[Gropin'GL]

All The Info Is Here @ This Macworld Page! Frontrow! YES! http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02...date/index.php

[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.

[iKevin]

Yeah, i'm unimpressed with the increased pricetag on the bottom end model and it's system specs. Guess i'll hold onto my dollars for a little longer.

[Grrr]

Could have been faster than that.. C'mon.. its PC tech in there! And yeah, the price hike is bad news too. Apple wont be tempting PC users away from their dull boxes if they keep hiking up the damn price

[Barefoot Matt]

Interesting to see the Apple debut of the Core Solo. I wonder what the performance on that will be like.

[discotronic]

OMG!!!!!

Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

Hell no.

[legacyb4]

Just glad to see that they didn't neuter options for the mini as some people were speculating by making it Core Solo only.

The new mini will make a great little server with the extra horsepower!

[Oneota]

Gah! Intel graphics chip with 64 MB SHARED VIDEO MEMORY?!?

The mini's graphics went from sorta-okay to crummy, cruddy, CRAPPY.

[Stratus Fear]

The pricetag really isn't that bad considering the new hardware features they added. That and the Core processors aren't as cheap as G4s, I'm sure. Apple isn't just marketing this as an entry level machine anymore. It's also a well-priced HTPC. For the specs, the OS, and the software, I personally don't think any other HTPC out there can beat the new Mini. I wouldn't buy one myself since I don't need an HTPC, but I'm impressed with all the media center functionality that they added to it.

[iKevin]

What i find interesting is that on the Apple site they only show comparison benchmarks for the older 1.2ghz Mac mini G4 and even then only compare that to the Core Duo version . . . that alone could be very telling.

[andreas_g4]

Shared Video. Bummer.

[iKevin]

"Intel GMA950 graphics processor with 64MB of shared DDR2 SDRAM"

Heck, that's worse than what it had before!

[Eug Wanker]

GMA 950 graphics.

I wonder what that means for real-world performance. My guess it that stuff like Aperture won't be allowed to run at all on it, but it will be fine for CoreImage effects in OS X.

Oh and: TWO MEMORY SLOTS! AUDIO IN AND OUT! DIGITAL AUDIO OUT! FOUR USB 2.0 PORTS!

I'm glad that Apple finally rectified these issues.

EDIT:

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Oneota

Gah! Intel graphics chip with 64 MB SHARED VIDEO MEMORY?!?

The mini's graphics went from sorta-okay to crummy, cruddy, CRAPPY.

I don't like integrated graphics much either, but there a few things you need to consider about this. These systems aren't meant to play games. The DTK systems with the GMA900s ran Quartz Extreme and whatnot just fine -- so I'd believe that Front Row will also work well. The new mini has twice the memory bandwidth that the old one did, and four times the bus bandwidth, so using this thing with shared memory isn't in any way going to hurt the machine, and I'd venture to say going back to the integrated Radeon 9200 would have no noticeable benefit.

[discotronic]

I have up in the air about the move to Intel until now. That is an outragous price to pay for only shared video. What a POS. The is the first Mac to come out that is nothing but a glorified PC running OS X.

[andreas_g4]

What makes me really sad is the fact that a 1199 $ or 1299 $ price tag for the iBooks seems to be obvious now.

[iKevin]

Originally Posted by discotronic

I have up in the air about the move to Intel until now. That is an outragous price to pay for only shared video. What a POS. The is the first Mac to come out that is nothing but a glorified PC running OS X.

I agree with your statement 100%

This is what i feared would happen with the Intel switch . . . they start adopting the crappy run of the mil PC hardware and wrap it in a fancy Mac looking shell and run the price up.

I'm very unimpressed . . . But on the bright side, it did save me money since I won't buy this :-)

[TheoCryst]

Yeah, it's a bummer that we're back to shared video, but fear not. CoreImage and Quartz Extreme WILL run fine on these little guys (speaking from experience when it comes to the GMA950 and OS X... *cough cough*); just don't expect to play Doom 3. I'm definitely glad about the 4 USB2.0 ports, though. It's about time!

Will I buy one? No. I need way more power than that in a desktop. But then again, they aren't aimed at people who need power. I'm not exactly ecstatic about these, but it could be worse.

[iREZ]

it was between this and an imac...i waited...saw...gettin an imac thank you very much. this WILL be a great media server for a dedicated monitor or television..no doubt about it. i like it, but need a computer for work so ill stick with the better imac.

[iKevin]

Also, didn't Steve mention that you could hook it up to the TV? When I read that it looked as though it was finally a media center type deal. But looking at the Apple site it doesn't really look like this is the case.

[robo74]

Why not have the mini almost the same as the iMac but without the LCD. That way consumers and choose their own display, if they want cheap, they buy cheap. Moving to intergrated graphics is hurtful. Yes, argue and say the mini is not for games, but if I am a pc user looking at a 600 or 800 machine, it better play some games! My home built $700 AMD pc will blow that machine out of the water. I just dont understand the move on the video.. thats old technology. Thanks for letting me vent!

[Stratus Fear]

Here's a few other things I found about the GMA950. http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Compare to fill rate and feature lists of the old Radeon 9200 here. http://www.google.com/search?q=radeo...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The GMA950 supports Shader Model 2 and 3. The 9200 does not. The GMA950 has a 1.6 gigapixel/sec fillrate. The 9200 has 1.2. The mini, since it has two memory slots, most likely supports dual channel memory -- the same as the Core Duo iMac. Using two PC2-5300 sticks, the memory bandwidth of the system is twice what the system bus can saturate. So about 5.xGB/sec of bandwidth or so goes unused. So that's what the integrated graphics has available. The 9200 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Bandwidth aside, I'd say the GMA950 is technically superior to the old 9200, and it IS actually an upgrade to the system. There is a certain stigma attached to integrated graphics, but you really ought to know what's going on inside before you're ready to dismiss it as crap. This mini should perform well. Apple would have had to raise the price more and put in a more expensive ATi solution than the 9200 (and obviously more expensive than the GMA950) to make it better than the GMA950. And frankly, the GMA950 is cheaper than a standalone solution, likely performs better than the old standalone solution, so they could focus more on adding other features to the system.

Seems like a deal to me.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

What makes me really sad is the fact that a 1199 $ or 1299 $ price tag for the iBooks seems to be obvious now.

I like the Gigabit ethernet on the new mini a lot, and the availability of the Core Duo, the extra USB ports, and that's about it. I'm concerned about what this means to the iBook replacement too (Core Solo with integrated graphics, at least on the low end?).

[iKevin]

[QUOTE=Will I buy one? No. I need way more power than that in a desktop. But then again, they aren't aimed at people who need power. I'm not exactly ecstatic about these, but it could be worse.[/QUOTE]

You are correct, these are geared towards newbies and switchers. Most of which i'd think would be turned off by the system specs and the new higher prices. Heck, the core solo model gives you less/same power (guessing based on the lack of comparison specs on the Apple site) for a larger price tag. . . . Not what i'd call a really captivating reason for buying it compared to the cheaper PCs with same/better specs.

[Eug Wanker]

Actually, I'm not surprised by the video choice. I'm not impressed by it, but not surprised.

Remember, most people who buy the mini really couldn't give a chit about the video speed. I'm just annoyed that it looks like I won't be able to run Aperture on it, even slowly. Yeah I know, a Mini is not Aperture material, but a Core Duo 1.67 is actually quite fast in terms of CPU speed, and it's a shame I can't get a bit better video speed either.

Mind you, I'm guessing an option with better video could affect tower sales. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Here's a few other things I found about the GMA950. http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Compare to fill rate and feature lists of the old Radeon 9200 here. http://www.google.com/search?q=radeo...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The GMA950 supports Shader Model 2 and 3. The 9200 does not. The GMA950 has a 1.6 gigapixel/sec fillrate. The 9200 has 1.2. The mini, since it has two memory slots, most likely supports dual channel memory -- the same as the Core Duo iMac. Using two PC2-5300 sticks, the memory bandwidth of the system is twice what the system bus can saturate. So about 5.xGB/sec of bandwidth or so goes unused. So that's what the integrated graphics has available. The 9200 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Bandwidth aside, I'd say the GMA950 is technically superior to the old 9200, and it IS actually an upgrade to the system. There is a certain stigma attached to integrated graphics, but you really ought to know what's going on inside before you're ready to dismiss it as crap. This mini should perform well. Apple would have had to raise the price more and put in a more expensive ATi solution than the 9200 (and obviously more expensive than the GMA950) to make it better than the GMA950. And frankly, the GMA950 is cheaper than a standalone solution, likely performs better than the old standalone solution, so they could focus more on adding other features to the system.

Seems like a deal to me.

So you're saying it's better than the 9200 (aside from the shared memory part). Well, that's not saying much, cuz the 9200 sucks @ss. Everyone has been complaining about that GPU for just about forever.

Considering my iBook already has the Radeon 9550, I was hoping for a Radeon 9550 or even 9600 in a Mac mini (although I knew that was very wishful thinking).

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by robo74

Yes, argue and say the mini is not for games, but if I am a pc user looking at a 600 or 800 machine, it better play some games! My home built $700 AMD pc will blow that machine out of the water. I just dont understand the move on the video.. thats old technology. Thanks for letting me vent!

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.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Here's a few other things I found about the GMA950. http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

Compare to fill rate and feature lists of the old Radeon 9200 here. http://www.google.com/search?q=radeo...utf-8&oe=utf-8

The GMA950 supports Shader Model 2 and 3. The 9200 does not. The GMA950 has a 1.6 gigapixel/sec fillrate. The 9200 has 1.2. The mini, since it has two memory slots, most likely supports dual channel memory -- the same as the Core Duo iMac. Using two PC2-5300 sticks, the memory bandwidth of the system is twice what the system bus can saturate. So about 5.xGB/sec of bandwidth or so goes unused. So that's what the integrated graphics has available. The 9200 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth. Bandwidth aside, I'd say the GMA950 is technically superior to the old 9200, and it IS actually an upgrade to the system. There is a certain stigma attached to integrated graphics, but you really ought to know what's going on inside before you're ready to dismiss it as crap. This mini should perform well. Apple would have had to raise the price more and put in a more expensive ATi solution than the 9200 (and obviously more expensive than the GMA950) to make it better than the GMA950. And frankly, the GMA950 is cheaper than a standalone solution, likely performs better than the old standalone solution, so they could focus more on adding other features to the system.

Seems like a deal to me.

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

[Stratus Fear]

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

The Mac mini simply isn't a high-end machine. If you want a high-end style consumer machine, front the money for an iMac. You can't expect Apple to put that kind of stuff in a $600 system. Most $600 Dells are equipped far worse than this new mini. Despite the fact that the graphics are integrated, the fact remains that it IS indeed superior to the old Mac mini. Would you rather have this GMA950, or would you rather have a dedicated TNT2 which is about three times slower? Dedicated hardware doesn't always make it the best thing since sliced bread. Have Macs ever used non-integrated audio hardware? No. By your logic, they now suck because I can't order one with a high-end Audigy, or they don't come with prosumer M-Audio cards.

Edit: For that matter, what about the Intel HD Audio in the new iMacs? Honestly, it sounds better to my ear than the integrated audio in my Powerbook. I'd wager to say it sounds about as good as my Audigy2 did in my old PC. Quite impressive for an integrated solution, I think. But I guess it still sucks because it comes from Intel.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

There is a certain stigma attached to integrated graphics, but you really ought to know what's going on inside before you're ready to dismiss it as crap. Seems like a deal to me.

That is exactly the kind of statement that turns against the Mac community. As long as Apple didn't use integrated graphics, they were crap. Now, they're ok. They're not! Comparing any current graphics solution to a ATI 9200 is crap, since it is like 100 years old now. Any new graphics chip would be an improvement, so the criticism is that Apple did put that cheap-o-part in the mini with a significantly raised price tag. I don't care what they pay for the new Intel chip, the price tag should have remained the same, and graphics should be better.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

While I agree with the first part of your statement, I tend to disagree with the latter. The OS is actually worth that premium. Still, the (not a real anyway) GPU sucks big time.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

Try and restrain yourself, the GMA950 is perfectly fine for a majority of users, even if it is not an ideal solution for you or I. Besides, it's not like this is the first Mac to use system memory for video memory (the IIsi did as well).

[WOPR]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

It's ridiculous snobbery like that that makes me embarrassed to be a Mac user. Why not find out some information before posting crap like that?

Sheesh!

[Gee4orce]

I expect to see aggressive price cuts on the Minis later in the year, and/or CPU speed hikes. Don't forget that the Core chips are new, and Intel is milking the market, but prices will drop off precipitously after the initial few months.

...and if you're in the market for a Mini now, there's got to be some great closeout deals on the G4s.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

That is exactly the kind of statement that turns against the Mac community. As long as Apple didn't use integrated graphics, they were crap. Now, they're ok. They're not! Comparing any current graphics solution to a ATI 9200 is crap, since it is like 100 years old now. Any new graphics chip would be an improvement, so the criticism is that Apple did put that cheap-o-part in the mini with a significantly raised price tag. I don't care what they pay for the new Intel chip, the price tag should have remained the same, and graphics should be better.

Well, if that's seriously how you think about it, let's have Apple put an x1300 or x1600 in the mini, boot up the price to $700, and then everyone can complain about how expensive it is.

If you want to argue like that, I think the shuffle is a piece of crap because it doesn't have a screen. Yet I really don't think that because I understand the market it is priced for. The mini isn't supposed to be a premium machine. Just because the thing is integrated doesn't mean it's crap, and you'd have to go beyond a 9600 to really make it worth using anything other than the GMA950.

Also, if you want to argue like that, I'd say you don't understand the first thing about business. If Apple was putting what is in that system now, with a solution like the x1300, and still selling it for $500, I'd seriously wonder whether they were actually making any profit on the system. Don't try and price out their raw materials and production costs, either. There's a lot of other things to think about, R&D and marketing for two.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

The Mac mini simply isn't a high-end machine. If you want a high-end style consumer machine, front the money for an iMac. You can't expect Apple to put that kind of stuff in a $600 system. Most $600 Dells are equipped far worse than this new mini. Despite the fact that the graphics are integrated, the fact remains that it IS indeed superior to the old Mac mini. Would you rather have this GMA950, or would you rather have a dedicated TNT2 which is about three times slower?

I would rather have the Radeon 9550, which is what is already in the $999 iBook (which includes a screen).

Well, if that's seriously how you think about it, let's have Apple put an x1300 or x1600 in the mini, boot up the price $700, and then everyone can complain about how expensive it is.

The X1300 is a relatively inexpensive part actually, although it is more expensive than the Radeon 9550.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Agent69

Besides, it's not like this is the first Mac to use system memory for video memory (the IIsi did as well).

The IIsi had an expansion slot.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by discotronic

It is the principle of it. A Mac with Intel Intergrated Graphics is a disgrace no matter if it is better than the previous. We pay a premium for a Mac and should get a premium. The OS is not worth all of the extra cash.

The mini has a premium price tag?

The Wintel version of the mini appears to have onboard video as well, with a price tag of around $1000.

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

I don't care what they pay for the new Intel chip, the price tag should have remained the same, and graphics should be better.

Too bad Steve has to answer to stockholders expecting profits instead of you.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I would rather have the Radeon 9550, which is what is already in the $999 iBook (which includes a screen).

The X1300 is a relatively inexpensive part actually, although it is a little bit more expensive than the Radeon 9550.

The 9550 isn't really any faster than the 9200, though. Some of them are clocked slower than the 9200, the ones that are clocked slower on the GPU have less fill rate, the memory bandwidth is the same, and the only advantage it has over the 9200 is shader model 2 support. The GMA950 is still faster. If you change that to a 9600, it's possibly a different ballgame, because the 9550 is and always was an extreme budget version of the 9600. But anyway, I'd be willing to bet that, even though the X1300 is an inexpensive part, the GMA950 is probably much less expensive due to the fact that another chip isn't required in the system, more memory isn't required, etc. The Core chip in and of itself isn't the cheapest thing, and I blame that alone for the video and price changes.

[cambro]

From Extreme tech

"We can state flatly that if you buy a system using Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics and want to play 3D games, invest at least $60 in an add-on card. If what you want is simply a system that can run standard office software, plus maybe play some DVD movies, then Intel's new graphics core is probably suitable."

WTF? All this talk about offloading interface element processing to the Graphics Card in OS X? Bye, bye. Window buffers...this is system memory...system memory, get smaller.

