[Salty]

OK well we know the new mini has some features that really bring it up to snuff, notably the faster processor, more USB ports, additional RAM slot, mic in, and all that jazz. But but but, I think this is the first Mac that has ever had an intel integrated graphics card, OK we all know that anyone planning on doing gaming on a Mac mini is dumb, but really, with the fact that some of the newer graphics cards have things like H.264 decoding done on the card itself, you'd think that Apple would have chosen to go with a higher end graphics chipset than an Intel one...

[Chuckit]

"We come together 'cause opposites attract…"

Mac mini is the lowest model available. Why are you expecting a high-end graphics card in there?

[Dakar]

Bingo. Its called an entry model.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Salty

additional RAM slot

Where ?

Read the specs again. That's NOT what it says.
It's shared video RAM. Meh.

[moodymonster]

dammit, I was gonna get one for a media center thing. Figured all I needed was a big screen, amp and speakers + one of those eyeTv thingys.

[ort888]

Raising the price $100 is a huge deal too. The main selling point (only selling point?) is the low price. They just made it 20% higher which seems really dumb to me.

Mac Mini $599
Cheap 17" LCD $200
Keyboard + Mouse $60

$860 bucks. Starting to get close to the 17" iMac which is a much better deal.

[Krypton]

Originally Posted by ort888

Raising the price $100 is a huge deal too. The main selling point (only selling point?) is the low price. They just made it 20% higher which seems really dumb to me.

Mac Mini $599
Cheap 17" LCD $200
Keyboard + Mouse $60

$860 bucks. Starting to get close to the 17" iMac which is a much better deal.

I was hoping to get one at some point, but the added expense and lack of proper graphics card are a deal breaker for me too.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by ort888

Raising the price $100 is a huge deal too. The main selling point (only selling point?) is the low price. They just made it 20% higher which seems really dumb to me.

Mac Mini $599
Cheap 17" LCD $200
Keyboard + Mouse $60

$860 bucks. Starting to get close to the 17" iMac which is a much better deal.

IMHO, Apple is missing the point with the Mini. It's starting to remind me of the cube.

[Dakar]

Well part of the problem is, no matter what they release people are always asking for add-ons that start dragging the price back up.

[ort888]

Apple really needs to focus on keeping the price down. That's the whole point of this thing.

They also really really need to come out with a budget LCD screen for the mini. A $299 17" LCD or something.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by ort888

Mac Mini $599
Cheap 17" LCD $200
Keyboard + Mouse $60

$860 bucks. Starting to get close to the 17" iMac which is a much better deal.

The Mini is for people who already have the bits and just want a computer.

[puppetswhokill]

So my take is you can't add a card!?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by puppetswhokill

So my take is you can't add a card!?

Nope.

[ambush]

Plus, you get the Intel Integrated Graphics, which suck huge cocks.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by ambush

Plus, you get the Intel Integrated Graphics, which suck huge cocks.

nice terminology there

[ambush]

I thought that would be censored. Sorry for the metaphoric shock.

[Chuckit]

Both "cock" and "pussy" are left uncensored, since there's nothing obscene about gun hammers, chickens or cats.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Intel integrated graphics are a step back from the Radeon 9200 that the mini had. In other words this is a downgrade in graphic capabilities that costs more money. All in all this mini upgrade may hold its own, but with such a graphics oriented world in computing these days, this is bad.

Macs have had integrated graphics with shared memory before, but not since the PowerMac 6100 and now we're in 2006 and the world is very different.

I am surprised seeing this in a Mac after 1998. Ever since then Macs have had graphics chips with dedicated memory. Even the original iMac had its own 4 MBs in 1997! That was a consumer entry level machine if ever there was one.

cheers

W-Y

[kikkoman]

Nothing wrong with the graphics in the Mac mini for the intended audience. Our university gets a great deal on some Dells with the same integrated graphics chip. I just ordered a bunch of and deployed them. They are just fine for web, e-mail and MS Office. The users don't know the difference and they couldn't care less. I'll probably get a couple of these minis for the lab

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by ort888

Apple really needs to focus on keeping the price down. That's the whole point of this thing.

