[MacGeek1955]

Everything about the new Mac Mini is good news except the graphics system. I know that Apple had to cut some corners to keep the Mac Mini in the price range they wanted, but they could have at least put in a graphics card of equal or better quality than its predecessor. Apple stores like to hook Minis up to 23" Displays. It shows the Mini in a great way and really sells them. If you put some games on the Mini connected to the large display and play them at a decent resolution, the beautiful display will also show where the games are lagging quite well. My question would be if you loaded up the Mini with RAM would it fare better? The lack of a decent graphics system may not be a deterrant for all prospective buyers but it will be for some. Of course my suggestion would be for a buyer to step up to the 17" iMac which is only $500 more than the Duo Mini. The $500 gets you a really nice display, a larger 7200 RPM drive, a keyboard, mouse and a good graphics system. You still get a very compact system without the laptop specific space savers that trade off performance in the name of saving space. That being said, I still like the Mini. I just wish Apple would rethink the graphics system.

[pixelcruncher]

Your assertion that somewhere in my posts I said that Apple was a music company is so far out of left field that it is ridiculous. If you are trying to argue a point, please argue one that has been put forward. If I'm reading your post correctly, you are arguing that Apple's surge in stock price is inconsequential, and that iPod and iTunes are negligible factors in the general health of the company? Take away iPod and iTunes and Apple's stock price and profits would be the same?

[zoetrope]

In reply to:

---

Originally posted by booga:
I think you mean "For the average Mac user". There's a reason why Apple's market share is so low, even among "home computers", and the gaming situation on Macs is a significant part of the equation.

---

Spoken from true ignorance! The real reason why Apple's market share is so low, and yes even among home computers, is simply and purely corporate related. M$ owns the corporate desktop market, and its logical that if you use a Windows machine at work, you want to use one at home (particularly if you can get them cheaper for the same set of features), and be able to continue working from home w/ VPN, Exchange client (Outlook) etc.. Gaming has very LITTLE to do with marketshare with regards to the personal computing space. Gaming has absolutely nothing to do with that particular equation.

[Dan Frakes]

MacGeek1955:

In reply to:

---

they could have at least put in a graphics card of equal or better quality than its predecessor.

---

Well, they did and they didn't. In our initial tests, the new Mac mini gets slightly lower framerates in UT2004 and slightly better performance on some other games. But in other ways the integrated chip in the new minis is better than the Radeon 9200 in the older models. For one, it supports CoreImage, which the previous card didn't. It's also optimized for video and HDTV playback. I, too, would have prefered a discrete video card, but I don't think it's completely accurate to say that Apple "didn't put in a graphics card of equal or better quality than its predecessor." They apparently didn't put in a card that's clearly better at everything. (And there's the whole shared memory thing.)

[jmincey]

"...in other ways the integrated chip in the new minis is better than the Radeon 9200 in the older models."
Talk about damning with faint praise! As others have noted, we can reasonably expect that a new model should at least equal if not eclipse its predecessor by every measure -- particularly when it is accompanied by a price increase.
Not to mention that the more compelling question is not whether the new Mini surpasses the video performance of the original Mini but rather whether it surpasses the reasonable alternative technologies which Apple could have used today.

[uchuugaka]

what I don't get is,
if you are not in the market for a mini,
why would you care?
I recently played with front row at the store.
It's great!
Most people are not hard core gaming on macs.
There aren't that many games.
and If you really care about frame rates... how is that fun?
great graphics never made a game great anyway.
I don't think anybody ever intended the mini for gaming or for hardcore video / animation rendering, but it will do these things, just not with the oomph you would pay more for...
That's always how it is.

[Kees]

People act as if this Intel core is some sort of uber powerful monster. Apple simply upgraded the mini with a mainstream cpu, and the slowest version any computer maker has used to date (core solo 1.5) at that.
The new features of the mini are a simple evolutionary step, bringing a product up to current standards. To then see Apple include a graphic subsystem that, for most practical purposes is quite a bit slower than the one that preceded it, is disappointing, no matter how you look at it.
At $599 without monitor or even a keyboard and mouse, this is no where near the bottom line Dells and other crapboxes are sold for, and so neither should the graphics be, imo.

[jmincey]

"what I don't get is, if you are not in the market for a mini, why would you care?"
First, who says I'm not in the market for a Mini? Second, do you reserve your posts only to those technologies/products which you personally own or plan to own? It's strange that you think this should be a criterion.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

Can I just ask how Macworld came to their average frame rates for Unreal?

---

The methodology is spelled out in the benchmark story:
We used Unreal Tournament 2004s Antalus Botmatch average-frames-per-second score; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and graphics enabled

[Civet]

To those bitter, bitter people moaning about "Who is this Mini aimed at" (and whom, I suspect, are actually sore that Apple's moved to Intel), here's something to help you sleep better at night: who will buy the new Intel Mini? Exactly the same ones who would (and did) buy the G4 Mini.
Surprise!
Compared to the Intel models, the G4 Mac Mini had: a SLOWER processor, SLOWER system bus, SLOWER hard disk, HALF the RAM ceiling, FEWER ports, NO CAPABILITY to play back full HD content, NO INPUT for digital audio...
To make the G4 Mini comfortably usable, we had to: UPGRADE the memory, ADD an external hard disk (or UPGRADE the internal one), ADD a USB hub...
AND YET, people like me still rushed out and bought one to install in our living rooms, attached to giant plasma screens.
So quick question: why wouldn't someone like that pick up this new Mini in a heartbeat? It gives me everything I have been trying to shoot for in my 1.25GHz Mini in the same neat little package. Sure, the price has gone up, but if I were to take my Mini to the same specs, it would cost me even more. Not to mention that with some features (CPU, more RAM, digital audio in), upgrading is simply impossible.
Games in the living room on my plasma screen? Pah! That's what the Sony PS is for. Why would Apple be so stupid as to enter a hot arena where two major contenders are already so dominant? I say Apple's Complementary Device strategy is right on the ball.
The new Mini is a steady evolution, in my opinion.

