MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Ugh... I still don't feel good about this decision from Apple. How is this really different than a Dell Dimension 2400 with a different CPU, for $200 more? I understand that it's Apple's bottom-feeder, or entry-level equipment, but that's not really the point. We're losing any sense of differentiation between Macs and any other damned Intel box. OS X is far superior, but trying to convince a customer that it's $100, 200, 500 better than Windows, all hardware being basically equal? oy...

Why do companies continue to make such garbage for integrated gfx solutions. Use the old gfx chip from the Game Cube or Xbox as an integrated chip; something.

I can tell you right now it doesn't have the ADD2+ card. Not that I know for sure, I just think you're reaching here, hoping that the card is somehow better than it really is.

In fact, no it really is a crappy integrated card.

However it will be fine for video playback and running iLife apps, which is what the Mini is for. The Mini is not a games machine.

Steve knows that the mini is really marketed for the mom and pop who already have a computer that is three years old, feel the need to get a new one and only use their computer for simple things, not for playing games. There is a bigger market for these mac minis that most people that post on this website really care to think about.

Most people that are in the market for a mac mini are not in the demographic community of most of us that will read about it on MDN.

I think Steve knows what he is doing by not forcing every mac to be on the cutting edge of graphics technology or with all the latest gizmos like a DVR.

MDN Magic Word: best, as in not everyone needs the best (except everyone does need the best OS)

Card specs here

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

I can't believe all this fuss over the graphics capabilities. Do you really think that Joe Public, in the market for a cheap PC, cares a jot about integrated graphics versus a graphics card? Or that anyone who wants to use this as a web browser, emailer, word processor, or (gasp!) a media player will care? Only game players should care - because nobody else is affected, at all. And who buys a mac mini to play hard core Doom?

Look it is a $599 PC, with a remote control, 4 USB ports, wireless, bluetooth, firewire, digital audio in/out, iLife, Front Row, can access 64MB of DDR2 RAM for video, wirelessly streams video/music, photos around the house with zero configuration, and handles all of Tiger's requirements and HD video. What else does it need to do? Good lord! Get a grip! If you don't like it go and buy an iMac. What a load of whining fishwives you all are.

Am I missing something but it clearly states in apple.com

"Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, resulting in 432MB of system memory available."

That is 80MB minimun but what about maximum? Can the GPU use like 128MB memory if it needs to? Or even more if you have more RAM to share?

3D gaming across Apple's entire product line would be a big step towards increasing sales.

Present 3D games don't need much CPU performance, a dual core is great, but tons of video card performance is needed.

Also another thing is with HDCP and DRM to monitors coming, computers may become less upgradeable because the video card will have to be sold/tied with the computer as one unit.

Home builders of computers may be delegated to the sidelines by all the DRM schemes coming.

Intel created all these, EFI, Trusted Computing and HDCP etc, Apple had to play ball or we won't be able to watch any HD content.

I'm right there with you Tommo... For $599 this machine rocks!

Tommo_UK -

Don't get confused by the shouting. The fuss is not that anyone here thinks this thing should be a graphics powerhouse. There are two issues fueling this furor:

1) They slapped a price increase on a performance decrease. That's crap, and everyone knows it.

2) The tech media are hailing this thing as "perfect for HDTV" and "a great step into the digital living room," and Apple hasn't corrected them. Given what we know about it, it is no such thing, and allowing the misinformation to become widespread could lead to massive consumer disappointment. On a machine that's supposed to be the gateway switcher system, we the Apple community (boosters and stockholders alike) can't afford to have it making promises it can't keep -- that's bad for business.

BOO Apple. BOO mini.

It says on intel.com

"Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically."

so that is 224 MB video memory maximum so quit whining!!!

MacDude,

That's why you shouldn't be looking at an entry level $599 Mac if you are a gamer.

The graphics card is the only thing concerning me about buying this machine.

I wish Apple had designed the top model to also include an improved video card.

Still I will probably get one as I do not play games on my Mac.

PC Apologist...

They did NOT SLAP A PRICE INCREASE.

All they did was take away the $499 base model without WiFI and Bluetooth.

If you bought the old mini two days ago with WiFI and Bluetooth is still cost $599..

