[elvis2000]

Bwahahahahaha

[elvis2000]

The GMA950 is better than the Radeon 9200, even with shared memory. Thats what I was telling you dimwits a year ago.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

How could it be better? It has SHARED MEMORY GRAPHICS!!!

Isn't that a BAD thing? That's what you guys were saying a year ago!

double post

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by elvis2000

How could it be better? It has SHARED MEMORY GRAPHICS!!!

Isn't that a BAD thing? That's what you guys were saying a year ago!

Read my later post

I hate the idea of shared graphics but it is a better machine for the most part.

[betasp]

I think it is retarded, that's right... retarded, to buy or not buy based on a graphics card's crappiness. The 9200 was crap, the GMA is crap and so is the 6200. The mini can do more than the old mini, it is faster and comes with more features for only $100 more. While you may not be the type of person that would completly discount the mini because it does not have a "less crappy card." Others are. The "less crappy card" would make no real difference in the end! Those people are retarded.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by betasp

I think it is retarded, that's right... retarded, to buy or not buy based on a graphics card's crappiness. The 9200 was crap, the GMA is crap and so is the 6200. The mini can do more than the old mini, it is faster and comes with more features for only $100 more. While you may not be the type of person that would completly discount the mini because it does not have a "less crappy card." Others are. The "less crappy card" would make no real difference in the end! Those people are retarded.

Yeah, you're right, the 6200 would make no real difference at all!



BTW, the 6200 Turbocache actually DOES use shared memory, but first and foremost has its own onboard memory too. A 32 MB Turbocache 6200 would be sufficient to get reasonable gaming speeds, but would allow the GPU to access system RAM when needed.

ATI's X300 HyperMemory functions in much the same way.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Which $600 Dell model are you talking about? And is it anywhere near as small as a Mini?

Dimension E510 and of course not (although in trade-off you get a lot more expansion options).

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, you're right, the 6200 would make no real difference at all!

BTW, the 6200 Turbocache actually DOES use shared memory, but first and foremost has its own onboard memory too. A 32 MB Turbocache 6200 would be sufficient to get reasonable gaming speeds, but would allow the GPU to access system RAM when needed.

ATI's X300 HyperMemory functions in much the same way.

It's annoying that both nVidia and ATi use positive appearing terms to indicate the use of shared memory.
Dedicated VRAM and an ATi or nVidia chip only pushes the cost, heat, and size up.
Apple is targeting the mini at HTPC and the millions of people who already use Intel integrated graphics (did you know Intel sells about as many GPUs as nVidia and ATi combined? last I saw Intel has ~46% of the market).

[lamewing]

It still doesn't matter. The mac mini is NOT designed as a gaming computer. People, get over it. It is designed as a small, inexpensive computer for day-to-day, pedestrian chores...or a wee-tiny server ...

IT IS NOT A GAMING COMPUTER. IT IS NOT A GRAPHICS WORKSTATION. GET OVER IT.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by lamewing

It still doesn't matter. The mac mini is NOT designed as a gaming computer. People, get over it. It is designed as a small, inexpensive computer for day-to-day, pedestrian chores...or a wee-tiny server ...

IT IS NOT A GAMING COMPUTER. IT IS NOT A GRAPHICS WORKSTATION. GET OVER IT.

Originally Posted by mduell

It's annoying that both nVidia and ATi use positive appearing terms to indicate the use of shared memory.
Dedicated VRAM and an ATi or nVidia chip only pushes the cost, heat, and size up.
Apple is targeting the mini at HTPC and the millions of people who already use Intel integrated graphics (did you know Intel sells about as many GPUs as nVidia and ATi combined? last I saw Intel has ~46% of the market).

I have no problem with ATI and nVidia trying to bridge this market. They already make purely shared-memory integrated chipsets, but they do understand there is a market for something a little bit more, without having to push whole-hog dedicated memory cards as the only alternative.

IMO, in the Mac mini consumer market there are a lot of people who want light gaming support, and the TurboCache/HyperMemory GPUs are sufficient for this with their 32 MB on-board memory. Howver, there are times, particularly with business use on large screens where a Mac mini can go beyond 32 MB usage for graphics, and this shared memory support helps out here, with sufficient speed for 2D applications.