They also really really need to come out with a budget LCD screen for the mini. A $299 17" LCD or something.

I totally agree.

My wife needed a new machine, and I already have a 20" ACD and a keyboard and Mighty Mouse for my PowerBook.

So I got her a mini and we'll share the 20" and the keys/mouse. We did consider an iMac but couldn't justify the extra $800 for what she does on it (mainly mail and browsing, some Word.)

But she really would like her own keys/mouse/screen. I would think it would be well worth Apple's time to come up with a package of a keyboard, a mouse and an inexpensive screen for minis.

Even if it's only 15" or 17", it would be enough.

[Salty]

Yah but what does this mean for Quartz Extreme performance? And more importantly CoreImage? Yes I know right now CI is a more pro oriented part of the OS and what not, but this means that these machines won't even get the ripple when putting something onto dashboard! It just seems silly the a shipping system is not able to take advantage of all aspects of an OS.
I also don't understand why AirPort and Bluetooth are standard features.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by Salty

I also don't understand why AirPort and Bluetooth are standard features.

I think that those are part of Steve's 'big picture".

[ambush]

I was REALLY considering a new mini.... that was before they announced them, though.

I hope steve won't repeat the error with the iBook, cause that will really piss me off.

[kikkoman]

Originally Posted by Salty

I also don't understand why AirPort and Bluetooth are standard features.

If the mini is based on the same Intel chipsets as the iMac Duo and Pro Book then these features are probably integrated.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by kikkoman

Nothing wrong with the graphics in the Mac mini for the intended audience.

Mhm, but they're more expensive now and worse than before. Ironically Apple made that very clear.

http://web.archive.org/web/200503050.../graphics.html

Originally Posted by Apple marketing

Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.

cheers

W-Y

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Mhm, but they're more expensive now and worse than before.

I'd wait for the benchmarks. My guess is that the new mac mini is not slower than the old one even if the graphics chip is theoretically worse.

[tooki]

C'mon, a year has passed since Apple released the original Mac mini. Integrated graphics have improved over time, so it's probably reasonable to expect similar -- or better -- performance from this modern integrated GPU as from the now-ancient 9200 that was in the old mini. Is it as good as a contemporary standalone GPU? Of course not. But that's beside the point: the target audience for this machine isn't going to care. And the integrated GPU actually supports "Tiger Core Graphics" according to http://www.apple.com/macmini/intelcore.html. I am not sure whether they actually mean that as supporting Core Image and Core Video or not.

Oh, and the new Mac mini certainly does have two RAM slots. It says so right on http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

tooki

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by tooki

And the integrated GPU actually supports "Tiger Core Graphics" according to http://www.apple.com/macmini/intelcore.html.

"Core Graphics" is just another name for Quartz. Every graphics card in a Mac that could run OS X supported Quartz or you would be running Darwin in a command line interface. That includes the graphics chip that was in the 6100. The question is whether the Intel GPU supports Core Image. If it does then that it is an improvement over the ATI 9200 which didn't afaik.

[IonCable]

From what I understand the Intel GMA950 graphics are designed more for Media than gaming, which is what the mini better suited. I not saying it's a great chip set. I'm saying that the ATI's and Nvida's are focused more on the requirements of games, 3D. The Intel GMA950 in the mini won't stop me from getting one. I just need a cheap Mac for managing my iLife stuff, email, a little web and a future PVR/media center. I have a G5 for the heavy lifting and gaming. It would be silly to tie up a G5 recording tv shows, updating my iPod, or streaming music. A mini is prefect and cheap. Sure I could get a used Mac, but the mini fits so nicely next to the tv.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by tooki

C'mon, a year has passed since Apple released the original Mac mini. Integrated graphics have improved over time, so it's probably reasonable to expect similar -- or better -- performance from this modern integrated GPU as from the now-ancient 9200 that was in the old mini. Is it as good as a contemporary standalone GPU? Of course not. But that's beside the point: the target audience for this machine isn't going to care. And the integrated GPU actually supports "Tiger Core Graphics" according to http://www.apple.com/macmini/intelcore.html. I am not sure whether they actually mean that as supporting Core Image and Core Video or not.

