Intel Mac Mini

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-02-28 08:30pm

Haven't seen any posts about this, which surprised me.

Behold!

Low end is a Core Single. Entirely unexciting, though they increased what comes with it over the G4. $100 price increase though.

High end is a Core Duo. Much more interesting, if only because they stuck a dual core into a $800 machine.

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2006-02-28 08:57pm

Sweeeeeet. Yanno, I think I might just snag that dual core one instead of trying to save up for a new iBook.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-02-28 09:53pm

Bleh. And this is coming from a Mac fan.

I was drooling over the system for a bit...then I went to tech specs.

I kept reading and kept drooling...dual core...dual layer dual format DVD burner...in an $800 machine...etc etc...

And then I hit the graphics card.

It's practically a downgrade, from Radeon 9200 to a Intel GMA950 Integrated Graphics Core. Bleh. Check out the horrid benchmarks on PCs.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 ... 811,00.asp

Seriously, if there was any way to upgrade the graphics card or choose a better one when purchasing, I would buy the thing in a heartbeat.

Also, too bad they killed the $499 model.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-28 09:55pm

I honestly can't see why anyone would fork out for such a system who really wanted to use a computer. This is nothing more than a souped up PDA for those that feel a computer need only browse the web, check e-mail and play some media.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-28 10:17pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I honestly can't see why anyone would fork out for such a system who really wanted to use a computer. This is nothing more than a souped up PDA for those that feel a computer need only browse the web, check e-mail and play some media.

It's much better than a PDA. What concerns me about such a system is that its benefits over even moderate laptops are negligible, with the price difference. It does some things a little better, and some things worse, than many more portable solutions.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-02-28 10:28pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I honestly can't see why anyone would fork out for such a system who really wanted to use a computer. This is nothing more than a souped up PDA for those that feel a computer need only browse the web, check e-mail and play some media.

WHAAA! I can't play DOOM 3 on it. WHAAA!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-28 10:34pm

All the normal people I know (ie, not gamers, regular working humans) would be happy with a mini. The majority of the population has little interest in gaming, or mastering DVDs, or computer art. Pretty much everyones parents would be fine with a mini, and at least in AU they're much cheaper than comparable laptops. Although I'd probably drop the slightly extra money on an iBook.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-28 11:12pm

Stark wrote:All the normal people I know (ie, not gamers, regular working humans) would be happy with a mini. The majority of the population has little interest in gaming, or mastering DVDs, or computer art. Pretty much everyones parents would be fine with a mini, and at least in AU they're much cheaper than comparable laptops. Although I'd probably drop the slightly extra money on an iBook.

If all you're doing is surfing the internet and writing word documents then there are less expensive options available to you that will easily fulfill you needs. If all you're doing is the above and working with spread sheets and content creation, then there are better options available. I don't see the niche that this computer is aimed at.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-28 11:15pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Stark wrote:All the normal people I know (ie, not gamers, regular working humans) would be happy with a mini. The majority of the population has little interest in gaming, or mastering DVDs, or computer art. Pretty much everyones parents would be fine with a mini, and at least in AU they're much cheaper than comparable laptops. Although I'd probably drop the slightly extra money on an iBook.
If all you're doing is surfing the internet and writing word documents then there are less expensive options available to you that will easily fulfill you needs. If all you're doing is the above and working with spread sheets and content creation, then there are better options available. I don't see the niche that this computer is aimed at.

Less expensive Apple options?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-28 11:29pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Less expensive Apple options?

You can always buy a used Apple computer, since they allegedly maintain a fairly vigorous resale market, and even new PC's can be significantly less expensive than that.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-28 11:36pm

I guess I just understand why someone might prefer to use OSX than an older PC. To be honest, however, it's always struck me as an 'interior decorator' system: it's small, looks vaguely nifty and isn't obtrusive. Considering you could scarf up a perfectly ok system for basic tasks for only a few hundred AU$, it's a bit crazy.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-03-01 12:14am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I honestly can't see why anyone would fork out for such a system who really wanted to use a computer. This is nothing more than a souped up PDA for those that feel a computer need only browse the web, check e-mail and play some media.

What are you talking about?

It's a full fledged dual processor computer with dual layer dual format DVD burner, all the wireless options, and all kinds of goodies, just not with that good a GPU.

The majority of the population has little interest in gaming, or mastering DVDs, or computer art.

And actually, while this would suck for gaming, with the burner and dual processors this would be fine for art and mastering DVDs.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-03-01 12:41am

Praxis wrote:And actually, while this would suck for gaming, with the burner and dual processors this would be fine for art and mastering DVDs.

