Apple Introduces Intel Mac Mini

Shared Video Ram = Step Backwards

 

Downgrade.

Do you prefer graphics without CI?

Shared Video Ram = Step Backwards

 

Downgrade.

you guys should really see the big picture here

so it is a step backwards only because it is shared memory ?

yet it is faster and supports way more than the older non shared unit.

The only downside it that it can use whatever memory you throw at it..

Now hang on so I dont need to be limited by 64 megs or 32 megs on my mac mini any more.. if it needs a bunch more to do something flash it can.. sounds like maybe that feature is a plus not a minus.. the old sheared memeory cards are NOT in the same school as this one and the complete setup used in this new Mac mini.

Just wait for the tests this card will blo the old one away.. just read the specs and listen to a few users that have used them and the older ones these are alott better speced and you only loose a little system ram but gee i can get 2 gigs in there now.

Shared Video Ram = Step Backwards

 

Downgrade.

It's not really the downgrade since

1. GMA950 is a bit better than 9200

2. GMA950 support CI

3. yes, it's a share memory, but when you max out, you still get 1984MB or RAM but in the previous model, you will be only getting 1536MB, you still have more...

4. it's the only best GPU in PC world that can fit into that small space. Or, are you prefering they will use GMA900?

OK, let's make it clear.

The Mac mini intel is supposed to be a media center, right ?

So, it's supposed to be plugged onto a TV/VP (CRT or LCD or Plasma)

Because it's plugged on TV, people will probably want to play games (it's more fun than a 19" screen, isolated in another room.

So tell me why the hell we can't decide if we want to play with it ?

Apple didn't give us the choice.

If this new model had a real 3D video card, it would be much better as a sale argument.

I Don't want to pay >700 bucks for a simple video player.

This Mac mini will be good for the people who just want to shine in front of their friends while watching a DVD, a Luxurious DVD player.

Something that the non-MAC users can't understand is we had a lot of {censored} video cards as standard in Macs PPC for years.

Now Apple is switching to Intel and just mess with the mini, a machine of switchers !

They claimed with this switch, Mac intel prices would be cheaper.

iMac Core Duo , the price is Fair.

Macbook Pro, there is a controversy about the Superdrive that is not DL, the batt life and no FW800 (yeah yeah, it's "Pro").

Now, the Mac mini, Core solo, Nice yeah, but today you can only run iLife 06 and UB apps.

iLife 06, OMG, iDvd, iMovie yeahhh, cool apps, and how about if you want to save your video projects on DVD, uh ?

It's just petty from Apple to sell a computer without an average graphics card and a simple DVD burner (not even DL).

I really wish that all of you people who are complaining about the price and the integrated graphics would do some real research and learn about the things you're speaking of before throwing a fit.

As has been said, this is an EXTREMELY small form-factor PC, has twice the memory capacity, a far superior graphics chip (feature-wise (think CI and QE, an integral part of OS X and something that is utilized by MANY programs), not speed-wise, though I definitely believe the 950 will beat the living you know what out of a 32MB 9200 chip), AND the option for a dual-core! Even the single core Core Solo will still walk all over the G4.

Something that hasn't been said - the bus speed of the new Mini is FOUR TIMES FASTER than the bus speed of the G4 model, which totally offsets the shared-bus interface of the 950 and will add a whole lot more speed to the feel of the system alone.

The fact that the Mini uses SODIMMS means that you can buy the 512MB Core Duo model from Apple and then hop on over to Newegg and grab yourself a pair of 1GB 667 sticks (which are more than likely much better than whatever brand Apple is using anyway) for slightly over 200 bucks and you've got a system that will really kick some serious ass.

I love the new Mini and once I'm employed again and have the money, I'll be buying one. If you don't like the Mini, I would say shut your mouth until the benchmarks come out. Not an upgrade? You've GOT to be kidding me......

I don't consider the $799 to be overpriced, considering I'm going to be paying just under $3,500 for my macbook pro.

Edit: Right guys, seriously, don't tell me this is overpriced. As anyone in the UK will tell you otherwise. Having just checked on this we get the "lovely" BASE MODEL for an equally "lovely" $785.25!