Today's model just happens to have a ton of additional upgrades..

how about this excerpt from apple.com: "an Intel Core Solo or Duo processor, room for up to 2GB main memory, an Intel GMA950 integrated graphics chip with 96MB shared memory." thats not 64!! here is the link: http://www.apple.com/macmini/design.html

just remember you heard it from emax first

Nick, unless you plan on playing the latest 3D games, this graphics card will handle whatever you throw at it.

Believe it or not, this graphics engine is much better than the previous mini. At least it can handle core graphics... The old mini couldn't.

IT'S GOT AN AUDIO INPUT!

Finally the MacMini has an audio input on board. You can do Garageband without buying an external USB audio input.

Thank you Steve

I've used a couple of PC's that had shared memory graphics boards. I used one of them to do several Photoshop projects for a client. They were not blazing but they were totally useable.

I think too many folks have spent too much time pouring over the specs of older Lame-oh Gateway offerings with integrated graphics.

Don't slam the new Mini until you've tried it, and quit comparing it to a PowerMac, it's a cheap consumer computer.

http://www.macsonly.com/

Just more fuel for the fire!

I'm very confused…

Assuming that the SPEC_Int and SPEC_fp scores published by Apple are correct, then even the Core Solo version of the Mac mini must be around twice as fast as, in chip terms, as the G4 version.

That, plus more USB ports and FrontRow and the ability to stick in 2GB of DDR2 RAM, sound like a major upgrade to me - yet everyone is focussing on the the shared graphics thing, without actually seeing it in action first, and saying that the machine is a downgrade.

Like I said, confused.

Oh, and the audio in/out thing as well.

PC Apologist..

Exactly what performance decrease are talking about?

Do you mean the 2-5 x faster processor? Or the 4 times faster front side bus? Or the new 5400 rpm hard drive vs. the old 4200 rpm hard drive? Or the faster DDR Ram? Or the new gigabit ethernet port? Or the additional usb ports? Or the new remote control and front row software? Or the new digital in and out? Or the new GPU that can handle core image?

I'm confused

MDN is a joke. Am I the only one who is scratching my head at MDN's latest comments when only months earlier, MDN is laughing it up about how integrated video is ONLY for "DULL" winblows machines.

MDN, get some journalistic integrity and stop changing your tune everytime SJ capitulates to the wintel crowd.

What will it be next week...apple's inclusion of a FM tuner in its ipods is a GREAT IDEA?

Mike K: It has one major downgrade...the integrated video

Fine, it is not a gaming machine. However, even the review above states it is good for "maybe play some DVD movies, then Intel's new graphics core is probably suitable."

To attach it to your plasma TV and play non-HD DVD's and approach the max of the graphics card is not a good thing. The previous G4 based mini could NOT handle 720p HD. I want to be able to watch 1080p video without any frame drops and without a performance hit on the rest of the mini.

I do not believe this is a lot to ask. This looks more like an Intel designed POS rather than a well thought out Apple Box. Granted the G4 mini lacked some features, but overall it compared well to all of Apple's other computers.

Do you people realize that in the benchmark the 6200TC, which blows away the Intel 950 is a very lowend $40 card??!!

Quite simply, this is unacceptable for an $800 machine with NO mouse, KB, and monitor.

People ask "how is this different from a big, loud Dell with none of the extras and no software bundle and a miserable OS and a slower processor"?

What do you say to that?

If people actually think ONE feature being the same means that EVERYTHING is the same, then there's nothing at the top of their spinal cord.

Mac Mini is light years away from Dell. And Core Solo is a generation ahead of Pentium 4 in performance per watt AND per GHz.

when Apple releases a "living-room" Mac they will tell us that is what they are releasing.

This is not designed by Apple to be a living room Mac. Pointing out its limitations as a living-room Mac is neither a fair nor an accurate criticism.

The major step forward here is the new networked version of Front Row. Now all we need is an A/V Airport Express w/ a tablet like remote which can be programmed to replace all your other remotes.

Ordinarily I think that this would be a good thing for the average consumer. After all, it should be cheaper and more efficient to buy more system ram that can be shared with the graphics card. Cram the box with ram, and you'll have better graphics when you need it and a snappier computer in general...

...Trouble is, the DDR2 667mgz memory uses is expensive! $300 for one gig of memory and $600 to max it out at 2 gig. Compusa, Bestbuy, etc do not carry this memory, so no luck in getting it somewhere else cheaper.

