MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

without thinking or knowing what this REALLY means when you sit down in front of a Mini.

Wait and see? Look at real tests? Nah--haven't you heard? Mindless bitching is all the rage!

Low-end PCs have integrated graphics. And that's all they need. Shocker!

Rev C will be the same crap. Haven't your learned?

If only Apple would have put 1.67Ghz Core Duo in all Mac minis (they cost $34 more than Core Solo).

Core Duo is such a tremendous improvement over Core Solo in Mac OS X. It gets you Quicktime HD, a far snappier operating system, far better performance in all of your iApps. Intel charges $34 extra for them.

Whoever made the decision to use screw users over with the Core Solo, in order to save $34, is a cheap bastard and should be kicked in the balls repeatedly. I say that in full condfidence that no woman would have made such a foolish decision.

In that extra $34 was too much, then wireless should have been optional like it used to be. Most Mac mini users will not use wireless, but they would benefit from twice the computing power.

The integrated graphics I can understand, but not screwing people over to save $34.

So true, MacMania. The mini now includes a bunch of stuff that wasn't included in the mini G4. And we know that all that wireless is included standard because the mini is ready to be the iHub.

This also gives us a good indication that the iBook (MacBook?) will likely have the same Core and Core Duo split. And even with a 13" widescreen display, I could see the low-end model (same specs as the $599 mini) just costing $999, with the high-end model at $1199, since the iBook G4s already include Airport/Bluetooth. At worse it would be $1099 and $1299.

Everyone is acting like the pricing on the mini has gone up... IT HASN"T

The only thing that has changed is Apple dropped the low end model @ $499...

Before today, the $499 mac mini did not come standard with wifi and bluetooth.. to add those extras it was a $100 upgrade..

With today's base Mac Mini at $599 it is really no comparison..

1. Wifi standard
2. Bluetooth standard.
2. Minimum 2x faster Intel processor
3. iLife 06
4. Front Row
5. remote control
6. Digital audio in and out *HUGE*
7. 4 usb ports
8. gigabit ethernet
9. faster hard drive (5400 vs. 4200 rpm)
10. bonjour support
11. Better graphics with core image support (yeah i know it's integrated, but it still delivers better performance.

Basically, in every aspect, this new Mac mini is a hell of a lot more bang for the buck... Those of you complaining oughta check your head..

But Apple is using a 1.5 GHz Core Solo, not a 1.67 GHz Core Solo.

Since this chip is not on the official Intel price list, maybe they have a special deal for all the 1.67GHz rejects and are paying much less, creating a much larger than $34 differential.

Regardless, for the time being at least, it's the lowest priced Core Solo system you get buy from anyone anywhere.

In a $600 computer.. $34 bucks is a big difference.

The profit margin on the mini is very low.. Considering that the intel chips used are much more expensive than the g4 chips and all the extras that Apple added on, $34 could be a good portion of the profit..

Apple is getting damn cheap and it's starting to really show. No FireWire in the new iPod (USB 2 sucks for iPod sync)

Horsecrap. I bought a new 5G iPod and a USB2 card for my 1GHz QuickSilver G4. I am stunned by how fast it copies songs. Songs update so fast, there often isn't any feedback! I thought the transfer hadn't happened until I checked my iPod's library.

Okay, everybody needs to sit down and calm down.

Lesson #1: This is not meant to be a full-power whatever computer.

Isn't it obvious?
Have you never looked at some of the things people use Mac minis for?
The Mac mini was never intended to replace your old desktop computer. It is one of two things:
A) an entry point system for low-end computing needs
or B) the perfect hub for all your data, integration with TV

The Mac mini is a companion, basically, for your other computers to hold your stuff and allow it to interact with other devices easily, such as a TV or stereo.
Anybody intending on using a Mac mini to play games or to do heavy Photoshop work or whatever is just stupid. People fail to see the true meaning of the Mac mini. Do they need to rename it Mac Companion for you to understand?
I personally think the integrated graphics was a good move, since movies are speculated to be coming to Apple's media arsenal soon, integrated graphics is an easier way to allow the machine to play movies without limitations. It all plays into the bigger picture - the living room.
So stop whining and bitching that the Mac mini can't do this and can't do that and realize what it's meant to do and how its specs fit that, and then you'll realize why all of this fits.

By the way, to Nick:

Core Solo fits nicely into the Mac mini's intentions. Why not save $34 by giving the consumer only what they need? Why pay $34 extra for bells and whistles? Honestly, in my experience, dual-core isn't really all it's cracked up to be when discussing low-end machines.

I am unhappy about the integrated graphics. It's a crappy Dell move, and Apple knows it. They used to brag about how low-rent it was on their website. (No more.)

Plus, it is no longer the low end, cheap Mac. 1 gig of memory (the real minimum nowadays) and a 100 gig HD (again, the real minimum) is 1,100 bucks.

This is a mid range computer with intregrated graphics.

Pathetic Apple.

Freeze:

"By the way, to Nick:

Core Solo fits nicely into the Mac mini's intentions. Why not save $34 by giving the consumer only what they need? Why pay $34 extra for bells and whistles? Honestly, in my experience, dual-core isn't really all it's cracked up to be when discussing low-end machines."

Speaking of bells and whistles, why force everybody to pay the extra $100 for wireless networking for a desktop computer, when $34 would have gotten you twice the computing power? You can't even play Quicktime HD without dual core, and this thing is aimed straight at the home entertainment market.

"...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."

You know who said that? Apple. Just one year ago. Quite the flip-flop, eh? And now the Mac-drones without a single thought of their own have flipped and flopped right along, just like they always do.

Which sounds better:

Mac mini with Core Solo 1.5Ghz and wireless networking for $599

Mac mini with Core Duo 1.67Ghz with no wireless for $550

Come on, tell me what you really think. Keep in mind that you need that Core Duo for HD video, and that all of your iApps run way faster on the Core Duo (this isn't Windows XP, it's Mac OS X! It makes great use of a second core!)

...or how about letting the customer configure their own goddamn Mac mini?

wireless networking ... $99 extra
Core Duo ... $99 extra
your choice of hard drive
your choice of optical drive

Then smart people could get a Core Duo Mac mini for $599 by opting for the 60GB hard drive, Combo drive and no wireless networking.

I hate price stratification.

Wireless is so overrated - though Bluetooth is nice, I've yet to have WiFi working flawlessly all the time like 100btx. That being said, save the dough on AirPort, drop the combo for a plain DVD and drop the 60GB SATA for a 40GB ATA and you've more than made up the difference to drop in a 64MB ATI x300.

By my mad crunching skillz, a Core Solo Mac Mini, so configured could retail for $529 ($70 less!). For almost exactly $300 more, $829 would buy you a 1.67GHz Core Duo, 1GB RAM, 80GB ATA HDD, with a 128MB (512MB HyperMemory) ATI x1400 and a DVD Combo drive. Add in an ExpressCard/34 slot for an optional (D)TV tuner and THEN it would be the ultimate home theater system.

Apple needs to get with it. No way can an Intel graphics chip pull off HD content playback, no way.

why are so many here defending Apple in putting the price up? Sure, the extra wifi and Bluetooth was a $100 upgrade before, but when the iMac G5 Rev B came out they added just that for free and even dropped the price!

The price for the cheapest Mac has gone up today by $100. That's a fact and there is no excuse.

actually.. it can...core image too... read the specs.

Soko. you are right in the fact that the $499 model is no longer available...

BUT: the $499 model of yesterday did not include wifi or airport which is a $100 upgrade.

So technically there is not a price increase, you can just no longer buy the stripped down model.

This was done for several reasons. Apple wants this to be an addition computer, a media center if you will, for that wifi is a necessity. Secondly, the $499 mini was a poor seller.. The majority of buyers opted for the $599 model with wifi and bluetooth.

when you compare yesterdays $599 model to today's $599 model there really is no comparison.

1. the processor performance has doubled (at least)
2. front row'
3. iLife 06
4. faster hard drive (5400 vs 4200 rpm)
5. digital audio in and out
6. 4 usb ports
7. gigabit ethernet
8. better graphics even if it is integrated... at least it's capable of core image.

And I almost forgot the remote.

not trying to troll here, but it seems like Apple is waiting for the next batch of intels primo chips to roll off the fab plant. Then they can upgrade the pow... MBP to a new processor entirely. The ibook, which would be introduced w/a core solo get's a speed bump, the imac get's a speed bump and the towers come out w/ the new chips in 8x configuration. They rushed on the MBP and it's speced pretty bad...oooh save 3mm w/ a single layer drive...ok guys whatever. I think Apple has to get this transition done as soon as possible and they are trying to keep a 'get what you pay for attitude' ONLY with respect to their own products. FIne ok..way to think outside the box.

Most new Macs won't be worth getting until the second part of this year. Lookit the roadmap folks. We're on the onramp and not the freeway yet.

What's the mini do? It's supposed to be the hub. Everyone wants it to be one. They have all them huge stacked drives for it. Does it do the job..looks like. Are you going to be encoding your movies on it? Probably not. It's the PLAYBACK device or a media center. You buy your movies online or you slap in dvds. You COULD transcode on it, but within a few months you'll see that on the GPU and then the speed differential will be ridiculous. Gigabit..makes a lot of sense to me. If it's sitting in the center of my living room it's gonna share it's airport connection w/o a doubt... front row streaming to it..yeah... and optical out..hmmnn... replaces a lot of stuff.. now there's the infamous "will it play my 1080i/p/e/n/s' maybe??? Dunno. It's a combo of the graphics card and the processor. IF they GPU can grab a lot of memory and has the bandwidth it looks like this is gonna do the trick.

I think it's a good machine and the shared graphics thing...it's all about the drivers and the os peeps. It ain't gonna be my number one machine, but it'd do just fine w/ my tv..needs a iboom magnetically shielded center channel above it at the least.

what aboot the cpu(s)

who cares aboot the poxy grafx card , it's the cpu that REALLY matters

and the new mac mini is seriously powerful !

Reading this you begin to realise that Apple has created a doubled edged sword over its secretive announcements. This new Mini is now shaken apart by very quick assessments of what it can and can't do, based on various preconceptions. Eventually the debate will settle no doubt, but a good few people will be scared off inititally. Seen the same with other products like Aperture, MAcBook Pro etc etc. Were Apple to have made less sudden announcements all this discussion would have been worked through by the time folk start buying the product and there is less to be scared about...

Interesting though.

I was thinking that the integrated graphics card on the intel mini was a good thing... but holy #$@$#, have you seen the memory prices on the iMac and mini intels???? THREE HUNDRED BUCKS FOR A GIG? And it's not like Compusa, Best Buy or PC Club has these suckers, either.

I've got someone who wants to buy my powerbook, so I was thinking about initially a 17" iMac intel or a refurb dual 2gig powermac. I was really thinking about the iMac and the mini until I saw the memory prices. Again, holy @#$#!!!!!

I am now rethinking my upgrade decision to the powermac. Yes, it may not be the fastest kid on the block, and it may be an orphan in five years, but at least I can afford to stick some ram in there and use it in the meanwhile!

Would appreciate anyone's thoughts, comments, or advice on this subject.

New Mac Mini won't be able to handle 720p:

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

Old mac mini was able to handle 480p

For 852x480 (480p) video at 24 frames per second:
QuickTime 7 for Mac OS X:

* 1.25 GHz PowerMac G4 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 128MB of RAM
* 64MB or greater video card

clyde says "I was thinking that the integrated graphics card on the intel mini was a good thing... but holy #$@$#, have you seen the memory prices on the iMac and mini intels???? THREE HUNDRED BUCKS FOR A GIG? And it's not like Compusa, Best Buy or PC Club has these suckers, either."

Umm, it's $300 for TWO gigs, which is actually not a bad price..

Apple RAM is always a bit expensive, but if you shop around, you could get it for a lot less. Try http://www.crucial.com

Mr. Reeee:


The intel GMA950 SMOKES the ati 9200.

Therefore your reason not to purchase is flawed.

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?

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...