Let's upgrade, because let's face it, no-one wants no dvd-rw and a 60gig hdd! So we're still stuck with 512mb ram, but now it costs $1,047.83! Any takers? No i thought not.

Jeez I wish apple would just sell their products for the same price!

I really wish that all of you people who are complaining about the price and the integrated graphics would do some real research and learn about the things you're speaking of before throwing a fit.

 

As has been said, this is an EXTREMELY small form-factor PC, has twice the memory capacity, a far superior graphics chip (feature-wise (think CI and QE, an integral part of OS X and something that is utilized by MANY programs)....

Because it's supporting QE CI, doesn't mean it will be fast !

This GMA is a refurbished {censored} from intel to Apple, because it will be the minimum required for Vista, and it's already a slow CPU for standard tasks (it is designed for cheap supermarket laptop).

The price and the gfx card is a Joke, period.

I never claimed it would be faster. But I can guarantee you that it won't be slower. And the feature list is much better too.

I think that your arguments are a total joke, as are most in this thread. You're expecting that a low-end, SFF Mac is going to have everything great - I'd take a GMA950 over a Radeon 9200 any day for many reasons, shared memory and all.

Do us all a favor and just drop it until the benchmarks come out and the glowing "I LOVE MY MINI <3" posts start flowing in...

oh i have no doubts this will be a great little box but the price is still terrible, if i could have one imported i'd deffo buy it tho!

One more thing... I've seen the GMA950 score in the 140-150 on the OpenGL test... whereas it seems that the Macbook Pro only scored 122.88

The X1600 should definitely whomp some ass in the OpenGL department - I'm kinda thinking that the ATI drivers still aren't mature enough because that's just ... wrong.

I don't consider the $799 to be overpriced, considering I'm going to be paying just under $3,500 for my macbook pro.

 

Edit: Right guys, seriously, don't tell me this is overpriced. As anyone in the UK will tell you otherwise. Having just checked on this we get the "lovely" BASE MODEL for an equally "lovely" $785.25!

 

Let's upgrade, because let's face it, no-one wants no dvd-rw and a 60gig hdd! So we're still stuck with 512mb ram, but now it costs $1,047.83! Any takers? No i thought not.

 

Jeez I wish apple would just sell their products for the same price!

They do sell them for a similar price (fluctuations in exchange rates not withstanding and of course they never seem to fluctuate in the buyers favour, but...) - how many times does it have to be said to be people living in the UK and the rest of Europe? We have to pay VAT (and this is included in the sale price displayed). Prices in the US do not include any sales taxes. If people buy them in the US they may have to pay sales tax and that can vary wildly from state to state.

Alot of negative criticism about a little mac box..lol. A few of you made some good positive points. I want one; a mac mini, I am going to wait untill they come down in price, I would definitly buy one if they were in the 399, 499 price range, but still i would buy one for 599. If you want a gaming machine build a windows box. Recently read an RSS feed about Steve's blog , he intends these to be the computer in the living room enterainment center. I think Apple has a chance with these mac mini's if they come down in price and have some commercials demonstrating ease of use and associating with ipods. 799 is steep, at least you get a cool mini form factor with a licensed copy of mac os x and pretty cool chip. you cant build a high end gaming machine for 799 in pc you need at least 1200. You could build something that would beat the mini for 799 but it wouldn't be small and def not as cool. Stop the windows bashing, xp is stable as a rock(not as solid as mac os x), if your xp isnt stable usually means you have a crapy system, your infected with viri or your not maintaing your system. Im looking into other options because im not feeling vista, it's very flimsy resource intensive OS and they have stole every good idea from mac. I think everyone here who has been running os x on thier pc should eventually buy a mac mini or ibook to support apple. I am increasingly becoming an Apple person, I'm a hardcore windows engineer.

Because it's supporting QE CI, doesn't mean it will be fast !

 

This GMA is a refurbished {censored} from intel to Apple, because it will be the minimum required for Vista, and it's already a slow CPU for standard tasks (it is designed for cheap supermarket laptop).

 

The price and the gfx card is a Joke, period.