The Radeon 9200's 32 MB was insufficient for large screens for 2D use, (although they upgraded it to 64 MB later), and it didn't have full hardware support for CoreImage. OTOH, the GMA 950 seems ill-suited for even light gaming.

The 32 MB Turbocache/HyperMemory cards have both bases covered, but are more expensive and likely take up more logic board real estate. Also, my guess is that besides cost and space, another reason to go with GMA 950 was time-to-market. Because of that last point, I will stay optimistic that we will see upgraded video in the Mac mini (along with a bump to the CPU speeds) by Q4 2006, although I won't count on it.

Mind you, I'd rather have HDCP support with GMA 950 level 3D performance than X300 with no HDCP support. We shall see what happens...

[:dragonflypro:]

To keep trumpeting Apples old ad copy is just foolish. It further makes those of you look the bit of a whiny child.

Boohoo, Waaaah, They Saaaaaid, Seeeee, Stomp Stomp Stomp.

'It's like I'm playing with my sister's kids. Ya, nerve racking SOBs'

If everyone would just take half a breath and put down the Baskerville torches…

The MacMini is what it is, Apple ad copy or not.

If it still had a 9200 but 64mb of ram you complain it wasn't the 9550.

It it was a 9600 it should have been a x300

If it had been the biometric warp core accelerator, it clearly should have been the quantum biometric warp core accelerator MkII.

Same as it ever was… Same as it ever was…

[Eug Wanker]

The Apple apologists are out in full force today.

[ehchan]

Anyone have pics of the guts of the Mactel mini? Just curious if they use full size DIMMs or laptop SO-DIMMs...

[freudling]

Not happy about the price tag.

[Rumz]

According to Crucial they're not SO-DIMMS.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...z%29&submit=Go

[MacOS-Fan]

Of course your not. Because we obviously deserve more performance for free, right? I totally agree with you, moving to a DUAL-processor shouldn't cost anymore than the old SINGLE!!!

You've got to be kidding me people!

[Rumz]

Originally Posted by ehchan

Anyone have pics of the guts of the Mactel mini? Just curious if they use full size DIMMs or laptop SO-DIMMs...

I'm more curious to see if the Mini CPU is socketed like the iMac or soldered like the MBP. If so, what are the advantages of the more expensive Mini besides processor? Hard drive space (not a big deal), superdrive, anything else?

[ehchan]

Originally Posted by Rumz

According to Crucial they're not SO-DIMMS.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...z%29&submit=Go

Wow... that's more expensive than factory-installed from Apple (for 1 GB, at least)...

Glad I BTO'ed my mini...

[goMac]

I was going to buy a Intel Mac Mini but stopped when I saw the GMA950. I would have been happy with an X1200, which isn't much at all to ask for. But I won't buy a machine with integrated graphics.

Hope you're reading this Apple. You lost quite a few sales, not just from me, by using the GMA950.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by MacOS-Fan

Of course your not. Because we obviously deserve more performance for free, right? I totally agree with you, moving to a DUAL-processor shouldn't cost anymore than the old SINGLE!!!

You've got to be kidding me people!

Even the SINGLE core model INCREASED by $100!!!

Apple Fanboys amaze me. I love Apple myself but I am not blind to certain things that they do. The mini had a great price point when the bottom end was $499. An extra $100 puts it in a spot where sales could be hurt. $499 is rather sweet in the eyes of someone trying to get the best bang for their buck. Anything more and they will start looking elsewhere. If this system is truely being targeted to the budget buyer, then Apple needs to go back and do their homework.

When a new system is released it should be more powerful for the same price or cheaper. If not, then why even bother releasing something new?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The Apple apologists are out in full force today.

I know.

They thrive on the simple truth of "there's no pleasing some people". They can always point out that even if things were so and so, some people would still not be satisfied.

Be that as it may. I'd still like to reaffirm some points:

1. The GMA 950 is a step backward in technology even as it is marginally more powerful than a lowly 9200. However it is not more powerful in all aspects. Only some and it is introducing a technology I doubt people would like to see spread in Macs today.