Oh, and the new Mac mini certainly does have two RAM slots. It says so right on http://www.apple.com/macmini/whatsinside.html

tooki

Good points. The 9200 was ancient when it was introed in the mini and the 950 chipset is at least its equal in power/features, butthe 9200 has faster video RAM than the 950 chipset.

My point is, at best this new mini won't be noticably worse but measurably it will be. I would have liked to see at least the Radeon 9550 in the new mini. $1000 iBooks have it and they have a 12" monitor, battery and are mobile machines.

The $100 increase in price stings a bit because the OS is so graphically demanding. I mean, is there anyone who thinks that OS X on a mini is so fast it could well be a notch slower?
I'm curious to see if this new mini is Core Image capable. If it is, then things look a lot better.

After all, in other aspects than the video this revision is better - unquestionably - than the predecessor.

cheers

W-Y

[mduell]

GMA950 is better for HTPC, worse for a gaming machine; although with the 9200 in the former revision, I doubt people were playing GPU intensive games anyway. I'm surprised it's limited to 64MB shared memory; Intel supports up to 224MB shared memory.

GMA950 perks:

• High Definition Hardware Motion Compensation to support high definition hi-bitrate MPEG2 media playback
• Up and Down Scaling of Video Content
• High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support
• 5x3 Overlay Filtering

GMA950 is also rumored to support HDCP (unconfirmed), which may matter when DRMd HD content becomes available.
The GPUs that support H.264 acceleration (which OS X does not support yet) are too expensive and too hot to put in the Mac mini anyway.

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Where ?

Read the specs again. That's NOT what it says.
It's shared video RAM. Meh.

It uses shared memory, but it also has 2 RAM slots, up from 1 RAM slot in the previous mini. Supports 2GB today and should support 4GB when 2GB SO-DIMMs hit the market.

Originally Posted by tooki

C'mon, a year has passed since Apple released the original Mac mini. Integrated graphics have improved over time, so it's probably reasonable to expect similar -- or better -- performance from this modern integrated GPU as from the now-ancient 9200 that was in the old mini.

GMA950 fares alright in 3DMark, but it doesn't do so well in actual games.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mduell

The GPUs that support H.264 acceleration (which OS X does not support yet) are too expensive and too hot to put in the Mac mini anyway.

Apple has said the Mac Mini does support the hardware H.264 acceleration on the GMA950.

[Weyland-Yutani]

I'm sure Apple got a good deal on the GMA 950 integrated in an Intel-chip motherboard, but I'd still have liked to see every Mac with either an ATi or NVidia chip for graphics. Those are the best.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple has said the Mac Mini does support the hardware H.264 acceleration on the GMA950.

H.264 hardware acceleration works on the ATi x1k types and the ah Intel GMA 950?

I think not.

cheers

W-Y

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by mduell

It uses shared memory, but it also has 2 RAM slots, up from 1 RAM slot in the previous mini. Supports 2GB today and should support 4GB when 2GB SO-DIMMs hit the market.

I think this is another step forwards while taking one back. I was under the impression that the previous mac mini used a normal size ram chip which was cheap to upgrade. Now there are 2 slots but they are the more expensive so-dimms.

[Hawkeye_a]

I baught a high end Mac mini for my folks 3 weeks ago, and im having mixed feeling about it.