You need to tone things down a bit, it is getting tedious.

GMA950 is more than fine for OS stuff, QE, and CI. I know, since I have a system with it. Now, yes, I'd love to have had an x1300 in the mini, but it doesn't have one.

"reburbished"...well, it is the only non-discrete solution offered on their current platform.

Maybe a Mac mini Pro would have a X1300, yeah keep dreaming.

They do want to keep some product stratification, too, you know.

I think the iBook will also have GMA950 (although there is an update Intel integrated coming out 'soon' at least). But x1300 in it would keep it below MBP, but above Mini, so maybe it makes sense. If everything has a core duo, they need more of a power differential than just a few megahertz.

Mini - solo and duo at 1.66ghz, GMA950

ibook - solo and duo at 1.66ghz, x1300

MBP - duo at 1.83-2.13ghz, x1600

Powermac - Conroe at ..., x1800/x1900

etc. See what I'm getting at?

I think the general point of people making negative comments about the mini is the little it can do for its high price. I can probably build a PC that has the mini capabilites for at most $300.

Apple is totally missing the ball for people who want something more than the mini but less than the imac. I do not want the integrated monitor in the imac, but I want the ability to customize the imac as I see fit. Nor do I want to spend $600-$800 for a PC that can *only* run iLife, email, browse web, and play DVD just because it has a small form factor. As long as mac fails to fill the gap in between the imac and the mini, people will either stick with PCs or run OS X on their PCs.

I think the general point of people making negative comments about the mini is the little it can do for its high price. I can probably build a PC that has the mini capabilites for at most $300.

 

Apple is totally missing the ball for people who want something more than the mini but less than the imac. I do not want the integrated monitor in the imac, but I want the ability to customize the imac as I see fit. Nor do I want to spend $600-$800 for a PC that can *only* run iLife, email, browse web, and play DVD just because it has a small form factor. As long as mac fails to fill the gap in between the imac and the mini, people will either stick with PCs or run OS X on their PCs.

See, you're one of many (geeks anyway), who don't get the point. It is called a Mac Mini. It isn't the Mac LameSFFPCCloneBox. No one sells a box this size that has dual core, wifi, bluetooth, and other goodies.

See, you're one of many (geeks anyway), who don't get the point. It is called a Mac Mini. It isn't the Mac LameSFFPCCloneBox. No one sells a box this size that has dual core, wifi, bluetooth, and other goodies.

But it has a GMA 950.

Cyrana, I think that those of us that see this box in a different light are never going to get the point across to those that see it as a POS and that we're just wasting our breath...

I am not a fan of integrated graphics solutions either but seriously, the GMA950 isn't that bad - I've seen it in action and while its not the type of graphics to make people go "OMGWTFBBQ - This is awesome!", they're definitely much better than any other integrated graphics solution and that's saying a lot. Look at it this way people - Intel dominates the graphic industry, having at least 80-90% of the market share, with the rest being other integrated chips (be thankful its not a SiS or VIA chip!) and a SMALL portion being actual gaming cards - maybe 3% at the most.

Most of the people that like the Mini style are not the types who are all about the games. You want games, stick to Windows. But I can guarantee you that the ones that owned the previous-gen Mini will appreciate the upgraded graphics, the faster chip (especially the option for dual-core), and the same lovely little Mini box that they're used to. Period.

I wouldn't mind the mini at all, but the price for it just isn't justifiable. I can settle for a SFF, add 4gig DDR2, SLI card and the 2nd fastest chipper made. You'll also find that the DIY'er will cost more at the end. So if you want a DIY, the Mini isn't for you. Accept it, move on, and there's no point in debating why one company did this and that.

I think the general point of people making negative comments about the mini is the little it can do for its high price. I can probably build a PC that has the mini capabilites for at most $300.

...then include the price of the OS and all the bundled software (which isn't just the iLife '06 apps) on top and you will be nearing the price of the mini. Unless you are advocating the theft of software then your pricing scheme is out of whack (or did you actually include that in your estimate already? My bad if you did).