[Machound]

Jmincey wrote:

In reply to:

---

Talk about damning with faint praise! As others have noted, we can reasonably expect that a new model should at least equal if not eclipse its predecessor by every measure -- particularly when it is accompanied by a price increase.

---

All evidence to the contrary, I would not have that made that statement. There are too many examples of downward 'adjustments' being made to the product lines. I'm talking about loss of FW-800 in the MacBook Pro, loss of user configurability on iMacs, loss of user swappable hard drives in PowerBooks after 2002, and myriad other examples. Apple is constantly juggling features to find the right capability mix. I fully expect Apple to include a better video card in the next Mac Mini, but it will likely come with a loss of some other feature I consider important.
What if Apple determined it could save $100 by returning to Bluetooth 1.0 and 10/100BT Ethernet? How would people feel about that? Who knows if it's likely... but it is certainly possible Apple could determine too few Mini buyers take advantage of BT 2.0 or Gigabit Ethernet to justify the cost. The same could be said of Toslink digital audio or Firewire. I certainly hope not, but it all depends on Apple's market research at the time.
I just don't see how across-the-board feature improvement is compatible with keeping prices down. Like many people posting here I have no problem paying an extra $50 to get better graphics. I have no problem with $100 for Toslink audio and Firewire. But for each person who is willing to pay more there might be five other potential switchers who never buy a Mac Mini as a consequence.
I like the new Mini. Do I like it enough to buy one less than 6 months after my last Mini purchase?.... Maybe.
Personally, I would have preferred to see Apple continue making two low end G4 Mini models at $400 and $500, while making an $800 CoreDuo Not-Quite-So-Mini with a better graphics card and a less expensive 3.5 inch drive for the high def video crowd. That would allow the low-end Intel Mini change to happen in December, keeping Steve's MWSF promise.
Unfortunately for my Not-Quite-So-Mini fantasy, Apple still smarts from the Cube debacle.

[Dan Frakes]

In reply to:

---

Talk about damning with faint praise![snip] Not to mention that the more compelling question is not whether the new Mini surpasses the video performance of the original Mini but rather whether it surpasses the reasonable alternative technologies which Apple could have used today.

---

Jeff, I was simply responding to the assertion that the new mini's graphics capabilities aren't even on par with the previous version's, which isn't really accurate. Nothing more.

[jmincey]

"I just don't see how across-the-board feature improvement is compatible with keeping prices down."
Maybe the problem is that you are speaking in terms of features while I'm speaking in terms of "measures" or capabilities. New models which succeed old ones do not have reduced capabilities -- at least not if the manufacturer has a remote hope of success for the model. And they especially don't have reduced capabilities at an increase in price.
So as a general rule, memory doesn't decrease in new models but rather it remains at the same level or it increases. And so it goes for other measures -- the cpu, disk space, connectivity with peripherals, (whether via USB, Firewire, etc). Form factors generally become smaller and lighter. The graph may not be smooth but the industry does trend in this direction, and when industry watchers come upon an aberration, they quite naturally speak out.
Whether the new Mini is one such aberration I can't say. I will wait for Macworld's tests. But let's not delude ourselves that taking a step back is not unusual. For decades I've watched computers get faster, more powerful, more compact, and less expensive. Eventually, of course, the pricing must level off at some point, but I see no reason to expect the same of all other attributes of computers.
When Apple announces a new model, I expect it to be equal to (if not superior to) its predecessors across the board (in capability). Is this an unreasonable expectation? I don't think so.

[lucentio]

In reply to:

---

'm talking about loss of FW-800 in the MacBook Pro, loss of user configurability on iMacs, loss of user swappable hard drives in PowerBooks after 2002, and myriad other examples. Apple is constantly juggling features to find the right capability mix.

---

I think a better example is dropping of ADB in favor of USB and dropping the floppy. Apple was ahead of the game on that - and pushed new solutions because of it. But for Apple, it was surely a cost-saving choice. Offering an external floppy at a premium was a way around the problem (like the modem now). I copied all my old floppies to CDs and threw them all out. Though I still have an old ADB Wacom that I hope one day someone will get to work... I hate to throw away $300.

In reply to:

---

Personally, I would have preferred to see Apple continue making two low end G4 Mini models at $400 and $500, while making an $800 CoreDuo Not-Quite-So-Mini with a better graphics card and a less expensive 3.5 inch drive for the high def video crowd.

---

Interesting thought. I agreed at first, but then I realized that building and supporting two concurrent motherboard designs would probably be more cost than it would be worth. I'm already worried that Apple is returning to the 28-motherboard days of BRoJ and the confusion that was common over what the heck a Performa 17234 versus a PowerMac 67984 was.