With say, an iMac Core Duo, extra memory is beneficial. With the mini, it appears that it will essential for the graphics card to work sufficiently and leave some left for the rest of the computer (and keep the beach ball at bay). Most people say that 512 meg of ram is necessary to keep OS X happy.

I'm miffed that Apple didn't either include more memory, or better yet, use slightly older memory that is much more affordable. It almost seems like a gotcha on Apple's part. Hey, you want to buy this entry level machine for the low price, but to make it usable, you need to pay us the purchase price of the machine again for ram!

I was seriously salivating over this machine after the announcment, but the graphics card sucking down overpriced ram is causing me second thoughts. I think I'll go with an iMac, which I can at least use with 512 meg of ram due to it's graphics card with 128 meg of its own ram, or maybe a refurbished powermac dual core which I can cram with a lot more ram at the same price. My assessment may change once third parties can charge less for the same ram...

Al, I'm not saying it's the greatest GPU in the world, but it is a step up from the previous in terms of performance...

I mean a dedicated 256 mb GPU would be awesome, but there is no way to do that and keep the price at $599... This is an entry level Mac, apart from games this GPU is plenty sufficient..

Case wrote,"invest at least $60 in an add-on card."
Could I assume it is possible to add-on a ADD2+ to the new mini? Confused? Help.....

Clyde you have your pricing wrong... check again.

$300 maxes out the Ram and buys you TWO gigs of Ram not one.

mike K, why are you using my name?

Talking to 2x performance, my ISP just upped my broadband speed for free again. 4Mbps.

Oh yeah, the mini. It's growing on me, probably thanks to the extra ports, and the improved audio. Still not too sure about the graphics, but then considering it finally comes with a 21st century processor, it'll cope. It'll be interesting to see whether one will be appearing with a Blu-Ray drive in the summer.

I still wish this Intel thing wasn't happening mind. PowerPC never recovered from bloody Motoslower's shitey slowdown in 2000.

Clyde where did you get your prices? It doesn't cost $300 for a gig of Ram. That's the price for 2 gigs.

Mac Mini $800
Monitor $250
Keyboard/Mighty Mouse $78
Upgrade HD to 120GB 5200rpm $125
Total $1253 (not including $150 for iSight)

iMac 17" $1299
Has faster processor, 160GB 3.5" 7200rpm drive, faster (and not integrated) graphics card, Built-in iSight cam

I think the $800 mac mini will be a bit harder to sell. I agree that the upgrades are cool. I think most of the disappointment though is the lack of PVR. Before anyone jumps all over this, just think about it:

If PVR had been added, a $599 PVR computer with a full-blown computer world-leading OS, virus-free email and web-surfing, and the best user-experience on the market, coupled with iPhoto-photocasting, Front Row, iTunes/iPod, etc., among the other cool apps, would have destroyed the market and captured 80%+ of the PVR/media center market in less than 18 months. I still think this is the game plan but PVR will currently canabalize efforts to get studios on to iTunes. The functionality has been there ever since firewire appeared on cable boxes. Apple obviously has a fully functioning PVR in their labs.

So if you have a keyboard, monitor, external HD, then the Mac Mini might be your cup of tea. Otherwise, go iMac.

Crucial Ram prices = $146.99 for one gig RAM.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr+Productline=Apple+Mac+mini&mfr=Apple&tabid=AM&model=Mac+mini+(Intel+Core+Solo+-+1.5GHz)&submit=Go

Daniel-Sam

There is no doubt that the iMac is the best bang for the buck. However, if you already have a display and a keyboard, $799 is a pretty good deal for a duo-core processor with a dual layer Superdrive.

Daniel, Ordering ala carte always costs more than a complete meal..

I think "ridiculous" puts it very well; $800 for the 1.67Ghz Core Duo model is pretty nuts.

No keyboard or mouse, no possibility to play 3D games like World of Warcraft, no chance of playing 1080p HD video, no HDCP, no component video-out. Slow little 5400 rpm laptop hard drive. No included modem (extra $$)

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

What a lot of us want a Mini for is to use to put our EyeTV content, etc on our HDTV without some huge tower. The addition of Front Row with Zero Configuration Networking (Bonjour) is a huge plus, as is the remote. Using a cheap Intel GPU is taking the low road.