I haven't checked the new minis, but the older ones had pretty poor memory baselines, which would hurt a lot of high-end apps. I imagine they don't sell them with 256 anymore, but even 512 isn't that much.

It's interesting, actually: my flatmate uses an iBook (the smallest, cheapest one) and it's totally fine for all her computer needs. It's screen is actually better quality than my 19" LCD. I'd buy such a laptop before I'd blow two-to-three times as much money on some kind of crazy 'gaming laptop'.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-03-01 01:14am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Less expensive Apple options?
You can always buy a used Apple computer, since they allegedly maintain a fairly vigorous resale market, and even new PC's can be significantly less expensive than that.

A used Macintosh? What a proletariat concept!

Seriously though, as I understand it, the Mini was partially designed as a low cost way to get people introduced to Macs who would otherwise be hesitant to spend more money on a system they weren't familiar with.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-03-01 01:21am

Beowulf wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I honestly can't see why anyone would fork out for such a system who really wanted to use a computer. This is nothing more than a souped up PDA for those that feel a computer need only browse the web, check e-mail and play some media.
WHAAA! I can't play DOOM 3 on it. WHAAA!

Waaa I can't play X-Com on it!

Acutal the Intel video cards are such complete shit your talking about even Half-Life being forced to run at 640x480 for acceptable gameplay. Nevermind decoding for DVD movies.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-03-01 01:24am

Mr Bean wrote:Waaa I can't play X-Com on it!

Acutal the Intel video cards are such complete shit your talking about even Half-Life being forced to run at 640x480 for acceptable gameplay. Nevermind decoding for DVD movies.

Really? That makes the new minis ... almost useless for (what I assume) is their intended market. I would certainly never recommend a computer that couldn't even decode DVD streams.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-03-01 02:03am

That's an exagguration. Check the benchmarks I posted. It generally gets about half the score of a Geforce 6200. It can run UT2k4 at 30 FPS at 640x480 resolution...

It's almost no improvement over the Radeon 9200 that was already in it though, and may be a little worse in games due to the shared memory, but it DEFINITELY will have no problem with DVD streams and probably even supports CoreImage.

My 2.5 year old PC here can play Jedi Knight 2 (yes, old, I know, never tested it with higher) at high settings and decode DVD's with the intel integrated card (though I've since upgraded it), and the card in the Mac Mini is a much newer one.

MacFixIt says:

The GMA950 uses "Dynamic Video Memory Technology" (DVMT) to support up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically. It has 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM of its own, shared with main memory

Still, on paper, the GMA950's specs best those of the Radeon 9200 card used by the PowerPC-based Mac mini. For instance, the GMA950 claims 1.6 billion pixels per second vs. 1.1 billion pixels per second for the Radeon 9200. And the GMA950 includes a 256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz while the Radeon 9200 uses a 400 Mhz 128-bit core.

Again, benchmarks have yet to be recorded, but we wouldn't be surprised if the new Intel-based Mac mini's integrated graphics performance exceeds that of the previous PowerPC-based generation with a separate graphics card for most tasks.

So it's probably slightly better than the Radeon 9200 for most tasks but because of the shared ram it might fall behind on some tasks. Someone on Macrumors:

The GMA950 also lacks [some of] the hardware features a full fledged GPU offers. The 950 isn't going to be all bad, it'll be an upgrade, over all, from the 9200 we have in the G4 mini's. It'll do better with 2D multimedia acceleration, if I had to guess, plus it is CoreImage compatible.

It's 3D gaming abilities are going to be probably about the same as the 9200 (in that games that work on a current mini will probably keep on working, but we're not going to get anything new with it), depending on the game and what hardware features it uses/needs.

I'm very disappointed though that after all Apple's talk about how integrated cards suck and that Macs have real graphics cards, they've used an integrated one.

Stark:

I haven't checked the new minis, but the older ones had pretty poor memory baselines, which would hurt a lot of high-end apps. I imagine they don't sell them with 256 anymore, but even 512 isn't that much.

Well, the new Mac Mini's use 666 MHz DDR2 RAM. Same as the iMac. It comes with 512 MB but you can add a 2 GB stick if you want.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-03-01 02:40am

See, I simply do not understand what market they're aiming for with this system. 512MB RAM is not sufficient for even moderate use, particularly since the video "card" shares some of that. I guess it would be okay for working with DVD's, provided that they're small, but going up to 1GB would be reasonably inexpensive and would provide a noticeable boost in performance for even light users. Stark raises a good point, though, about its potential for inexpensive content-creation, but even that's only for the upgraded dual-core one. The single-core one is clearly a budget system, but it's an expensive budget system and I don't see much utility out of that one that you can't get out of any of the other manufacturers.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-03-01 11:54am

So this new one is as useless as the original? I have a friend with one who said there's no mic socket so he can't use Skype. What the fuck?!

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-03-01 11:58am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:So this new one is as useless as the original? I have a friend with one who said there's no mic socket so he can't use Skype. What the fuck?!

Not sure, but if true, why didn't he buy a USB mic?

Anyway, tech specs state:

* Built-in speaker
* Combined optical digital audio input/audio line in (minijack)
* Combined optical digital audio output/headphone out (minijack)

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2006-03-01 12:25pm

Master of Ossus wrote:See, I simply do not understand what market they're aiming for with this system.

I think the target market is pretty clear, most people are pretty computer illiterate, and when they want to buy a Mac as long as it looks pretty and has the Apple logo on it they will buy it, the price could be twice as much as a comparable PC, but they wouldn't care about that as long as they can pay. Since this will give the impression of being a cheap computer people on a budget will buy it in an effort to get more bang for their bucks, despite the mediocre specs. Apple's marketing department will make sure they hear about how good they are compared to everything else, and for most of their potential customers that's enough.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-03-01 05:16pm

Shogoki wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:See, I simply do not understand what market they're aiming for with this system.
I think the target market is pretty clear, most people are pretty computer illiterate, and when they want to buy a Mac as long as it looks pretty and has the Apple logo on it they will buy it, the price could be twice as much as a comparable PC, but they wouldn't care about that as long as they can pay. Since this will give the impression of being a cheap computer people on a budget will buy it in an effort to get more bang for their bucks, despite the mediocre specs. Apple's marketing department will make sure they hear about how good they are compared to everything else, and for most of their potential customers that's enough.

I disagree. The first market is for the small form factor crowd. This computer has one of the smallest form factors on the market (I've heard of people dismissing it at a store thinking it's an external CD drive), dual processors, dual format dual layer DVD burner, all the wireless options, etc. And in fact the only disadvantages are the fact that the graphics card isn't very good for games (it should be noted that the graphics card supports Aero on Windows Vista, so it should have no problem with CoreImage on the Mac) and the ram is only an average amount and won't be sufficient for heavy uses.

It is also being targetted at the home media center crowd. We're talking about a computer half the size of your VCR, that can stream music and video over the network out of the box (new iTunes and Front Row functionality), with built in TV out and digital audio out. It's got media center software and a remote control.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2006-03-01 05:29pm

Praxis wrote: I'm very disappointed though that after all Apple's talk about how integrated cards suck and that Macs have real graphics cards, they've used an integrated one.

I dont know where this Apple and real graphic cards relation comes from, certainly not from Apple's usual GPU hardware configurations.

Apple as always tried to go for like, the lowest end graphics card available they can get away with as a default component, when they shipped their then top of the line $2500+ Dual G5 with a R9600 as the default GPU more than one reviewer thought it was a bad joke.

The only real reason for that Apple and using real graphics card comment i can think off, is IGP weren't available or weren't adecuate enough. Since Intel has IGP's already developed and available on their chipsets i think it was only to be expected for Apple to use them eventually. It certainly cuts on manufacturing costs. So, yeah, it's not supprising at all. But the case does look rather nice.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-03-02 12:11am

I don't think the ATI drivers for OSX x86 are totally finished yet, so maybe this is why they went with the worthless Intel chipset for now. They won't support > 1280x1024 with acceleration and there are some artifacting problems. The Intel isn't really that bad, I guess, if you're not doing anything requiring 3D, but it's totally senseless to put it with a dual core CPU.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-03-02 12:25am

Shogoki wrote:
Praxis wrote: I'm very disappointed though that after all Apple's talk about how integrated cards suck and that Macs have real graphics cards, they've used an integrated one.
I dont know where this Apple and real graphic cards relation comes from, certainly not from Apple's usual GPU hardware configurations.

Apple as always tried to go for like, the lowest end graphics card available they can get away with as a default component, when they shipped their then top of the line $2500+ Dual G5 with a R9600 as the default GPU more than one reviewer thought it was a bad joke.

The only real reason for that Apple and using real graphics card comment i can think off, is IGP weren't available or weren't adecuate enough. Since Intel has IGP's already developed and available on their chipsets i think it was only to be expected for Apple to use them eventually. It certainly cuts on manufacturing costs. So, yeah, it's not supprising at all. But the case does look rather nice.

Correct, but Apple has never placed a integrated card or a card that uses shared memory in one of their systems before. They've ALWAYS had a dedicated card with dedicated VRAM.