[kick52]

little bit dissapointing.

but it will be better with a second rev.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by WOPR

It's ridiculous snobbery like that that makes me embarrassed to be a Mac user. Why not find out some information before posting crap like that?

Sheesh!

Stay embarrassed. I will post whatever crap I want. It is my opinion.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

While I agree with the first part of your statement, I tend to disagree with the latter. The OS is actually worth that premium. Still, the (not a real anyway) GPU sucks big time.

You are right. The OS is worth it

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

The IIsi had an expansion slot.

The IIsi was $3800 at its introduction according to LowEndMac.com.

Voch

[P]

With the advances Intel's made, I don't have a problem with integrated graphics per se if you don't game at all. I don't like the price hike with that cut-price graphics chip though.

Will be very interesting to see what iSuppli makes of the cost when they disassemble the thing, but I'll make an amateur's version of it: Intel's official pricelists only go as low as 1.66 GHz, so we don't have a cost for a 1.5, but the 1.66 Core Solo with chipset, graphics and wireless networking goes for $278 on their official pricelist. This is a slower version, and the gap between the 1.66 dual and the 1.83 dual is $50, so let's say that it would be $230 official. Apple probably gets deep discounts on that as well. The hard drive is $80 and the RAM $60 if you buy them online. How large are Apple's discounts on those things? The box isn't free, and there is a powersupply, a remote etc in addition to the assembly cost and the bundled software, but still... Did I break $400?

Apple should be able to cut its margins enough to slip it under $500. Wonder if Apple isn't keeping the price a little high to make sure it can meet demand at first.

Optical audio IN? WTF?

[Big Mac]

I don't know if there's much to complain about. Any Intel chip powering a "Mac" is an abomination. Remember, you guys wanted an Intel mini.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by aristobrat

Too bad Steve has to answer to stockholders expecting profits instead of you.

You are so smart. Of course you aware that everyone knows that Apple is responsible for share holders. But you sure don't know if this will hurt Mac mini sales. It willl be sold well, but quite surely even better with better video/lower price. Apple has made (as it is inevitably) mistakes in the past, and I think this is one, which was my point. Sorry for you that you didn't get it.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

You are so smart. Of course you aware that everyone knows that Apple is responsible for share holders. But you sure don't know if this will hurt Mac mini sales. It willl be sold well, but quite surely even better with better video/lower price. Apple has made (as it is inevitably) mistakes in the past, and I think this is one, which was my point. Sorry for you that you didn't get it.

Most of the people that will buy this system don't give a rip about the graphics chip. If Apple used better video and had a lower price, it's quite likely they wouldn't be making profit. Sure, the thing would sell like hotcakes (and it will even at the current price point), but the more they sell in that scenario, the more money they lose. You can't expect everything for cheap and free. But after all, this is America...what am I thinking?

[JMII]

Originally Posted by iKevin

Also, didn't Steve mention that you could hook it up to the TV? When I read that it looked as though it was finally a media center type deal. But looking at the Apple site it doesn't really look like this is the case.

It's not there yet...

Sure they added Front Row and Dolby Digital 5.1 output (YEAH!) but it still lacks TiVO like features and who knows if this new CPU/graphics chip combo is up to the task of handling HD content. The lack of HDMI outputs means this is a SD box only, what happened to the "Year of HD"? Sadly I am still waiting for the real Mac Mini Home Theater Edition to be released.

[:dragonflypro:]

I don't think anyone can really comment on the GMA950 versus an ATI9200 until we actually 'test' them. Especially as they pertain to OS X

First, let's not delude ourselves and gush over the 9200. It is not like it is a fantastic GPU. 'twas kipping galore when the mini was not a 9600.

Second, 'integrated graphics' is nothing more than a soldered chip that shares system memory rather than having it's own. As the 9200 was a soldered GPU, the memory path is really the only distinction.

On one hand the notion of 'dedicated' video memory is all nice and fine, but what does it really get you? Unless you are running a really VRAM hungry app, which the MacMini is not supposed to be doing it is next to useless. With adequate system memory the GPU can tap into it as needed.

Those that complain so voraciously are those that are always in utter contempt that Apple does not use the latest part announced last week. They will never be satisfied.

Let us not forget what the Mac Mini is supposed to be.

If there is a disappointment it may be the price. But with the addition of Front Row, the offset seems about right.