Intel Mac mini

Moderator
Posts: 771
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #16
It would be interesting to see the Core Solo performance numbers, particularly for Rosetta. Also, will Apple adopt the "1.5 Solo & 1.66 Duo" configurations for the future Intel iBook? (MacBook 'noPro'?)
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 771
Joined: 2003.04
Post: #17
OneSadCookie Wrote:Answering my own question, the AOpen mini-pc seems to fit the bill. You can play with configuration options here:

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/myaopen/MINIPC.html

but, long story short, you pay $100 more than the low-end Mac Mini for a slightly worse system, and that's without Windows...

I like the tag line:
Quote:"Real mini .... The most mini PC in the world.

Yeah, "Real" Rolleyes
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 2004.10
Post: #18
Maybe Apple wants to clear out their G5 Mac-mini inventory. And maybe they are using the increased price to put an air-brake on the initial demand. To the people who just gotta have a new duo Mac-mini 100 bucks is nothing. Then once the production line, shipping line and mind share is proven then a rising demand can be coordinated with a price cut. You can always cut the price; You can't raise it. So too high is a prudent move. Besides, as OSC so succinctly pointed out, it is cheaper than any comparable PC.

I've been following the PC web sites and, compared to the Gx<->Pentiumx arguments of old, there seems to be a subtle shift in mindset. Empirically at least, there seems to be more people willing to now compare the systems with a more open mind. I'm amazed how there seems to be more people speaking up for Mac/OSX on the PC web sites. I was rather indifferent to Apple's Intel move, but I like it more everyday.

Another data point. This morning on the radio they mentioned a rumor that Apple was going to buy out Disney. I don't believe it but the fact that it even hit the airwaves tells you something. Oh, and the DJ on the commute home mentioned over and over again iTunes. You can't buy that kind of advertisement. Haven't heard anyone say "Vista Vista Vista". Guess I should add 3 more to make the 6 kinds of Vistas one will be able to buy Smile

My mother-in-law (who has this nasty Dell Dimension) was visiting us last week and she brought us 2 CDs and a DVD of old family jpegs and 16mm movies that she had paid some company to make. I only learned of this after the fact. They sat down in the den and stuck in the silver platters in the DVD player. Nothing worked or course. They called me. I was confused at first and then I said to my self, "screw this, I've got a mac mini". Long story short, we watched jpegs and movies off my mac-mini from my sweet 19" LCD no problem. I moved the mouse to bring up the control icon from a full screen mode and my mother-in-law almost had an orgasm. "How did you do that?" she said.

Oh well, I'll stop rambling. But Apple stock is around 70 and where is Dell and Microsoft's stock.


Btw, I admire Apple, but I still want a Mac mini twice- hell, three times as tall- with an AMD 64 (whatever) with an ATI 1900 all for $1200.
Ok, the 1900 is going for $600 dollars so lets say $1500. Seems I'd be happy with such a system for say - 5 years?
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 2002.07
Post: #19
crap !
i hope the graphic card is better than an ati9000

Apple sux les fraises !
i should receive my Mac mini the 7th ( its a crap but i need it for testing :-( )
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 2005.01
Post: #20
OneSadCookie Wrote:but, long story short, you pay $100 more than the low-end Mac Mini for a slightly worse system, and that's without Windows...

From what I've seen that's pretty well always been the case between comparable Mac/PC hardware (exception CPU differences). The real problem Apple is going to have if they want to compete at all in the "low end" area is that a Mac Mini is definitely not the lowest possible spec'd PC. They are total crap, but it *is* possible to buy a PC for $300 or so. To a lot of people it doesn't matter how good it is, it works for email and web browsing.

Maybe they don't care though Smile

Cryptic Allusion Games / Cryptic Allusion, LLC
http://www.cagames.com/
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 1,140
Joined: 2005.07
Post: #21
This looks good for having a Core Duo in an iBook equivalent, but doesn't look good for having an actual graphics card installed. Sad I really hope that they at least have an option to have an actual graphics card, because I want to have an iBook (equivalent) for next school year when I'm no longer living on campus. It doesn't have to be as powerful as a MacBook Pro since it won't be my main computer, but I want to do some testing on it, and I would like to be able to test everything on it, including any high-end settings I offer.
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 2002.10
Post: #22
akb825 Wrote:I would like to be able to test everything on it, including any high-end settings I offer.