2. The Mac mini is no gaming machine, but it used to be a light gaming machine where people could play relatively new FPS and 3D games. On a 9200. On the Windows side people have been using the GMA 950 for a while now and with unimpressing results. Remember games run faster on Windows.

3. The pricepoint went up, while no special features were added. I'm referring to the low end mini here, while one can say that a higher pricepoint for a dual core machine has merit. Every now and then machines are updated, they get more slots, more HD, more standard RAM, more MHz etc. but they keep their pricepoint.

4. Apple has been making a point to offload as much as they can of the OS windowing system and graphical system onto the GPU. This demands video RAM and today 32 MBs is the recommended minimum amount. Video RAM affects what is displayed and how. QuartzExtreme doesn't work on anything less than 16 MB cards IIRC and when that RAM is a slow RAM, then so will the OS slow down.

5. There is no number five.

Perhaps some people don't understand why anyone should complain and then they won't. Nothing I can do about that. This is a precidence Apple is setting and it isn't good. The Mac mini becomes a worse gaming machine, because time passes and games demand more even though the GPU is in some areas marginally superior. It becomes more expensive, and it isn't going to make OS X any snappier.

And this is the entry level machine. For switchers. First impressions last. As a server, a media machine and whatever else non-GPU intensive it is a damn fine machine. But this isn't the 90s anymore. GPUs *are* important and Macs have always lagged behind the Wintels. This is just adding insult to injury.

Somehow I don't think this will affect Mac mini sales much, but it may affect total Mac sales a bit. People who would have bought the last mini will probably buy this one, but people wanting an entry level desktop Mac without spending more than $1000, well. I'd count them out.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

@goMac, discotronic and Eug



cheers

W-Y

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by discotronic

When a new system is released it should be more powerful for the same price or cheaper. If not, then why even bother releasing something new?

Unless I missed a Dell or Gateway special, I've never seen a company "upgrade" a system to be 2x-5x faster for the same price. The "same price" stuff you're talking about is when Dell bumps a Dimension system from 2.4ghz to 2.6ghz.

Were there not a processor manufacturer change that analysts say is costing Apple $100 extra per machine to manufacture, I think your point would be more valid. But to expect them to magically absorb $100 extra on a $499 price-point and not raise the price? What are you thinking?

[the_glassman]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

Unless I missed a Dell or Gateway special, I've never seen a company "upgrade" a system to be 2x-5x faster for the same price. The "same price" stuff you're talking about is when Dell bumps a Dimension system from 2.4ghz to 2.6ghz.

How about the Macbook and New iMac?

Originally Posted by aristobrat

Were there not a processor manufacturer change that analysts say is costing Apple $100 extra per machine to manufacture, I think your point would be more valid. But to expect them to magically absorb $100 extra on a $499 price-point and not raise the price? What are you thinking?

What's the price difference between the dual core and solo chip, $20???

[lookmark]

The integrated graphics aren't ideal, surely, but it sounds like the GMA950 will be equal or superior to the mini's previous Radeon (as always, I await actual benchmarks, which will be coming in any moment now) -- plus a much, much better processor. That's what makes it an overall better (but more expensive) machine.

Personally, I think this is what Apple had to do to use the more expensive Intel Core chips. Hopefully, once the cost of these go down, the mini will one day return to its $499 price point.

[Eug Wanker]

Actually, to be fair, the low end model got Airport and Bluetooth, which partially justifies the price increase.

The Mac mini did NOT get 7200 rpm drives though. The references to 7200 rpm have been removed. I wonder if a few WILL get 7200 rpm drives however, and that Apple just won't guarantee it.

I am pleasantly surprised by Apple's memory prices though. Not the absolute cheapest, but not insanely expensive either.