What the old mini was lacking:
-more USB
-front row

What the new mini is lacking:
-GPU

The question is.... is Quartz Extreme(QE) accelerated on the Intel graphics chip ? or is the CPU loaded ?

At the end of the day...i think front row is what is missing. the rest are a few numbers here n there. the faster bus is nice. but if QE is not accelerated, it will be slowed down.

In a way im kinda glad i got my folks the older mini cause of the GPU that way they can experience all the eyecandyand speed (in PS:CS2), etc...uninhibited. It's their first Mac...and hopefully by the end of the year they will step upto the iMac anyway. They never use the computer for mediaPC functionality, but the lack of USB2 ports on the older ones might be a bit of an inconvenience.

A worth upgrade imo would have been....
-new intel processors
-more USB 2.0 ports
-same Graphics as before
-same price as before

Oh well...

[Binarymix]

Holy crap.

Some of you are spreading complete FUD.

This integrated chipset is in fact a lot better than the old radeon chipset. Also, this chip most certainly does support Core Image, Core Video, and Quartz Extreme.

How do I know this before it's shipped? Because people with these chipsets have hacked OS X to run on their standard PC's. All features are supported and they run fast and fluid 'out of the box' so to speak. In fact they are the only chipsets on unsupported PC's to support all OS X's video capabilities (without any bugs or glitches).

Just because it's integrated doesn't mean it's the worst thing on earth.

Once again:

Mac Mini's are NOT for gaming, and are NOT for high end graphical tasks anyways.

[goMac]

This is worse than not for gaming. This is 7 fps in UT2004.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Holy crap.

Some of you are spreading complete FUD.

This integrated chipset is in fact a lot better than the old radeon chipset. Also, this chip most certainly does support Core Image, Core Video, and Quartz Extreme.

How do I know this before it's shipped? Because people with these chipsets have hacked OS X to run on their standard PC's. All features are supported and they run fast and fluid 'out of the box' so to speak. In fact they are the only chipsets on unsupported PC's to support all OS X's video capabilities (without any bugs or glitches).

Just because it's integrated doesn't mean it's the worst thing on earth.

Once again:

Mac Mini's are NOT for gaming, and are NOT for high end graphical tasks anyways.

Trust me, you don't want shared memory as VRAM.
Not in OS X anyway.

BUT yeah, def. more for the media than the hardcore 3D.
It's true that integrated graphics chipsets have elvolved over the years.

After doing research on the GMA950, I found out it was better than I expected.

[Binarymix]

Originally Posted by ambush

Trust me, you don't want shared memory as VRAM.
Not in OS X anyway.

My 64 MB 845g seems to be more than fine and thats just using it in vesa mode. When I was able to get QE working on it on earlier dev builds it was very snappy and more than acceptable. This also wasn't using Apple/Intel's new model where it seems the vram can expand if it needs to.

Integrated just means you should add more system ram if you plan on doing heavy duty video work and using a lot of apps at the same time.

[Binarymix]

Originally Posted by goMac

This is worse than not for gaming. This is 7 fps in UT2004.

Using it on highest settings and through rosetta right?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Holy crap.

Some of you are spreading complete FUD.

This integrated chipset is in fact a lot better than the old radeon chipset. Also, this chip most certainly does support Core Image, Core Video, and Quartz Extreme.

Good to hear that it supports Core Image. However the RAM latency is worse than on the 9200 so the 950 isn't a lot better. And the 9200 was ancient and really rather lousy. I know the 950 chipset is more powerful (not saying a lot) than the 9200 but it has slower RAM because it uses the system RAM instead of dedicated video RAM.

Fast RAM comes in handy when swapping out textures. OS X needs this for normal operation.

FUD this is not, but facts. The bottom line is that the mini has an arguably better (or worse) GPU and has to use the slower system RAM for video. Meaning also there will be less for the system.

cheers

W-Y

[ShotgunEd]

I didn't despair when I read it has integrated video.

I did despair at the price.

Once you buy a monitor, its really no cheaper than an inteliMac.

But I reckon I'll get one anyways, AIO machines are a pain, and I can always keep the monitor I buy when I upgrade and use the mini as a set-top box in a few years.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

H.264 hardware acceleration works on the ATi x1k types and the ah Intel GMA 950?

I think not.

cheers

W-Y

Apple has said that hardware acceleration works on the GMA950 and it can do two H.264 feeds at once.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple has said that hardware acceleration works on the GMA950 and it can do two H.264 feeds at once.

They wish. The latest line of ATi GPUs can do hardware acceleration. The x1k types. There is an X1600 in the iMac, but there are no Mac drivers for it to do H.264 hardware acceleration yet.

The minis with the GMA 950 can display HD i1080 video, but that does not equal H.264 hw acceleration. Not by a long shot.

You can read all about the actual capabilities of the GMA 950 on Intel's website.

cheers

W-Y

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

They wish. The latest line of ATi GPUs can do hardware acceleration. The x1k types. There is an X1600 in the iMac, but there are no Mac drivers for it to do H.264 hardware acceleration yet.

The minis with the GMA 950 can display HD i1080 video, but that does not equal H.264 hw acceleration. Not by a long shot.

You can read all about the actual capabilities of the GMA 950 on Intel's website.

cheers

W-Y

Have it your way:
"High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support"

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

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

Have it your way:
"High Definition Content Decode - up to two stream support"

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

Yes, I think I will thanks

HD decode does in no imaginable way equal H.264 hardware decoding. H.264 doesn't even have anything in particular to do with HD. It can be used from cell-phone videos to whatever.

It is a codec and it scales well and it is very new.

ATi were the first mainstream GPU makers to come out with drivers for H.264 codec and NVidia is still working on it, though it will be soon.

Sooner than any integrated el-cheapo chipset from Intel can decode H.264, with full respect to you, Apple and anyone who hoped otherwise.

cheers

W-Y

[CharlesS]

I'm kind of worried for Apple on this one. It's looking like the mini is going to suck for most non-email purposes, even though it has the option for a pretty nice processor now in the Core Duo. So you have the iMac, which is nice - heck, I got one - unless you already have an existing monitor you want to use, want to get some specific monitor other than the included one, or want to be able to swap out the computer for a new one at some point and keep the monitor. In my case, those things aren't an issue, since I got my iMac G5 to last for 5 years. For people that upgrade every year, it's not a good idea. So then your next step up will be a Power Mac, or whatever the new towers get called. Of course, they'll start at $2,000 for the stripped down, crippled-in-some-way version (a decent tower will, of course, cost $3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). So to get your own monitor and have a decent video card (or even just a slot to add one yourself), you'll need to spend $2,000, minimum.

You see where this is going? What are people gonna do? Well, they'll assemble a cheap PC and pirate a hacked copy of OS X to run on it. It'll be just like the clone era all over again, where Apple, just like now, was out of touch with what its customers wanted, and as a result people bought Macs from the likes of UMAX and PowerComputing, and Apple was thought of as the last company you wanted to buy a Mac from. Except this time, they won't even make the money from the clone licenses - Apple will make exactly $0,000.00 on the deal. And this time, Jobs won't be able to put a stop to the whole thing just by buying back the clone licenses...

I really hope Apple wakes up and either puts decent graphics in the mini or makes some kind of inexpensive mini-tower machine before this ruins their momentum.

[Binarymix]

Oh come on. The graphics card is capable of far more than e-mail. Get a grip. And the card in the new imac is probably the best card apple has ever put in a mid-level machine.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Binarymix

Oh come on. The graphics card is capable of far more than e-mail. Get a grip. And the card in the new imac is probably the best card apple has ever put in a mid-level machine.

And I said the new iMac was quite nice, did I not? The only problem is that it doesn't work for users who need to use a separate monitor for whatever reason.