The Fanboys can sell it all they want, it's a low-ball white box graphics chip. If MDN had mentioned this same method of producing video last year they would be making all kind of smarmy remarks about e-Machines and the like, but now they seem to be selling it. I prefer Macs, but the Apple PR Department has got a lot of spinning to do on this one.

If a Windows PC maker made a computer like this, you think PC people would buy it? I doubt it.


----------
And there lies another fundamental difference between Windows and Apple computers. One can build one´s own Windows PC; can´t do that with Apple.

Nick, for the things you are looking to do, you shouldn't be considering an entry level Mac..

Sounds like an iMac or PowerMac are what you need.

Sorry nick you need to read the specs.

It has a SATA drive that runs at 7200 RPMs that means it is very fast. Component video out is a waste of time and space. It also has a faster bus than before I bet it will handle games very well with enough ram.

The impression I get from all the posts here is that the Mac Mini is not the computer most people here actually want. Not that it isn't a good computer for what it does. It is a very good entry level machine. The trouble is that in Apples lineup the next desktop available is the Power Mac tower. (I consider the iMac in a class by itself) This leaves a big hole in Apples product range. What I would like, and I think many others, is a Mac Midi, probably twice the size of the mini but with at least a 1.8ghz duo, 2 or 4 Ram slots, at least 2 PCI slots for expansion, configurable graphics card like the Power Macs have, 4 USB ports with one on the front, FireWire 400/800. Make this for about $1000. This would give a mid range desktop that people can configure as they need but that is not as imposing as the Power Mac tower. Leave the mini as the entry level and the midi as the HD video center.

I went to the Apple store and under accessories, checked memory. There were no options for the new mac mini, but the iMac Core Duo uses the same memory. This CLEARLY lists $300 for 1 gig and $600 for 2 gig. This was after I looked under the Mac Mini pages and the memory section of the apple store for a quote.

300 1 gig, 600 2 gig. Sorry guys, but I stand by my facts until proven otherwise.

From one of the other threads...

For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:
QuickTime 7 for Mac OS X:
* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer; 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo or faster
* At least 256MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24 frames per second:
QuickTime 7 for Mac OS X:
* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer; 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo or faster
* At least 512MB of RAM
* 128MB or greater video card

Since the integrated graphics chip has special capabilities for handling video does anyone think that this chip will offload some of the work the processor would normally do so the above specs don't apply to the mini? They chose the speed for a reason even though there are high Mhz Duos available...

Furthermore what is all the crap about the integrated graphics chip...except for the Power Macs is not like anyone was ever going to switch out the graphics card in the IMacs and PowerBooks, Ibooks...

"Jeremiah Hawkins":

I got my information from Apple's specs. The Mac mini has a 2.5" laptop hard drive operating at 5400 rpm. There is no 7200 rpm option.

It will not handle games with enough RAM. It has poopy integrated graphics that gets you (at best) 10 frames per second in UT2004, according to Extreme Tech's benchmarks.

"Mike K":

So if people want to get online with a modem, play 2 year-old computer games, watch some HD video and have a hard drive that is faster than what ships in an iBook, the Mac mini is not for them? Why pay $800 for it then?

Copy pasted from Apple Store... I rest my case!


Memory
More memory (RAM) increases performance and enables your computer to perform faster and better. Choose additional 667MHz DDR2-SDRAM (PC2-5300) options for your Mac mini.
Learn more

512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x512 [Add $100]
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB [Add $300]

Jeremiah Hawkins

Uhhhh no... it is 5400 RPMs SATA HD read the specs again !
http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

Since when is spending $1253 "entry level?"

Mac Mini $800
Monitor $250
Keyboard/Mighty Mouse $78
Upgrade HD to 120GB 5200rpm $125
Total $1253 (not including $150 for iSight)

Yes, these specs are certianly "entry level," but the price certainly is not. How is Apple expecting switchers to come aboard when their PR dept. touts this as "entry level," but PC users see $1000+ for a complete package as mid-high level?

In the world of sub $500 "entry level" "complete package" PC's, this just doesn't fly.

Okay, okay. I figured out where everyone else was getting their facts. It is $300.00 for 2 gigs. I guess it's $600.00 to max out the new iMac.

I'll take my crow with some stuffing, thank you very much.