[reddogg]

Have been mac user for about 10 years now. I am getting the uneasy feeling that Apple
may have chosen the wrong fork in the road by going with Intel. This new incarnation
of the intel mini mac (integrated intel shared video) may just the beginning of Apple's
departure of in house development for their unique brand of computers and allowing the likes of Intel to do the bulk of development on the guts of the computer which to me translates into the "el cheapo" computer with a huge premiem for substandard hardware with the Apple nametag.
As far as I am concerned the build quality in general of Apple computer's is and has and will decline into the future. Never been a windows user and I hope I do not have to go in that direction. I am seriously considering switching to Linux and abandoning the mac platform.I know that I can build a linux computer myself for much less money and have control over the parts and the ability to replace those parts at reasonable prices.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by reddogg

Have been mac user for about 10 years now. I am getting the uneasy feeling that Apple
may have chosen the wrong fork in the road by going with Intel. This new incarnation
of the intel mini mac (integrated intel shared video) may just the beginning of Apple's
departure of in house development for their unique brand of computers and allowing the likes of Intel to do the bulk of development on the guts of the computer which to me translates into the "el cheapo" computer with a huge premiem for substandard hardware with the Apple nametag.
As far as I am concerned the build quality in general of Apple computer's is and has and will decline into the future. Never been a windows user and I hope I do not have to go in that direction. I am seriously considering switching to Linux and abandoning the mac platform.I know that I can build a linux computer myself for much less money and have control over the parts and the ability to replace those parts at reasonable prices.

Apple's hareware is standard PC guts...a good portion made in Taiwan/China by ASUStek. Windows has nothing to do with the quality of the hardware. If anything, Apple's hardware has always (esp. video cards) has been a generation or more behind current PC trends. The best Nvidia you could get for the G5 was a 6800Ultra...old news and MUCH more expensive than the PC version...tsk tsk Apple.

I am sorry, but the intel hardware and the mobo, memory, etc are no more el cheapo than when they supported a G series processor.

I saw this same argument when Apple went from Motorola to PPC, then again with PPC to G series, and yet again this silly discussion raises it ugly head.

[MacOS-Fan]

I would like to start this buy saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Now let me say that it cracks me up the way that some of the people on this board feel that they know more about what will raise and lower Apple's sales than Apple does. Despite all of your EXPERIENCE, I would be willing to bet that Apple has put more time and research into this than you have. I am not an "Apple fanboy". I am however an "Apple fan". I was not in favor of Apple switching to Intel at all, but they did. Time to move on. Sure the GPU is nothing to write home about, but neither was the last one. This really should be no surprise, as Apple has never seemed to care too much about the gaming realm. I would be willing to bet that coupled with these new processors and RAM capabilities, this GPU will work just fine for MOST tasks.

"Apple didn't raise the price when iMac went to Intel." True, but there is a lot more room to squirm in a $1299 price tag than there is in a $499 price tag. Plus the price jump from G4 to Intel is probably more substantial than the jump from G5 to Intel.

Bottom line = The Mini isn't going to be a game monster. Either deal with it or move on and buy an iMac! Just try to realize that games are not important to some (maybe even most) computer users. If it is to you, buy something else and stop bashing someone else's choice.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by the_glassman

How about the Macbook and New iMac?

Yeah, thank god they didn't have $499 pricepoints or I'm sure Apple would have had to have raised them too!

Originally Posted by the_glassman

What's the price difference between the dual core and solo chip, $20???

What's the difference between a Core Duo 1.86 and Core Duo 2.00? I don't know, but Apple/Dell/Whatever's always going to sell the more expensive one for more.

[Tuishimi]

Maybe they can't use higher-end GPUs because they run too hot?

[Tuishimi]

About the pricing issue: How much you guys want to bet that Apple will start cycling down the mini's as the CPU's from Intel start speeding up? The current $599 will drop to $499, the $799 will drop to $599 and a new, higher-end mini will be introduced at the high $799 price or maybe even $699?

I am guessing the mini prices will be adjusted by September.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Actually, to be fair, the low end model got Airport and Bluetooth, which partially justifies the price increase.

That's pretty much how I feel.

Early last summer I bought my first Apple. For $599 I got a mini with a 1.50ghz processor, 256MB RAM, and a 80GB HD.

If I waited until now, my $599 would get me a processor that is 2x faster, 2x more memory, (same hard drive), BlueTooth, WiFi, 2 extra USB ports (which would have saved a $30 Belkin hub purchase), and Front Row + remote.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by lamewing

I saw this same argument when Apple went from Motorola to PPC, then again with PPC to G series, and yet again this silly discussion raises it ugly head.

When Apple went from Motorola to Motorola and the again with PPC to PPC.

What are you talking about? The 68k to PPC was not a change of companies. All it did was adding IBM and making the AIM alliance. More bizzarre is a "PPC to G series" change.

The G series *is* PPC. Please, if you're going to make something up then well, do it properly

W-Y

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

When Apple went from Motorola to Motorola and the again with PPC to PPC.

What are you talking about? The 68k to PPC was not a change of companies. All it did was adding IBM and making the AIM alliance. More bizzarre is a "PPC to G series" change.

The G series *is* PPC. Please, if you're going to make something up then well, do it properly

W-Y

Obviously my typing has some improvement needed. I wasn't trying to make it up, I merely was tired and made an error. Let me try again.

Change from 68000 series cpus to PPC that is much more clear
Change from PPC to G series... what I meant was from the older PPC to the G3, G4, G5 series procs.
Finally from the G to the intel.

I didn't mean to compare company changes but hardware changes only. While the early model PPC and G series are both PPC, there was still confusion at the time with many users.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ehchan

Anyone have pics of the guts of the Mactel mini? Just curious if they use full size DIMMs or laptop SO-DIMMs...

Apple says: .. 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) on two DIMMs...

Originally Posted by discotronic

Even the SINGLE core model INCREASED by $100!!!

<snip>

When a new system is released it should be more powerful for the same price or cheaper. If not, then why even bother releasing something new?

The single core model with Airport, Bluetooth, 80GB HDD, and 512MB RAM is the same price as the old single core model with Airport, Bluetooth, 80GB HDD, and 512MB RAM. Apple eliminated the $499 price point with less features/capacity.

The price point is the same, and the CPU/FSB/memory/network is more powerful. Your criteria are met.

Originally Posted by the_glassman

What's the price difference between the dual core and solo chip, $20???

$32 in 1Ku quantities.

Originally Posted by aristobrat

What's the difference between a Core Duo 1.86 and Core Duo 2.00?

$129 in 1Ku quantities.

[TailsToo]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is unfortunate that it is more expensive than the current models even if it is a better machine that what is currently offered.

Agreed. While PCs are always seeming to get cheaper, Apple is using the Intel switch as a method to raise prices - not a good thing to do in the tech world today, even if they are adding features.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by TailsToo

Apple is using the Intel switch as a method to raise prices - not a good thing to do in the tech world today, even if they are adding features.

If Apple was using the Intel switch as a method to raise prices, why didn't they raise the price of the Intel iMac or the Intel MacBook Pro?

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

If Apple was using the Intel switch as a method to raise prices, why didn't they raise the price of the Intel iMac or the Intel MacBook Pro?

Probably because there is such a high profit margin on them now anyway that folks - real Mac folks versus more switchers - would cry foul. What is the profit margin? 23% or more?

Joe

[pliny]

I'm surprised the price went up $100. I'd rather have a G4 mini because it is cheaper and all the software I use runs natively on it.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Yes, but your $700 home-built PC isn't well suited to being a media center. You can't pay that much for a machine and expect it to be the master of everything. That's just ridiculous. What we have here is a focus on two different areas of computing, and each one has advantages and disadvantages. The PC market isn't just about games, you know.

My local Circuit City has $460 (model clearance) eMachines AMD 64 3500+ with 200GB, 1GB, ATI Express 200 graphics (and open PCI-Express slot) *with* MPEG2-in-hardware tuner (and Media Center 2005) and remote.

That's the competition. Oh, if it's not on clearance it's $100-$150 more, but still...sigh... for the HTPC crowd, *that* is what most people will want and will get. It's faster, more expandable, has a tuner built into it... sigh.

Integrated graphics and no tuner for the HTPC market - why, Apple?

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by pliny

I'm surprised the price went up $100. I'd rather have a G4 mini because it is cheaper and all the software I use runs natively on it.

I'm lucky, in that everything I use is a universal binary now.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by foo2

My local Circuit City has $460 (model clearance) eMachines AMD 64 3500+ with 200GB, 1GB, ATI Express 200 graphics (and open PCI-Express slot) *with* MPEG2-in-hardware tuner (and Media Center 2005) and remote.