Apple is totally missing the ball for people who want something more than the mini but less than the imac. I do not want the integrated monitor in the imac, but I want the ability to customize the imac as I see fit. Nor do I want to spend $600-$800 for a PC that can *only* run iLife, email, browse web, and play DVD just because it has a small form factor. As long as mac fails to fill the gap in between the imac and the mini, people will either stick with PCs or run OS X on their PCs.

No dispute there, but you are assuming that this gap is going to remain empty. Apple turns 30 in April - maybe they'll release something then that fills that gap. Or maybe they won't.

It has long been the case that Apple hasn't had the ideal (or, indeed, any) solution to fill that gap. They had the Cube but it was at completely the wrong price point and they had the eMac which wasn't headless. However, their attitude probably is that it would steal sales away from the iMac and PowerMac product line which would mean far less profits for them which would mean far less confidence in their stock from shareholders. Perhaps they just don't see it as a market segment that is economically worth-their-while to fill at the moment (obviously they haven't in the past). Perhaps that will change soon. Who knows?

I wouldn't mind the mini at all, but the price for it just isn't justifiable. I can settle for a SFF, add 4gig DDR2, SLI card and the 2nd fastest chipper made. You'll also find that the DIY'er will cost more at the end. So if you want a DIY, the Mini isn't for you. Accept it, move on, and there's no point in debating why one company did this and that.

Very true, Domino.

I just get annoyed by the comments. This is Apple we're talking about. They don't cater to geeks who like to build their own boxes and whinge incessantly about being able to build a whitebox for less money regardless of size or how it looks. :pirate2: The same group of people don't like iPods most of the time.

I don't understand what's this fuss all about, the mac mini is not supposed to be a game machine.

It's perfect for hooking it up with your lcd screen with front-row, surfing the web or using office.

It's not cheap, but building a dual core system even with the worst components would cost around $500, you pay something extra and get a nice box bundled with os and software.

This topic has stirred quit a discussion. And I'll add my 0.02$.

First and foremost - two weeks ago the 499$ Mac Mini was to many an acceptable alternative. The new 599$ gives us a faster CPU, faster GPU, faster drive, 4 USB-ports, analog and optical in/out, bluetooth and WLAN. Does anyone claim these things ain't worth another 100$?

Or course, building a machine from parts give us a lot more performance but the Mini doesn't compete against the tower but against others SFF computers.

Second, the Mini ain't really that small. Many keep it on the desk meaning the space above the Mini can be considered already used. A Shuttle uses 900cm2 of the desk, a Mini 300cm2. The difference may seem large but it's just 600cm2. That's right kids, 10*6 cm is peanuts to most people.

Third, from an engineering point of view, the the Mini ain't small. It's volume is 1360cm3, the well known Thinkpad X41 uses 1160 cm3 including display, keyboard and battery. To excuse it's shortcomings from a technical point of view is not valid.

Fourth, no matter how we twist or turn, the GMA950 is a disappointment as I'm sure it won't be sufficent to drive OS X in a nice way. The Radeon 9200 is already really slow when using OS X.

well I suppose I can put in my two cents.

As far as the higher cost compared to the g4 mini, the upgrades are obviously worth it. A faster cpu amongst other things is totally worth the 100$.

However, there are functions I would have liked to have seen that arnt there, the biggest one would be the lack of a tv tuner card. Of course, after looking at the pictures I see there is no way that that could have fit in there. Knowing that, I would be very happy if you could buy a firewire interface like some that are already availabe but made like those cool mac mini hard drive enclosures that fit directly under the mini perfectly.

The real problem that arises with the mini is when a consumer like me looks at it. I have a laptop and would love to have a nice mac desktop. However, since I currently have a laptop that means I have no external screen. Therefore, if I wanted to get a mini I would have to buy the mini and an appropriate screen to go along with it.

By the time I do that, I'm in the price range of an imac which is more powerful so I would just go ahead and do that. But then there is the fact that I dont want an integrated screen. So then I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speek...

overall, if I were currently a desktop user with a monitor and things of my own then I would see the mini as a great deal and would jump on it. As it is though, I will not be buying one anytime soon.

oh, and when is apples birthday in april.?

I'm hoping for a new ibook or a smaller macbook then