[hudson1]

To me, smoke-tetsu's idea of what today's mini should be is reasonable. It doesn't need to be a headless iMac or xMac as some have called it. Not many have said that the mini has to have:

1) G5 CPU (G4 is fine)
2) 128 MB VRAM (64MB R9600 like the eMac is fine)
3) Dual-layer DVD recorder
4) Gigabit ethernet (not needed in the mini, nor is FW800)
5) 160 MB HDD (80 MB is fine)

I've heard the "target market" arguments, too, but they don't cut it, IMHO. What's the target market for the eMac that dictated a Radeon 9600? Kindergarteners? That's basically who's playing with them in the Apple Store setups. Who's playing Doom in a school classroom?

All of these factors still lead me back to the viewpoint that Apple knows that they made a mistake in the mini design. There were just too many tradeoffs made in the quest for the smallest possible form factor. That they chose not to address the obvious things that were addressed on the other platforms probably means that a full redesign is in the works and that probably coincides with the change to an Intel CPU.

[smoke-tetsu]

Originally Posted by hudson1

To me, smoke-tetsu's idea of what today's mini should be is reasonable. It doesn't need to be a headless iMac or xMac as some have called it. Not many have said that the mini has to have:

1) G5 CPU (G4 is fine)
2) 128 MB VRAM (64MB R9600 like the eMac is fine)
3) Dual-layer DVD recorder
4) Gigabit ethernet (not needed in the mini, nor is FW800)
5) 160 MB HDD (80 MB is fine)

I've heard the "target market" arguments, too, but they don't cut it, IMHO. What's the target market for the eMac that dictated a Radeon 9600? Kindergarteners? That's basically who's playing with them in the Apple Store setups. Who's playing Doom in a school classroom?

All of these factors still lead me back to the viewpoint that Apple knows that they made a mistake in the mini design. There were just too many tradeoffs made in the quest for the smallest possible form factor. That they chose not to address the obvious things that were addressed on the other platforms probably means that a full redesign is in the works and that probably coincides with the change to an Intel CPU.

Hudson I did a little research and the motherboard AOpen put in their Mini has a PCI Express GPU that can adress up to 128MB of shared memory (Tom's hardware claims up to 224MB) and that computer is supposed to come out in the fall for the same price as a Mac Mini so if Apple does the same or better the new Mac Mini should just smoke the current one.

To be honest with you I'd rather get a computer like that from apple. If they can do it I'm sure Apple can when they go intel with the mini. Intel comissioned them to make it perhaps as practice. Using next years chips no doubt the new mac Mini will be better than AOpen's offerings.

[hakstooy]

The 9600 would not work in the mini, it is too hot. Apple has to use a notebook GPU in the mini. Repeat...the 9600 would not work.

I had thought they would maybe use the 5200 Go, but it seems they are moving away from nVidia. The 9550 would probably have worked, but either there were only enough for the iBook or mini or there were too many minis in stock to upgrade.

I would imagine that if indeed they are trying to clear house before an upgrade, that the new mini will include the 9550 or some other CI capable GPU. Otherwise, there will be essentially nothing until the switch to Intel and a whole new mini, but I think this to be unlikely, that is just too long.

I really don't know what you're smoking that leads you to believe that Apple thinks the mini was a mistake. Because they haven't updated in the 6 months since release? OK, check out the other G4 lines and get back to me. It's just a laptop without a screen, and it will soon either have A) low-voltage 970FX or B) Pentium-M, (both of which would replace the G4 in without issue, ID-wise at least )which will haul computing ass in the same form factor at the same price. So, there goes your off-the-cuff prediction.

[TomR]

Originally Posted by jasong

How does the update prove the Mini design is ill-conceived?

It doesn't, some people just HAVE to bitch about something.

Tom

[hudson1]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

The 9600 would not work in the mini, it is too hot. Apple has to use a notebook GPU in the mini. Repeat...the 9600 would not work.

That's reason number xxx for why the overall design hasn't worked. I forgot another one: Only room for one RAM slot. There's hardly another computer in the world with that constraint.

Originally Posted by hakstooy

I really don't know what you're smoking that leads you to believe that Apple thinks the mini was a mistake. Because they haven't updated in the 6 months since release?

I never said anything about the six month timing nor do I think that has any bearing on this.

Originally Posted by hakstooy

OK, check out the other G4 lines and get back to me. It's just a laptop without a screen, and it will soon either have A) low-voltage 970FX or B) Pentium-M, (both of which would replace the G4 in without issue, ID-wise at least )which will haul computing ass in the same form factor at the same price. So, there goes your off-the-cuff prediction.

I've checked out the other G4 lines and they have a decent GPU and two RAM slots. The Radeon 9600 is too hot but you think this thing could end up with a G5? I don't see why they would change to a G5 when they can't even upgrade the GPU. Help me understand why you think that could happen.

The only thing that could save the current design is to chuck the GPU card and go with Intel's integrated graphics. The ealy reports from the Pentium developer machines suggest that their graphics performance is better than anything Apple is selling today and those machines don't even have a "real" GPU.

[sodamnregistered2]

Originally Posted by TomR

It doesn't, some people just HAVE to bitch about something.

Real insightful there, Tom.

A case was made that the trade off in making the mini small as a #1 ID consideration, has led to some unfortunate situations. The gap between the Mini and the dual G5 is too large. The G4 is old, the bus is slow, and they further hobble this obsolete hardware with notebook drives which are slower and have less capacity and a video card that can't even utilize all of the features of the OS. I'm not dying for the ripple effect, but, still, the computer can't do it and it's in the OS. The one ram slot makes it hard to get 1GB in there without wasting the OEM ram and the dim video is for real.

All you people who think the $499 price point is so sacred care to explain why Apple really seems to have ramped the Mini into $599 and $699 price points? At those latter price points, the mini really starts to look lame.

I also make the case that Apple is no longer a serious hardware company, they see themselves more like a Sony type company now. I always held out hope that Apple would make the pro machines pro and they never did. No workstation video cards, no quad G4 or G5 computers and weird stuff like a HUGE G5 case that only holds 1 optical drive and 2 hard drives while basically stuck with obsolete game cards.

Of course, it freaks you out to "think different" or even critically, so, you just call it bitching.

[smoke-tetsu]

The AOpen mini proves you can offer better at the same size and price with this years tech. It's just Apple's hardware providers that are holding them back.

I am more and more glad they decided to go intel each day. If apple is smart they can come out with a kick-ass line for all models starting next year.

[sodamnregistered2]

Originally Posted by smoke-tetsu

I am more and more glad they decided to go intel each day. If apple is smart they can come out with a kick-ass line for all models starting next year.

The intel move was smart, but it's gonna take a while and I won't really buy a PPC offering now since their resale value will be horrible.

Anyhow, hopefully, it's dualcore and dual dualcore across the line. Would be a shame not to take advantage of OS Xs wonder multitasking capabilities in all of their offerings.