The only realistic way to test everything is to buy one of everything...
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 1,140
Joined: 2005.07
Post: #23
By everything I mean everything my programs and games can do. I suppose that with an integrated chip it would let me test that aspect of it, but if it's limited so that some higher settings on my game can't be done, then I can't test those settings on an Intel Mac if that's all I have.
Quote this message in a reply
Sage
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 2002.10
Post: #24
And if you get a MacBook Pro and test your high quality settings on it, you still don't know how your app runs on a GeForce 7800.

I'm just saying that you can't test everything on one machine.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 1,140
Joined: 2005.07
Post: #25
I'm assuming that the graphics cards are standard enough. (probably not incredibly safe, but oh, well) However, if I have something that's endian or architecture dependent, that's a different matter. It likely won't come into play except for speed issues, but it's also an excuse to say that I don't want an integrated graphics even though it won't be my main computer. Cry It would be very sad indeed if they have, say, a $1300 top-of-the-line MacBook with integrated graphics, but if you want real graphics you have to go all the way up to $2000 for the MacBook Pro.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 385
Joined: 2002.08
Post: #26
Test (and develop!) on the lowest specced hardware you can live with, because your games will be that much better. If they can run on slow stuff, the fast hardware will be taken care of no sweat.

I am excited by these mac minis, actually, and cannot wait to see the benchmarks, especially the video and graphics benchmarks. Maybe the integrated video won't be so bad... i mean, it is running HD video after all, which is better than my current Mac Mini can do. I'd think about getting one... wonder how much a Mac mini is selling for on ebay these days?

KB Productions, Car Care for iPhone/iPod Touch
@karlbecker_com
All too often, art is simply the loss of practicality.
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 1,140
Joined: 2005.07
Post: #27
I'm hoping to have most of my stuff scale down quite a bit. I have an iMac G3 600 with a Rage 128 Pro 16 MB for the ultra low end, and my mom's iBook G3 800 with a Radeon 7500 32 MB (I think) for testing. I suppose you're right, but I would still prefer a true graphics card. Wink (since the iBook has a Radeon 9550 as compared to the mini's 9200, it just might)

From what I've seen about the integrated graphics card, it's a bit better than the 9200. However, I find it interesting that the transform and lighting as well as the vertex shaders are in software. If Knights of the Old Republic comes out with a Universal Binary, than it would be interesting to see the performance of it, since I know it's rather vertex-shader heavy. (enough to make the Radeon 8500-9200 slow to a crawl in certain places when the shaders were too long for the cards)
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 335
Joined: 2002.04
Post: #28
funkboy Wrote:Test (and develop!) on the lowest specced hardware you can live with, because your games will be that much better. If they can run on slow stuff, the fast hardware will be taken care of no sweat.

I am excited by these mac minis, actually, and cannot wait to see the benchmarks, especially the video and graphics benchmarks. Maybe the integrated video won't be so bad... i mean, it is running HD video after all, which is better than my current Mac Mini can do. I'd think about getting one... wonder how much a Mac mini is selling for on ebay these days?

Exactly why I'm getting this one, and why my iMac G5 was the first, low end 1.6Ghz one. Essentially I'll have the lowest powered G5 and Intel Mac that Apple will ever do (although my iMac G5 will probably go off to replace mum's temperamental G4 iMac soon). That way I can write stuff that I know will work well on the lowest specced machines and thus work better on anything better. The G5 specific extras in ToySight Gold for instance were tuned to work well on the iMac G5.

At the moment it looks like our Mac mini and Dan's one are in a race to see which one gets to us first (both shipped today). However it looks like Dan's one somehow got misdirected to his old address (insert evil laugh here) so there's a good chance I'll get mine first Smile
Quote this message in a reply
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 2003.08
Post: #29
funkboy Wrote:Test (and develop!) on the lowest specced hardware you can live with, because your games will be that much better. If they can run on slow stuff, the fast hardware will be taken care of no sweat.

You might want to check out this development journal entry of a pc game.
basically they had crashes on high end machines only, until they realised that the game runs at 300 fps and overheated the GPU's, and they didn't ran into this problem 'couse they only tested on low end hardware Grin
Quote this message in a reply
Moderator
Posts: 1,140
Joined: 2005.07
Post: #30
LOL wow. Luckily I have my PowerMac for high end testing. Rasp (dual 2.7 GHz and Radeon X800) There was actually one OMG entry (Retrovirus) that wouldn't work on my computer since it was too fast, and the developer had to release a patch for it so I could run it.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply