the Intel Mac Mini if they would of. Hah...oh well, wait till the next rev if your not interested now.

Looking at all the specs for this graphics chipset I don't know how well the Mac Mini can run iMovie HD...heck the Mac Mini's site shows a 3-way video chat, iMovie HD, and Apature. I mean I know the Intel CPU helps but, I don't think the weak graphics card will help the Mac Mini that much. I'd rather have an old card then a new lower card. I agree there should be a $499 (or lower...) version with no wireless and maybe one memory slot. Oh well, I know this isn't a Mac targeted to gamers or power-users but, I was expecting a bit more. Oh well. 🙂

 

[Airforce]

The second I saw "Integrated Graphics" I knew people would whine. It's not that bad really! If you want to play games, I for one wouldn't be spending sub-£750/sub-$1000.

In the PC world, sub $1000 would build you a damn good gaming PC, but yes, not in the Apple world.

 

[dvdiva]

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.

This is typical of someone that knows nothing about graphics.
Do you intend to:
1. Run an operating system?
2. Play HD trailers of upcoming movies?
3. Upgrade to 10.5 or at least enjoy the eye candy of 10.5 if you choose to upgrade to it?
4. Use Photoshop or even Photoshop Elements with a half decent digital camera?
5. Do two things at once, say surf the web and watch movie trailers?

If the answer is yes then integrated graphics will be a performance hit. If the answer is no then I'm wondering what you will be doing with it.
More and more NON game programs require a graphics card. Integrated graphics doesn't or won't meet those minimum standards.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Final Thoughts and What to Buy

We can state flatly that if you buy a system using Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics and want to play 3D games, invest at least $60 in an add-on card. If what you want is simply a system that can run standard office software, plus maybe play some DVD movies, then Intel's new graphics core is probably suitable.

You might wonder what the point is of putting all the engineering effort into the 3D core, if it sucks so badly at games? The answer is pretty simple:

Longhorn.

Intel's new GMCH will probably run Longhorn's upper tier Aero Glass interface pretty well. And Intel certainly wants that, because its OEMs sell truckloads of systems with integrated graphics into businesses. So businesses whose users want to use the Aero Glass interface will have a solution that works, but the IT budget won't be severely impacted. If you're buying a system for the home with the intent of running the occasional 3D game, drop an extra $60 and get an add-in board.

What the Hell is a card designed for Lonhgorn doing in my Mac?

 

[agentdavo]

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.

True. But why downgrade form a Radeon 9200 to a GMA950 and raise the price? At least keep the same GPU! You're forgetting one one thing too. Integrated graphics THRASH the fsb and memory a hell of a lot more than dedicated cards. Not ideal when you're looking at high res media performance.

 

[cube]

Do you really think they could have added airport (necessity for media centre) bluetooth (necessity if it's going to sit in your living room) and an X1300 and still hit the price point that it currently is?

Don't waste money on badly priced Core Solo, use Celeron M, and put discrete graphics instead. For those who don't want Celeron M, they can pay a bit more for the Core Duo.

 

[Airforce]

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.

Is this a complete joke or what? lol *throws on the uniform, starts dodging the women 😎 😛

 

[BlizzardBomb]

I just bought this machine a few months ago:

Compaq Presario Windows XP:

AMD Sempron 3400
512 Megs RAM
Integrated ATI x200 with an Extra PCI-Express Slot Expansion
Dual Layer DVD RW Drive
160G HD
Keyboard
Mouse

Price after rebate $309.

THIS IS A GAME MACHINE. Even more if I get a PCI-Express Video Card.

$599 for a Mac Mini that you can't even play games on???? Sucky graphics

This is only proving Wintel fans right...

Personally, I think there would be a lot less whining if it was a 1.67Ghz G4 with an X1300, because in this case, I think people were more worried about the graphics card than anything. Nevermind, better luck for Rev. B eh? 😛

 

[birdeee]

Also the low end model has a Core Solo! I am astounded that anyone would ever use this chip. Other than the system bus this probably offers little gain over the G4 in the original model.

correct me if I'm wrong but a core duo can't split a process over the two cores, right? I don't see how a core duo is going to be much faster (if at all) than a core solo in day-to-day use. It's still got a massively larger fsb than the g4 doesn't it? I thought the core duos were only a real benefit for laborious multitasking. Not everyone needs a super'puter.

 

[cr2sh]

AMD Sempron 3400

Integrated ATI x200 with an Extra PCI-Express Slot Expansion

THIS IS A GAME MACHINE.

Hate to burst your bubble there chief.. but x200 and a sempron chip?

That isn't a GAME MACHINE.

🙄

 

[Pedrós]

(btw: Core Solo for 659 Euros - ridiculous)

I agree. But for once it seems the Great British Ripoff isn't stinging us Poms too badly. Quite tempting...

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Hate to burst your bubble there chief.. but x200 and a sempron chip?

That isn't a GAME MACHINE.

🙄

I think he's talking about bang for buck rather than anything 😛