That's the competition. Oh, if it's not on clearance it's $100-$150 more, but still...sigh... for the HTPC crowd, *that* is what most people will want and will get. It's faster, more expandable, has a tuner built into it... sigh.

Integrated graphics and no tuner for the HTPC market - why, Apple?

I bet it has a keyboard and mouse

Add a nice video card and it would be a great gaming machine also.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

That's pretty much how I feel.

Early last summer I bought my first Apple. For $599 I got a mini with a 1.50ghz processor, 256MB RAM, and a 80GB HD.

If I waited until now, my $599 would get me a processor that is 2x faster, 2x more memory, (same hard drive), BlueTooth, WiFi, 2 extra USB ports (which would have saved a $30 Belkin hub purchase), and Front Row + remote.

I would wait until we see some benchmarks before making the claim of 2x faster when it comes to the processor. I take the benchmarks that Apple usually posts with a grain of salt. It will be interesting to see some real world results.

[JKT]

Initial Cinebench results.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by discotronic

I would wait until we see some benchmarks before making the claim of 2x faster when it comes to the processor. I take the benchmarks that Apple usually posts with a grain of salt. It will be interesting to see some real world results.

integrated graphics = no benchmarks required before making comments on
processor speed = wait for benchmarks before commenting on

Ugh.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by foo2

My local Circuit City has $460 (model clearance) eMachines AMD 64 3500+ with 200GB, 1GB, ATI Express 200 graphics (and open PCI-Express slot) *with* MPEG2-in-hardware tuner (and Media Center 2005) and remote.

That's the competition.

If Apple were to build the mini using regular-sized PC components then I betcha they could do it with a pricetag in the ballpark of the eMachine.

Last summer I wanted to upgrade the combo drive in my mini to something that could burn DVDs. NewEgg had a 3.5" drive suitable for your eMachine above for $40. The cheapest I could find a slot-loaded laptop drive for my mini was a little over $100. Same thing with the hard drives. The mini's components are more expensive than the PC that you're comparing it to!

The first machine that competes with the mini in terms of components retails for OVER $1000, has integrated graphics with shared memory, and doesn't come with BlueTooth, WiFi, or a RF remote.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12...aopen_mini_pc/

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

integrated graphics = no benchmarks required before making comments on
processor speed = wait for benchmarks before commenting on

Ugh.

Now don't be an ass

My comments on the int. graphics had nothing to do with performance. It was merely my opinion of intergrated graphics. I haven't stated anything about the performance. I am waiting on benchmarks on that also.

The processor performance that Apple's marketing department put out are almost always better than what really happens in the real world. I would be very surprised if the processor really runs 2x faster.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by discotronic

Now don't be an ass

My comments on the int. graphics had nothing to do with performance. It was merely my opinion of intergrated graphics. I haven't stated anything about the performance. I am waiting on benchmarks on that also.

Awww crap. I got the arguements and who's making them in this thread all screwed up. Sorry about that!

(And to your point about Apple's marketing dept. vs reality, the mini's performance looks to be par for the course ... about 1/2 of what Apple's promising...)

[dale]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

If Apple was using the Intel switch as a method to raise prices, why didn't they raise the price of the Intel iMac or the Intel MacBook Pro?

If you live in the UK, they did. An increase of £30 for a 20" imac ($50 US). I think all Mac prices have increased in the UK.

[dale]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

If Apple were to build the mini using regular-sized PC components then I betcha they could do it with a pricetag in the ballpark of the eMachine.

Last summer I wanted to upgrade the combo drive in my mini to something that could burn DVDs. NewEgg had a 3.5" drive suitable for your eMachine above for $40. The cheapest I could find a slot-loaded laptop drive for my mini was a little over $100. Same thing with the hard drives. The mini's components are more expensive than the PC that you're comparing it to!

The first machine that competes with the mini in terms of components retails for OVER $1000, has integrated graphics with shared memory, and doesn't come with BlueTooth, WiFi, or a RF remote.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12...aopen_mini_pc/

I agree. Maybe this thing is a closer comparison than the old Mac Mini. Afterall, the hardware specs are closer.

Considering the Mac Mini has OSX, frontrow and iLife, the Mini is fantastic value, graphics card, or no graphics card.